Found Deceased WY - Gabby Petito, Grand Teton National Park #86

[Nikynoo]

During Gabby's phone call to her parents they accepted the fact that she would continue her trip with Brian. Her parents decided to not intervene even though they knew LE would not separate the couple for very long.

They thought that it was okay for GP and BL to continue with their trip together. Looks like they agreed with LE to me. JMO.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23262334/petito-v-moab-city-police-complaint-11-3-2022.pdf

I've just picked up something reading your post. G's parents should not have relied upon Gabbys assurances that she should continue her trip.

Did Gabby's mum speak to LE? Have any interaction at all with LE about the M incident? If not, then I cannot see how they can say that they relied on LE to keep G safe.

 

[RANCH]

I've just picked up something reading your post. G's parents should not have relied upon Gabbys assurances that she should continue her trip.

Did Gabby's mum speak to LE? Have any interaction at all with LE about the M incident? If not, then I cannot see how they can say that they relied on LE to keep G safe.

I got the impression that her parents thought everything was okay after talking to Gabby and not LE. I wonder what Gabby said that made them change their minds about having her leave Brian? JMO.

 

[Laughing]

I've just picked up something reading your post. G's parents should not have relied upon Gabbys assurances that she should continue her trip.

Did Gabby's mum speak to LE? Have any interaction at all with LE about the M incident? If not, then I cannot see how they can say that they relied on LE to keep G safe.

Gabby is an adult -- doubt that LE would have discussed the episode with anyone? Although interactions with LE are public record --not sure LE answers Mom or Dad's questions over the phone.

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[NCWatcher]

I got the impression that her parents thought everything was okay after talking to Gabby and not LE. I wonder what Gabby said that made them change their minds about having her leave Brian? JMO.

I didn't get the impression her parents talked to the officers either. Certainly it's not been reported the parents talked to LE and you'd think it would have been part of the officers' report if they had talked to them. And I'd not think it would be usual for LE to talk to the parents of adults they were evaluating. Teen-agers, sure.

It seems during that one call with GP the parents decided it was ok if the trip continued. I don't quite see how they could have decided that it was ok because LE was involved. I'd certainly have thought GP would have said LE was involved when she first called from the police car (at the officer's suggestion.) It wouldn't have been something shared later in the call I wouldn't think. And the lawsuit says at first they were demanding she come home. So I don't see how the presence of LE changed anything because they must have known LE was there from the start. I think it was something GP said that reassured them. What, I have no clue.

NS did say it was just an "argument" as late as mid-Sept even after GP went missing. Example: this DM article posted up thread. Gabby Petito's mom slams Brian Laundrie's sister over interview

I also don't think LE had the photo GP took. (It's not clear to me when she took it.) She had told the officer she could feel a spot on her face burning when she touched it.
JMO

 

[housewife]

I didn't get the impression her parents talked to the officers either. Certainly it's not been reported the parents talked to LE and you'd think it would have been part of the officers' report if they had talked to them. And I'd not think it would be usual for LE to talk to the parents of adults they were evaluating. Teen-agers, sure.

It seems during that one call with GP the parents decided it was ok if the trip continued. I don't quite see how they could have decided that it was ok because LE was involved. I'd certainly have thought GP would have said LE was involved when she first called from the police car (at the officer's suggestion.) It wouldn't have been something shared later in the call I wouldn't think. And the lawsuit says at first they were demanding she come home. So I don't see how the presence of LE changed anything because they must have known LE was there from the start. I think it was something GP said that reassured them. What, I have no clue.

NS did say it was just an "argument" as late as mid-Sept even after GP went missing. Example: this DM article posted up thread. Gabby Petito's mom slams Brian Laundrie's sister over interview

I also don't think LE had the photo GP took. (It's not clear to me when she took it.) She had told the officer she could feel a spot on her face burning when she touched it.
JMO

You are right, the police did not take a pic of Gabby's injuries, only Brian's scratches:

"The officers acknowledged in the body camera footage that she had a cut below her eye, and Petito demonstrated how Laundrie violently grabbed her face earlier. She said he “gets frustrated with me a lot.” But police never marked the injury on their report or photographed the cut, the parents’ lawsuit notes."
-Salt Lake Tribune

 

[Gardenista]

Pratt allegedly threatened to kill a woman he was dating with a crowbar when he was the police chief of a Utah town

Cop Who Let Laundrie and Petito Go Allegedly Threatened to Kill a Woman

A lawsuit filed by Gabby Petito’s family alleges that Officer Eric Pratt was “fundamentally biased” when he deemed Petito to be the aggressor in a fight with Laundrie.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[PrairieWind]

Pratt allegedly threatened to kill a woman he was dating with a crowbar when he was the police chief of a Utah town

Cop Who Let Laundrie and Petito Go Allegedly Threatened to Kill a Woman

A lawsuit filed by Gabby Petito’s family alleges that Officer Eric Pratt was “fundamentally biased” when he deemed Petito to be the aggressor in a fight with Laundrie.

www.thedailybeast.com

The problem with this in relation to the Petito's lawsuit is that the woman never reported the threat. Therefore, the City of Moab couldn't have known about it when they hired Pratt.

 

[Trebor5591]

I've just picked up something reading your post. G's parents should not have relied upon Gabbys assurances that she should continue her trip.

Did Gabby's mum speak to LE? Have any interaction at all with LE about the M incident? If not, then I cannot see how they can say that they relied on LE to keep G safe.

I agree. It sounds like, MOO, they knew Gabby was being abused yet they decided not to intervene to keep their daughter safe but instead to rely on the police in a small Utah town.

 

[Skigirl]

Watching that stop was one of the most chilling things I’ve ever seen. The moment that Pratt got there and declared her the obvious aggressor was one of the most messed up things I’ve ever seen. And the acquiescence of the other LE agents present at the scene explains a lot of things about how interpersonal dynamics, and what can go sideways when there is a confident leader figure. MOO.

 

[NCWatcher]

I agree. It sounds like, MOO, they knew Gabby was being abused yet they decided not to intervene to keep their daughter safe but instead to rely on the police in a small Utah tow

You may be right. That's not quite the way I see it. But no one here can know for sure what the P's were thinking at the time. I'm not even sure the P's still know what they thought back then.

I think it's more likely the parents just didn't want to know (& really, who would) that their adult daughter was in an abusive or otherwise toxic relationship. After all, based on things they said to the press while the search for Gabby was going on, the P's had no idea the relationship was troubled in any way. And they had helped to fund the current trip. They'd also funded the prior trip to California that was the catalyst for the couple's decision to pursue a "van life." There would be lots of guilt if they had to acknowledge they helped fund trips dangerous for GP. So for the parents, if LE in the small town didn't say it was a bad situation for GP, it was psychologically easier to think it probably wasn't. That what happened really was just an argument that arose because G&B were hot and tired travelers.

None of that seems unusual to me. Denial, repression, and suppression do occur. People may block out distressing information about loved ones unconsciously. But now there's a $100 million (perfectly legal) lawsuit brought over what wasn't seen...
JMO

 

[WingsOverTX]

Watching that stop was one of the most chilling things I’ve ever seen. The moment that Pratt got there and declared her the obvious aggressor was one of the most messed up things I’ve ever seen. And the acquiescence of the other LE agents present at the scene explains a lot of things about how interpersonal dynamics, and what can go sideways when there is a confident leader figure. MOO.

Pratt relied on GP's statements of fault, apparently not realizing that DV victims (she had injuries, too) often blame themselves - poor analysis.

But the behind the scenes catalyst for the officer's misreading of the dynamic between these young lovers was LACK OF INFORMATION critical to an appropriate response.

I believe if the observations given by the 911 caller who witnessed GP being slapped by BL on a public street had been communicated to these officers, the decisions made by the officers would have been different.

I could be wrong but I really do think this was the main failure. You can remove the responding officers from any LE duty permanently but what about the failure of dispatch? That won't address their failure. Their critical role has been ignored & to me that is a major error.

Who are the operators who ignored the clear evidence of DV by not communicating it to the responders completely & clearly & why did that happen?

I guess I will ask that question a million times and never get an answer.

 

[NCWatcher]

Pratt relied on GP's statements of fault, apparently not realizing that DV victims (she had injuries, too) often blame themselves - poor analysis.

But the behind the scenes catalyst for the officer's misreading of the dynamic between these young lovers was LACK OF INFORMATION critical to an appropriate response.

I believe if the observations given by the 911 caller who witnessed GP being slapped by BL on a public street had been communicated to these officers, the decisions made by the officers would have been different.

I could be wrong but I really do think this was the main failure. You can remove the responding officers from any LE duty permanently but what about the failure of dispatch? That won't address their failure. Their critical role has been ignored & to me that is a major error.

Who are the operators who ignored the clear evidence of DV by not communicating it to the responders completely & clearly & why did that happen?

I guess I will ask that question a million times and never get an answer.

I agree. It's hard to know where/how to strike a balance.

GP did say she hit first. And she gave lots of reasons she was upset besides DV. While DV victims do assume blame when they shouldn't, the rule for investigators can't be "if someone says they hit first, ignore that." And while a victim may deny abuse, the rule can't be "if a person says nothing happened, don't believe it. The person must be a victim." And while a crying upset woman may be a victim and a calmer male could be the perpetrator, the rule can't be "calm males are guilty, crying females aren't." The rule can't even be "the bigger person is always the abuser." But I've seen some suggestions those should be the hard and fast rules investigators use unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (Haven't seen that here as much as other places.)

It does seem the 911 caller's information should have been shared with officers at the scene. Of course, eyewitnesses ARE often wrong about details. What people see or think they see may not be what actually happened. And there are times a caller's information doesn't need to be passed on. For example, if officers are responding to the scene of a bank robbery, a witness's insistence the man fleeing the bank wore gloves is probably not relevant for pursuit. Nor is another witness's statement that the robber wore a common type of shoe. But when the goal of the investigating officers is to try to determine who did what to whom, a witness's information may be quite useful.

It does seem odd there's not been more discussion of the dispatcher's role including how to train dispatchers to know what questions to ask a caller and what information to pass on. I'm assuming 911 is not run by the City of Moab though and certainly not by the Police Dept. (I'd think it would be a county function.) Certainly the county isn't named in the $100 million lawsuit. I assume that's because of concerns poor dispatching could give the officers an out. But surely any serious efforts at improving the response of LE to DV would have to consider the role of dispatch.
JMO

 

[Laughing]

I believe if the observations given by the 911 caller who witnessed GP being slapped by BL on a public street had been communicated to these officers, the decisions made by the officers would have been different.

I could be wrong but I really do think this was the main failure. You can remove the responding officers from any LE duty permanently but what about the failure of dispatch? That won't address their failure. Their critical role has been ignored & to me that is a major error.

Who are the operators who ignored the clear evidence of DV by not communicating it to the responders completely & clearly & why did that happen?

I guess I will ask that question a million times and never get an answer.

bbm rsbm

KEEP those officers out facing the public!!!

Will they listen differently next time?

Will they act differently next time?

I think so -- and they will pass this change on to new partners imho.

YES, analyze what went wrong. YES develop programs & training for LE & the rest of us to notice sooner & act sooner.

Demonize these overworked deputies? Please avoid that!

(Not including Pratt in this, of course. Boot him, please, imho.)

jmho ymmv lrr

 

[WingsOverTX]

I agree. It's hard to know where/how to strike a balance.

GP did say she hit first. And she gave lots of reasons she was upset besides DV. While DV victims do assume blame when they shouldn't, the rule for investigators can't be "if someone says they hit first, ignore that." And while a victim may deny abuse, the rule can't be "if a person says nothing happened, don't believe it. The person must be a victim." And while a crying upset woman may be a victim and a calmer male could be the perpetrator, the rule can't be "calm males are guilty, crying females aren't." The rule can't even be "the bigger person is always the abuser." But I've seen some suggestions those should be the hard and fast rules investigators use unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (Haven't seen that here as much as other places.)

It does seem the 911 caller's information should have been shared with officers at the scene. Of course, eyewitnesses ARE often wrong about details. What people see or think they see may not be what actually happened. And there are times a caller's information doesn't need to be passed on. For example, if officers are responding to the scene of a bank robbery, a witness's insistence the man fleeing the bank wore gloves is probably not relevant for pursuit. Nor is another witness's statement that the robber wore a common type of shoe. But when the goal of the investigating officers is to try to determine who did what to whom, a witness's information may be quite useful.

It does seem odd there's not been more discussion of the dispatcher's role including how to train dispatchers to know what questions to ask a caller and what information to pass on. I'm assuming 911 is not run by the City of Moab though and certainly not by the Police Dept. (I'd think it would be a county function.) Certainly the county isn't named in the $100 million lawsuit. I assume that's because of concerns poor dispatching could give the officers an out. But surely any serious efforts at improving the response of LE to DV would have to consider the role of dispatch.
JMO

RBBM
It's not the dispatcher's job to decide what is true IMO. Whatever agency is in charge of dispatch has gotten a pass when their failure is CRITICAL. I don't care if the call came in to a different county, the obvious most important info was not relayed to the on scene responders.

I believe the caller. Only an officer on scene can assess credibility but they need to know if someone reported a physical aggressor in potential DV event. GP was assaulted in daylight on a public street (why would that caller lie?).

The officers (whatever their personal & professional faults) did try to get to the truth with the info dispatch gave them. GP was in denial & protecting her abuser. I wonder how common that pattern was in her short life?

I guess I'm an outlier here because I am also very concerned with the behavior of DR, the officer who buddied up with BL & drove him to his free hotel stay. He had an opportunity to do a more thorough perp interview of BL but chose to focus on his personal experience about "women with anxiety." If he had taken the time to push BL's buttons, he might have seen the side of BL that was an angry & violent man.

Others at the scene - the female park ranger for one - assessed things more correctly & tried to get GP to THINK more clearly about WHY they were stopped by LE. She's been ignored in this but is a great counterpoint to the tone of the stop. Kudos to her!

 

[NCWatcher]

RBBM
It's not the dispatcher's job to decide what is true IMO. Whatever agency is in charge of dispatch has gotten a pass when their failure is CRITICAL. I don't care if the call came in to a different county, the obvious most important info was not relayed to the on scene responders.

I believe the caller. Only an officer on scene can assess credibility but they need to know if someone reported a physical aggressor in potential DV event. GP was assaulted in daylight on a public street (why would that caller lie?).

The officers (whatever their personal & professional faults) did try to get to the truth with the info dispatch gave them. GP was in denial & protecting her abuser. I wonder how common that pattern was in her short life?

I guess I'm an outlier here because I am also very concerned with the behavior of DR, the officer who buddied up with BL & drove him to his free hotel stay. He had an opportunity to do a more thorough perp interview of BL but chose to focus on his personal experience about "women with anxiety." If he had taken the time to push BL's buttons, he might have seen the side of BL that was an angry & violent man.

Others at the scene - the female park ranger for one - assessed things more correctly & tried to get GP to THINK more clearly about WHY they were stopped by LE. She's been ignored in this but is a great counterpoint to the tone of the stop. Kudos to her!

I don't know why the dispatch issue hasn't been looked at. But if the county runs the 911 system (that's quite common) the City of Moab can't force an investigation of a county system.

I don't believe I said the dispatcher should necessarily decide if caller is information is true (although prank callers hopefully will be detected.) How could a dispatcher know if the caller is telling the truth? But if there have been multiple calls (like a bank robbery in a busy area might elicit) passing along to responders every detail some caller has reported could easily interfere with timely pursuit and apprehension of the robber. In this case that wasn't an issue and I thought the info should have been passed along. Not as ultimate truth because it might not have been true. (One report sounded like a caller backtracked a bit too.) But to be clear I wasn't saying any 911 caller lied. Still, it cannot ever be assumed what an eyewitness says he/she saw is what really happened either.

There's been tons of research on eyewitness testimony and while juries like it, that kind of testimony is often flawed. Studies suggest that over half of wrongful convictions are a result of flawed eyewitness testimony. Not intentional lies but honest mistakes. The percentage is even higher for some types of crimes. And how questions are posed can play a big role in what people remember. So how dispatchers ask questions of callers matters.

Teach Democracy

Teach Democracy FOUNDATION Bill of Rights in Action Summer 1997 (13:3)Forensic EvidenceBRIA 13:3 Home | The Riddle of the Romanovs | DNA, Lie Detector, and Voiceprint Evidence | How Reliable Are Eyewitnesses? How Reliable Are Eyewitnesse, Eyewitness testimony occupies a prominent place in the...

www.crf-usa.org

I don't think we really know what the female park ranger said to GP. So far as I know, we haven't seen video from her body cam. We only know what she reported to the media she said after it was known GP was dead. If the Moab lawsuit goes to trial maybe we'll see her testify under oath or see her video. She may have called it right but I don't think we can know that yet.
JMO

 

[WingsOverTX]

I don't know why the dispatch issue hasn't been looked at. But if the county runs the 911 system (that's quite common) the City of Moab can't force an investigation of a county system.

I don't believe I said the dispatcher should necessarily decide if caller is information is true (although prank callers hopefully will be detected.) How could a dispatcher know if the caller is telling the truth? But if there have been multiple calls (like a bank robbery in a busy area might elicit) passing along to responders every detail some caller has reported could easily interfere with timely pursuit and apprehension of the robber. In this case that wasn't an issue and I thought the info should have been passed along. Not as ultimate truth because it might not have been true. (One report sounded like a caller backtracked a bit too.) But to be clear I wasn't saying any 911 caller lied. Still, it cannot ever be assumed what an eyewitness says he/she saw is what really happened either.

There's been tons of research on eyewitness testimony and while juries like it, that kind of testimony is often flawed. Studies suggest that over half of wrongful convictions are a result of flawed eyewitness testimony. Not intentional lies but honest mistakes. The percentage is even higher for some types of crimes. And how questions are posed can play a big role in what people remember. So how dispatchers ask questions of callers matters.

Teach Democracy

Teach Democracy FOUNDATION Bill of Rights in Action Summer 1997 (13:3)Forensic EvidenceBRIA 13:3 Home | The Riddle of the Romanovs | DNA, Lie Detector, and Voiceprint Evidence | How Reliable Are Eyewitnesses? How Reliable Are Eyewitnesse, Eyewitness testimony occupies a prominent place in the...

www.crf-usa.org

I don't think we really know what the female park ranger said to GP. So far as I know, we haven't seen video from her body cam. We only know what she reported to the media she said after it was known GP was dead. If the Moab lawsuit goes to trial maybe we'll see her testify under oath or see her video. She may have called it right but I don't think we can know that yet.
JMO

Seriously? Why would she need to lie to the media? Respectfully, that's really reaching. Is she going to perjure herself by denying her media statements?

I not only think the ranger is credible, I hope the investigation of the officers included her analysis of the stop. Because from video released, it appears she witnessed most, if not all of the actions of all parties.

She saw what others missed IMO. I believe she was the only female responder so I give her props for trying to help GP. I wonder what her take is on the murder? That would be interesting to hear.

MOO

 

[NCWatcher]

Seriously? Why would she need to lie to the media? Respectfully, that's really reaching. Is she going to perjure herself by denying her media statements?

I not only think the ranger is credible, I hope the investigation of the officers included her analysis of the stop. Because from video released, it appears she witnessed most, if not all of the actions of all parties.

She saw what others missed IMO. I believe she was the only female responder so I give her props for trying to help GP. I wonder what her take is on the murder? That would be interesting to hear.

MOO

I can imagine all kinds of reasons the ranger might say after GP's death that she worked hard to get GP to see the light. And she may have. But until I see something beyond a self-serving statement to the media, I can't feel sure she said what she now claims after the fact.

It isn't that I necessarily think the ranger is "lying" (nor do I think the 911 caller was "lying.") But it's known eyewitnesses make mistakes (without realizing it.) And when describing our own actions we may unconsciously convince ourselves we acted in ways a recording might not back up. A mismatch doesn't mean we "lied" any more than a mistaken identification given under oath was perjury. For example, she could feel guilty GP was killed. She could have had conflict with one of the officers.

We know nothing about the ranger except what she told the press after Gabby's death. We don't know what Gabby told her either (or rather what she recalls GP told her.) I don't think it's "reaching" to not automatically believe what the ranger told reporters. People say inaccurate things all the time when describing past events. Lack of an obvious motivation to lie doesn't make the account true. And in a legal case, proof and the opportunity to judge credibility is key. We've had neither with the ranger.
JMO

 

[Wallendo]

If BL was arrested and spent a night or two in jail, there is no reason to believe that GP wouldn’t have picked him up on his release and resumed the trip.

She had an entire week alone when she could have told her parents the truth but chose not to do so. I really would like to know what she told her parents. If they knew the truth, one of the could have flown out and driven her back in the van. Even if BL had the only key, the legal owner could easily get a new one

It is also extremely difficult for me to see how both of GP’s parents were planning to “rescue” her and have her van shipped, but then abandoned that plan … all over the course of a single phone call from GP. Was this a conference call? Did GP call them back later after LE left? What did she tell them?

 

[Sundog]

<snipped for focus> I wonder what her take is on the murder? That would be interesting to hear.

I think her take on the murder would be similar to the other LE officers who were present at the Moab incident. Not sure how and why it would be any different.

 

[MsBetsy]

Seriously? Why would she need to lie to the media? Respectfully, that's really reaching. Is she going to perjure herself by denying her media statements?

I not only think the ranger is credible, I hope the investigation of the officers included her analysis of the stop. Because from video released, it appears she witnessed most, if not all of the actions of all parties.

She saw what others missed IMO. I believe she was the only female responder so I give her props for trying to help GP. I wonder what her take is on the murder? That would be interesting to hear.

MOO

Hull herself said she would not have called the relationship "unsafe'" and that she thought they had made the right decision. She said if they believed either one in the relationship was in danger, they would have separated them.