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

[LinasK]

I agree that we should have our LE officers trained in DV situations. But we can't expect officers to be experts in everything all the time. We want them to often be less confrontational, or is it more confrontational. Make more arrests, or is it fewer arrests? There was a time where in a DV situation where there were mutual or conflicting accounts of DV, both HAD to be arrested. I have in my practice seen how that can lead to bad unintended consequences and why that policy is generally been thrown out. Officers have to make judgment calls. Sometimes they turn out bad. But I don't think to Moab police are the reason she ended up dead.

But perhaps if they had arrested him (and recognized him as the perp of DV), it would have been a wakeup call for her to end the trip and get out of the relationship...

 

[MyBelle]

I agree that we should have our LE officers trained in DV situations. But we can't expect officers to be experts in everything all the time. We want them to often be less confrontational, or is it more confrontational. Make more arrests, or is it fewer arrests? There was a time where in a DV situation where there were mutual or conflicting accounts of DV, both HAD to be arrested. I have in my practice seen how that can lead to bad unintended consequences and why that policy is generally been thrown out. Officers have to make judgment calls. Sometimes they turn out bad. But I don't think to Moab police are the reason she ended up dead.

BBM. I agree with you 100%!

JMO

 

[acutename]

I'm trying to think of unanswered questions the civil lawsuit is trying to uncover and why.

All evidence points to BL murdering Gabby. He also confessed to killing her. Her autopsy revealed that she died of “blunt-force injuries to the head and neck, with manual strangulation.”

We know about the DV incidents before the murder. We have details about how the Maob PD handled the DV incident they responded to.

And much more.

So is this civil lawsuit in search of information that may or may not exist? So far I don't see what they are looking for.

JMO.

Here is what the Laudries did that caused the Petitos distress:

1. did not communicate with them at all- phone/fax/text; in fact, cut off all communication with them
2. did not tell them when BL came home (without GP BTW)
3. did not tell them that BL came home
4. had GP's van and possibly other personal property- did not share
that knowledge or return the property.... such as GP's credit card
and other personal effects

Ask yourself if the Laundries would have been completely OK if the tables had been turned-
GP returns- no BL, no explanation when she last saw him or why he was not with her. I think
they would have been screaming IMO.

But what makes this case so interesting is that BL and GP were legally adults and there is no
recognized legal "duty" to communicate with friends/relatives/acquaintances.... still, if you
were the last known person to see some one alive and you have nothing to say, or you harbor the person who has nothing to say and that person disappears too.... ? Why would it be OK to keep GP's van and personal effects and clothing(?) and phone? Her laptop?

 

[acutename]

But perhaps if they had arrested him (and recognized him as the perp of DV), it would have been a wakeup call for her to end the trip and get out of the relationship...

maybe... but DV couples go back together frequently... yes there are threats and violence at play many times but IMO there is what turns out to be an unhealthy dependency and it is not easily severed, IMO. And remember that these two had a break- GP in the hotel talking to her father; BL flying back home. And they got back together....

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Here is what the Laudries did that caused the Petitos distress:

1. did not communicate with them at all- phone/fax/text; in fact, cut off all communication with them
2. did not tell them when BL came home (without GP BTW)
3. did not tell them that BL came home
4. had GP's van and possibly other personal property- did not share
that knowledge or return the property.... such as GP's credit card
and other personal effects

Ask yourself if the Laundries would have been completely OK if the tables had been turned-
GP returns- no BL, no explanation when she last saw him or why he was not with her. I think
they would have been screaming IMO.

But what makes this case so interesting is that BL and GP were legally adults and there is no
recognized legal "duty" to communicate with friends/relatives/acquaintances.... still, if you
were the last known person to see some one alive and you have nothing to say, or you harbor the person who has nothing to say and that person disappears too.... ? Why would it be OK to keep GP's van and personal effects and clothing(?) and phone? Her laptop?

Why would the Laundries feel the need to communicate all of these things to Gabby's parents if they didn't know about the things that BL had done to her? JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

maybe... but DV couples go back together frequently... yes there are threats and violence at play many times but IMO there is what turns out to be an unhealthy dependency and it is not easily severed, IMO. And remember that these two had a break- GP in the hotel talking to her father; BL flying back home. And they got back together....

You're right, no easy answers that fit every domestic violence situation. JMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Why would the Laundries feel the need to communicate all of these things to Gabby's parents if they didn't know about the things that BL had done to her? JMO.

The Laundries did know of all the items listed 1-4, maybe in a stretch not 1, but they knew BL showed up in Gabby's van with her possessions and without her and supposedly no explanation other than "she's gone".

Gabby wasn't some short term gf of BL's. She was his fiancé', had known them for years and was living with at the time they took off on their trip. It was a long term relationship, a member of their extended family. It's not unrealistic that they would help and provide answers to the questions the Petito family had, unless they were attempting to hide something.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

You're right, no easy answers that fit every domestic violence situation. JMO.

Agreed, but that shouldn't not make it a top priority in trying to educate the public and aid both women, men and children who are in this very abusive and often times fatal situation.

JMO

 

[CrimeDawg123]

Why would the Laundries feel the need to communicate all of these things to Gabby's parents if they didn't know about the things that BL had done to her? JMO.

I don't know, decency?

 

[housewife]

Why would the Laundries feel the need to communicate all of these things to Gabby's parents if they didn't know about the things that BL had done to her? JMO.

Initially the Petito's were asking for the location of BOTH Gabby and her fiancée.

The Laundries could have responded with the truth - Brian had already returned home, without his fiancée.

 

[PrairieWind]

Here is what the Laudries did that caused the Petitos distress:

1. did not communicate with them at all- phone/fax/text; in fact, cut off all communication with them
2. did not tell them when BL came home (without GP BTW)
3. did not tell them that BL came home
4. had GP's van and possibly other personal property- did not share
that knowledge or return the property.... such as GP's credit card
and other personal effects

Ask yourself if the Laundries would have been completely OK if the tables had been turned-
GP returns- no BL, no explanation when she last saw him or why he was not with her. I think
they would have been screaming IMO.

But what makes this case so interesting is that BL and GP were legally adults and there is no
recognized legal "duty" to communicate with friends/relatives/acquaintances.... still, if you
were the last known person to see some one alive and you have nothing to say, or you harbor the person who has nothing to say and that person disappears too.... ? Why would it be OK to keep GP's van and personal effects and clothing(?) and phone? Her laptop?

SHOULD the Laundries (parents) have been talking to the Petitos from a parent/moral stand point? I think we would all agree yes. But do they have a LEGAL duty to do so? I'm not sure where that comes from.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Initially the Petito's were asking for the location of BOTH Gabby and her fiancée.

The Laundries could have responded with the truth - Brian had already returned home, without his fiancée.

I don't remember that happening.

I only remember them asking where Gabby was.

'Tell us where Gabby is located': Petito's family pleads to fiance's family to bring her home safe

As law enforcement agencies in multiple states, along with the FBI, continue to search for missing 22-year-old Gabby Petito; her family begged for help from her fiance's family to help locate her.

www.abcactionnews.com

 

[al66pine]

************Post of the Day **************
************Bravo, PrairieWind **********

SHOULD the Laundries (parents) have been talking to the Petitos from a parent/moral stand point? I think we would all agree yes. But do they have a LEGAL duty to do so? I'm not sure where that comes from.

@PrairieWind
TYVM for your laser-like dissection, stripping lawsuit down to lay bare the basic issue.

MORAL duty of the L's, owed to GP's parents as their son's gf's parents? Yes.

LEGAL duty? A different issue altogether.
imo

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I don't know, decency?

True.

Maybe early on the Laundries felt that Gabby had communicated with her parents and told them everything that had happened during the trip and it was unnecessary for them to make their own contact. Later, under advisement of their lawyer, they stayed silent. JMO.

 

[Laura456]

True.

Maybe early on the Laundries felt that Gabby had communicated with her parents and told them everything that had happened during the trip and it was unnecessary for them to make their own contact. Later, under advisement of their lawyer, they stayed silent. JMO.

I mean...when in doubt , at least check in that there's nothing serious. If it goes into drama territory THEN you can say "I actually don't wish to discuss how their relationship ended" etc

 

[MyBelle]

True.

Maybe early on the Laundries felt that Gabby had communicated with her parents and told them everything that had happened during the trip and it was unnecessary for them to make their own contact. Later, under advisement of their lawyer, they stayed silent. JMO.

That's very possible considering Gabby did phone her mother while in the presence of Moab LE.

JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

SHOULD the Laundries (parents) have been talking to the Petitos from a parent/moral stand point? I think we would all agree yes. But do they have a LEGAL duty to do so? I'm not sure where that comes from.

No legal duty or they would have been charged with a misdemeanor I believe.

This isn't criminal court this is civil court, there is a big difference and maybe some people get confused.

 

[GRT]

I agree that we should have our LE officers trained in DV situations. But we can't expect officers to be experts in everything all the time. We want them to often be less confrontational, or is it more confrontational. Make more arrests, or is it fewer arrests? There was a time where in a DV situation where there were mutual or conflicting accounts of DV, both HAD to be arrested. I have in my practice seen how that can lead to bad unintended consequences and why that policy is generally been thrown out. Officers have to make judgment calls. Sometimes they turn out bad. But I don't think to Moab police are the reason she ended up dead.

I agree with this. The majority of DV cases seen by LE do not end up in a murder/suicide IMHO, and we're only able to view this one in that light because hindsight is 20:20.

So much transpired between the Moab incident and the murder that I don't think anything the officers did (or didn't do) impacted anything that came later. I don't think they (legally) could lock either of the young people up long enough to prevent them from getting back together. And they had no influence over the type of relationship or the turmoil between them. MOO

I don't know when that relationship became toxic, but if it was always toxic, it seems to me that one or both sets of parents should have had an inkling. JMOO Yet, they all act like they didn't see it coming. So, maybe it didn't turn toxic until the trip.

The MOAB officers didn't have any background information (if there was any), so I don't see how they could be expected to do anything different. Everyone now wishes they would have interceded earlier. Still, if the people who intimately knew the personalities of Brian and Gabby didn't sense anything amiss, I don't think the LE can be held to blame for not being able to foresee what would happen.

All just MOO.

 

[GRT]

That's very possible considering Gabby did phone her mother while in the presence of Moab LE.

JMO

Yes, that would make sense.

 

[GRT]

No legal duty or they would have been charged with a misdemeanor I believe.

This isn't criminal court this is civil court, there is a big difference and maybe some people get confused.

I think that's true. We tend to think of right and wrong based on the law, but in cases like this, there may be no actual crime, but a judge or jury could possibly find there was some type of damage and liability.