Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #84

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shamrock1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2017
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
15,560
Briefly read the filing and I’m confused. Any FL attorneys/paralegals here? Where’s the claim that the parents owed a duty to alleviate suffering, etc? What’s the exact cause of action? Is this this entire complaint?
 

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,574
Reaction score
11,723
Just watching JB going through the suit now. The Petito's were very vocal about the Laundrie's not responding to their calls and messages. I wonder why they didn't say at the time they had been blocked.

Unless they did and I missed it somehow.

I doubt they knew it at the time. Blocking usually means the caller hears the phone ring once and then it's straight to voicemail. In reality the phone doesn't ring but voicemail still takes the msg. A caller hears the same thing he/she hears if the phone is off. So callers don't know they've been blocked.

I'm not sure how it could be shown RL is the one who blocked the Petito number(s) assuming that did happen.
JMO
 

Allabouttrial

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
4,271
Reaction score
34,340
I doubt they knew it at the time. Blocking usually means the caller hears the phone ring once and then it's straight to voicemail. In reality the phone doesn't ring but voicemail still takes the msg. A caller hears the same thing he/she hears if the phone is off. So callers don't know they've been blocked.

I'm not sure how it could be shown RL is the one who blocked the Petito number(s) assuming that did happen.
JMO
Thank you! That makes sense.

Just looked back on an interview with the Petito's. They do say, when they called the Laundrie's, all they were getting was their voicemail.
 

pizzaman12

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2019
Messages
1,267
Reaction score
10,396
I don’t like it. I’ve always thought that Brian blocked Gabby’s parents numbers on his parents phones. That’s what I would do if I were in his shoes. How could they possibly know when/if Brian revealed he murdered Gabby? From everything we know, there is no evidence that they were trying to assist him in leaving the country. If they were, why would he have blown his brains out in the park? After people tormented the Laundries for months on end, I’m not thrilled this is being stirred up again. I probably sound heartless regarding Gabby’s parents, I don’t mean to. I think the Laundries made several mistakes but not what they are being accused of. We shall see. IMO

To be fair, what both families know I assure you is far greater than what us, the general public know regardless of how closely or passionately we followed the case. You even lead with what you thought happened, yet there hasn't been any proof of that at all. You're not thrilled about something being stirred up yet we don't even know the facts.
 

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,574
Reaction score
11,723
It's called Obstruction of Justice. That is a legal charge. So is aiding and abetting a fugitive.

In the US exercising a right guaranteed by the Constitution isn't a crime. No one has to answer questions posed by LE much less questions posed by relatives of a family member's girlfriend. And aiding and abetting a fugitive means the person had to be a fugitive at the time aid was given. But we'll see. If there were crimes committed by the L's, it's surprising no charges have been filed.
JMO
 

LinasK

Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
25,675
Reaction score
14,639
In the US exercising a right guaranteed by the Constitution isn't a crime. No one has to answer questions posed by LE much less questions posed by relatives of a family member's girlfriend. And aiding and abetting a fugitive means the person had to be a fugitive at the time aid was given. But we'll see. If there were crimes committed by the L's, it's surprising no charges have been filed.
JMO
This is a Civil suit, and the standard of guilt is much lower than in criminal court.
 

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,574
Reaction score
11,723
This is a Civil suit, and the standard of guilt is much lower than in criminal court.

I am aware of that. But you had mentioned both Obstruction and Aiding and Abetting. Those are criminal charges and the L's haven't been charged with criminal actions.

It remains to be seen if the P's can make their civil case for Negligence even with a lower standard of proof. I don't quite see how if the first element requires proof the L's had a legal duty to the P's. Even with a lower standard of proof, it's still a legal matter, not a matter what would have been the "polite" thing for the L's to do. And Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (as was mentioned earlier) requires the defendant to have done something "outrageous." Exercising a Constitutional right isn't outrageous.
JMO
 

WestGL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2020
Messages
111
Reaction score
2,327
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (as was mentioned earlier) requires the defendant to have done something "outrageous." Exercising a Constitutional right isn't outrageous.
JMO

Exercising a constitutional right may not be outrageous from a legal and court perspective, but not telling desperately begging parents for three long weeks that we know what happened to your daughter can certainly be argued as outrageous. And cause for extreme emotional distress. Thus bringing the suit for a court to decide.
 

LinasK

Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
Joined
Jun 3, 2004
Messages
25,675
Reaction score
14,639
I am aware of that. But you had mentioned both Obstruction and Aiding and Abetting. Those are criminal charges and the L's haven't been charged with criminal actions.

It remains to be seen if the P's can make their civil case for Negligence even with a lower standard of proof. I don't quite see how if the first element requires proof the L's had a legal duty to the P's. Even with a lower standard of proof, it's still a legal matter, not a matter what would have been the "polite" thing for the L's to do. And Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (as was mentioned earlier) requires the defendant to have done something "outrageous." Exercising a Constitutional right isn't outrageous.
JMO
You asked what the legally outrageous behavior was on the part of the Laundries and I answered. They don't have to be charged criminally to file a Civil suit against them.
 

WestGL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2020
Messages
111
Reaction score
2,327
The most telling evidence in the suit for me is that Gabby was murdered on Aug 27 and Brian’s parents contacted and secured a lawyer starting on Aug 28. Retainer paid Sept 2.

Most of those days Brian was off wandering around Wyoming or driving cross country to Florida. Gabby was only officially missing on Sept 10 or 11.
 
Last edited:

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,574
Reaction score
11,723
Exercising a constitutional right may not be outrageous from a legal and court perspective, but not telling desperately begging parents for three long weeks that we know what happened to your daughter can certainly be argued as outrageous. And cause for extreme emotional distress. Thus bringing the suit for a court to decide.

I don't think the suit is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. That requires conduct to be outrageous. Since exercising a Constitutional right can't be shown to be outrageous, that's probably why the P's haven't brought suit on those grounds. But even with Negligence, what legal duty did the L's have to the P's? I'm also not at all sure the P's were begging the L's for information for 3 weeks. But we'll see.
JMO
 

Shamrock1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2017
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
15,560
I don't think the suit is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. That requires conduct to be outrageous. Since exercising a Constitutional right can't be shown to be outrageous, that's probably why the P's haven't brought suit on those grounds. But even with Negligence, what legal duty did the L's have to the P's? I'm also not at all sure the P's were begging the L's for information for 3 weeks. But we'll see.
JMO

I’m not seeing a duty, generally or from the scant allegations in the complaint.
 

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,574
Reaction score
11,723
You asked what the legally outrageous behavior was on the part of the Laundries and I answered. They don't have to be charged criminally to file a Civil suit against them.

That's not what my post said. It said choosing to remain silent and not answer LE's questions isn't outrageous conduct either criminally or civilly. You then mentioned Obstructed and Aiding a Fugitive, criminal charges.

The civil suit apparently claims the L's failed in a legal duty to the P's. We'll see.
JMO
 

MountainGal33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
249
Reaction score
2,397
It says in the suit Roberta Laundrie blocked GB mother on Facebook and blocked her cell number on or about Sept 10.

That’s SICK in my opinion. Gabby was full on missing at this point - I don’t care what anyone says that is messed up!

I hope they take them down.
 

Shamrock1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2017
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
15,560
Exercising a constitutional right may not be outrageous from a legal and court perspective, but not telling desperately begging parents for three long weeks that we know what happened to your daughter can certainly be argued as outrageous. And cause for extreme emotional distress. Thus bringing the suit for a court to decide.

I don’t think that qualifies as outrageous. In an IIED or NIED cause of action, the successful plaintiff is usually close to the wrongful act. A parent plaintiff who witnesses the defendant injure a child is a good example.
 

Laura456

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
237
Reaction score
1,267
IMO civil cases are much more revealing than criminal cases. I hope we learn more but I’m not sure how this will help Gabby’s family. Closure perhaps? Funding for their cause? DV needs to be addressed yesterday and things need to change.

DV does need addressed but the way the foundation has been set up and marketed makes me uncomfortable. Maybe I'm cynical.
 

mom2chloe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
1,917
Reaction score
17,005
DV does need addressed but the way the foundation has been set up and marketed makes me uncomfortable. Maybe I'm cynical.
I understand but remain hopefully optimistic that their shelter for DV victims will help. Idk what else we can do but offer hope and security for the victims and their children. IMO Changes need to be made obviously but our current leaders are otherwise occupied or so they say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top