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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Warwick7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
79,478
"The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing was for both sides to discuss whether the case would go to jury trial amid the Laundries’ motion to dismiss. Carroll said he would provide a written decision in response to the arguments within the next two weeks. Reilly and the judge discussed scheduling the trial for possibly the end of 2022 or the beginning of next year, though an official date was not set. "

This case is bigger than some may think.. this could change the way the 5th amendment is interpreted.
This is really interesting. I haven't really examined much about pleading the 5th. So I decided to dig a bit deeper. But, I definitely agree with you.
 

Warwick7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
79,478
I wonder if this lawsuit is the Petito/Schmidt family's way of getting the Laundries' phone texts subpoenaed. The Laundries obviously aren't going to give them information about those first few days following Gabby's death willingly, but I'll bet there's text messages and phone records that speak volumes.
Ya know, after thinking about it tonight,
Petito and Schmidt would have to have evidence to backup the major allegations in the lawsuit against Laundries. Maybe there are specific texts that backs up their allegations. Hmmm... This could be very interesting.
 

MsBetsy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
18,932
Reaction score
166,388
The Petito's attorney is on point, no fumbling and very well spoken.

Ya know, after thinking about it tonight,
Petito and Schmidt would have to have evidence to backup the major allegations in the lawsuit against Laundries. Maybe there are specific texts that backs up their allegations. Hmmm... This could be very interesting.
I think we are all wondering what the evidence is. Wouldn't they have said so during the hearing? Or do we have to wait for the trial, if there is one? It's hard to form an opinion when we don't know what evidence they have. We know Brian called his parents on the road but we don't know what was said. And we certainly don't know what Brian said to his parents before taking off. I can't imagine him admitting he murdered Gabby and left her body in the park. He admitted it in his notebook but that was probably much easier. He knew he'd never have to face the Petitos, his family, or LE.

I wonder if even the Laundries know what the evidence is. I'm not sure I understand why it can't be revealed at this point.
 

Puzzles8

Exonerated Mountain Lion
Joined
Nov 28, 2018
Messages
2,373
Reaction score
22,541
IMO, Brian's parents knew exactly what had happened to Gabby very soon after her murder.
This article shows the type of heartless people that BL parents' are. Claiming they have no regrets about their lack of response to Gabby's grief stricken parents. While her parents were frantically trying to find her, the Laundries wouldn't even return phone calls and had hired a lawyer. That alone speaks volumes.


JMO
 
Last edited:

Nikynoo

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,064
Reaction score
16,343
I think we are all wondering what the evidence is. Wouldn't they have said so during the hearing? Or do we have to wait for the trial, if there is one? It's hard to form an opinion when we don't know what evidence they have. We know Brian called his parents on the road but we don't know what was said. And we certainly don't know what Brian said to his parents before taking off. I can't imagine him admitting he murdered Gabby and left her body in the park. He admitted it in his notebook but that was probably much easier. He knew he'd never have to face the Petitos, his family, or LE.

I wonder if even the Laundries know what the evidence is. I'm not sure I understand why it can't be revealed at this point.
Personally, I don't think they have any evidence, they hope to get evidence to support their claims through discovery.
 

Nikynoo

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,064
Reaction score
16,343
IMO, Brian's parents knew exactly what had happened to Gabby very soon after her murder.
This article shows the type of heartless people that BL parents' are. Claiming they have no regrets about their lack of response to Gabby's grief stricken parents. While her parents were frantically trying to find her, the Laundries wouldn't even return phone calls and had hired a lawyer. That alone speaks volumes.


JMO
Respectfully, I disagree. Perhaps they knew nothing? They definitely co-operated with LE and took advice from their lawyer to remain silent. If the Laundries knew anything of value (and I think that the only information they did have was Brian's location) this would be communicated to LE (and his location was), not the Petito's directly.
 

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
11,738
This case is bigger than some may think.. this could change the way the 5th amendment is interpreted.
Agree. And I think that's the intent of Gabby's family, at least of her mother (along with wanting to punish the L's because of what BL did.) Remember though when the search for GP was ongoing NS said she understood BL had a Constitutional right to silence but she thought laws needed to be changed. That people shouldn't have that right when someone is missing. (And I guess not when someone is dead, kidnapped, raped, robbed, whatever, but she just said the right needed to be removed when a person is missing.)

We're already letting people convicted of serious crimes out of jail/prison early because of overcrowding. Not sure how it could work if lots more people become criminals because silence is deemed illegal. And if people choose jail over talking are we likely to need even a bigger "stick" than jail to force talking? I guess in the "olden days" LE used methods they can't now use. Going backwards wouldn't be good IMO.
 

Nikynoo

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,064
Reaction score
16,343
Agree. And I think that's the intent of Gabby's family, at least of her mother (along with wanting to punish the L's because of what BL did.) Remember though when the search for GP was ongoing NS said she understood BL had a Constitutional right to silence but she thought laws needed to be changed. That people shouldn't have that right when someone is missing. (And I guess not when someone is dead, kidnapped, raped, robbed, whatever, but she just said the right needed to be removed when a person is missing.)

We're already letting people convicted of serious crimes out of jail/prison early because of overcrowding. Not sure how it could work if lots more people become criminals because silence is deemed illegal. And if people choose jail over talking are we likely to need even a bigger "stick" than jail to force talking? I guess in the "olden days" LE used methods they can't now use. Going backwards wouldn't be good IMO.
Slightly different here in the UK. If you remain silent, the jury can make an inference to that silence.

Realistically though, even if the right to remain silent is amended or removed in the US (or anywhere else for that matter), it is not going to make someone talk is it? What next, torture, to make a person speak?
 

Nikynoo

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,064
Reaction score
16,343
Maybe the Laundrie's don't have the answers that Gabby's parents seek. And if they did I'm not sure how knowing the exact time Gabby died will help at this point.

In my opinion this civil case is about Gabby's parents punishing the Laundrie's because their son killed their daughter. JMO.
Totally agree. It will also give them an opportunity to be in the same room at the same time.
 

Nikynoo

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,064
Reaction score
16,343
My opinion/thoughts only...

The Judge is questioning the Laundries' attorney about what crime they would be afraid of being accused of if they spoke. The attorney admitted that it would have been Brian Laundrie who committed the crime.

There was a warrant for Brian on the CC/Debit Card - if they help him escape, they'd be obstructing justice (and possibly something more - I'm not a criminal lawyer).
But the warrant wasn't issued until after Brian went missing and he was probably already dead by then - or are you referring to when the statement was made by the family's attorney?

Edited, I see the statement by the family lawyer was made on 14th - before the warrant was issued.
 

Nikynoo

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,064
Reaction score
16,343
The attorney is the agent for his clients. He put out a public statement, there is no attorney client privilege there.

It's unlikely he will be forced to testify, because most of their communications will be protected by Privilege.

If Bertolino didn't put out this statement, there may not be a hearing right now. (MOO)
what if - Bertolino knew G was dead - but advised his clients to issue that statement? I guess it would be argued that the client should have refused that statment be issued?
 

Mike in WNY

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Messages
436
Reaction score
2,633
So, as I understand it, the below is the statement upon which some are focused. I'm struggling to see how the statement leads one to believe that the deceased woman was alive. Corpses are regularly "reunited" with their families. I recently heard upon the return of a deceased pilots body, that it was wonderful that the family and friends were "reunited." The same with deceased MIA/POW's. to say that this statement somehow knowingly gave the plaintiff's "false" hope is - to me - quite a stretch.

“It is our understanding that a search has been organized for Miss Petito in or near Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. On behalf of the Laundrie family it is our hope that the search for Miss Petito is successful and that Miss Petito is reunited with her family.”
 

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
11,738
One thing I found very odd yesterday. Well, actually two. Overall I thought the P's attorney did a very good job (although as a lay person I thought he was not on point with the dead body case examples but was appealing to emotion. In those cases the infliction of distress occurred because the person knew at the time of the distressing overt action the person was dead---& in one case the person was actually at the funeral! That's hardly the case here.) Anyway, he seemed much more competent than he appeared in the first complaint he wrote and that was odd. However, one other very odd thing, and maybe he just wasn't thinking (a dangerous thing in court, I'd think) at one point the P's attorney seemed to say all this could have been prevented had the L's called in an anonymous tip to LE. That makes zero sense to me (even assuming the L's had info to share and I'm not at all sure they did.)

First, how would a tip not tied to the L's help "exonerate" the L's from the guilt for the P's suffering the P's claim they carry? A failed responsibility that they say means monetary compensation is needed, as was mentioned several times by their attorney?

Second, this case got lots of publicity. Don't we all think LE got plenty of tips saying GP was dead? (And some talking about "near water" I'm sure.) And look at all the wild sitings of BL that were reported. Some pics we saw here looked nothing like him except it was a white guy under 50. And there was not a shortage of "tips" from the media and from retired federal agents. BL is in Mexico, in New Zealand, in NY, on the AT, had escaped in a boat from Ft. DeSoto, is hidden under the ground in the L's garden... Tip lines rarely solve crimes but in rare cases they might. But a tip that GP was dead? Even one saying she was in WY? And when was a tip line even established? After Sept 10 if that's when GP was reported missing. Or was he suggesting the L's call the NPPD to report a dead body in WY before she was reported missing? Isn't that the police dept that wouldn't take a missing person report from NS? But they would respond to an anonymous tip about a crime over 2000 miles away?

I can't believe the anonymous tip was a serious suggestion. But, of course, he was talking to potential jurors in everything he said.
 

Nikynoo

Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
3,064
Reaction score
16,343
So, as I understand it, the below is the statement upon which some are focused. I'm struggling to see how the statement leads one to believe that the deceased woman was alive. Corpses are regularly "reunited" with their families. I recently heard upon the return of a deceased pilots body, that it was wonderful that the family and friends were "reunited." The same with deceased MIA/POW's. to say that this statement somehow knowingly gave the plaintiff's "false" hope is - to me - quite a stretch.

“It is our understanding that a search has been organized for Miss Petito in or near Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. On behalf of the Laundrie family it is our hope that the search for Miss Petito is successful and that Miss Petito is reunited with her family.”
I've just watched the hearing and had exactly the same thought. I guess it will be interpreted in different ways by each side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top