Gabby Petito

[JimMIA]

I'm wondering who the lead investigator is going to be here. There are always these weird jurisdictional issues. It's easy enough where there's a search and it's all hands on deck to look for someone. Even though the body was discovered on Forest Service land, I don't think the Forest Service or USDA really wants to handle this, although they do deal with a lot of people who die on their lands. I'm guessing the FBI is going to handle this.

Great question for a lot of reasons. One, as you mentioned, is jurisdiction. Another is resources, and not only manpower but also skills. And a third is the law itself. There are only a few, narrowly-defined situations where there is a federal murder law that applies.

ETA: Just a quick search gave the following results from some law firm website. I can't vouch for the accuracy, but the info sounds about right:

1. When is murder a federal offense?
Murder is charged as a federal offense whenever the killing violates a federal law. Under 18 U.S.C. 1111, the federal crime of murder is defined as the “unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” In general, there are seven scenarios when an unlawful killing violates the laws of the federal government.

These include when:

1. the murder is of a federal judge or a federal law enforcement official (e.g., an agent of the FBI, TSA, or ATF),1
2. the killing is of an immediate family member of a federal law enforcement official,2
3. the murder is of an elected or appointed federal official (e.g., the President, a Supreme Court Justice, a member of Congress, or the murder of a federal judge),3
4. the killing is committed during a bank robbery,4
5. the killing takes place aboard a ship at sea (e.g., on a vessel that is engaged in interstate commerce per the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution),5
6. the murder was designed to influence a court case,6 and
7. the killing takes place on federal property (e.g., on national parks or a Native American reservation).

Depending on the facts of the case, a murder coming under federal jurisdiction may be charged as either:

• first-degree murder, or
• second-degree murder.

First-degree murder is punishable by the death penalty (i.e., capital punishment) or imprisonment in a federal prison for life.7

Federal charges of second-degree murder are punishable by any terms of years in federal prison, as determined by the federal sentencing guidelines.

*****

I'm sure the FBI will play a very big role due to the intrastate nature of the investigation, but it's more complicated than that.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

My exasperation was with the recent turn of the conversation which seems to focus on the 911 call from weeks ago and the continuing insistence that she was the aggressor. I mean does it even matter at this point? She is DEAD. Let’s not pretend this was some sort of “Burning Bed” situation with him dealing with years of sustained, extreme abuse. Gabby LIVED with him and his parents for quite some time! I don’t care if she slapped him a few times. I mean talk about victim blaming. He had the opportunity to LEAVE - heck, the police would have HELPED him. He didn’t and now she is dead, most likely at his hand.

I have sons. I am acutely aware of the trouble men can have with reporting things like abuse, rape, etc.. This case is NOT one of those times and suggesting it is, feels insulting to actual male victims.

I can understand how you're approaching the topic even if I don't agree with it all (I do care when people get physical with each other) I don't want to cause any more stuff to come up from those other conversations so I won't respond further about what you're mentioning other than to say thanks for reading my comment and answering me back

 

[JimMIA]

One thing that may help sort through all the "news" is to understand what makes or breaks most murder investigations.

It comes in millions of forms, but it's one basic thing: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

People lie. Human interactions and motivations are subject to misinterpretation, as are words. Perceptions, and evaluations of those perceptions, are extremely error-prone. If you carefully review 5 witness statements from the same event, you will think they are talking about 5 different events -- in fact, that is an exercise that is presented to almost every police academy class.

But physical evidence doesn't lie, and usually tells the story accurately.

So in this case, rather than focusing on events and impressions in Moab, UT or elsewhere, I focus on the places and objects which are likely to yield physical evidence:

• The scene where the body believed to be Gabby Petito was found
• The body itself, and evidence revealed by the autopsy
• Gabby's little van, which was impounded by police
• The Mustang which was impounded at Brian's house today
• Whatever evidence was seized by the FBI in their search warrant service today

For now, those are the biggies to me, and of course the investigation is young and could yield a lot more physical evidence.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

My exasperation was with the recent turn of the conversation which seems to focus on the 911 call from weeks ago and the continuing insistence that she was the aggressor. I mean does it even matter at this point? She is DEAD. Let’s not pretend this was some sort of “Burning Bed” situation with him dealing with years of sustained, extreme abuse. Gabby LIVED with him and his parents for quite some time! I don’t care if she slapped him a few times. I mean talk about victim blaming. He had the opportunity to LEAVE - heck, the police would have HELPED him. He didn’t and now she is dead, most likely at his hand.

I have sons. I am acutely aware of the trouble men can have with reporting things like abuse, rape, etc.. This case is NOT one of those times and suggesting it is, feels insulting to actual male victims.

Yes, it does matter. I’m sure it will matter at the trial, if there is one.

You are free to talk about anything you want, or take the conversation in any direction you care to. And so are others.

 

[MillauFr]

Hundreds of unsolved murders aren't investigated? Are you saying police just say "Yep. Found the murdered body. Case closed!" And they don't investigate at all?

Well, I for one am happy that they found this young woman's body and are investigating. I feel sorry for these people that never get an investigation.

No way a criticism of the police. Not really even the media either. More of a criticism of society.

Just look back to the housing debacle 10 years ago. More people blamed the poor and unsophisticated home buyers for defaulting on their loans rather than the Wall St. sharks who cooked up bogus loans that they knew people could never repay.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Agreed and like another poster said they don't always prescribe them either. I also agree with another poster pages back people also self-medicate. I don't think they mentioned doing this (could be wrong) but that does happen.

This was the opinion of the forensic psychiatrist (Dr Ziv Cohen, Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, and on the medical staff of New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York City) in the Fox article when speaking of the police incident:

”The psychiatrist also suggested the couple may have been intoxicated in some capacity.

"They're going on a van trip cross-country. They're in the desert. Those are some settings in which young people tend to use substances that can make them have an altered mental state. They can feel overwhelmed. They can have a bad trip. And it could lead them to act irrationally. It could also lead them to get into an altercation," he said.

He also added:

"I think that parental instincts tend to be very strong. There's also a parental tendency to not see the worst in one's own children, and so when you find those two tendencies, there's a tendency to deny that one's child could have been involved in such a crime and to protect them at all costs," the psychiatrist said.”

 

[NotUrsula]

In regard to jurisdiction, there may be an important point to note. The remains of Ms. Petito were not found inside Grand Teton National Park. They were found just outside the boundary of the park itself, on land designated as part of the Bridger-Teton National Forest. What makes that tricky is that while National Park lands are considered to be completely under the control of Federal authorities, the same is not always true of National Forests. There are law enforcement agents of the Forest Service stationed in National Forests, whose job it is to investigate crimes that affect the environment (such as arson or illegal logging), but it is fairly common in the National Forests to leave crimes against persons to be dealt with by local authorities. (I'm not an expert, but I live near one of the more populated Nat'l Forests, and this often comes up when murders are committed in rural areas that fall within it; usually those are handled by county law enforcement.)

14 USC 480:

The jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, over persons within national forests shall not be affected or changed by reason of their existence, except so far as the punishment of offenses against the United States therein is concerned; the intent and meaning of this provision being that the State wherein any such national forest is situated shall not, by reason of the establishment thereof, lose its jurisdiction, nor the inhabitants thereof their rights and privileges as citizens, or be absolved from their duties as citizens of the State.
(June 4, 1897, ch. 2, § 1, 30 Stat. 36; Mar. 1, 1911, ch. 186, § 12, 36 Stat. 963.)

To answer a question posed above: yes, authorities initially brought out extra searchers for the men reported missing in Grand Teton. Cian McGlaughlin, a 27 year old Irishman temporarily working in the area, was last seen walking in the area on June 8th and was declared missing on June 12th. The last public notice about the search was posted June 23rd. The other man, Robert Lowery, a 46 yo from Houston, was last seen in a nearby town on August 19th, and told his sister he intended to go camping in the Park, though he had no experience. His phone was last used on August 23rd, and there has been no trace since. Apparently, the big search parties normally go out for about a week, but if no trace is found they usually get dialed back to the point that only the on-duty rangers continue to search.

These are HUGE areas of land, and searching every inch of them indefinitely is beyond the normal resources of law enforcement. Honestly, it's probably a miracle that people don't stay lost more often. Apparently, remains of a kayaker who went missing near the Park in 1995 and were found in a different state in 2002 were positively identified only a few days ago, after an officer who was on the original case happened to read an article in an old magazine and wondered if the unidentified remains it mentioned might be his missing kayaker. (In that case, they knew the man was dead because they briefly located his body, but the river took it before it could be recovered.)

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

it is fairly common in the National Forests to leave crimes against persons to be dealt with by local authorities. (I'm not an expert, but I live near one of the larger Nat'l Forests, and this often comes up when murders are committed in rural areas that fall within it; usually those are handled by county law enforcement.)

Do you think from what you've seen near your area if state lines plays a role at all in it not being given to local authorities? I was wondering not just about this case but others since national parks and forests can and do in multiple one span several states.

I didn't even realize about how complicated it could get with a designation between did it happen in the park or in the forest and any impact that could have.

 

[mom2rtk]

No way a criticism of the police. Not really even the media either. More of a criticism of society.

Just look back to the housing debacle 10 years ago. More people blamed the poor and unsophisticated home buyers for defaulting on their loans rather than the Wall St. sharks who cooked up bogus loans that they knew people could never repay.

Society doesn't decide what's covered on the evening news.

 

[MillauFr]

Society doesn't decide what's covered on the evening news.

Really? Then why don't all news outlets present the news like C*Span does? Because they would get lousy ratings. The media covers stories that will give them big ratings.

 

[Marrila]

Really? Then why don't all news outlets present the news like C*Span does? Because they would get lousy ratings. The media covers stories that will give them big ratings.

It's considerably more complicated than that.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

This was the opinion of the forensic psychiatrist (Dr Ziv Cohen, Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University, and on the medical staff of New York Presbyterian Hospital, both in New York City) in the Fox article when speaking of the police incident:

”The psychiatrist also suggested the couple may have been intoxicated in some capacity.

"They're going on a van trip cross-country. They're in the desert. Those are some settings in which young people tend to use substances that can make them have an altered mental state. They can feel overwhelmed. They can have a bad trip. And it could lead them to act irrationally. It could also lead them to get into an altercation," he said.

He also added:

"I think that parental instincts tend to be very strong. There's also a parental tendency to not see the worst in one's own children, and so when you find those two tendencies, there's a tendency to deny that one's child could have been involved in such a crime and to protect them at all costs," the psychiatrist said.”

Part of me thinks back to the early days when so many of us were all staying at home and the abrupt shift in working locations. How many couples had to work out suddenly being in each other's spaces, around each other much more during the day trying to work and if you add on childcare (which I realize this couple didn't have that going on) and other things. It was something people had to find ways to work with. I don't want to judge them if they were actually self-medicating but I can see how that is a layer added.

With Gabby and Brian while it probably was very freeing to be beholden to nothing really but the open road all that time alone with issues they already had in terms of mental health (not to be seen as an excuse or a put down whatsoever just matter of fact statement) and things could have gotten dicey, it could get to the better of just about anyone really.

I know road trips have been talked about in the past as far as just how long can you keep the peace and it takes a certain group to be able to travel around like that for so long. Even my in-law's RV club the couples (granted mostly older) openly discuss that they need breaks from Park touring and campsite life. These are people heavily invested in the niche market of RVing and camping (some just have a pop up camper, one couple had a tent although most have motorhomes or 5th wheels) and as I understand it Gabby and Brian were just starting to dabble in this (I think that's what I had read).

 

[LSUmiss]

Bad or evil folks often don't present with an obvious scary look or behaviors.
It's kind of disturbing, but good to know.

Right & sociopaths almost never do.

 

[MillauFr]

It's considerably more complicated than that.

Not according to Edward R Murrow in his 1958 speech.....

….Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live.

 

[NotUrsula]

Do you think from what you've seen near your area if state lines plays a role at all in it not being given to local authorities? I was wondering not just about this case but others since national parks and forests can and do in multiple one span several states.

I didn't even realize about how complicated it could get with a designation between did it happen in the park or in the forest and any impact that could have.

From what I've seen, it usually comes down to the physical evidence; if authorities feel confident that they know where the crime actually occured, then that county will be deemed to have jurisdiction; otherwise, the county where the remains were found will normally take it. The rangers usually seem to cede control to the counties fairly quickly unless a Federal law that is specific to forest lands has been violated.

 

[bcla]

Great question for a lot of reasons. One, as you mentioned, is jurisdiction. Another is resources, and not only manpower but also skills. And a third is the law itself. There are only a few, narrowly-defined situations where there is a federal murder law that applies.

ETA: Just a quick search gave the following results from some law firm website. I can't vouch for the accuracy, but the info sounds about right:

1. When is murder a federal offense?
Murder is charged as a federal offense whenever the killing violates a federal law. Under 18 U.S.C. 1111, the federal crime of murder is defined as the “unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” In general, there are seven scenarios when an unlawful killing violates the laws of the federal government.

These include when:

1. the murder is of a federal judge or a federal law enforcement official (e.g., an agent of the FBI, TSA, or ATF),1
2. the killing is of an immediate family member of a federal law enforcement official,2
3. the murder is of an elected or appointed federal official (e.g., the President, a Supreme Court Justice, a member of Congress, or the murder of a federal judge),3
4. the killing is committed during a bank robbery,4
5. the killing takes place aboard a ship at sea (e.g., on a vessel that is engaged in interstate commerce per the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution),5
6. the murder was designed to influence a court case,6 and
7. the killing takes place on federal property (e.g., on national parks or a Native American reservation).

Depending on the facts of the case, a murder coming under federal jurisdiction may be charged as either:

• first-degree murder, or
• second-degree murder.

First-degree murder is punishable by the death penalty (i.e., capital punishment) or imprisonment in a federal prison for life.7

Federal charges of second-degree murder are punishable by any terms of years in federal prison, as determined by the federal sentencing guidelines.

*****

I'm sure the FBI will play a very big role due to the intrastate nature of the investigation, but it's more complicated than that.

I was thinking maybe the Assimilative Crimes Act might be the key here. For those who don't know what it is, it allows the federal government to incorporate a state crime as a federal crime if there no specific federal crime that could be charged. But then this can be interesting because the body was found on federal, but if it was a murder, then where did it happen?

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-667-assimilative-crimes-act-18-usc-13

I've seen where the FBI takes the lead when it's something on federal land. But the Forest Service does have special investigators who handle routine detective work, but usually it's stuff like marijuana grows or theft. I know it's not a traditional police force. But in that case it should be easy enough for the FBI to take the lead.

https://www.fs.fed.us/lei/investigation.php

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

From what I've seen, it usually comes down to the physical evidence; if authorities feel confident that they know where the crime actually occured, then that county will be deemed to have jurisdiction; otherwise, the county where the remains were found will normally take it. The rangers usually seem to cede control to the counties fairly quickly unless a Federal law that is specific to forest lands has been violated.

Well that is interesting, it does make sense too especially about the place of the crime vs where the remains were found.

This will be something to look for then to see if it's handed off to one group over another and why or if it will be a collaboration. Jim mentioned earlier about seeing drone footage of the place she was found, I think there was talk over the conditions of the ground, etc.

 

[Marrila]

Some thoughts about their relationship from an Arches Park Ranger.
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/9...-gabby-petito-relationship-seemed-toxic-brian

 

[Dentam]

Some thoughts about their relationship from an Arches Park Ranger.
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/9...-gabby-petito-relationship-seemed-toxic-brian

Hmm - seems that she has also reached the conclusion that he killed her. That would be tough, second guessing yourself and how you handled a situation and what you might have said that could have potentially changed the outcome.

 

[Kathryn Merteuil]

At first I really thought Brian was harmless. I thought he was just some dorky guy who was afraid. After talking to people and seeing the recent developments, the more I think he was an active participant in her death.

I know I originally said he was harmless and a victim of circumstance. It is becoming clear to me that I am not a good judge of men, this is probably why I have 2 ex-husbands.