Recent content by Mike in WNY

I found this interesting. Not sure what - if anything - it may mean... but, add this to the list of occurrences related to this "case." Despite the passing of the father/owner a number of years ago, the house in which the victim lived with her family was not sold (in the traditional sense)...

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...

I'll suggest that the most critical words in that document are "If this is true...". I'd like to have seen an complimentary statement of "If this is not true...".

So, it would seem that the judge is saying the the Bertolino statement was "outrageous"... within the context of the hearing - in which the judge must take all the plaintiff's statements as truth. That would include, assertions that the defendants did absolutely know of the death and other...

Naturally, I cannot speak on his behalf. But, were I to guess, it's because the call on that documents release was not his to make. If one is to believe the rather peculiar implication that he was unaware of the document and/or its contents, then I'd think even more that he'd not just release...

I have to wonder from where the characterization of the document (i.e. so-called "letter") as a "letter" first came. While admittedly I may be in the weeds a bit too much, I think of a letter as a relatively formal item, and typically delivered more-or-less formally (mail, courier, etc). Or, I...

Heh. Thank you for the summary. Y'know, when it's compiled into a condensed space, I'm wondering if there's any wider an ambiguous and selective brush with which the document can be painted.... by, for the most part, the plaintiff's (biased) attorney. Playing his role, to be sure. I'm...

Point taken about standard of proof. Absolutely agree. And, I guess that's the underlying issue... the information is just not that strong... even to those on the "inside" (surely with additional non-public information). Indeed, it isn't even strong/meaningful enough to support an ongoing...

And.... still... all this so-called/implied damning "evidence" was in the hands of the FBI for months now... surely to have been reviewed/analyzed/etc... and - it appears - did not cause warrants/charges/etc. And now returned to private citizens. How meaningful can it really be?

And the guy now gets to say to the public and judge/jury that he was refused the information. Implying some more outrageousness. LOL. Theater.

I'd agree that most "theatrics" of a trial attorney - particularly when mugging for a camera - lack pristine credibility. And there's this: “certainly, based on what’s contained within the letter, it would appear as though the letter were written after Gabby was killed and before Brian took...

Yep. The point I am heading toward is that - based on what is publicly available - the FBI is unwilling or unable to make definitive assertions about the matter. In a moderately high profile matter, it would seem that any government agency would always seize the opportunity to 'brag on itself'...

Just a comment about what is being referenced as a “confession.” The FBI’s statement stated that there were “statements” in the notebook wherein the deceased man “claimed responsibility” for the death. They also stopped short of saying he killed her. They said all the evidence points to him...

I can't speak to #1. #2- in my mind the underlying point is to assert entitlement with (misplaced) vengeance.

I'd be interested to know that if - for the sake of discussion - the plaintiffs are successful and receive a finding that the defendants caused some amount of increment distress how that distress is quantified for a monetary award. After all, even had the plaintiffs received information about...