Found Deceased WY - Gabby Petito, Grand Teton National Park #87

[NCWatcher]

I'm just watching the mosb stop again and I agree, that access would have to be through the back doors.

Looking at her face, from lots of different angles throughout the video, and especially at the beginning where she exits the van and talks to the officer where the left side of her face is very visible, there do not appear to be the injuries as shown in the photo. If this claim is going to be put to a jury, I think the- claimant really needs to explain their thinking because as it stands that picture was not taken 2 minutes before the MOAB stop.

Also, what is the mobile coverage like in that area? Would she have been able to upload photos whilst travelling in the van. Is it possible its an old photo and was uploaded when they were in the cafe in Moab?

I don't know what cell coverage is like. This link suggests it should be ok but I don't know if the link is reliable. Cell coverage in Moab for AT&T, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular, Verizon

If it was uploaded earlier in the day there's still the problem of a time stamp 2 minutes before the 911 call. Of course, we've not had sworn testimony yet about the photo or the time stamp so..... And clocks can be wrong but wouldn't the time stamp come from the clock in GP's phone? How off could that be? Wouldn't she have noticed? Don't those reset automatically when in a new time zone? Or maybe her phone was broken?

JMO

 

[Nikynoo]

I don't know what cell coverage is like. This link suggests it should be ok but I don't know if the link is reliable. Cell coverage in Moab for AT&T, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular, Verizon

If it was uploaded earlier in the day there's still the problem of a time stamp 2 minutes before the 911 call. Of course, we've not had sworn testimony yet about the photo or the time stamp so..... And clocks can be wrong but wouldn't the time stamp come from the clock in GP's phone? How off could that be? Wouldn't she have noticed? Don't those reset automatically when in a new time zone? Or maybe her phone was broken?

JMO

I don't know the answer I'm afraid. I guess we will have to wait and see how they will argue that the time is correct and also account for how the injuries are not apparent in the video.

 

[xyzlunar]

I'm not super comfortable relying on a timestamp being wrong, especially when it was so close to the Moab stop.

The time stamp could have been "correct" if the device used for taking the picture was set on another time zone. For instance, the device was set on Florida time for some reason, a picture taken two hours after the Moab 911 call would show a timestamp at the time of the 911 call.
If the selfie was taken with her phone , this does not really make sense though. I would think it was set to adjusting to time zones automatically.

With regards to an upload - she was working on her website using the WIFI in the cafe. I have my phone set for automatic uploads at certain times when logged into WIFI. As they were walking up and down in front of the venue, it is very much possible her phone was still logged into the WIFI, and any automated upload settings started.

 

[Interested_But_Confused]

I'm new to the GP case, but was interested by the comments comparing the selfie to the Moab police stop.

I watched the 1 hour 17 minute police video and IMO, GP was already showing signs of all the injuries in the selfie, although in the selfie they're more visible. Late in the police video, at around 56 minutes, there's a shot of GP in the back of the LE vehicle where she does appear to have a swelling developing on her forehead. I'm not sure why the injuries aren't more visible in the police video, but IMO all the injuries match for it having been the same day.

The selfie is presumably in the back of the Ford camper van, so either it was taken before the police stop, or GP was back in the van within a few hours afterwards. My gut, just based on the developtment of the bruises, tells me the selfie was taken shortly after the police stop. JMO.

 

[NCWatcher]

The time stamp could have been "correct" if the device used for taking the picture was set on another time zone. For instance, the device was set on Florida time for some reason, a picture taken two hours after the Moab 911 call would show a timestamp at the time of the 911 call.
If the selfie was taken with her phone , this does not really make sense though. I would think it was set to adjusting to time zones automatically.

With regards to an upload - she was working on her website using the WIFI in the cafe. I have my phone set for automatic uploads at certain times when logged into WIFI. As they were walking up and down in front of the venue, it is very much possible her phone was still logged into the WIFI, and any automated upload settings started.

Time zone differences always give me a headache to think about. But I don't think the Florida time scenario can work. It seems backwards to me unless I'm lost re: time zones (which is possible!) The reported time stamp is 4:37 pm. If that's Florida time, it would have only been 2:37 pm in Utah. A photo taken two hours after the Utah 4:39 pm 911 call would have a Florida stamp of 8:39 and/or a Utah stamp of 6:39.

I don't see how injuries from the fight observed & reported by the 911 caller (~4:39 Utah time, 6:39 Florida time) could have been photographed two hours earlier much less the photo uploaded. Someone posting here had said the fight may have lasted longer than we know-- that GP said to LE they were fighting all day at the cafe--and that is likely true. But I really doubt there was any physical fighting inside the cafe. I thought GP meant they were verbally sparring. Arguing about spending all day sitting inside a cafe working on web stuff (probably not too welcome there either after the first few hours) vs going places.

Same sorts of issues with Scenario #2. The explanation above from @xyzlunar is very helpful re: technical stuff but I don't see how a photo of injuries could have been taken (in the back of the van) to be automatically uploaded when they left the cafe. They would have both had to be outside of the cafe to fight. I doubt those injuries happened first thing in the am then they went to the cafe. So when was the photo taken if it was uploaded then? If it was days before, that has nothing to do with the injuries the Moab officers could see.

JMO

 

[Skigirl]

Here's my hangup. You can see the scratches on her cheek in the selfie and the bodycam footage.

If the selfie was taken on some day prior to the Moab stop, then that would mean, 1) Moab LE mistook an old injury for a new one, 2) the knots on her head and eye were either no longer visible or not mentioned, even though the scratches were, 3) GP was pretending she had been unaware of the scratches on her cheek and that they burned, and 4) the timestamp was likely when she uploaded the photo, just minutes before the stop, or was way off.

If the selfie was taken after the Moab stop, then that would mean, 1) Moab LE didn't notice or mention the knots on her head and eye, 2) bodycam didn't register the knots, even though it did the scratches, 3) the injuries were possibly sustained after the stop, and 4) the timestamp was way off.

If the selfie was taken a couple minutes before the stop, as the P family claims, then that would mean, 1) GP got into the back of the van at so undetermined moment and took the photo, 2) GP either didn't notice the scratches on her cheek or pretended she didn't know about them during the stop, and 3) bodycam didn't capture those injuries, even though they did the scratches.

I'm not super comfortable relying on a timestamp being wrong, especially when it was so close to the Moab stop. And while I agree that GP most likely wore the same clothing often during the trip, I'm also not comfortable assuming she had on the exact same thing on the day of another physical altercation that resulted in the scratches to her cheek that Moab LE made note of, and GP acted unaware of. None of it makes sense to me.

I don't know why anyone is questioning the metadata from the photo. LE uses photo metadata all the time. The timestamps don't lie. The data, including location, time, and date are included in all photos taken on a phone.

 

[NCWatcher]

I don't know why anyone is questioning the metadata from the photo. LE uses photo metadata all the time. The timestamps don't lie. The data, including location, time, and date are included in all photos taken on a phone.

But when photo timestamps have been used in a trial, there sometimes have been questions and the need for expert testimony. Does the stamp represent the time the photo was taken, the time saved to a device or uploaded somewhere else, does it represent time saved after the photo has been enhanced, and so on. @xyzlunar mentioned that during the Depp trial it became clear stamps aren't always what they seem:

I recall the whole metadata discussion at the Heard./.Depp trial related to photos showing different date/time stamps, but both obviously taken at the same time. IMO with uploading the picture to somewhere where it could later be retrieved by her parents without having the actual phone on hand, the timestamp showing is not necessarily the date/time it was taken. And, it would make a lot of sense to me that she decided to save a picture on her phone to the cloud or another dropbox type of storage, so it is not be found on her phone in case he looks for it/checks her phone.

And, of course, we haven't actually had any testimony about the timestamp yet. Perhaps the attorney who spoke to the press was mistaken about the exact time it showed or about which time was reported (creation, save, etc.) Or perhaps a time was altered at some point for reasons we don't know. 5 Easy Ways to Change Photo Date | Organize Pictures

It comes down to there are lots of things we don't really know. And the reported photo creation time isn't immediately consistent with other things that we do supposedly know per MSM reporting. I'm also personally curious about whether GP's actual phone was found and if so where. (The P's attorney said the photo was found "on Gabby's phone" which does imply the phone was found. It seems to me though it would be news if the phone was found.)

Given these questions, people are speculating. Not the first time & I'm sure not the last!
JMO

 

[Skigirl]

The time stamp could have been "correct" if the device used for taking the picture was set on another time zone. For instance, the device was set on Florida time for some reason, a picture taken two hours after the Moab 911 call would show a timestamp at the time of the 911 call.
If the selfie was taken with her phone , this does not really make sense though. I would think it was set to adjusting to time zones automatically.

With regards to an upload - she was working on her website using the WIFI in the cafe. I have my phone set for automatic uploads at certain times when logged into WIFI. As they were walking up and down in front of the venue, it is very much possible her phone was still logged into the WIFI, and any automated upload settings started.

iPhones use UTC, so what you see relies on a single number, the only thing that changes is the settings in various apps. Date and GPS settings embedded in the metadata can be used to correctly interpret local time. JMO

 

[NCWatcher]

iPhones use UTC, so what you see relies on a single number, the only thing that changes is the settings in various apps. Date and GPS settings embedded in the metadata can be used to correctly interpret local time. JMO

I'm not a phone or technology expert at all. But are you saying there's no way a timestamp on a photo taken with a cell camera can ever be wrong? Wrong as meaning it doesn't accurately represent the local time the photo was taken? If so, wow. Few things in life are so absolute! I do have to ask though if the embedded info requires "interpretation" to correctly arrive at the local time, doesn't that introduce the possibility of error? For example, (& yes, it's Wikipedia!!) Coordinated Universal Time - Wikipedia says UTC "is not adjusted for daylight savings time."

In this case, as I said we haven't heard testimony about the photo. Nor have we heard testimony about the exact time of the 911 call either (but presumably that time was adjusted for DST.) But the possibility that anything, particularly any measurement, is 100% without error is kind of astounding.
JMO

 

[Deleted member 718]

Gabby Petito’s Family Files Amended Complaint Against Moab City Police​

By Steven Jensen
|
March 2, 2023
|
Personal Injury
The family of Gabby Petito filed a First Amended Complaint today (March 1, 2023) against Moab City Police, based on new information that has come to light regarding the failures of the Moab City Police Department and its officers that contributed to the cause of Gabby Petito’s death.
The amendments include multiple damning admissions made by Officer Eric Pratt, demonstrating that (1) he knew Brian was an emotion and mental threat to Gabby, (2) that Brian demonstrated many dangerous red flags, and (3) that he knowingly and willfully chose to not follow the law to protect Gabby. Pratt stated he would rather be kicked out of the police department than follow the requirements of the law to protect her.
Further, Moab City Police had agreed to implement the Lethality Assessment Protocol (“LAP”) in 2018 and 2019 (for 3 years), but they were not really doing anything to employ the LAP in practice at the time of Moab responded in Gabby’s case.
Statement of Nichole Schmidt: “Our daughter, Gabby, died as a result of intimate partner violence that could have and should have been identified by law enforcement using the lethality assessment. We believe that if the lethality assessment had been properly used in her situation, together with the recommended support and resources, Gabby would still be alive today.”

Gabby Petito’s Family Files Amended Complaint Against Moab City Police | Parker & McConkie

The family of Gabby Petito filed a First Amended Complaint today (March 1, 2023) against Moab City Police, based on new information that has come to light regarding the failures of the Moab City Police Department and its officers that contributed to the cause of Gabby Petito’s death. The...

www.parkerandmcconkie.com

 

[Deleted member 718]

Gabby Petito's family targets Moab Police officers in newly-filed complaint amendment

Gabby Petito's family on Wednesday filed an amended complaint against the Moab Police Department, adding new grievances to a previous complaint following new in

kutv.com

Link to news article with same content in case the attorneys' website isn't allowed.

 

[Megnut]

Brian Laundrie’s mother explains ‘burn after reading’ letter sought in Gabby Petito lawsuit

Roberta Laundrie is speaking out for the first time about a letter she wrote to her son, Brian Laundrie, that she claims has nothing to do with Gabby Petito, but rather is a “quirky” le…

www.wfla.com

She wrote it to repair her relationship with her son? Huh?

 

[NCWatcher]

Brian Laundrie’s mother explains ‘burn after reading’ letter sought in Gabby Petito lawsuit

Roberta Laundrie is speaking out for the first time about a letter she wrote to her son, Brian Laundrie, that she claims has nothing to do with Gabby Petito, but rather is a “quirky” le…

www.wfla.com

She wrote it to repair her relationship with her son? Huh?

Until we know what the letter actually said (if we ever do) it seems impossible to evaluate whether the letter seems like it could have been intended as a "relationship mender." While members of WS have freely speculated, we really know next to nothing about Brian's relationship with his parents.

People have called B names like "Mama's boy" simply because he lived with his parents before he and Gabby left for their trip. But Gabby lived there too! And according to GP's friend, Rose, they had lived together rent-free in a condo the L's owned before that. So neither G nor B had ever rented a place on their own. I'm not sure how G ends up being viewed as a mature young woman and he's a mama's boy. It may be that we still expect men to earn the money while women can be cared for. Certainly if G had still lived with her mother in NY, she would not have been called names for that. But B living with her at her mom's house would have been totally unacceptable on his part. It's odd. (I do remember the claim from a member of the NPPD that B&G had moved to NY when they left Florida in early June. I don't believe that's true. NS & JS have younger kids at home and no way B&G could have afforded to rent their own place on Long Island.)

At any rate, it's possible RL struggled with B "leaving home." The well-known children's books she cites-- The Runaway Bunny and Little Bear--both contain themes of mothers looking out for their sons. Or it could be that tensions built in the months when they all lived together. The L's house wasn't that big. And the L's ran their juicer business from home-- they weren't leaving the house daily to commute to 9-5 jobs. So the 4 of them may have been in each other's hair much more than was ideal. Or it could be that RL didn't think embarking on a "van life" was a smart idea. We've heard the Petitos were supportive of the trips-- renting the Nissan for GP for the first trip and providing funds for the second trip. RL may have felt differently. Perhaps CL did too. We just don't know.
JMO

 

[Deleted member 718]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Deleted member 718]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[GRT]

Brian Laundrie’s mother explains ‘burn after reading’ letter sought in Gabby Petito lawsuit

Roberta Laundrie is speaking out for the first time about a letter she wrote to her son, Brian Laundrie, that she claims has nothing to do with Gabby Petito, but rather is a “quirky” le…

www.wfla.com

I, Roberta Laundrie, am a defendant in the above-styled cause and I do hereby swear or affirm that: I fully understand the meaning of all of the terms of this affidavit. I wrote the letter requested by Plaintiffs’ Second Request for Production. I wrote the letter to my son, Brian Laundrie, on or about the end of May 2021. Although I do not know the exact date I wrote the letter, I do know that I wrote it and gave it to Brian before Brian and Gabby left Florida for New York which was on June 2, 2021. (Brian and Gabby went from Florida to New York before they went out West.)
The purpose of the letter was to reach out to Brian while he and I were experiencing a difficult period in our relationship. Brian and I always had a very open and communicative relationship and in the months prior to the trip our relationship had become strained. Brian and I shared a love of stories and some of the language in the letter was using similar phrases to describe the depth of a mother’s love. The two books that come to mind are The Runaway Bunny and Little Bear. In addition, Gabby had given Brian a book called Burn After Writing which contains printed questions to which the reader responds by writing their answers on the page. The back of the book instructs the reader to create a secret book and then destroy by “burn after writing.” The bottom of the back cover says: “Write. Burn. Repeat.” Brian, Gabby and I often joked about this book and the importance of being able to express yourself. If you were embarrassed or simply did not want anyone to know your thoughts or feelings then the book offered the perfect solution by telling you to burn it. This is where my message to Brian came from and I wrote on the cover of the letter for Brian to “Burn After Reading.” In short, I was trying to connect with Brian and repair our relationship as he was planning to leave home – and I had hoped this letter would remind him how much I loved him.
There were some other phrases that I used in the letter which are not found in the books I shared with Brian as a child. However, these phrases were common enough in our circle of friends and family to describe who you could turn to in the most troubling times of your life. While I used words that seem to have a connection with Brian’s actions and his taking of Gabby’s life, I never would have fathomed the events that unfolded months later between Brian and Gabby would reflect the words in my letter. The words in the letter could never have been a comment on that tragic situation as they were written so many months before. My words to Brian were meant to convey my love and support for my son through a light-hearted and quirky reminder that my love for him was not diminished and could not be shaken by the miles of separation we would soon be faced with.
Although a few of the words in the letter are being quoted by others as having a connection to this case, all of the words taken together and in the context of the reason the letter was written show that there is no connection. In addition, there has been some speculation that this letter was in Brian’s possession or in his backpack when he died – insinuating that I gave it to him as he left my home on September 13, 2021 – but that is not true because the FBI had the letter in their possession and questioned members of my family about it prior to October 20, 2021 when my husband and I found Brian’s remains in the reserve.
I repeat that the letter I wrote to Brian before he left with Gabby for their fateful trip was nothing more than a private communication between myself and my son and I never expected anyone else would read it. In some way, I did not want anyone else to read it as I know it is not the type of letter a mother writes to her adult son and I did not want to embarrass Brian. That is why I wrote “Burn After Reading” on the envelope and I knewthat Brian would know what that meant. I am now appreciative that he actually kept it.
[Signed] Roberta Laundrie

 

[Gardenista]

Yikes!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Gemmie]

Yikes!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I'm not sure I'm understanding RL saying (as per the link in your post):

“Bring a shovel. Help bury the body.” Two things Petito family attorney Pat Reilly says he saw in the Roberta Laundrie “burn after reading” letter

Now, if it said I'll bring a shovel... that's way different than "Bring a shovel" because if she's the one who wrote the letter (which is what we've been hearing), the way that's worded makes it sound like she's asking someone to bring a shovel and not her offering to bring a shovel.

“Bring a shovel. Help bury the body.” sounds more like what BL would say to someone (RL), not the other way around.

 

[Laura456]

It does just sound like it was a dark and unfortunate joke.

 

[Trooper]

This crime does not appear to have a sunset clause in it. For Gabby's parents, a lifetime, never ending, and in another way for Laundrie's parents as well. This affidavit is odd, and while I readily admit I am from a different culture, it has buckets of wierd in it. This is the woman who was so calm, so silent, so unhelpful to Petito's , at a time of such horror, such heartbreak. The Laundries were/are so cold, even the strange sister. How they managed to maintain that stoic concrete determination to let the Petito' s swing in the wind is surely an indicator of their capacity to pen a letter to Brian AFTER he got back from the Teton park. That's how I see it, anyways....