Gabby Petito

[Orion Nebula]

For the life of me I can’t figure out what his endgame is with this. Even if you have a authorities for a while what kind of life would he have?

I guess he figures at this point that running and hiding is better than prison or being executed?

 

[leeniewdw]

For the life of me I can’t figure out what his endgame is with this. Even if you have a authorities for a while what kind of life would he have?

I agree with this. He's going to be found at some point. Is the general thinking that he hasn't taken his own life? Because I feel like he'll be found if he's on the run (eventually), but if he's dead it might be a long time/never.

 

[Sinder]

For the life of me I can’t figure out what his endgame is with this. Even if you have a authorities for a while what kind of life would he have?

Maybe he hasn't given much thought to the endgame yet. He's been focusing on not being caught, and if he is truly off the grid maybe he doesn't know all that's been going on. Although not sure I really believe that but if he doesn't have a phone and he's staying out of public it might be the case.
At some point hopefully he'll come to his senses and turn himself in, or maybe his parents will talk him into it. This isn't just about him, their lives have been turned upside down, how much longer can they take that.

 

[mom2rtk]

I agree with this. He's going to be found at some point. Is the general thinking that he hasn't taken his own life? Because I feel like he'll be found if he's on the run (eventually), but if he's dead it might be a long time/never.

I think there's a chance he's taken his own life. But I also think some people just aren't capable of doing that. So who knows.

 

[JimMIA]

Do you have access to the evidence that none of us do that says it wasn't an accident?

There is one fact that we know which might rule out accidental death, and that is the coroner's designation of the case as a "homicide." Typically (although there are different definitions used by some law enforcement), when coroners use the term "homicide" they mean killed by another person.

However, there are two aspects of that which we don't know. First, as several have pointed out, it is possible to kill someone accidentally. And second, as I pointed out a while back, the toxicology reports (if they could do toxicology testing) are not back yet. Without toxicology, it's possible that she could have committed suicide, or could have died of an accidental overdose.

We can't lock on to those two "what if's" however, because we have no idea of the condition of the body, what the scene looked like where she was found, whether there was any trauma evident on the body, etc. Just way too many unknowns.

 

[leeniewdw]

However, there are two aspects of that which we don't know. First, as several have pointed out, it is possible to kill someone accidentally. And second, as I pointed out a while back, the toxicology reports (if they could do toxicology testing) are not back yet. Without toxicology, it's possible that she could have committed suicide, or could have died of an accidental overdose.

Wouldn't they then said the autopsy was inconclusive and cause of death was pending toxicology? I can't imagine they would have used the term "homicide" with literally no evidence of such.

 

[JimMIA]

Wouldn't they then said the autopsy was inconclusive and cause of death was pending toxicology? I can't imagine they would have used the term "homicide" with literally no evidence of such.

There are just too many unknowns to really know. They could have said "pending toxicology," but we don't even know if they were able to do toxicology testing.

I think it's very unlikely that they would say "inconclusive." There is way too much media attention on the case to get away with "inconclusive."

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

For the life of me I can’t figure out what his endgame is with this. Even if you have a authorities for a while what kind of life would he have?

This is totally aside from this situation but there's a mini-docuseries on Netflix called Cocaine Cowboys. One of the persons involved became a fugitive for 26 years before eventually being caught in 2017. He was caught in Kissimmee, FL where most of the action was occurring during the time of the crime in Miami so not that far really. I don't know if he left the country at some point and came back. But in any case I kept thinking when they mentioned him a few times as being a fugitive how living that would be like. And I believe this guy had his family with him.

If Brian is on the run I don't think he has that much time to be on the run especially these days. I'd like to think he hasn't killed himself because you're right it's not something just any of us could necessarily do (lot of psychological things going on for that part) but on the other hand it's totally possible. I really would hate either way for this case to be one of the "don't know what really happened" things, like unfortunately there are so many others. Scott Peterson has been mentioned several times throughout the thread but at least there was a more clear picture as to what led up to things. Here it's mostly in the dark.

 

[leeniewdw]

There are just too many unknowns to really know. They could have said "pending toxicology," but we don't even know if they were able to do toxicology testing.

I think it's very unlikely that they would say "inconclusive." There is way too much media attention on the case to get away with "inconclusive."

So you are instead suggesting someone would compromise their professional reputation by lying in a very public case? And if they arrested and charged him tomorrow, they actually have to make a case against him. They can't just say "homicide" without proving it.

 

[mjkacmom]

This is totally aside from this situation but there's a mini-docuseries on Netflix called Cocaine Cowboys. One of the persons involved became a fugitive for 26 years before eventually being caught in 2017. He was caught in Kissimmee, FL where most of the action was occurring during the time of the crime in Miami so not that far really. I don't know if he left the country at some point and came back. But in any case I kept thinking when they mentioned him a few times as being a fugitive how living that would be like. And I believe this guy had his family with him.

If Brian is on the run I don't think he has that much time to be on the run especially these days. I'd like to think he hasn't killed himself because you're right it's not something just any of us could necessarily do (lot of psychological things going on for that part) but on the other hand it's totally possible. I really would hate either way for this case to be one of the "don't know what really happened" things, like unfortunately there are so many others. Scott Peterson has been mentioned several times throughout the thread but at least there was a more clear picture as to what led up to things. Here it's mostly in the dark.

I love true crime shows and hate those that aren’t solved in the end. I would think if the parents suspected that he is capable of suicide they’d be doing every possible to cooperate with the authorities. Their actions are the only thing that’s making me think he is still alive, or at least they think he is.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

Body cam footage from a second officer has been released and this one, from Officer Pratt, is much more problematic in my view regarding how the officers handled it. I’m not going to recap the whole thing, but I’m going to hit upon the parts that stood out to me. Fair warning, this post is going to be lengthy.

The video starts with Officer Pratt approaching Brian in the driver’s seat and saying “We got a call about a male hitting a female.” So, from the very beginning, Pratt is fully aware that at least one of the witnesses claimed to have seen Brian hitting Gabby.

He goes to talk to Gabby. He points out that she has a cut and other marks on her face and marks on her arm. [Were these injuries ever documented? Unless the female park ranger photographed these at some point off-camera, it doesn’t appear that they were. Whereas with Brian, they were very thorough in documenting his injuries. They took photos of all the marks they could find on him including an old injury that Brian said was “from a wire,” then they had him step behind the van and lift his shirt and pull down his collar so they could be sure they weren’t missing anything.] Pratt asks Gabby how she got the marks and she initially says she doesn’t know. He presses for an answer and she next tries to say they might have come from a backpack. Pratt tells her they have two independent witnesses saying they saw Brian hitting her. She responds “Well, to be honest, I definitely hit him first.” [Notice that she doesn’t say he didn’t hit her, just that she hit him first.] Pratt asks again if Brian hit her and she says “I guess. I guess, yeah.” Then she changes it to saying he didn’t hit her, just that he grabbed her face and talks about how the cut on her face burns.

The first officer we got body cam footage from, Officer Robbins, and Pratt talk out of earshot from Brian and and Gabby. Robbins says he’s getting conflicting stories from them about why the van swerved and hit the curb. Brian is saying Gabby grabbed the wheel, Gabby is saying she hit Brian once in the arm when she saw they were being pulled over. Pratt says it “sounds legit.” If someone was hitting his arm he’d probably end up swerving too, and that Brian was likely trying to cover for Gabby by not being truthful that she hit him because he doesn’t want her to get in trouble.

Pratt goes to his car and calls one of the two witnesses, Chris. Chris says what we’ve already discussed a million times — he saw a scuffle but couldn’t really tell if they were play fighting or real fighting and he didn’t know who may have been the aggressor, nor could he tell if Brian was shoving Gabby in aggression or self-defense.

The next 15 minutes of the video consist of the officers talking both amongst themselves and with Brian and Gabby about how this situation meets the definition of a domestic assault and how they must, by law, bring charges. Pratt tells Gabby they have witnesses saying the marks on Brian were caused by her slapping him. [Huh? Who said that?] He says they have no witnesses saying Brian was hitting her aggressively. [The second witness, the one who called 911, said the man was slapping and hitting the woman. Remember, Pratt was aware of this as it was the first thing out of his mouth when he arrived.] A minute or two later, Pratt’s story morphs into “two witnesses saying you (Gabby) were the primary aggressor.” [Neither witness said this and the second witness Pratt never called actually said the opposite.] In a hindsight that will make everyone queasy, Pratt says to Gabby “You probably could not physically destroy this man the way that he could if he attacked you,” and continues to emphasize that he has no choice but to charge Gabby for domestic assault. Gabby is very upset and anxious about the idea of being separated from Brian for the night. Pratt says, “I lawfully don’t have discretion here. There’s nothing any cop can do about it — it’s written into the law.”

He then spends the next 15 minutes trying to find a way to not uphold the law. [Seriously, it’s really unsettling to watch a police officer put so much time and effort into finding a way to skirt the law.] He calls the Assistant Chief asking if there’s a way to get out of having to charge her, incorrectly saying that both witnesses are telling the same story as Brian. The Assistant Chief doesn’t give him the out he’s looking for so he gets off the phone and pulls up the statute on his computer to see if he can interpret it in a way that allows him to not charge Gabby. Robbins comes to the car window and Pratt starts making his case, starting with this very unfortunate choice of words:

“The reason why they don’t give us discretion on these things is because too many times women who are at risk want to go back to their abuser. They just wanted him to stop and they don’t want to have to be separated, they don’t want him to be charged, they don’t want him to go to jail, and then they end up getting worse and worse treatment and then they end up getting killed.”

Robbins protests that the situation warrants a charge. Pratt debates, arguing that the statute can be interpreted to mean that everything hinges on what Gabby’s intent was when she slapped him. If she intended to cause him pain or physical impairment then she needs to be charged and if she didn’t intend to cause him pain or physical impairment then she doesn’t. They go to ask her, Pratt first coaching her that the question they were about to ask was “very, very important,” that how she answered would determine what happened next, and to “think very hard” before answering.

“When you slapped him, were you attempting to cause him physical pain or physical impairment?”

She says no, that her intention was to get Brian to stop telling her to calm down. Pratt says with a victorious tone that it didn’t sound like she was attempting to injure him and then put it on Robbins to make the decision about whether to charge her.

Robbins and Pratt step aside to discuss it privately and Robbins again expresses his concerns that this is a case of domestic assault. Pratt further presses for this to be dropped, but claims he doesn’t care either way and will support Robbins’ decision. [I’m curious about who outranks who here.] Robbins says he wants to do a crime report, holding off on bringing charges for the moment, and have a city attorney review the case first. Pratt pushes back against that idea.

The officers pause for a few moments to listen as another call comes through. Pratt says he should take it. Robbins says he’s going to cite Gabby. Pratt asks if Robbins would be more comfortable leaving to take the other call that just came through and Robbins says yes. Pratt starts encouraging Robbins to just separate Brian and Gabby for the night without charges, tells Robbins “I trust you,” slaps Robbins on the shoulder and leaves to take the other call. Robbins relents and opts to not charge Gabby as we know from the previously released body cam footage.

 

[neverlandsky]

Let’s recap:
*Incident involving victim and suspect of interest on LE body cam.
*Death by homicide. The physical cause of death is homicide so gun shot/shots, strangled, defense wounds, bruising, blunt forced trauma, etc.
*All circumstantial evidence so far. FBI no doubt is looking direct evidence. Hence the returns to residence. They are looking for the smoking gun. Blood splatter perhaps. Only need 1 drop. Items that can cause bruising.
*Warrant for suspect of interest due to direct evidence debit card charges which took place after time of death.
*2 witnesses confirming suspect of interest odd behavior.
*Video of vehicle in the vicinity of where body was found.
*Person of interest returns and immediate lawyers up and takes the 5th.
*Person of interest & their family goes yay let’s vacay while future spouse/daughter in-law missing.
*Person of interest & unidentified older women purchase new cellphone. Video turned over to FBI.
*Person of interest goes missing. They are a survivalist and are well equipped to survive outdoors.
*Person of interest Instagram goes live with video on boat on water and immediately taken down.

With recapping Person of Interest behaviors don’t even match up to suicidal tendencies. All tendencies of person of interest has been survival, hiding, protecting, & fleeing.

 

[JimMIA]

So you are instead suggesting someone would compromise their professional reputation by lying in a very public case? And if they arrested and charged him tomorrow, they actually have to make a case against him. They can't just say "homicide" without proving it.

I'm not suggesting anything. "Homicide" is a classification used by coroners. There is no such crime as homicide.

They would have to have probable cause to arrest him for murder, manslaughter, culpable negligence, or whatever the applicable crimes are in Wyoming.

 

[KathyTX]

Attention!!!

Please discuss the topic, and avoid attacking or insulting other posters. If someone annoys you, use the IGNORE feature rather than arguing with them here.

 

[leeniewdw]

I'm not suggesting anything.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth by saying "suggesting", but here you say:

There is way too much media attention on the case to get away with "inconclusive."

That, to me, sounded like a suggestion that they chose to say "homicide" rather than something else (or nothing). That, to me, seemed like you were saying whomever decided to use that language did so for reasons other than their findings.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Let’s recap:
*Incident involving victim and suspect of interest on LE body cam.
*Death by homicide. The physical cause of death is homicide so gun shot/shots, strangled, defense wounds, bruising, blunt forced trauma, etc.
*All circumstantial evidence so far. FBI no doubt is looking direct evidence. Hence the returns to residence. They are looking for the smoking gun. Blood splatter perhaps. Only need 1 drop. Items that can cause bruising.
*Warrant for suspect of interest due to direct evidence debit card charges which took place after time of death.
*2 witnesses confirming suspect of interest odd behavior.
*Video of vehicle in the vicinity of where body was found.
*Person of interest returns and immediate lawyers up and takes the 5th.
*Person of interest & their family goes yay let’s vacay while future spouse/daughter in-law missing.
*Person of interest & unidentified older women purchase new cellphone. Video turned over to FBI.
*Person of interest goes missing. They are a survivalist and are well equipped to survive outdoors.
*Person of interest Instagram goes live with video on boat on water and immediately taken down.

With recapping Person of Interest behaviors don’t even match up to suicidal tendencies. All tendencies of person of interest has been survival, hiding, protecting, & fleeing.

I don't disagree with what you're saying. I guess in my mind IF he ended up killing himself it wasn't necessarily walk out into the woods and do it. I was thinking it's entirely possible eventually he felt backed into a corner with no way realistically out. Being able to survive in the wilderness on your own doesn't mean your mind will stay thinking the course of just keep running just keep running. I really don't know that he did that, I'd like to think he hasn't but I can discount that it's totally possible he has.

 

[DLgal]

For the life of me I can’t figure out what his endgame is with this. Even if you have a authorities for a while what kind of life would he have?

Well, at this point he has not been accused of murder. All they can get him on is some relatively low level theft. Perhaps he feels like if he hides long enough, and there is never any solid evidence to tie him to Gabby's death, in the end it won't be so bad? This is all I can come up with. He'll spend the rest of his life being vilified either way, though.

 

[GreatLakes]

Well, at this point he has not been accused of murder. All they can get him on is some relatively low level theft. Perhaps he feels like if he hides long enough, and there is never any solid evidence to tie him to Gabby's death, in the end it won't be so bad? This is all I can come up with. He'll spend the rest of his life being vilified either way, though.

This is where I'm at as well. If he did kill her, whether on purpose or by accident, he will be caught or die in the process (actual suicide or suicide by cop) but if he knows he didn't do it he might be waiting out new information to be found. I don't think that is the smart move in that case but it's all I've got as far as a "plan". I think it is more likely there is no actual plan other than runs as long as possible.

 

[JimMIA]

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth by saying "suggesting",

No worries, I didn't take it that way. Just trying to clarify.

That, to me, sounded like a suggestion that they chose to say "homicide" rather than something else (or nothing). That, to me, seemed like you were saying whomever decided to use that language did so for reasons other than their findings.

I guess my sense is sort of in the middle. Obviously, a finding of would have been unacceptable. I don't think they would lie, but neither would they say "inconclusive" on their worst day.

So, to me, "homicide" could mean several things.

• One, there may have been obvious traumatic injury which would clearly indicate murder. That would yield a finding of "homicide" from the coroner.
• There could have been something about the scene where her body was found which indicated other than natural death -- for example, if the body was found buried. That would yield a finding of "homicide" from the coroner...meaning "we don't know how she died yet, but this stimulates our spidey senses."
• They could be awaiting toxicology results, but non-forensic information in the case makes them think a non-natural cause of death. For example, the fact that there was a domestic dispute two weeks earlier (regardless how anyone interprets that), plus the fact that Brian left and drove 2,000 miles, plus the fact that he is refusing to cooperate, plus the fact that his whereabouts are now unknown. Coroners use the entire case situation to evaluate what they see, so those non-forensic facts could yield a finding of "homicide" from the coroner. But keep in mind that "homicide" does not equal "murder."

All of these types of investigations are much more complicated than lay people realize -- which is why I haven't reached any conclusions, and won't until ALL the facts come out. And at that point, we will all know what happened.

 

[neverlandsky]

Reward to find Person of Interest now up to $180K.