Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #24

Status
Not open for further replies.

MKZoo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
505
Reaction score
6,863
Hoo boy. Prayers for the safety of anyone who has to dive in a flooded swamp. I’m grateful for all of these searchers doing dangerous and exhausting work to try to bring answers to GP’s family.

IMO.
 

thebedbug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
167
Reaction score
1,359
I feel like you simply chose the option that fit your agenda. It is entirely possible they were two separate events. And if he was previously slapping and chasing her, I understand why she would be fighting to get back in. Additionally, that is NOT the entire 911 call as there was quite a bit of discussion following that portion.

  • Please explain how these are two separate events. The 2nd witness was standing outside and observed this. There is no indication he missed GP and BL engaged in some wild chase up and down the street.
  • I'm not choosing anything to fit my agenda. My agenda is to determine what happened based on all of the facts/accounts/reports.
  • Nowhere, except in people's interpretation of this exact line "They ran up and down the sidewalk" does anyone say BP was chasing her up and down the street. Nowhere. Didn't happen. Again, no wild chase sequence.
  • I did not say it was the entire 911 call. You did not read my comment carefully. It IS the entire content of the call that discusses the physical incident. Full transcript is easily available.
 

Rocky Mountain Hi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
181
Reaction score
1,432
Just to kind of illustrate the "telephone effect" here is the EXACT and ENTIRE conflict description from the transcript of the 911 call:

DISPATCHER: "What were they doing?"
CALLER: "Uh, we drove by and the gentleman was slapping the girl."
DISPATCHER: "He was slapping her?"
CALLER: "Yes and then we stopped. They ran up and down the sidewalk. He proceeded to hit her, hopped in the car and they drove off."

That's it. Nothing more. Those 2 lines have taken on a life of their own on this forum and others. What's also important to note is we DO have another perspective - one that is more detailed and one that MUST cover the same incident BECAUSE it also ends with them getting in the van.

"At approximately 4:30 p.m., I arrived at Moonflower. While standing on the south side of the street, I observed a man and woman appear to have some sort of a dispute. They were talking aggressively at each other and something seemed off. At one point they were sort of fighting over a phone, I think the male took the female's phone. It appeared that he didn't want her in the white van. He got into the drivers seat and she followed him. At one point she was punching him in the arm and/or face and trying to get into the van. "

She eventually climbed in over him and over the passenger seat. I heard her say, "Why do you have to be so mean?" I wasn't sure how serious this was - it was hard to tell if it was sort of play fighting, but from my point of view something definitely didn't seem right. It was as if this guy was trying to leave her, and maybe take her phone? Not sure but wanted to help out. I noticed another person had called this in, and as soon as I left the store, I noticed a police officer and gave him my contact info."

The second witness isn't minimizing the incident. He says it looked wrong - but he also isn't reporting them chasing each other up and down the street and BL beating on GP. His description is WAY more detailed and I think gives a better idea what was going on. Then - you marry that to what GP and BL both said (when separated) and you look at the physical evidence and I think you can tell what happened.

And I'll also point out - it's not logical to just look at those 2 lines from the 911 call and decide a worst-case interpretation of them is the way to go. Willful ignorance is the term, I think.
Thanks for this perspective.
 

kspoon45

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2018
Messages
258
Reaction score
3,235
John Walsh questions if Brian Laundrie ever went home to Florida

"In Pursuit" host John Walsh says he didn't think Brian Laundrie ever went to the Carlton Reserve and wonders whether anyone had seen Laundrie since he returned to his family home.

Despite not fully understanding why LE has been on/off the search of the reserve, I'd hope that LE has some indication outside of conversations with the parents that BL has been in the area and remains there or close by. I can't imagine any scenario why they would be sinking this amount of manpower with dogs, drones, helicopters, etc. without a strong indication that they are on the right path.

It's exciting to see the dogs in action. We've got a baby GSD and she's a handful - it's good to see a reminder that the grow-up into amazing adult dogs. :D Hopefully, those dogs find what they're after today.
 

LeeJay55

Former Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2021
Messages
660
Reaction score
3,669
I think this is a crime of passion! I do not think it was planned or premeditated!
I believe she wanted to end the relationship
He couldn’t dea
It would depend on how long you plan to hike. I like to hike late in the day to avoid the sun and heat. Or he might have just gone to sit in the woods and block out the world. No need for anything other than flip flops in that case. The parents might have thought he was coming back and then he texted later that he was staying over night, or going on the lam. So they went to get his car to bring it home, or they went to get his car so they could drive him a 100 miles away before returning.
I.live here.in North Port!
There is no way u hike.out to the reserve at this.time.
We have.torrential rains every day lately. It has been un godly hot!
The mosquitoes alone will.eat u alive! The grounds are saturated thismplace.is.flooded!
Not a place.for.flip flops!
I did t think he was in there but LE seems.to.keep going back!
Hope.hes found !
 

MadMcGoo

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
21,101
Just to kind of illustrate the "telephone effect" here is the EXACT and ENTIRE conflict description from the transcript of the 911 call:

DISPATCHER: "What were they doing?"
CALLER: "Uh, we drove by and the gentleman was slapping the girl."
DISPATCHER: "He was slapping her?"
CALLER: "Yes and then we stopped. They ran up and down the sidewalk. He proceeded to hit her, hopped in the car and they drove off."

That's it. Nothing more. Those 2 lines have taken on a life of their own on this forum and others. What's also important to note is we DO have another perspective - one that is more detailed and one that MUST cover the same incident BECAUSE it also ends with them getting in the van.

"At approximately 4:30 p.m., I arrived at Moonflower. While standing on the south side of the street, I observed a man and woman appear to have some sort of a dispute. They were talking aggressively at each other and something seemed off. At one point they were sort of fighting over a phone, I think the male took the female's phone. It appeared that he didn't want her in the white van. He got into the drivers seat and she followed him. At one point she was punching him in the arm and/or face and trying to get into the van. "

She eventually climbed in over him and over the passenger seat. I heard her say, "Why do you have to be so mean?" I wasn't sure how serious this was - it was hard to tell if it was sort of play fighting, but from my point of view something definitely didn't seem right. It was as if this guy was trying to leave her, and maybe take her phone? Not sure but wanted to help out. I noticed another person had called this in, and as soon as I left the store, I noticed a police officer and gave him my contact info."

The second witness isn't minimizing the incident. He says it looked wrong - but he also isn't reporting them chasing each other up and down the street and BL beating on GP. His description is WAY more detailed and I think gives a better idea what was going on. Then - you marry that to what GP and BL both said (when separated) and you look at the physical evidence and I think you can tell what happened.

And I'll also point out - it's not logical to just look at those 2 lines from the 911 call and decide a worst-case interpretation of them is the way to go. Willful ignorance is the term, I think.
Thank you for posting this. You put into words my very thoughts.
 

mitzy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
83
Reaction score
765
Just to kind of illustrate the "telephone effect" here is the EXACT and ENTIRE conflict description from the transcript of the 911 call:

DISPATCHER: "What were they doing?"
CALLER: "Uh, we drove by and the gentleman was slapping the girl."
DISPATCHER: "He was slapping her?"
CALLER: "Yes and then we stopped. They ran up and down the sidewalk. He proceeded to hit her, hopped in the car and they drove off."

That's it. Nothing more. Those 2 lines have taken on a life of their own on this forum and others. What's also important to note is we DO have another perspective - one that is more detailed and one that MUST cover the same incident BECAUSE it also ends with them getting in the van.

"At approximately 4:30 p.m., I arrived at Moonflower. While standing on the south side of the street, I observed a man and woman appear to have some sort of a dispute. They were talking aggressively at each other and something seemed off. At one point they were sort of fighting over a phone, I think the male took the female's phone. It appeared that he didn't want her in the white van. He got into the drivers seat and she followed him. At one point she was punching him in the arm and/or face and trying to get into the van. "

She eventually climbed in over him and over the passenger seat. I heard her say, "Why do you have to be so mean?" I wasn't sure how serious this was - it was hard to tell if it was sort of play fighting, but from my point of view something definitely didn't seem right. It was as if this guy was trying to leave her, and maybe take her phone? Not sure but wanted to help out. I noticed another person had called this in, and as soon as I left the store, I noticed a police officer and gave him my contact info."

The second witness isn't minimizing the incident. He says it looked wrong - but he also isn't reporting them chasing each other up and down the street and BL beating on GP. His description is WAY more detailed and I think gives a better idea what was going on. Then - you marry that to what GP and BL both said (when separated) and you look at the physical evidence and I think you can tell what happened.

And I'll also point out - it's not logical to just look at those 2 lines from the 911 call and decide a worst-case interpretation of them is the way to go. Willful ignorance is the term, I think.

I feel like you simply chose the option that fit your agenda. It is entirely possible they were two separate events. And if he was previously slapping and chasing her, I understand why she would be fighting to get back in. Additionally, that is NOT the entire 911 call as there was quite a bit of discussion following that portion.

Okay just because one witness has a more detailed description, doesn't mean the other witness' report isn't valid.

As people we're all different. Some memorize details really well, while other are more straightforward and will only relay the most important information.

I think both witness reports matter and I think they paint the whole picture.

MOO - Gabby and BL are fighting. He starts slapping her. They run up and down the sidewalk. She could be chasing him if he has the keys and the phone. He continues to hit her. They end up at the van and "hop in". What "hop in" is, is him getting in the passenger seat and her trying to get her things or get inside so he doesn't leave her. They fight some more, she pushes him to get inside. And "hop" they are in the van driving off.

It is clear to me that one witness only shared the most important bits, probably in an effort to get the LE involved as fast as possible and get them on their way to help her. BL hit Gabby, then they got in the van and now they are gone, driving down Main St (iirc). That's all the police need to go after them in that moment.

I don't understand why for some people one witness is more credible then the other. Interestingly so, you are trying to ignore the very clear message that "the gentleman was slapping the girl". YOU DON'T SLAP YOUR GIRLFRIEND. YOU DON'T HIT HER. YOU DON'T TAKE HER PHONE. Her possibly hitting back or pushing him away from her (which is how I think he got the marks on his face, IMO he was holding her by the neck and she was trying to get him to let go), to either help herself or get HER things isn't her abusing him. He abused her, evidently in more ways than one. Victims can strike back, it doesn't change the reality of the situation.
 

SandSage

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
2,791
It is and it's not. While some dogs excel at a certain thing (ie; a little breeds) they're rarely used in real life police scenarios where natural ability, drive, stamina, size, precision,etc have to come into play. A GSD has 250+ million olfactory receptors a Labrador or bloodhound has around 300 million whereas a smaller dog will have 100-125 million and a human about 6 million.

Which is why you see hounds, shepherds and occasionally Labradors as the primary dogs used in police work. When you see bloodhounds, coonhounds or beagles with their nose to the ground you can almost count on the fact that they are trailing. They might be trained to do other things but trailing is where they excel.

GSD's , malinois, and labs tend to excel at tracking and air scenting and/or cadaver work. They have more stamina and drive then their hound cousins. You'll also see collie SAR dogs but more often in disaster or urban work- they're prized for having a high hunt drive, being agile and working independently.

When you're looking at a police situation they're using the best of the best dogs in each category so if you know their breed strengths you can ponder a pretty good guess at what that dog is doing.

MOO - The dog in the twitter link is very likely highly skilled- going by it's age. He or she is getting closish to retirement. I'd bet she's capable of tracking/ air scenting and cadaver and she probably excels above and beyond at one of those.

Fantastic information. Thank you for this!
 

Lillymac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
2,796
Reaction score
17,875
Hard for me to consider that the image matched reality... even relative to diet. After all, Petito is/was said to be a vegan... yet there is a photo (from the fateful trip, I believe) depicting her eating chili cheese fries. Sooooo, who knows what a really hungry guy will eat.
He mentions melon rinds in one video. I googled melon rinds and was shocked. Seems that rinds, particularly watermelon, are very healthy and totally edible. He maybe eating palm hearts and coconuts he's found.
 

JerseyGirl

Forum Coordinator
Staff member
Forum Coordinators
Joined
May 15, 2013
Messages
49,176
Reaction score
152,624

bellyup

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
2,506
Reaction score
14,468
I'm incredibly unnerved by the idea that when the couple drove by and recorded the white van parked at Spread Creek, we now know BL was likely inside the back, hiding. I've read that there was a small foot bridge nearby. I now wonder if that bridge is the very reason he parked in that spot, so he could more easily carry her body across the water. It seems like if she died elsewhere and he carried her there, he would have chosen a more wooded location, though. But I guess maybe he needed something easy to traverse, maybe at night?

I don't think there is any chance that GP's body was in the van. This would have taken a huge turn with LE actions much earlier if a dog hit on decomp when they took that van. He would have been being watched day and night and wouldn't have been able to run and hide IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top