Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #80

[Waddles]

i understood the post to which you replied to mean that the price of the camper was $7,000, and the laundries originally gave $1,000 in cash and a $6,000 check which bounced, so they replaced the check with $6,000 in additional cash...moo

Yes that’s what Entin said in his live, 7000 total. I should have elaborated more

 

[Bertha96]

He said they gave the seller $1000 cash and $6000 check and the check bounced.

Ahhh. Thank you, I definitely misread that. Writing a check for $6000 when they don't have the funds to cover it, doesn't paint a positive picture of their financial situation. IMO.

 

[they'll get you]

I hear ABBA singing “Money, Money, Money”


Steven Bertolino, the lawyer for Chris and Roberta Laundrie, hit back at the police department, saying they never should have lost track of Mr Laundrie in the first place.

Police deny new rumours about DNA of discovered remains of Brian Laundrie - latest

 

[Bertha96]

i understood the post to which you replied to mean that the price of the camper was $7,000, and the laundries originally gave $1,000 in cash and a $6,000 check which bounced, so they replaced the check with $6,000 in additional cash...moo

Yes, I agree, I misread it the first time. IMO.

 

[Figuring]

I took it to mean the camper cost $7,000. $1,000 paid in cash along with a $6,000 check that bounced. After it bounced, the seller received the $6,000 in cash. MOO.

I personally think a BOUNCED CHECK is always interesting

~

Please note my new caveat that will now be my header/footer going forward (depending if I'm posting/replying, accordingly): These are *my opinions & my amateur speculation only.* I am not *asserting any facts*, as distinguished by the qualifiers I have used, purposely: I think; it seems; it appears; it may be; I hope; etc. JMO/MOO forever & always TIA

 

[customCF]

IF the feds / LE had proof that BL killed Gabby and now know he's dead; would they close the case or is there other stuff I'm not thinking about that keeps them investigating?

Just curious to know if they think it's possible BL didn't kill Gabby

 

[they'll get you]

IF the feds / LE had proof that BL killed Gabby and now know he's dead; would they close the case or is there other stuff I'm not thinking about that keeps them investigating?

Just curious to know if they think it's possible BL didn't kill Gabby

Surely they need to investigate Gabby’s murder. Gabby and her family deserve justice.
I’m sorry the alleged murderer suicided but now it’s Gabby’s turn for recognition.

 

[customCF]

Surely they need to investigate Gabby’s murder. Gabby and her family deserve justice.
I’m sorry the alleged murderer suicided but now it’s Gabby’s turn for recognition.

I know Gabby and her family deserve justice; that's not what i was trying to say.

I am just curious to know if the feds would close the case if they knew Gabby's murderer was dead.

IF they have complete proof BL murdered Gabby and nobody else did it, would they close the case?

Am i not thinking of some reasons that they would not close the case?

 

[Sillybilly]

Thread is closed until morning.

Good Night folks !!

 

[Tiff23fr]

Good Morning - The thread is OPEN

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Good Morning everyone!

There was an extensive discussion here yesterday as to privilege and whether or not privilege was waived when all three of the Laudries spoke with SB. Ashleigh Banfield and Mark O'Mara feel that it was. Last night on WFLA Now, Mahsa said that privilege wasn't waived. She also made a comment asking who it was that was saying it was waived. I took it upon myself to message Mahsa on Twitter last night.

This was the message I sent her:

"Mahsa, I know you touched base on the issue of privilege tonight when representing multiple people. I was wondering if you watched the interview between Ashleigh Banfield and Mark O'Mara who disagree with you. I'd love to hear you weigh in on that in the next WFLA Now Live with JB!"

After a little back and forth with me sending her the link of the interview, she sent me this about joint representation: How to Avoid Attorney-Client Privilege Problems in Joint Representations

I'm hoping she does address it on WFLA Now, but we shall see!

 

[Bluebythec]

Good Morning everyone!

There was an extensive discussion here yesterday as to privilege and whether or not privilege was waived when all three of the Laudries spoke with SB. Ashleigh Banfield and Mark O'Mara feel that it was. Last night on WFLA Now, Mahsa said that privilege wasn't waived. She also made a comment asking who it was that was saying it was waived. I took it upon myself to message Mahsa on Twitter last night.

This was the message I sent her:

"Mahsa, I know you touched base on the issue of privilege tonight when representing multiple people. I was wondering if you watched the interview between Ashleigh Banfield and Mark O'Mara who disagree with you. I'd love to hear you weigh in on that in the next WFLA Now Live with JB!"

After a little back and forth with me sending her the link of the interview, she sent me this about joint representation: How to Avoid Attorney-Client Privilege Problems in Joint Representations

I'm hoping she does address it on WFLA Now, but we shall see!

I also found this link The Attorney-Client Privilege When a Third Person is Present which makes it a bit clearer to me. Just the fact that there is a third party present doesn't instantly negate privilege. It depends on the role of the third party so after reading this, if the three parties were CL, RL and BL, I'd have to think it was not waived as all three were clients.

 

[GRT]

Do you think parking enforcement runs the tags of every car it posts/tickets? They'd have to call into the station (where I live - a city of 120,000 people, there is exactly one person at the computer to run tags/DL's - they are pret' darned busy all day). Parking enforcement is...exceptionally low priority. I doubt NPPD has the budget for that. So my. guess is the answer is "No," they. put the warning, then they give the ticket, then the copy of the ticket goes to someone who calls the towing company and the car is towed. At some point (probably when the ticket is presented back at the station and the towing-organizer. gets, someone puts the rest of the info on there...it probably would have said CL or RL).

I live in a smaller community, but around here, I'm pretty sure police officers/sheriff's deputies run the tags of cars when they put an "abandoned" notice on them. I think it's probably because the car could have been stolen or taken for a joyride and then abandoned--it'd been sitting there for more than 24 hours. It seems probable they would run the plates to see if the car had been reported stolen.

To be sure, the Mustang could have been registered in the parents' name(s) but by the 14th, the news that the parents were not returning the Petitos calls or talking to the police was making national news, so the police officer should have recognized the name. And he/she would have to fill out a report of some sort, even if minimal.

I think NPPD should have recognized the Mustang as belonging to *someone* in the Laundrie family when they tagged it, but the PD seems to have missed several opportunities to keep track of the situation.

JMOO

 

[cady]

Good Morning everyone!

There was an extensive discussion here yesterday as to privilege and whether or not privilege was waived when all three of the Laudries spoke with SB. Ashleigh Banfield and Mark O'Mara feel that it was. Last night on WFLA Now, Mahsa said that privilege wasn't waived. She also made a comment asking who it was that was saying it was waived. I took it upon myself to message Mahsa on Twitter last night.

This was the message I sent her:

"Mahsa, I know you touched base on the issue of privilege tonight when representing multiple people. I was wondering if you watched the interview between Ashleigh Banfield and Mark O'Mara who disagree with you. I'd love to hear you weigh in on that in the next WFLA Now Live with JB!"

After a little back and forth with me sending her the link of the interview, she sent me this about joint representation: How to Avoid Attorney-Client Privilege Problems in Joint Representations

I'm hoping she does address it on WFLA Now, but we shall see!

Interesting. What are your thoughts? And How would Mahsa know that privilege wasn't waived? jmo ETA Could she have seen a document with signatures?

 

[MsBetsy]

Interesting. What are your thoughts? And How would Mahsa know that privilege wasn't waived? jmo ETA Could she have seen a document with signatures?

I was about to ask the same question. How would anybody have known if privilege was waived? I can't imagine either Brian or his parents waiving their privilege. Brian allegedly only spoke to the attorney once. I doubt he would have even thought of such a thing before taking off to the reserve. Imo

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Interesting. What are your thoughts? And How would Mahsa know that privilege wasn't waived? jmo ETA Could she have seen a document with signatures?

This is the quote from the article that makes me believe that privileged isn't waived: "The privilege applies to communications between the lawyer and each client regarding the engagement; it also applies to communications among joint clients and their common attorneys."

This would mean that any conversations from when SB was retained and on, the conversations would be privileged. The issue I have, is that their interests aren't legally aligned. The parents face nothing in the Gabby Petito case. Brian, at the time, faced potential murder/manslaughter charges. This is such a tricky area.

 

[cady]

I was about to ask the same question. How would anybody have known if privilege was waived? I can't imagine either Brian or his parents waiving their privilege. Brian allegedly only spoke to the attorney once. I doubt he would have even thought of such a thing before taking off to the reserve. Imo

If I understand this (which I really don't) Banfield and O'Mara FEEL that it was waived. Masha says it was not waived. jmo

 

[TL4S]

Gabby Petito's Dad Not Focused on Brian Laundrie Notebook, But Domestic Violence

Joe Petito tells TMZ ... nothing in Brian's notebook is going to bring his daughter back, and whatever's in there won't explain how her tragic death could have been avoided.
-------

Gabby's father also says the notebook won't do much for Brian's parents either, because they lost a child too, and the book won't bring their son back either.

 

[MsBetsy]

I know Gabby and her family deserve justice; that's not what i was trying to say.

I am just curious to know if the feds would close the case if they knew Gabby's murderer was dead.

IF they have complete proof BL murdered Gabby and nobody else did it, would they close the case?

Am i not thinking of some reasons that they would not close the case?

Yes, I think once they have all the information they need and have finished analyzing the evidence, they will close the case.

Then hopefully they will share more details with the public. There will never be charges but at least Gabby's family should eventually have some answers. Imo

 

[cady]

I was about to ask the same question. How would anybody have known if privilege was waived? I can't imagine either Brian or his parents waiving their privilege. Brian allegedly only spoke to the attorney once. I doubt he would have even thought of such a thing before taking off to the reserve. Imo

I'd think that the attorney would have a duty to inform him of his options. jmo