- Aug 13, 2011
- Reaction score
bbmThis was a video posted by another member yesterday. It is authentic and the words come straight from Steven Bertolino. It was discussion that started last night on a previous thread. The discussion began because of the Daily Mail article but became more important in light of this interview.
I see that this discussion was missed by some posters, but this does not mean that it came from nowhere and was without a basis. It was sourced, this video together with the Daily Mail article, and every post on it has been noted as speculation, opinion, and conjecture. No one to my knowledge has stated this as fact so I hope this clears any confusion.
It was something worth discussing and fleshing out. Because something is going on. It may not be an immunity deal and many of us hope it is not. But, there's something here we don't know. And, this was the point of it.
[8:04] SB: "This case is not over. I have yet to speak to FBI personnel. I have yet to speak with Northport Police. I have yet to speak to the Assistant US Attorney, Ms. Romine out in Wyoming. Um, there are certain things that need to be done and...and I should say wrapped up (emphasis mine) before we can have further conversations of what, um, may or may not have been done differently."
[8:35] Q: Do you think your clients, the Laundries, will eventually be charged with crimes?
A: I have no reason to believe that.
[9:00] This is the mark of your quote above. You know what several weeks ago would have coincided with? A face to face proffer in Orlando. MOO (This was to @Figuring's quote of:
“Conversations were had several weeks ago with the FBI with respect to certain charges,” he [SB] said. “When questioned and when communications were had between myself and the FBI, I think it was realized that charges were not appropriate.”]
[At 9:35] he admits there were charges against the parents discussed. Q: misdemeanor or felony charges?
Another extended pause
A: "I...I..(stutter again) don't know what level of crime or charge was um, in the mix..."
He proceeds to insist no deal was cut (it's not a crime to lie to the press, and the deal is likely awaiting being signed off on now that they have located Brian, if there is a deal so technically this would not be a lie). He also proceeds to normalize it - that conversations about criminal exposure are oh so normal. Then he proceeds to bash the legal analysts in MSM - again. ( The "There's not a smarter guy in the room than me, Steven Bertolino" mentality again. MOO)
He also reveals at the end that he's been in contact with GPs' family attorney - this kicks the likelihood of a deal up a notch IMO. And, also diminishes the probability of any civil suit. The family will get some answers it seems to me. MOO
As far as the balance of the video he lied again right out of the gate. MOO He said he watched Cassie and Brian grow up when he admitted to Mani Hughes after being pressed that this was actually NOT true. It astonishing. He's truly a piece of work. MOO
Was the prompt to go look for Brian the fact that the park was open? That never seemed plausible. Or, was it because they had an immunity deal? MOO
"John Q Public" as he refers to us, believe your credibility is shot. That's why. MOO
If his clients got a deal then as far as he is concerned the matter of his or their involvement has been put to bed. So, no wonder he's talking so much. This is another thing I couldn't understand - why this guy would not stop talking. Looks like we may now know why.
Oh, and this is all JMO.
Thanks for transcribing this for the rest of us, @Jurisprudence !
And for the fact that he is on record saying this and it's not speculation.
It looks as if he's not finished talking about Brian's side of this case.
It would've been nice if he mentioned Gabby and what he knows about her final days after being rendered unable to contact her worried family.
That's if he knows something, he could make this case more about Gabby ?
Re. the lavender bolded : If SB is telling the truth about this; it'll be some relief to Gabby's family !
They've waited so long for answers.
Re. the green bolded : Why is he openly lying ? What does he have to gain from this other than losing credibility ?
As far as his John Q Public reference -- it's as if he knows, and doesn't care about the accuracy of his words.
Not sure that reckless would begin to explain it.
We at WS are the John Q. Public; as well as the actual public -- who are listening to what he has to say.
And yes, we believe his credibility is baseless and without foundation.
Even if he claims no deal was struck for immunity for the Laundrie's, the truth may be the opposite of what he says.
Smh that anyone thought he'd be a competent criminal counsel for the L.'s.
Was he a real estate lawyer in the past ?
Wonder if any of his former clients had any issues with the property he was listing ?
Something to think about.