To think the Gabby Petito bodycam footage is beyond distressing

[Tricho]

Just watching this on netflix

The bodycam footage of her is one of the hardest things I've watched, an utterly terrified and distraught sweet, sweet girl

How her mother watched it I'll never know, I was sobbing.

No you re- read the post, she said she was abused yes but her 'other perspective' appeared to be that being in close confines caused the murder!

If it wasn't that then why was she saying she is giving 'an alternative perspective'.

I don't need to hear excuses for Laundries behaviour.

She wasn't asking for it. It wasn't the environment that led him to do it.

Complete victim blaming bollocks.

Emasculated just means his ego was dented because he can't handle criticism, he can only dish it out. Note how there is no word to describe the same against a female, because we're just meant to roll over and take it. It's pure misogyny, and adds no weight whatsoever to his 'defence'.

This relationship was clearly unhealthy before they left for the road trip. On paper you ask why on earth would you keep on with this? But that’s to not understand the complex nature of coercive control. She thought she was in love with him. It’s very sad.

I agree the main cop was relating back to his own experience with his anxious wife - apparently you just need a shower. Thus minimised her experience. So much more is needed on helping women extricate themselves from these abusive situations that maybe appear relatively benign.

I wasn't talking specifically about this case. Just that there has been issues with past Netflix shows discussed before. A tendency to skew perceptions one way or another.

So what are you saying is being misrepresented?

He killed her.

Are you suggesting that Netflix are misrepresenting facts and it is somehow her fault he murdered her?

Because otherwise what was the point in your post?

Educate young women? Yes but you don’t mention educating young men to….er…not be abusive?
And there are lots of reasons why women don’t leave in these situations, so blaming a woman for not leaving is really short sighted. Maybe he had beaten her down to the extent she believed it was all her fault. Maybe he kept being really apologetic and convincing her he would change and she wanted to believe him.

What stood out most to me about the footage is what a good example of how ignorance around domestic abuse, sexism and misogyny exists in mainstream society much of the time. Sexism isn't always rape and violence, it's an undercurrent that impacts how people behave. How it exists in plain sight amongst potentially outwardly facing good men, and that it is not always the Andrew Tates of the world perpetrating this which causes the "Not All Men" defenders, when they can't match Tate up to their husband, but I bet many could with that police officer.

He wasn't a really horrible police officer throwing his dick around, he sounded like a reasonable man, who sounded like he wanted to help, I believe his intentions were good and he wanted to help the situation. But he was so totally misguided and misinformed by his own bias and misconceptions that he made the completely wrong and inappropriate call, and it demonstrates how dangerous and engrained these attitudes are.

Obviously you haven’t watched this particular documentary so I have no idea why you’d wade in with a comment about Netflix making things up for entertainment.

Two documentaries recently, both Netflix, both came across that women were aggressors prior to their murder whilst the men were painted as saints (American Murder was the second...)

Leaving her with the van gave her the space and means to leave.

If this is what they thought then they are idiots. She's in what is clearly an abusive relationship, apologising for her behaviour. Did they really think she would take off, leaving him stranded?

I'm sure, after the fact this seemed like an excellent excuse for that decision. Perfect for victim blaming, why didn't she just leave? They did not encourage her to leave, to go home, they just said give it 24 hours to cool off. They did not leave her the van so she could escape him.

I know! And the way the police officer was so dismissive about her being missing and him and the parents refusing to talk at all, when he has her van on the drive and won’t even talk about where she is, insane. He probably wouldn’t have been able to sneak off and do what he did to himself and create some stupid fake narrative in that note if they had taken it more seriously earlier.

Just watching the documentary now .. what’s going on with the people outside the Laundrie house.. treating it like it’s some kind of street party. Filming themselves, selfies, bright clothes… idiots.

Reminds me of all those Nicola Bulley amateur detectives.. treating it like a game.

I think the police did more than they would have done in the UK. It was her van so it couldn’t be given to him so that’s why he was put in hotel. Not shown on the documentary but police suggested she might want to drive home and questioned if she had money for fuel. She told police she was the attacker (even though she probably didn’t) so what more could the police do. It looked a very toxic relationship. Police are between rock and a hard place with domestic violence cases

What was the part earlier in the documentary when she stayed with his parents? The mother was not very nice to her I recall? I wonder if she made tensions worse behind the scenes?

I also remember that somewhere she kept saying I don’t deserve him, so perhaps she felt she was lucky to keep getting him back after the arguments. Although that doesn’t tally up with the last call to her ex-boyfriend that she wanted to get out.

It’s such a shame, a more dramatic approach would be that when the mother got those calls about them having a fight and him being in a hotel, the mother would just go and heavy handedly intervene but I guess life isn’t like that. Same with the ex when she said she’s only alone for one night but wants to get out of the relationship. He said be careful.

l’m trying to take learnings for warning signs in the future but somewhat lost.

The fact the police were there and talked about things like this ending up with murder and then wanting to avoid it, is upsetting given their conclusion didn't help.

Did anyone watch the women of hour film. I couldn’t believe the number of attempts to alert authorities but they were outright ignored.

Apologies, I don’t have any answers but interested in the insightful comments and opinions on this thread.

No where does it say that the police gave her the van as it was hers and that is why he was put in a hotel. He was put in a hotel because they deemed Gabby to be the aggressor - it was a domestic abuse hotel. In any case, leaving a woman on her own in a distressed state was not appropriate. An independent review found that the police officers did not follow protocol for DV in Utah even at the time. In DV they should have sighted Gabby and put a report into prosecutors if they felt she was the primary aggressor. They didnt, they incorrectly deemed it as 'disorderly conduct' which meant nothing was followed up on. The report also found:

• that they failed to investigate the marks on Gabby
• that they disproportionality sided with Brian
• that they failed to follow up on the 911 call citing Brian as the aggressor
• that they did not take any written witness statements
• that they incorrectly classified the event
• that they did not follow Utah DV procedures

Both officer were put on extended probation.

Even if they had continued with Gabby as the aggressor but followed the DV procedures things may have turned out differently. Making up reasons why the police acted they the did masks the misogyny in the system. Gabbys' father have heled with implementing a new law including '12 questions' that must be asked in DV cases.

I remember watching it at the time, and thinking the police were in a very difficult position.

They are faced with two people, one of which has a visible scratch on his face, with Gabby stating she had assaulted him. Both parties said she was the aggressor. They could have arrested someone, but chose not to. At the time a lot of people felt that the reason they didn't arrest Gabby was because she was female, slight, and police tend to give violent women the benefit of the doubt.

It's easy to say in hindsight what the police should have done but they didn't have a crystal ball. They could only go by what they observed, and what the people involved were stating. The witness said they'd seen Brian hit Gabby, but the police didn't see it and it wasn't caught on any recording I believe.

Gabby was absolutely the victim here, but I don't blame the officers for not somehow deducing that. Moving to a stance of assuming in all couples where violence is reported the man must be the aggressor leads to violence against men being ignored and excused away. They tried to de-escalate and give them both space to cool off rather than arresting either of them. If they'd arrested Gabby then perhaps things would have turned out differently. But perhaps not.

It's a tragedy all around and I truly feel for the officers who felt in the moment they were doing the right thing by getting the victim to a place of safety, only to realise later their actions may have contributed to her murder. But Brian chose to murder Gabby. Him. Nobody else. People just find it easier to blame others when the true aggressor is dead.

So what was the excuse for the other 44,000 or so deaths of women (annually worldwide) who weren't on a road trip?
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/nov/23/un-femicide-report-women-girls-data

Meant for mehmeh22

But they didn't do the right thing even if they thought she was the aggressor. They didnt categorise this as DV, they didnt take witness statements or provide any support which they were meant to have done. They didnt need a crystal ball - they needed to follow their own procedures in place at the time, and they didn't.

How did you find this out please? I also didn't like how he minimised what she was going through and wondered if he was just as patronising with his wife - have a shower dear sort of thing.

Oh I agree. They should have responded far more forcefully, in line with their training. My point is that I understand why they believed Gabby was the abuser. Most of the criticism they received was about them not recognising Brian as the aggressor, not judging them harshly for not having arrested Gabby.

I would highly recommend Laura Richards, formerly of the UK whose podcast 'Crime Analyst' looks into Petito's case.

www.crime-analyst.com/p/case-003/

Richardis a prominent advocate for women in these kinds of relationships and is an expert in coercive control and leads training for police forces in the UK & USA.

Gabby had visible marks. One of the officers is on camera commenting on them. Plus they had the witness who saw Brian hit her. This was discounted and shouldn't have been (and has been discounted by a shocking number of posters here too).

There is footage of Brian laughing and joking with the officers that 'women are crazy.' this is misogyny in action.

Putting aside the fact that the officers didn't follow procedure, it shows clearly that the training around DV isn't working. They cannot spot coercive control when it is right in front of them. They don't know what it looks like.

Coercively controlled women will say it's their fault, and often believe it, because they've been brainwashed by their abuser.

They will deny marks and bruises. They will often want to stay with the abuser because they are terrified of what will happen if they don't.

If those officers understood anything about coercive control, they would know this. You cannot take what is being said at face value.

It is also very common for abusive men to push and push until there's some physical reaction from the woman. Brian's explanation that he was merely defending himself was immediately accepted, but no-one seems to be asking whether the scratches on his face were defensive marks. Several posters on here have said the scratches are clear evidence that she attacked him. Why? Why not clear evidence that she was defending herself?

It is just easier to blame women for what men do.

I respectfully disagree. I think their decision was steeped in misogyny. I cannot believe how they decided gabby was the abuser and didnt follow up based on:

• 911 call which stated the MAN was slapping the woman
• Gabby's presentation
• Brian's presentation
• Gabby's injuries

At the very very least the 911call should have been followed up on. I honestly at a loss to understand how you would side with a laughing joking man describing his girlfriend as 'mad' and saying that he hoped she didnt complain about him, against a crying, shaking, distressed woman with marks on her and a witnesses who saw the man slapping her.

@CheekySnake yes! The first thing I thought when officer referred to his anxious wife was hmmm, what are you like behind the scenes officer.

I've dealt with narc/sociopathic people. Not at this level, but I understand it. I understand the dynamic here well.

I do see how Police are you to struggle here. How can they prove this if they suspect coercive control when the victim is so deep in the brainwashing / being controlled and confused that she's offering herself up as responsible.

The typical calm demeanor of the perpetrator is so painful as I've experienced this with people. They have an ability to stay calm because they don't feel like normal non personality disordered people. His mum knew he was not the same as other people. She always knew. She's bloody abnormal also.

I'm curious what a better outcome could have looked like with the Police situation. Even with better training ( needed!), they have to cover their ass of course. And how many Police officers are themselves personality disordered wronguns quite frankly.