Gabby Petito: Brian Laundrie Analysis by Delle Shepherd

 

 

                                                                        Gabby Petito 

 

Gabby Petito, 22, was an aspiring ‘Vanlife’ blogger who went missing in late August during a cross-country road trip from New York to Oregon with her fiancé Brian Laundrie.  Her body was found in a Wyoming national park.  Brian Laundrie was later found dead in Myakkahatchee Creek Environmental Park, apparently having committed suicide. 

Here follows the note left by Brian Laundrie, with analysis.  

 

Gabby, 

 

I wish I was right at your side, I wish I could be talking to you right now. I’d be going through every memory we’ve made, getting even more excited for the future. But we’ve lost our future.  I can’t live without you. I’ve lost every day we could’ve spent together. Every holiday. I’ll never get to play with [unintelligible] again. Never go hiking with TJ. I Loved you more than anything. I can’t bear to look at our photos, to recall great times because it is why I cannot go on. When I close my eyes I will think of laying on the roof of the van, falling asleep to the sight of a meteor shower at the crystal geyser. I will always love you.

 

If you were reading Gabs journal, looking at the photos from our life together, fliping (sic) through old cards you wouldn’t want to live a day without her. Knowing that everyday you’ll wake up without her, you wouldn’t want to wake up. I’m sorry to everyone this will affect, Gabby was the love of my life, but I know adored by many. I’m so very sorry to her family, because I love them. I’d consider her younger siblings, my best of friends … I am sorry to my family. This is a shock to them as well as a terrible greif (sic). 

 

They loved as much, if not more than me. A new daughter to my mother, an aunt to my nei[hews (sic). Please do not make this harder for them. this occurred as an unexpected tragedy. Rushing back to our car trying to cross the streams of spread creek before it got too dark to see, to (sic) cold. I hear a splash and a scream. I could barely see, I couldn’t find her for a moment, shouted her name. I found her breathing heavily gasping my name, she was freezing cold. We had just came from the blazing hot National Parks In Utah. The temperature had dropped to freezing and she was soaking wet. I carried her as far as I could down the stream towards the car, stumbling exhausted in shock, when my knees buckled and knew I couldn’t safely carry her. I started a fire and spooned her as close to the heat, she was so thin, had already been freezing too long. I couldn’t at the time realize that I should’ve started a fire first but I wanted her out of the cold back to the car. From where I started the fire I had no idea how far the car might be.  Only knew it was across the creek. When I pulled Gabby out of the water she couldn’t tell me what hurt. She had a small bump on her forehead that eventually got larger. Her feet hurt, her wrist hurt but she was freezing, shaking violently, while carrying her she continually made sounds of pain, laying next to her she said little lapsing between violent shakes, gasping in pain, begging for an end to her pain. She would fall asleep and I would shake her awake fearing she shouldn’t close her eyes if she had a concussion. 

 

She would wake in pain start the whole painful cycle again while furious that I was the one waking her. She wouldn’t let me try to cross the creek, thought like me that this fire would go out in her sleep and she’d freeze. I don’t know the extent of Gabby’s injurys (sic). Only that she was in extreme pain. I ended her life, I thought it was merciful, that it is what she wanted, but I see now all the mistakes I made. I panicked, I was in shock. But from the moment I decided, took away her pain, I knew I couldn’t go on without her. 

 

I rushed home to spend any time I had left with my family. I wanted to drive north and let James or TJ kill me but I wouldn’t want them to spend time in jail over my mistake, even though I’m sure they would have liked to. I am ending my life not because of a fear of punishment but rather because I cant stand to live another day without her. I’ve lost out whole future together, every moment we could have cherished. Im sorry for everyones loss. Please do not make life harder for my family, they lost a son and a daughter. The most wonderful girl in the world. Gabby I'm sorry.

 

I have killed myself by this creek in the hopes that animals may tear me apart. That it may make some of her family happy. 

 

Please pick up all of my things. Gabby hated people who litter.

 

We approach all statements with the pre-supposition of innocence and allow the subject to guide us to the truth with their own words and language.  It can be tempting to skip past a salutation or headline in order to get to the ‘good stuff’; the bulk of the analysis.  However, in statement analysis, every word is useful. It is worth slowing down and paying particular attention to the opening lines, for the first words in a statement often speak to attitudes, priority, motivation, and sometimes the reason behind making the statement.  The first few words are often seeds which flourish later in the statement.  

 

Gabby,  

 

Opening correspondence using only a name with no salutation is considered by many to appear abrupt and even rude.  It is a one-word command for attention.  Gabby was Brian’s fiancee.  It is unexpected that he has not added ‘Dear Gabby’ or ‘To Gabby’.  

 

I wish I was right               at your side, 

 

We find potential insight into Brian and his priority.  

The statement begins with the pronoun ‘I’, meaning Brian is psychologically present here with his wish, and the sentence is likely to contain at least some reliable information.  

What does he wish?  In his own first few words, ‘I wish I was right.’  

Viewing the first sentence as a whole, 'at' Gabby’s side is distant compared to being 'by' Gabby’s side.  

 

I wish I could be talking to you right now. 

 

Note who is doing the talking. 

 

Note ‘talking to’ - not ‘with’ or ‘I wish we could talk...’ .  What does Brian want to talk ‘to’ Gabby about? 

 

There are two ‘I wish’ from the get-go, and they are both to satisfy Brian and Brian only.  Consider that Brian may have lived a ‘fairy godmother’ life where he expressed his wishes and had them met by others.  Even in these dreadful circumstances, he reverts to type.

 

 

I’d be going through every memory we’ve made, getting even more excited for the future.

 

Note who will be going through ‘every memory’. 

 

By going through memories, does Brian want to rake up the past?   He does not say 'happy' memory.   

Teamwork with the pronoun ‘we’ now enters.  They are both responsible for ‘every memory’, but Brian is the one who means to go through them.    

This may shed light on his choice of ‘talking to’ her – would Brian like to tell Gabby where she ‘went wrong’ as he ‘goes through every memory’?  Moreover, as Brian wants to be the one ‘talking to’, the future will be however he imagines it.  Is the future exciting because it is him telling Gabby how things will be?

 

But we’ve lost our future. 

The second ‘we’  – Brian attempts to make Gabby jointly responsible with a teamwork pronoun, but the future was lost at his own hands.

 

 

I can’t live without you. 

 

Gabby worked and saved and purchased the van for the Vanlife trip.   (There is little information on whether Brian had a job – this does not rule out that he had one.)  Now Gabby is dead, is it the case that Brian ‘can't live’? ('the cost of 'living') Holidays are over now - no more free rides? 

 

 

I’ve lost every day we could’ve spent together. 

 

Note who has ‘lost every day’.  Lost is ‘soft’ language in the circumstances and minimises his actions.  

 

A pattern of pronoun ‘I’ emerges as Brian laments his own losses.  

 

 

Every holiday. I’ll never get to play with [unintelligible] again. Never go hiking with TJ.

 

Brian did not describe what ‘every day he could’ve spent’ with Gabby would look like except for ‘every holiday’.  Now, he gets specific with verbs on what else he has lost:  playing with [unintelligible], and hiking with TJ.  This gives insight into his priorities.  He does not mention a wedding day, a house, children or any other potential life events in a future with Gabby. 

 

 

I loved you more than anything.

 

Brian is psychologically present to put his love for Gabby in the past tense.  This suggests he has processed her death.  

 

Note ‘anything’ not ‘anyone’.  

 

What does ‘love’ mean to Brian? 

 

 

I can’t bear to look at our photos, to recall great times because it is why I cannot go on. 

 

We have the high sensitivity of the explainer ‘because’.  The end of the sentence does not quite flow with the beginning.  Perhaps Brian could not face writing the truth of ‘because’ and changed his mind about how to finish.

 

‘Our photos’ suggests Brian is present in them, as opposed to looking at pictures of Gabby by herself.  This gives insight into his psychological make-up.

 

‘Great times’ is general and does not specify Gabby.  What were the ‘great times’ for Brian?  

 

When I close my eyes I will think of laying on the roof of the van, falling asleep to the sight of a meteor shower at the crystal geyser. I will always love you.

 

The element of time enters as Brian puts ‘close my eyes’ and ‘I will think’ at a point in the future – it is likely he was thinking of his planned suicide here. 

 

Note he is not sharing laying on the roof of the van and the meteor shower with anyone.  In Brian’s words, he is alone.  Was Gabby not present at these experiences?  Brian uses  romantic images here, but Gabby is completely absent. 

 

‘Fell asleep’ is a phrase often used on grave inscriptions as a substitute for ‘died’.  Together with ‘close my eyes’, consider Brian’s thoughts of suicide are intense here.  

 

Brian now takes his love from past tense and places it into future tense.  It is notable that he can paint romantic verbal pictures of his laying on the roof of the van and the meteor shower, but his words of love for Gabby are hollow and of the ‘Hallmark card’ variety. 

 

So far, the pronoun ‘we’ has appeared only at specific points to share responsibility with Gabby for ‘every memory made’ and ‘lost future’.  

 

Although Gabby’s name is mentioned, there is distance here.  Gabby and all the wonderful things about her are absent from Brian’s words.  Gabby’s dreams, her drive and determination which made the Vanlife adventure and her blog a reality – none of it feature. Brian paints more detailed pictures of his own experiences, or things he wants to do with TJ and ‘unintelligible’ but is vague about Gabby.    The statement so far is all about him and hints at conceit. 

 

***

 

Brian continues the note, now addressing an unknown recipient.  Why the change? Consider the note is really meant for this new unknown recipient as the bulk of it is aimed at them.

 

If you were reading Gabs journal, looking at the photos from our life together, fliping (sic) through old cards you wouldn’t want to live a day without her. 

 

A journal is often a private, intensely personal document.  Did Brian pry into Gabby’s private possessions? Post-mortem, was he checking for any unfavourable references to himself, found none, and now feels safe to mention the journal and float the idea that others could look at it too - ‘nothing to hide and the journal proves it’? 

 

Where is ‘Gabs journal’ now? 

 

Note the change of name.  Was ‘Gabs’ a nickname Brian had for Gabby?  Was ‘Gabs journal’ what Gabby herself wrote on her journal and is Brian parroting this? 

 

‘Our’ returns, indicating something shared.  Consider Brian is likely present in the ‘photos from our life’ he is using to evoke a longing in ‘you’ for Gabby.  ‘You’ may not be looking at photos of Gabby by herself, hinting again at Brian having conceited traits and the dynamic between them.   

 

Who did the ‘old cards’ belong to, and who were they from?  He does not specify Valentine, birthday or other special cards they may have sent each other.  ‘Flipping’ suggest a quick action – was this something Brian did furtively? Did he find a card to Gabby that angered him?  Consider that Brian may have subjected Gabby to ‘spying’ behaviour, typically found in a coercively controlling partner.   

 

Why is a possibility of the unknown recipient viewing these things in Brian’s mind? Consider this is an attempt to veneer the past and convince the recipient that everything was fine until Gabby’s death. 

 

 

Knowing that everyday you’ll wake up without her, you wouldn’t want to wake up. I’m sorry to everyone this will affect, Gabby was the love of my life, but I know adored by many. 

 

Note who is waking up without Gabby. Brian is distancing himself here and does not tell us ‘I don’t want to wake up’ without her.      

 

We always note ‘I’m sorry’ in statements.  This appears to be an open admission of guilt rather than leakage. Brian is not sorry to ‘Gabby’ for what he has done but to ‘everyone this will affect’.  Consider this is an attempt at image management  

 

His love for Gabby is now back in past tense.  Brian loved her, but she was ‘adored’ by many.  Did he perceive his love was better and more special than anyone else’s adoration? This could be part of the isolation tactic of a coercive controller who will often tell the victim that no one else cares for or loves them the way they do.   

 

 

I’m so very sorry to her family, because I love them. I’d consider her younger siblings, my best of friends … I am sorry to my family. This is a shock to them as well as a terrible greif (sic). 

 

‘Sorry’ is now qualified to ‘so very sorry’. High sensitivity enters again with the need to persuade ‘because’ as Brian explains why.  He does not mention he is sorry because he did such a terrible thing.  

 

His assertion regarding Gabby’s siblings is weak and future conditional ‘I would’ and not ‘I consider them...’  

 

‘Sorry’ appears without qualifiers for Brian’s family.  To say it ‘is’ a shock suggests that they know what has happened, particularly as he mentions ‘greif’ (sic) which happens after death, not before.  They cannot grieve him before he is dead.  Consider their grief is for Gabby and they are aware she is dead.

 

 

They loved as much, if not more than me. A new daughter to my mother, an aunt to my nei[hews (sic). Please do not make this harder for them. 

 

There is a name or pronoun missing about who was loved as much.  Does he mean they loved Gabby more than he loved her, or more than they loved him? 

 

Gabby is still absent as Brian speaks in general terms about the role a woman could potentially play.  

 

Note a ‘new’ daughter, not another daughter.  Did an existing daughter need replacing with a new one?  Did Brian,and/or his family consider Gabby would be a better daughter than Brian’s sister?

 

Brian is of the ‘social media’ generation and was very likely aware of all the publicity of the case and how it would affect his family.  He is very likely aware that his note could one day be published on the internet and the likelihood that he is image-managing strengthens.   

 

this occurred as an unexpected tragedy. 

 

Brian uses passive language to move into an account of the events leading to Gabby’s death.  Passive language hides guilty, identity, and responsibility.  Brian distances himself here, his language shows weak commitment (this was … is stronger than ‘this occurred as an…) and appears hopeful that the recipient will interpret that matters were out of his hands, and ‘occurred’ like a natural disaster, something he was powerless to change. 

 

That Brian needs to include ‘unexpected’ suggests there may have been some degree of pre-meditation.  

 

Rushing back to our car trying to cross the streams of spread creek before it got too dark to see, to cold.

 

Passive language continues – Brian does not say WHO was rushing.  There are names or pronouns missing here, deception has begun in earnest.  The sentence serves to foreshadow the events he is about to describe. 

 

‘The van’ referred to earlier has now become ‘our car’.  A change in language indicates a change in emotion or perception, or that a subject is fabricating while they go along and cannot keep track of their own lies.  This is a significant change. Were they now travelling in a different vehicle?  If not, what happened to change Brian’s perception of the ‘van’ to a ‘car’? Moreover, why does Brian take shared ownership of the car at the point it becomes a ‘car’ and is no longer a ‘van’?  It is critical to understand this and it would be a topic for deep exploration by investigators had Brian lived to answer questions.   Did they have an argument about the van and/or ‘Vanlife’, triggering a change in Brian’s language?   Consider Gabby may be dead at this point in his account of events, and ‘the van’ and ‘Vanlife’ have died with her.  Does the ‘van’ become a ‘car’ because it is now simply transport? 

 

Does he stress ‘our’ car to make it appear that he and Gabby were together, when they were not? 

 

Had Brian seen other cars nearby, and needs to take possession of ‘our car’ among others?  Was he conscious of how much closer any other cars seemed now that he is trying to manage this situation and any noises made as it unfolds? 

 

‘Back’ shows Brian’s mind as somehow ‘weighted’ at the car.  

 

Did Brian move the car while Gabby was elsewhere, meaning she had to rush to find it before darkness fell?

 

Did Brian prevent Gabby from getting in the car, leaving her in the dark and cold? 

 

I hear a splash and a scream. 

 

We do not interpret, we listen.  Would Brian like the recipient to interpret that Gabby fell in the stream as they tried to cross?  If a subject does not say it, we do not say it for them.  Brian is in present tense here.  Statements should be in past tense, indicating they come from experiential memory (except in recognised SA principles where present tense is accepted).  This is another indicator he is deceptive here. 

 

 

I could barely see, I couldn’t find her for a moment, shouted her name. 

 

Did Gabby flee and Brian chase her? 

 

Shouted is ‘hard’ communicative language, alerting us to possible domestic violence.  Note he does not ‘call’ her name. 

 

I found her breathing heavily gasping my name, she was freezing cold. 

 

Where did Brian find Gabby?  He does not say she was in the creek, despite his earlier statement of hearing ‘a splash’. 

 

If Gabby ran from him, was she out of breath from running, using his name in part of an appeal to him to stop whatever she ran from?

 

Did he attempt to strangle her at this point? 

 

Now he has a need to explain why she was freezing cold: 

 

We had just came from the blazing hot National Parks In Utah. The temperature had dropped to freezing and she was soaking wet. 

 

Brian moves out of chronological order to inform where they had ‘just came from’.  ‘Blazing hot’ may be an accurate description, but it also alerts us to the possibility of a row in Utah.  

 

We note any references to water, particularly when they are unnecessary, as a possible alert to sexual abuse and/or sexual homicide.  

 

I carried her as far as I could down the stream towards the car, stumbling exhausted in shock, when my knees buckled and knew I couldn’t safely carry her.

 

Brian portrays himself as a hero for carrying Gabby.  Alongside this, he appears to be subtly complaining, and is certainly concerned about, his own physical state.

 

Consider that at this point in his jumbled narrative, Gabby is dead and he may be attempting to carry her to the car to dispose of her body elsewhere.  

 

What happened to put Brian ‘in shock’?  Did the effort of the assault surprise him, hence all the details of his physical state?

 

There is another missing pronoun – who knew he couldn’t ‘safely carry’?  Missing or confused pronouns indicate deception.  

 

Brian relinquishes his part ownership of ‘our car’, which is now ‘the car’.  Why does he no longer want or need to claim shared ownership of the car?

 

Carry is repeated, making it sensitive.  This sentence appears to be a hina clause as Brian appears to answer an unasked question: ‘Why didn’t you pick Gabby up and carry her?’  Consider that he did not carry Gabby – at least, not with the intention of helping her.   

 

Consider that in reporting ‘why’ instead of reporting ‘what’ to answer an unasked question, Brian may have discussed his version of events with someone and his note is in a way ‘contaminated’ from having already spoken about events.  He has likely been asked questions and has adjusted his narrative to explain in the note.  

 

I started a fire and spooned her as close to the heat, she was so thin, had already been freezing too long. 

 

Was Brian carrying the necessary fire-lighting apparatus on his person, and what did he burn? Note ‘I started a fire’ is reliable in form – it contains the pronoun ‘I’, past tense verb, and the action without qualifier or sensitivity.  Is he talking about a different kind of ‘fire’ – an attempt at some kind of sexual activity with Gabby which failed, hence ‘freezing too long’? 

 

Spooning is a term for cuddling, one partner behind the other, or used as a sexual position.  Did Brian attempt/consider sexually abusing Gabby pre or post-mortem?  Was she was too cold and it was off-putting?

Did he consider burning her, pre or post-mortem? 

 

Did he spent time with her post-mortem, enjoying his full and absolute control?  

 

Is he victim blaming Gabby for ‘freezing’ because she is ‘so thin’?  Did they have a row over warmth ie broken heater in van, or not enough warm clothes? 

Had he been withholding Gabby's food?  Issuing punishment by denying her warm clothes and shelter in an isolated spot where she could not have left him and gone for help? 

Brian reports ‘freezing’ for the third time. ‘Freezing’ may spill over from the climate into his perception of Gabby and their relationship.   

‘Too long’ suggests there is an acceptable length of time - according to Brian - for Gabby to have been freezing.  This adds weight to the consideration he may have denied her shelter and/or warm clothing etc.  

 

Man starting fire - the ancient image of a 'real' man, which Brian likely knows he is not.  The image of starting a fire is likely another attempt to persuade of his ‘hero’ status.  

 

I couldn’t at the time realize that I should’ve started a fire first but I wanted her out of the cold back to the car. 

 

This appears to be another hina clause as Brian answers an unasked question, ‘Why didn’t you start the fire first?’  

 

Started a fire ‘first’ before what? 

 

The temperature ‘freezing’ is now ‘cold’.  In Brian’s personal subjective internal dictionary, what is the difference between ‘freezing’ and ‘cold’, and what has happened to change his language?  Had he, himself, begun to warm up after carrying out an assault, therefore he remembers it as simply ‘cold’?

 

‘I wanted’ - control enters his language again.  

 

From where I started the fire I had no idea how far the car might be.  Only knew it was across the creek. 

 

Note another possible hina clause as Brian explains why he could not get Gabby back to the car.

 

It is not usually reliable when people say they have ‘no idea’.  Most people have some idea about most things.  Reporting in the negative is acceptable if a subject is asked a question and they answer ‘I don’t know.’  However, this note is not an interview.  Reporting what what wasn’t thought, said, or done raises the sensitivity of the statement.  In fact, Brian is likely speaking the truth here – he had no idea where it might be, he knew perfectly well where it was.  This alerts us to Brian being practised in deception.  

 

Finally, the missing pronoun from ‘only knew’ strengthens the deception as Brian hides who ‘only knew...’ 

 

When I pulled Gabby out of the water she couldn’t tell me what hurt. She had a small bump on her forehead that eventually got larger. 

 

The element of time enters with ‘when’.  This is an important word and alerts us to Gabby having been in water for some time before Brian decided to pull her out.  Did he attempt to drown her and change his mind?

 

‘Pull’ does not suggest any care was taken in getting Gabby out of the water, alerting us to rough handling.  

 

We find another change of language - ‘creek’ is now ‘water’.  Is it water because Brian entered and had the sensation of getting wet?

  

‘When I pulled Gabby’ may hint at his attitude towards women and perceived status in their relationship dynamic.  We keep the word ‘pull’ in mind and move on. 

 

Was Gabby now incapable of speech?  

 

Did he repeatedly bang Gabby’s head on eg stones or rocks, hence a ‘small bump that eventually got larger’?  Expect to find repeated to trauma to her head/face.

 

Consider Brian may have considered reporting an 'accident' where Gabby slipped, fell in water, bumped her head and drowned.  

 

 

Her feet hurt, her wrist hurt but she was freezing, shaking violently, while carrying her she continually made sounds of pain, laying next to her she said little lapsing between violent shakes, gasping in pain, begging for an end to her pain. 

 

Brian often went barefoot – was it his feet hurting, his wrists hurting from his efforts in the assault? 

Hurt is non-specific and could be physical or emotional. 

His emphasis on freezing is repeated ++, and is of greater importance to him than her feet and wrist hurting.  

 

‘Made sounds’ - not 'Gabby groaned' etc.  Did hearing her in death affect him?  Use of ‘continually’ indicates he didn't want to hear her - mirroring wanting to 'shut her up' in daily life?  

Brian introduces ‘shaking violently’ and ‘violent shakes’.  Consider that Brian assaulted Gabby which escalated to strangling her.  Consider they were on the ground and he was likely pinning her down with his body as he reports ‘spooning’ and ‘laying next to her’ - both close body contact.    

 

Gabby ‘gasping my name’ has changed to ‘gasping in pain’.  Consider he is unwittingly telling us who caused her pain.  

 

‘Begging for an end...’ Here is the language of abusers, including child sexual abusers - ‘s/he wanted me to’.

She would fall asleep and I would shake her awake fearing she shouldn’t close her eyes if she had a concussion.  She would wake in pain start the whole painful cycle again while furious that I was the one waking her. 

 

Brian appears to reference death as ‘closing eyes’ and ‘falling asleep’ for both himself and Gabby.  In addition for Gabby there is the cycle of ‘waking’.Consider Gabby’s death was drawn out and it took him different ways to accomplish killing.  Consider he may have strangled her repeatedly to the point of unconsciousness, either in a sadistic ‘death in slow motion’ as he gains satisfaction and pleasure from strangling her over and over again as he rides waves of anger (‘you will die when I say so’), or because he had not realised how long it would take to strangle her to death and it took him several attempts. 

 

Did Gabby managed to fight back, hence, ‘furious’?  

 

If someone is in as much pain as Gabby is reported to be here, freezing cold and slipping in and out of consciousness, is fury a credible emotion? Fury requires a strength she does not appear to have at this point.

 

Furious is the first adjective he has applied to Gabby’s as a person; there is nothing to describe her as fun or sweet natured etc.  

 

The introduction of ‘concussion’, together with the ‘small bump on her forehead ...’ reinforces the likelihood of (likely extensive) trauma to Gabby’s head.  

‘Pain’ is repeated, making it highly sensitive.  Similar to ‘hurt’ it is non-specific and could be emotional or physical pain.  

 

 

She wouldn’t let me try to cross the creek, thought like me that this fire would go out in her sleep and she’d freeze. I don’t know the extent of Gabby’s injurys (sic). Only that she was in extreme pain. 

 

There is another possible hina clause here as Brian answers the unasked question ‘Why didn’t you cross the creek?’  Here is his final excuse as to why he couldn’t help Gabby: it’s Gabby’s fault, she wouldn’t let me.   – this is the victim blaming language of abuse. 

 

‘Water’ is back to being ‘creek’.  

The ‘omnipotence’ of a coercive controller is introduced as Brian tells us what Gabby was thinking, not what Gabby said.  

The rule of the negative returns as Brian reports what he doesn’t know.  He likely speaks the truth.  Estimating the extent of any ‘injurys’ is not necessary when he knows she is dead. 

Pain is now ‘extreme’. 

 

I ended her life,

 

 

This is reliable in form, but is minimising and soft language.

 

I thought it was merciful, that it is what she wanted, but I see now all the mistakes I made. 

 

In stating what ‘I thought’ Brian allows for others to disagree.  The language of abuse continues as he again puts responsibility onto Gabby for her own death. Brian implies he was putting an injured animal out of its misery.  

 

Note ‘all the mistakes’ plural, suggesting a history of bad behaviour.  

  

What were those mistakes?  He does not attempt to redeem himself by saying what he should have done differently. 

 

 

I panicked, I was in shock. But from the moment I decided, took away her pain, I knew I couldn’t go on without her. 

 

 

‘In shock’ is repeated from his earlier report

 

‘I decided’ and ‘took away’ - consider the language of abuse/controlling behaviour continues. 

 

He does not want to spend the rest of his life in prison.  

 

 

I rushed home to spend any time I had left with my family. 

 

There is now a jump in time from Gabby’s death. Brian manages to do what he has spent a long time explaining was previously impossible:  he finds the car.

 

Rushing re-enters.  Brian's adrenalin would be high throughout killing Gabby, disposing of her body, and returning home where he would have some explaining to do.  Consider it was also racing earlier in the statement when he first reports ‘rushing’ - supposedly before the 'unexpected tragedy'.  We noted the missing names/pronouns of WHO was rushing.  Consider the sentence above loops back to the sentence, ‘rushing back to OUR car…’. where Brian may have taken shared ownership of the car to make it appear Gabby was alive and they were together when, in fact, they were not. 

 

‘Home’ is warmth, comfort, familiarity (as opposed to house which is colder and more distant)  He has chosen to return home to family. This is revealing to the family dynamic and how he relies on them. 

 

The word ‘spend’ enters.  Was he hoping they would fund him for something? 

 

 

I wanted to drive north and let James or TJ kill me but I wouldn’t want them to spend time in jail over my mistake, even though I’m sure they would have liked to. 

 

Similar to ‘I decided to’, ‘I wanted to’ is a desire, which is low commitment and can be changed at any time.  

 

Brian calls murdering Gabby a ‘mistake’.  He has mentioned ‘mistakes’ previously.  Now he has shown us his definition of a ‘mistake’ it grows more likely that ‘all the mistakes’ is a history of controlling and/or violent behaviour.  

 

Self-pity features strongly here.  Brian suggests he is a ‘good guy’ doing James and TJ a favour by not driving north, despite wanting to.  In statement analysis, someone portraying themselves as a ‘good guy’ is very likely not a ‘good guy’.

 

 

I am ending my life not because of a fear of punishment but rather because I cant stand to live another day without her. I’ve lost our whole future together, every moment we could have cherished. Im sorry for everyones loss. Please do not make life harder for my family, they lost a son and a daughter. The most wonderful girl in the world. Gabby I'm sorry. 

 

Brian uses soft language for his own death.  We note the senstivity of the negative and the two explainers of ‘because’ as Brian tries to persuade that he does not fear punishment.  This is likely his worst fear.  Also, note that he is trying to persuade that he is ending his life because he cannot live with Gabby, not because he has done something terrible.  This exposes once more his self-centred nature. 

 

The only compliment Brian pays Gabby is when he is addressing the unknown recipient. 

 

Order speaks to priority:  note Brian’s order: 1) son and 2) daughter and no mention of who Gabby’s family have lost here.  

 

He is again showing awareness of the media interest in the case/his family. 

 

He saves ‘Gabby I’m sorry’ and his first compliment to Gabby for the section aimed at the unknown recipient.  Consider this exposes behaviour where he puts on a good show for others.  

 

Who is he sorry to?  It would appear Brian is sorry for himself as ‘I’m sorry’ comes after another lament about how he is affected and plea regarding his family. 

  

 

I have killed myself by this creek in the hopes that animals may tear me apart. That it may make some of her family happy. 

 

Note the upgrade from ‘ending my life’ is ‘killed myself’. 

 

Where there is a ‘this’ there is often a ‘that’ and vice versa.  Consider ‘I killed Gabby by ‘that’ creek, I have killed myself by ‘this’ creek’.  Is this the closest Brian gets to admitting that he killed Gabby? 

 

Self-pity++:  it's not just 'her' family that are down on him and will be happy at his death- even the animals want a piece of him.  

 

Please pick up all of my things. 

 

Brian’s final few words point to an imperious attitude. 

Gabby hated people who litter.

 

Brian directs Gabby’s hate to people, not the litter itself.  There is manipulation and emotional blackmail here as Brian uses Gabby as a way to have his request met.   

 

People like to justify their crime.  As Brian is ‘littering’, in his logic, Gabby hates him until someone picks up all his things, and she may have a reason to keep on hating him.  There is a sense of self-justification here.  

 

First word of the note 'Gabby', final word 'litter'.  Was litter a source of contention between them? 

 

Did Brian accuse Gabby of not being as committed to saving the planet as he was? 

 

Does this final statement unlock the chain of events?  Did Gabby remind Brian of a time when he littered, and he reacted with violence? 

 

 

In Summary

We examined Brian’s first few words and noted the abruptness of ‘Gabby’ with no ‘dear’ or other salutation.  Continuing to take a few words at a time, ‘ I wish I was right’ - wanting to be 'right' - (self-esteem, manliness, position in society etc)  and knowing they are (often) not 'right' underscores and drives the behaviour of a coercively controlling man.  Together with the abrupt ‘Gabby’, wanting to be ‘at’ and not ‘by’ her side, and other possible language of domestic abuse throughout the note, we are alert to the possibilities in Brian’s behaviour.  

Brian attempts to persuade that ‘freezing’ is largely responsible for Gabby’s death – which hints at his perceived coldness from Gabby in their relationship.  Alongside this, Brian also references ‘fire’: 

‘I started a fire’  

‘should’ve started a fire first’

‘I started the fire’

‘this fire would go out in her sleep’

 

Fire is the first form of artificial light.  We always flag lights in a statement, particularly where it is unnecessary to mention them, as references to lights are linguistically related to sexual energy and are often found in statements where sex is on the mind of the subject at that point of the statement.  

 

·      Lights ‘on’ indicates sexual activity of any kind, from positive, healthy sexual relationships to sexual abuse.  

·      Lights ‘off’, including ‘darkness falling’  ‘turning off the light’ etc often indicate ‘negative’ sexual activity, from abuse, to lack of intimacy, to failed attempts at sex.  

 

It is interesting to note that Brian Laundrie emphasises the ‘starting’ of a fire, and thoughts that it ‘would go out’; in other words, efforts to get the light on and keep it on.   He also reports, ‘before it got too dark’ (lights off) and that he ‘spooned’ Gabby, a term generally used for adults cuddling, more intimate than an ‘on the couch’ cuddle, and sometimes as a sexual position.  When these observations are viewed alongside the emphasis on Gabby ‘freezing’, this analyst considers there may have been some long-term sexual problems, perhaps from trauma in Brian’s past causing sexual dysfunction, and/or a problem regarding sex on the night of Gabby’s death (sexual assault or a failed attempt at sex).  

 

This analyst is considering that by referencing ‘fire’ Brian is telling us a combination of 1) his rage about whatever has particularly upset him that night, and 2) a background of sexual dysfunction which he may have brooded on, particularly as historically they lay together and Gabby was asleep/unsatisfied/unresponsive.  Feelings of inadequacy, being disrespected, unsafe and out of control lurk in the background of controlling/violent men.   A sexual problem would likely complicate or escalate the behaviour of a  controlling/violent man as he regards his ‘manhood’ as incomplete.   

 

Brian also emphasises closing eyes, sleeping, and waking up.  It appears to be a reference to death for both him and Gabby.  Moreover, this analyst has observed the phrase ‘when I close my eyes’ features in the language of PTSD sufferers, including in combat veterans with PTSD.  PTSD sufferers often have trouble falling asleep, have nightmares, and will waken easily.   Brian references ‘closing eyes, sleeping and waking up’ in two separate cycles in his statement, one for him and one for Gabby.  He also reports ‘painful cycles’ for Gabby waking and sleeping.  There is a possibility that Brian believes Gabby had, or should have had, the same fears, problems, anxieties as he did, hence his repeated mention of her non-specific ‘hurt’ and ‘pain’.  Was Brian suffering from PTSD or similar symptoms?  From Brian’s own language, this analyst considers him to have experienced some kind of past trauma, which is not to excuse but potentially give some insight into his behaviour.   

Brian Laundrie’s note begins addressed to Gabby but is clearly intended for the unknown recipient.  It appears self-pitying, self-absorbed and self-justifying.  There is indication of the language of domestic violence, negative attitude towards Gabby, and victim blaming.  His accounts of the events around Gabby’s death are jumbled and appear out of chronological order, indicating deception.  There is high sensitivity with many hina clauses.  However, it is likely that Brian had some discussion with someone on returning home, he was asked questions, and has tailored his narrative accordingly, therefore the note may be ‘contaminated’.   He has withheld the chunk of time from Gabby’s death to going home.  This missing time likely covers disposal of Gabby’s body, which is not an expected action if she had died of ‘an unexpected tragedy’.  At no point does Brian issue a reliable denial ‘I did not kill (or murder) Gabby.’  His apology to Gabby comes in the section for the unknown recipient, indicating that it is more ‘for show’ than it is heartfelt, and he is likely more sorry for his own loss.  

Q Was Gabby Petito’s death an ‘unexpected tragedy? 

A No.