Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #85

[bestill]

Why not? I'd think the defendants - as well as plaintiffs - could have anyone they want to be a public spokesperson. To my knowledge, unless there's some type of court gag-like order, folks have all manners of people speak for them - family, friends, attorneys, public relations reps, clergy, etc. Sometimes, they even speak for themselves. I'd bet, in this case, it certainly allows a bit of an insulating factor, too... and the interested public already "knows" the guy.

I would think their Florida attorney would have made the first statement on behalf of his clients since he represented them last week. That would be a professional courtesy, imo. Of course I have no idea what the arrangement is between the attorney's or the L's. Just an observation on my part that SB likes the spotlight.

 

[Arkay]

In my opinion, if the plaintiffs are really truly banking on discovering things they've already strongly stated, they are monumental all-or-nothing gamblers.

In my opinion, I see it as without gambling at all, the Petitio family has already lost “all,” as Gabby was murdered. Now they have “nothing” left to lose.

It’s my opinion that since the Laundrie parents did not kill Gabby, they would be guilty of nothing if they hadn’t mistreated, stonewalled and possibly lied to Gabby’s family.

They have no way to get justice for the murder. They can’t go after the Laundries for it, but the Ls did imo inflict extraneous and unnecessary emotional suffering on the Petito and Schmidts.

I think the Ps are looking for answers more than revenge. And a message to the public that if we are ever in the Ls position, to maybe act with compassion to grieving and frightened parents.

JMO

 

[gliving]

Why not? I'd think the defendants - as well as plaintiffs - could have anyone they want to be a public spokesperson. To my knowledge, unless there's some type of court gag-like order, folks have all manners of people speak for them - family, friends, attorneys, public relations reps, clergy, etc. Sometimes, they even speak for themselves. I'd bet, in this case, it certainly allows a bit of an insulating factor, too... and the interested public already "knows" the guy.

Just curious, is there anything preventing the Ls' from releasing more of Brian's possessions? Can they release the other notes and letters prior to the trial? tia

 

[Warwick7]

People can be held responsible for statements made by their lawyer: Amber Heard "won" $2,000,000 for a statement made by Johnny Depp's lawyer.

On the other hand, this case is quite different. Bertolino made no accusations against GP or her parents. Any knowledge of the case he possessed would have been told to him by BL or his parents, and this is protected by attorney-client privilege. SB has stated that, at the time, he represented all three Laundries. If BL provided his lawyer with false information leading to the public statement, can his parents be held liable?

BL's "confession" is complete bull****. Based on this bizarre tale, I have no reason to believe he was brutally honest with his parents or his lawyer. I know many posters here believe he told his parents all the details of his crime, but that just seems too out of character for the person who claimed to have help put her out of her misery.

In this case, I suspect only two people knew what really went down out west, and both of them are dead. I suspect that when this lawsuit is over, there will still be divisions among us as to the L's actions and motives.

Yes, and it's interesting how the judge made reference to that case.

 

[ilovewings]

In my opinion, I see it as without gambling at all, the Petitio family has already lost “all,” as Gabby was murdered. Now they have “nothing” left to lose.

It’s my opinion that since the Laundrie parents did not kill Gabby, they would be guilty of nothing if they hadn’t mistreated, stonewalled and possibly lied to Gabby’s family.

They have no way to get justice for the murder. They can’t go after the Laundries for it, but the Ls did imo inflict extraneous and unnecessary emotional suffering on the Petito and Schmidts.

I think the Ps are looking for answers more than revenge. And a message to the public that if we are ever in the Ls position, to maybe act with compassion to grieving and frightened parents.

JMO

Agree wholeheartedly with everything you said- Frankly, I will enjoy seeing the Ls in a court of law having to answer some questions in a legal setting. Had the Ls acted with one iota of concern when Gabby's parents were beside themselves with worry and just asking the Ls to respond to some basic questions they had, the Ls would not be in a court of law now.

 

[Warwick7]

Why is SB still releasing statements on behalf of the L's? They have a Florida attorney representing them who argued their case before the Judge last week. Seems to me that SB is oversteeping.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1542546471261597697

Lol! I say let him. Lets see what else comes back to bite him.

 

[NCWatcher]

Agree wholeheartedly with everything you said- Frankly, I will enjoy seeing the Ls in a court of law having to answer some questions in a legal setting. Had the Ls acted with one iota of concern when Gabby's parents were beside themselves with worry and just asking the Ls to respond to some basic questions they had, the Ls would not be in a court of law now.

BBM

But there's some irony too-- Expressing concern by making a statement through SB (assuming they did & he hadn't gone rogue) apparently is what allows the case to go forward. Had they said nothing, they would have been better off. I think that's going to be the takeaway for alot of people. The ruling seems to says they didn't have a duty to speak or to act....

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Read The Rules folks !! Websleuths is victim friendly and Gabby Petito's parents are victims.

Stop the negative speculation and snark about their pursuit of this lawsuit.

Any further posts that are not victim friendly will result in a permanent thread reply ban from this discussion.

 

[Warwick7]

What the ruling stated today:

"As alleged by the Plaintiffs, the Laundries made their statement knowing that Gabby was dead, knowing the location of her body, and knowing that her parents were frantically looking for her. If this is true, then the Laundries’ statement was particularly callous and cruel, and it is sufficiently outrageous to state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress,” the court order said."

 

[NCWatcher]

What the ruling stated today:

"As alleged by the Plaintiffs, the Laundries made their statement knowing that Gabby was dead, knowing the location of her body, and knowing that her parents were frantically looking for her. If this is true, then the Laundries’ statement was particularly callous and cruel, and it is sufficiently outrageous to state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress,” the court order said."

BBM

Yes. Good you posted that. I think the "if this is true, then..." part has gotten missed by some, perhaps because of the wording in the initial press tweets about the ruling. Those initial reports didn't seem to acknowledge the conditional, if/then aspect.
JMO

 

[Warwick7]

BBM

Yes. Good you posted that. I think the "if this is true, then..." part has gotten missed by some, perhaps because of the wording in the initial press tweets about the ruling. Those initial reports didn't seem to acknowledge the conditional, if/then aspect.
JMO

I'm focused on "then the Laundries’ statement was particularly callous and cruel, and it is sufficiently outrageous to state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress,” the court order said."

Because at trial what Reilly states as true will be shown accurate. The jury themselves will see it and hear it with their own ears

 

[NCWatcher]

I'm focused on "then the Laundries’ statement was particularly callous and cruel, and it is sufficiently outrageous to state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress,” the court order said."

Because at trial what Reilly states as true will be shown accurate. The jury themselves will see it and hear it with their own ears

Well, I'm more focused on the statement in its entirety. So I was glad to see it published here. We'll see what happens at trial next year in terms of proof. Assuming it actually gets to trial (No settlement, no other roadblock) I don't know what the chances are...certainly not 100%. Reilly said "I’d say it’s more than 50%." (But I don't know how much more than 50%.) He went on to say the ruling doesn’t guarantee a trial next year, but it increases the chances the lawsuit will reach the trial phase.

Court denies motion by Laundrie parents to dismiss Petito civil lawsuit

A circuit court judge has denied Christopher and Roberta Laundrie’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Gabby Petito’s parents which alleges that they knew Brian Laundrie had killed th…

www.wane.com

 

[Warwick7]

"On August 28, 2021, Brian told his parents that he murdered Gabby. (The Court must assume this to be true for this motion.) That same day, Christopher and Roberta spoke with an attorney, and they would send the attorney a money retainer several days later."

This is page 2 respectively paragraph 4 of the ruling.

This should answer our questions on "when" SB was spoken with and "when" the retainer was sent.

 

[Warwick7]

Page 7 paragraph 2:

"The Laundries argue that denying their motion to dismiss will result in an “avalanche of litigation” for situations where relatives of tort victims receive bad news about family members. They base their argument on M.M. v. M.P.S., 556 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The Laundries’ argument misses the mark."

Italics are mine.

Wow what a statement for the Court to make.

 

[gliving]

"On August 28, 2021, Brian told his parents that he murdered Gabby. (The Court must assume this to be true for this motion.) That same day, Christopher and Roberta spoke with an attorney, and they would send the attorney a money retainer several days later."

This is page 2 respectively paragraph 4 of the ruling.

This should answer our questions on "when" SB was spoken with and "when" the retainer was sent.

Warwick, if you read the entire document it says at the bottom of page one: "The reader is cautioned that the allegations of fact the Court will discuss below are simply that - allegations, not proven fact.

https://cdn.winknews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/118152522.pdf

 

[Warwick7]

Well, I'm more focused on the statement in its entirety. So I was glad to see it published here. We'll see what happens at trial next year in terms of proof. Assuming it actually gets to trial (No settlement, no other roadblock) I don't know what the chances are...certainly not 100%. Reilly said "I’d say it’s more than 50%." (But I don't know how much more than 50%.) He went on to say the ruling doesn’t guarantee a trial next year, but it increases the chances the lawsuit will reach the trial phase.

Court denies motion by Laundrie parents to dismiss Petito civil lawsuit

A circuit court judge has denied Christopher and Roberta Laundrie’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Gabby Petito’s parents which alleges that they knew Brian Laundrie had killed th…

www.wane.com

Reilly said "I’d say it’s more than 50%.

This is a true statement, we will see what the future holds.

 

[Warwick7]

Warwick, if you read the entire document it says at the bottom of page one: "The reader is cautioned that the allegations of fact the Court will discuss below are simply that - allegations, not proven fact.

https://cdn.winknews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/118152522.pdf

True. But read page 2 paragraph 4 the Court types:

""On August 28, 2021, Brian told his parents that he murdered Gabby. (The Court must assume this to be true for this motion.) That same day, Christopher and Roberta spoke with an attorney, and they would send the attorney a money retainer several days later."

 

[NCWatcher]

H

True. But read page 2 paragraph 4 the Court types:

""On August 28, 2021, Brian told his parents that he murdered Gabby. (The Court must assume this to be true for this motion.) That same day, Christopher and Roberta spoke with an attorney, and they would send the attorney a money retainer several days later."

That tells us when the P's assert SB was called and when he was paid a retainer. We'll have to wait and see if that assertion can be proven. For purposes of the MTD the judge had to assume all the assertions in the P's Complaint were true. But they may not have been true and the judge wasn't saying they necessarily were true simply because he listed them in his ruling. Hence the page 1 warning @gliving mentioned.

 

[Warwick7]

Page 2 paragraph 3 I thought was really interesting. I was under the impression that BL had sent out one or two text from Gabby's phone, which I thought all fell on August 30th. Yet the paragraph says:

"Brian murdered Gabby on August 27, 2021. Brian then texted between his and Gabby’s telephone to hide the fact that Gabby was dead. Brian would continue to send texts from Gabby’s phone until at least August 30, 2021, in which Brian disguised as Gabby texted Gabby’s mother stating there was no service in Yosemite Park. Brian did this to suggest that Gabby was still alive. Gabby was 22 years old at the time of her death."

So he is starting texting on August 27th.... Must have been right after he murdered her.

 

[Warwick7]

H

That tells us when the P's assert SB was called and when he was paid a retainer. We'll have to wait and see if that assertion can be proven. For purposes of the MTD the judge had to assume all the assertions in the P's Complaint were true. But they may not have been true and the judge wasn't saying they necessarily were true simply because he listed them in his ruling. Hence the page 1 warning @gliving mentioned.

No. The Court typed: "The Court must assume this to be true for this motion.