Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #46

[Seabunny]

If we go strictly off of what the attorney said, BL went camping with his parents the 6th through the 8th, he went and came home with them, and his sister also went for a day, there is no way she didn’t see or speak to BL. Somebody is lying.

Sorry, I can't remember, but do we know for certain he came home with them on the 8th? I thought no one actually saw him. Or, was the 14th the last sighting?

 

[BellaVita]

I have read all the info, and repeatedly watched the videos. I know what the 1st witness said. I also know that GP, BL, and the second witness all said the opposite. I'm just saying that there seems to be a running theme that BL abused her, and I just do not see the evidence of that. I'm not saying its not the case, I just don't see it. I would also venture a guess that if not for the eventual outcome, most others wouldn't either. It's a lot of speculation.

If I go on a date with someone and he causes a scene during which he feels the need to go back inside the restaurant 4 different times to yell at an employee, that indicates a volatile person who is likely to be an abuser.

If someone takes my ID away from me so I can't go somewhere with my friends, that is an abuser.

If someone locks me out of my own car and tries to drive away, leaving me alone with no family or friends, that is an abuser.

If I am in the car with someone who is going 30mph over the limit because he is pissed, that is a volatile person who is likely to be an abuser.

BL also called her craaazzy! That word is the buzzword for all abusers everywhere.

I don't think it is speculating to say GP was abused. All abuse is not as dramatic as a black eye or broken bones. MOO.

 

[jdglove]

NEW: “To my knowledge Cassie went for a day.”
Laundrie family attorney says Brian’s sister Cassie was at the campground last month – despite Cassie saying in an earlier interview she hasn’t spoken to Brian since he returned to Florida.
https://twitter.com/brianentin/status/1443965282553368587?s=21

Gabby Petito case: Laundrie’s sister was at the campground with rest of the family, attorney says | NewsNation Now

BL was likely admonished by the lawyer not to talk about what happened regarding Gabby, even to family members. His sister may have meant that she wasn't able to talk to him about all this stuff regarding Gabby but she wish she could have. That would make a lot of sense and it could explain her statements in the most charitable light. But it does demonstrate why the parents would have been advised to say nothing.

 

[Bordeaux]

IMO it matters a lot, legally, that it was in her name. In regards to the 911 calls, he was trying to take it from her. Also when he turns up in FL in possession of a missing woman van.
And, from my understanding, this wouldn't be considered his domicile, but a vehicle he's using on a trip or vacation.

In this case his permanent residence is probably his parents’s home. While camping the vehicle becomes a residence, just like a vacation home.

A camper is usually considered a domicile while it is parked and you are living in it. While driving it is a vehicle. State laws vary. For example, laws pertaining to firearms are often different for a vehicle vs. a domicile (castle law, in some states) domicile laws often apply while parked and camping.

 

[HoneySugar]

Brilliant response, and stated far better than I could have articulated. I agree 110% with your assessment and explanation of the situation @bellyup !

IMO and IME, POSSIBLY. I won't claim to be an 'expert' but I do work in the field.
Sorry this is long but I've been wanting to get it out and this question has been asked 100x and I have minute so here you go -

The officer was seriously mistaken in the legal definition of
"Primary aggressor" - The individual who poses the most serious, ongoing threat who might not be the initial aggressor in a specific incident.
This is on every DV training I've ever seen for LE though the wording may vary slightly.

The job of LE in a DV call isn't simply to evaluate what happened in that specific incident but to ALSO evaluate what is going before and after such incidents and in the relationship as a whole. Who and what is causing the escalation of violence. Protocol for LE on DV calls includes lengthy instruction on how to evaluate for co-occurring crime.

Did they even ASK if they had any weapons in the van? Did they ask if BL scares her? Did they ask if she feels safe with him in the van? Did they ask about escalation? Verbal harassment (ie; does he call you names?) Sexual abuse? Why was locking her out of the van in the desert 1000s of miles away from her support network not considered a serious threat in itself? Him attempting to lock her out should be considered primary aggression. If he's threatening to lock her out and leave her - he clearly is the one that is posing the most serious and ongoing threat. Through that lens GP's actions in scratching at him become reactive abuse. Her emotional state becomes abuse victim rather than a mental health episode.

In addition - ignoring GP's claims of how he grabbed her face is against every single bit of DV training that exists. She should have been GRILLED on that. Does he grab her face often? Has he ever (not just that day) grabbed her throat or even put his hand around it? Has he ever choked her or held her down by her neck? Victims who have been choked once are 750 percent more likely to be killed by their abusers.

So aside from correctly evaluating what should they have done?
Had a victim advocate respond. It's imperative in DV situations that there is victim centered and trauma informed support. I do believe that if GP had been given access to a good advocate it's quite possible that she would have revealed more and that advocate could have given her resources and/or connected her with family in order to get her out of the situation. An advocate along with LE can give a victim assurance that if they WANT to get away from the person that they will work in conjunction to make sure that happens (including helping to obtain financial assistance where needed) in a safe manner and that the abuser will not be able to get to them.

As it was GP was left with the knowledge that he was going to be right back with her the next day and it was further framed as "she was in trouble". NO WAY was she going to report anything at that stage. That's about the most terrifying thing a victim of DV can be told. "We're going to separate you ... (heart soars) ... for the night (utter terror)."

And OF COURSE it's possible that GP would have gone right back to BL even with a victim advocate and all the empowerment in the world involved. But it's ALSO possible that with victim centered support she would have been empowered to leave the situation and it would have turned out quite differently.

And if you want to dive into how well victim advocacy /outreach works (https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238480.pdf ) See the link.

I also attached an image from said link. When women who live with their abuser are assigned to outreach programs a guilty verdict is entered in court 100% of the time. That falls to 33-59% with referral advocacy or no outreach programs.

 

[jamicat]

liar liar pants on fire. lying liar that lies. even if she only lied this one time, it will come back to haunt her. imo it’s called karma, baby

BL seems to like to go on long hikes away from camo site. We know he was picked up by people twice doing that in Tetons. So very possible he was out on a long hike when his sister stopped by and they did not see each other. It would be very stupid of her to have publicly lied.
I think lawyer stated this because breaking news on this pending. Sister Probably caught on camera there do no sense denying it. Just like cell phone—word was out.

 

[SuziQ]

For some reason I can't quote.

Imo, the reason Brian volunteered to go to jail for Gabby was self preservation. Getting arrested may have freaked her out enough to tell LE the truth about the abuse. Well Brian couldn't risk that. Gabby might protect him to some extent, but she might not have been willing to go to jail for him.

 

[RabidDogISC]

Oh boy, things are not looking good for the Laundries. They never looked good to begin with, but if this is confirmed, it casts even more doubt on everything the Laundries have told LE thus far, MOO.

After reading the article it doesn’t really confirm or deny anything. Media puts their voice in is what I got out of it.

IMO and IME, POSSIBLY. I won't claim to be an 'expert' but I do work in the field.
Sorry this is long but I've been wanting to get it out and this question has been asked 100x and I have minute so here you go -

The officer was seriously mistaken in the legal definition of
"Primary aggressor" - The individual who poses the most serious, ongoing threat who might not be the initial aggressor in a specific incident.
This is on every DV training I've ever seen for LE though the wording may vary slightly.

The job of LE in a DV call isn't simply to evaluate what happened in that specific incident but to ALSO evaluate what is going before and after such incidents and in the relationship as a whole. Who and what is causing the escalation of violence. Protocol for LE on DV calls includes lengthy instruction on how to evaluate for co-occurring crime.

Did they even ASK if they had any weapons in the van? Did they ask if BL scares her? Did they ask if she feels safe with him in the van? Did they ask about escalation? Verbal harassment (ie; does he call you names?) Sexual abuse? Why was locking her out of the van in the desert 1000s of miles away from her support network not considered a serious threat in itself? Him attempting to lock her out should be considered primary aggression. If he's threatening to lock her out and leave her - he clearly is the one that is posing the most serious and ongoing threat. Through that lens GP's actions in scratching at him become reactive abuse. Her emotional state becomes abuse victim rather than a mental health episode.

In addition - ignoring GP's claims of how he grabbed her face is against every single bit of DV training that exists. She should have been GRILLED on that. Does he grab her face often? Has he ever (not just that day) grabbed her throat or even put his hand around it? Has he ever choked her or held her down by her neck? Victims who have been choked once are 750 percent more likely to be killed by their abusers.

So aside from correctly evaluating what should they have done?
Had a victim advocate respond. It's imperative in DV situations that there is victim centered and trauma informed support. I do believe that if GP had been given access to a good advocate it's quite possible that she would have revealed more and that advocate could have given her resources and/or connected her with family in order to get her out of the situation. An advocate along with LE can give a victim assurance that if they WANT to get away from the person that they will work in conjunction to make sure that happens (including helping to obtain financial assistance where needed) in a safe manner and that the abuser will not be able to get to them.

As it was GP was left with the knowledge that he was going to be right back with her the next day and it was further framed as "she was in trouble". NO WAY was she going to report anything at that stage. That's about the most terrifying thing a victim of DV can be told. "We're going to separate you ... (heart soars) ... for the night (utter terror)."

And OF COURSE it's possible that GP would have gone right back to BL even with a victim advocate and all the empowerment in the world involved. But it's ALSO possible that with victim centered support she would have been empowered to leave the situation and it would have turned out quite differently.

And if you want to dive into how well victim advocacy /outreach works (https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238480.pdf ) See the link.

I also attached an image from said link. When women who live with their abuser are assigned to outreach programs a guilty verdict is entered in court 100% of the time. That falls to 33-59% with referral advocacy or no outreach programs.

Very good post! Excellently explained! This is my experience with DV stops. IMO the officers on scene did miss valuable questioning that could have answered a lot of future speculations.

 

[SMK777]

It was crystal-clear before she was found dead/before the cause of death was determined.

But not in the Moab tape itself, and not before she was viewed as missing. Her homicide puts all in a different light.

 

[wary]

Like this. Why would you say this? Why would you "confirm" facts to the press - who have no right or need to know? Oh, I know: to keep YOUR name out there. To have people continue to talk about YOU.

MOO

I’m thinking that the first few statements he made were overly cold because he thought that would be ‘professional.’

Then, as he starts to enjoy the attention, he’s lapsing into all sorts of poorly phrased statements that he really wouldn’t need to say. How could it be in the interests of the Petinos for him to say anything about their daughter?

MOO

 

[imstilla.grandma]

I will just say that the calm person is generally the one adept at pushing buttons to elicit an emotional reaction. They will say something vile or hurtful followed by a request for the victim to calm down. When they say they want space it’s not to calm emotions it’s to create more anxiety and fear. They say something like I’m not sure I want to do this anymore etc…. Before walking away. It’s just more seemingly reasonable emotional manipulation.

I hate to sound so judgmental but I think this is learned behavior from his family. Master manipulation. We are being taken on a fool’s mission. Every time the Laundries speak out through their attorney or leave the house, it is a signal we are going to be told something that changes the picture in their favor. The gun and the fear of suicide is a total red herring aka b. s. to alter their narrative. They are kinda in control aren’t they? Manipulative and stonewalling tactics. Nothing says so much as silence. imo

 

[SuperTmo]

I know we’re not allowed to sleuth family but is it possible if nobody is watching her that she’s been dropping supplies off near where Brian’s hiding out so he doesn’t run out of stuff??

moo. She probably picked him up from the campground and took him somewhere. Maybe her house or the home of someone she knows? Got him hooked up with a car and then he split.

 

[jvikes]

IMO and IME, POSSIBLY. I won't claim to be an 'expert' but I do work in the field.
Sorry this is long but I've been wanting to get it out and this question has been asked 100x and I have minute so here you go -

The officer was seriously mistaken in the legal definition of
"Primary aggressor" - The individual who poses the most serious, ongoing threat who might not be the initial aggressor in a specific incident.
This is on every DV training I've ever seen for LE though the wording may vary slightly.

The job of LE in a DV call isn't simply to evaluate what happened in that specific incident but to ALSO evaluate what is going before and after such incidents and in the relationship as a whole. Who and what is causing the escalation of violence. Protocol for LE on DV calls includes lengthy instruction on how to evaluate for co-occurring crime.

Did they even ASK if they had any weapons in the van? Did they ask if BL scares her? Did they ask if she feels safe with him in the van? Did they ask about escalation? Verbal harassment (ie; does he call you names?) Sexual abuse? Why was locking her out of the van in the desert 1000s of miles away from her support network not considered a serious threat in itself? Him attempting to lock her out should be considered primary aggression. If he's threatening to lock her out and leave her - he clearly is the one that is posing the most serious and ongoing threat. Through that lens GP's actions in scratching at him become reactive abuse. Her emotional state becomes abuse victim rather than a mental health episode.

In addition - ignoring GP's claims of how he grabbed her face is against every single bit of DV training that exists. She should have been GRILLED on that. Does he grab her face often? Has he ever (not just that day) grabbed her throat or even put his hand around it? Has he ever choked her or held her down by her neck? Victims who have been choked once are 750 percent more likely to be killed by their abusers.

So aside from correctly evaluating what should they have done?
Had a victim advocate respond. It's imperative in DV situations that there is victim centered and trauma informed support. I do believe that if GP had been given access to a good advocate it's quite possible that she would have revealed more and that advocate could have given her resources and/or connected her with family in order to get her out of the situation. An advocate along with LE can give a victim assurance that if they WANT to get away from the person that they will work in conjunction to make sure that happens (including helping to obtain financial assistance where needed) in a safe manner and that the abuser will not be able to get to them.

As it was GP was left with the knowledge that he was going to be right back with her the next day and it was further framed as "she was in trouble". NO WAY was she going to report anything at that stage. That's about the most terrifying thing a victim of DV can be told. "We're going to separate you ... (heart soars) ... for the night (utter terror)."

And OF COURSE it's possible that GP would have gone right back to BL even with a victim advocate and all the empowerment in the world involved. But it's ALSO possible that with victim centered support she would have been empowered to leave the situation and it would have turned out quite differently.

And if you want to dive into how well victim advocacy /outreach works (https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238480.pdf ) See the link.

I also attached an image from said link. When women who live with their abuser are assigned to outreach programs a guilty verdict is entered in court 100% of the time. That falls to 33-59% with referral advocacy or no outreach programs.

This is a great post, well worth the read

 

[Yellow Rose]

I tried to figure out a way, in my head, to explain how this could be true. And then I realized that every time I find myself trying to explain away something in my head -- someone is most likely lying about something...

So what about the check-in sheet that said 3 in......?

 

[Mito]

I fully agree with you. To add, I’ve seen no history of a juvenile or adult record/reports/or friends family statements BL has a violent past history. No bruises in any of GP’s photos on SM dating back years. No police reports or calls to any homes before September 1st 2021. Most if not all DV relationships have a steady climb on police interference be it witnesses calling police, noise complaints, damaged property reports, etc. I think way too much projection of others experiences is tainting the true nature of what really happened between them. And it’s taking too much focus off finding the answers to get BL back into the light so to speak. Nothing at the DV stop would or will change the outcome of what happened when she died. JMO

10 years of abuse without bruises just PTSD and financial disasters. If you knew anything about NPD abuse it’s as damaging but does not follow the same path. The person that „loves“ you does every thing in their Power to make you fail.

 

[JuliaGoolia]

My abused son used.to.do the same! Take keys! Get in the car!
He was safe there! Till she.calmed.down! Till the next time!
I see nothing wrong with this!

2 different things. Your son took the keys to avoid a situation, BL took the keys to the van to prove a point and instill fear

 

[oviedo]

Here's the thing. I have clients who truly do not seem to know the difference between the truth and a lie. I largely ignore what they tell me and look at the data, written communications, and anything else objective we can find to piece together the story and then try to get that client's "side" of it to see what really happened.

I make it my duty to make sure those clients never speak to the press. Never release "just one statement to get MY SIDE of the story out." Because I, as their trusted advisor, know that story is likely full of exaggerations or lies that would not take that long to pull apart. If my client released some statement against the advice of counsel, the last thing I would do is release my own statement to "correct" it because then you are TELLING the world that your client is a liar.

So constantly texting the media with bits of information that objectively contradict with other public information (like when the Mustang was picked up, if Cassie saw BL) is really bordering on malpractice. I have never seen anything like it either in my own practice or in following other cases.

it's really unbelievable behavior IMO seems like he is enjoying the attention just a bit too much

 

[SuziQ]

Brilliant response, and stated far better than I could have articulated. I agree 110% with your assessment and explanation of the situation @bellyup !

Finally the quote button works for me.

This. All of it. It amazes me that people think that Moab LE did a good job here. Or that it wasn't their job to to solve the issue at hand. It is their job and they did it poorly.

 

[TheGardener]

Here's the thing. I have clients who truly do not seem to know the difference between the truth and a lie. I largely ignore what they tell me and look at the data, written communications, and anything else objective we can find to piece together the story and then try to get that client's "side" of it to see what really happened.

I make it my duty to make sure those clients never speak to the press. Never release "just one statement to get MY SIDE of the story out." Because I, as their trusted advisor, know that story is likely full of exaggerations or lies that would not take that long to pull apart. If my client released some statement against the advice of counsel, the last thing I would do is release my own statement to "correct" it because then you are TELLING the world that your client is a liar.

So constantly texting the media with bits of information that objectively contradict with other public information (like when the Mustang was picked up, if Cassie saw BL) is really bordering on malpractice. I have never seen anything like it either in my own practice or in following other cases.

Agree. I've never seen a lawyer work so hard to damage their client(s).

 

[10ofRods]

A video I have seen states that Gabby had a conversation with her Mom on August 25, and her Mom said they had discussed Gabby and Brian's deteriorating relationship. So, it looks like Gabby was on the phone with her on the 12th during the cop stop, and then on the 25th, had a conversation with her Mom about the bad situation she was finding herself in. It seems odd that Gabby's Dad spoke with her on several occasions while she was in a hotel room and Brian was supposedly in Florida, and nothing was mentioneded to him about their problems. Maybe they weren't that close.

In many DV situations where one's child is the person at a risk, fathers are not told the details until there's a plan of action. Fathers often react differently than mothers.

IME, when a person begins to think about leaving a DV situation or deteriorating relationship with a controlling partner, that person has to be very careful about who they tell and even then, it's dangerous. It's true that if a woman's father shows up (armed or not) to extricate her, that sometimes works - but in general, that father is likely to get into trouble if he's worked up. Perhaps Gabby's dad has some health issues and even if not, I know my blood pressure would go up if I learned my daughter were in this situation. I would want to do something but it is the adult daughter who has to get a plan together. All I know is that many women tell their mothers, and the mothers promise to keep things a secret until it's safer.

I don't think it has to do with "closeness," but more with the need for absolute secrecy in leaving a situation with intimate partner violence. Gabby's real chance came when she was in SLC without Brian (which I believe to be true). I do think that Brian's trip back to FL was meant to be a kind of break-up, but that Gabby agreed to have Brian come back and they would continue the trip after a break. Probably everyone thought that the stress of the road and living in camps was a big factor. Personally, I think Brian needed to be under the watchful eyes of his parents (especially his dad) in order to function at an age-appropriate level.

I wonder what Gabby's mom said to her on the 25th, about the continuation of their journey. Was Brian acting normally? Was he aloof? Was he talking constantly about what Gabby had "done to him" via the LE stop and the (possibly embarrassing) trip back home? Were they in "detente" mode, merely to go on to Yellowstone? The trip was supposed to end in Portland - I wonder what the plan was at that point, if Gabby didn't want to drive the van home. Were they stuck together for another couple of weeks? Gabby must have felt under pressure to get Nomadic Statik up and running as a brand.

It's also possible that Gabby told her mother very little of what was really going on.