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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Skigirl

Verified expert in neuroscience
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,902
Reaction score
7,171
Well, the warrant alleges that happened and happened between Aug 30 & Sept 1. Personally I don't think RL mailed him anything in WY but if she did, she had to send it before Aug 30 since he arrived in FL Sept 1.
If I am understanding the above suggests that the warrant alleges that she was murdered between August 30 and Sept. 1. However, the arrest warrant alleges that he unlawfully accessed her accounts between August 30 and Sept. 1 (https://static.fox13news.com/www.fo...s/2021/09/Laundrie-indictment-and-warrant.pdf).

Whether or not RL mailed anything to him, the timeline in the arrest warrant would be consistent with a murder on the night of Aug 27, a call to his parents on Aug 28, the receipt of the package on the 29th, a departure at night on the 29th, and an arrival in Fl at 9 AM on the 1st.
 

RANCH

United we stand, divided we fall.
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
15,868
Reaction score
27,590
I agree it's not unethical to ask. I never said it was despite it being theater.

But otherwise...your points might be generally true but I don't think they fit here.

1. No one can (or should) assume the P's will get the letter eventually. There is a MTD. It very well may not be granted but acting as if it doesn't exist would make no sense and would be professionally irresponsible. It's not the job of any defendant to aid a plaintiff when there's a serious MTD on the table. So there's no "eventually" to act on right now.

2. SB is not the attorney handling the Emotional Distress case. Why would he turn over discovery materials for that case? Not only would that not make sense, it could put SB in professional jeopardy for his conduct if he turned over materials. He's acting as the L's attorney for other matters. He has different responsibilities from the attorney handling the ED case just as the plaintiffs' attorney has different responsibilities than the defense attorney.
JMO
Thank you for reminding me that the motion to dismiss has not been ruled on yet so it's possible that there will be no discovery for the plaintiff's.

You are also correct about the lawyer's involved in this case and how their roles are different. Feel free to remind me of these things if I stray from the realities of this case. JMO.
 

RANCH

United we stand, divided we fall.
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
15,868
Reaction score
27,590
If I am understanding the above suggests that the warrant alleges that she was murdered between August 30 and Sept. 1. However, the arrest warrant alleges that he unlawfully accessed her accounts between August 30 and Sept. 1 (https://static.fox13news.com/www.fo...s/2021/09/Laundrie-indictment-and-warrant.pdf).

Whether or not RL mailed anything to him, the timeline in the arrest warrant would be consistent with a murder on the night of Aug 27, a call to his parents on Aug 28, the receipt of the package on the 29th, a departure at night on the 29th, and an arrival in Fl at 9 AM on the 1st.
That's a pretty tight timeline. JMO.
 

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,574
Reaction score
11,723
If I am understanding the above suggests that the warrant alleges that she was murdered between August 30 and Sept. 1. However, the arrest warrant alleges that he unlawfully accessed her accounts between August 30 and Sept. 1 (https://static.fox13news.com/www.fo...s/2021/09/Laundrie-indictment-and-warrant.pdf).

Whether or not RL mailed anything to him, the timeline in the arrest warrant would be consistent with a murder on the night of Aug 27, a call to his parents on Aug 28, the receipt of the package on the 29th, a departure at night on the 29th, and an arrival in Fl at 9 AM on the 1st.
Not to me. Two points

1. The 28th was a Saturday. I don't think it's possible to ship a package from FL on Sat to arrive in WY on Sunday. USPS and FedEx ship overnight only on business days so far as I can tell. I think a Saturday shipment-- assuming one can post one-- may even not go out until Monday. Meaning a Tuesday arrival (Aug 31 in this case) BL couldn't have been still in WY on Aug 31.

2. But regardless, the post I was responding to in the post you quoted said he had plenty of stolen money by the time RL could have shipped anything on the 28th/29th. If the warrant is correct (and it may not be-- it's not proof by itself) the accts weren't accessed until the 30th. So he wouldn't necessarily had plenty money on the 28th/29th.

Edit to add: No, my post did not allege she was murdered between Aug 30 & Sept 1.
 
Last edited:

Elmatadorzgrl

New Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
2
Reaction score
8
P's lost a beautiful life, irretrievably. This just doesn't seem like too much to ask
It is important to remember that killing someone by strangulation is a "long and deliberate" process that takes roughly between 62 to 157 seconds depending on the severity of the attack.

There is no way BL killed Gabby unintentionally.
 
Last edited:

Wallendo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
133
Reaction score
1,074
I disagree that the lawyers are playing to a potential jury. I suspect the real agenda is to force the Laundries to capitulate in some way. If this case goes to trial, it may be a difficult case for both sides. Putting out tremendous public pressure may induce them to settle prior to trial. Otherwise, this case may go on for years.

We may know more in two weeks, but it would not surprise me if the losing side on the Motion to Dismiss appeals the decision.
 

RANCH

United we stand, divided we fall.
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
15,868
Reaction score
27,590
I disagree that the lawyers are playing to a potential jury. I suspect the real agenda is to force the Laundries to capitulate in some way. If this case goes to trial, it may be a difficult case for both sides. Putting out tremendous public pressure may induce them to settle prior to trial. Otherwise, this case may go on for years.

We may know more in two weeks, but it would not surprise me if the losing side on the Motion to Dismiss appeals the decision.
The Laundrie's have been under tremendous public pressure since the beginning of this case and I don't see how these recent disclosures will make them capitulate seeing how they haven't contributed to any real evidence against them.

I think the no duty to report aspect will be a major factor if this case does go to trial and not all of these peripheral subjects from the notebook and letter. JMO.
 

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,574
Reaction score
11,723
I disagree that the lawyers are playing to a potential jury. I suspect the real agenda is to force the Laundries to capitulate in some way. If this case goes to trial, it may be a difficult case for both sides. Putting out tremendous public pressure may induce them to settle prior to trial. Otherwise, this case may go on for years.

We may know more in two weeks, but it would not surprise me if the losing side on the Motion to Dismiss appeals the decision.
Very interesting.

What do you think the P's want from the L,'s in terms of a settlement? Their house and all the L's money? Plus a public admission of horrible wrongdoing?

I do see your point completely. But as a layperson it seems to me often in civil cases one side is more dug in than the other. Here it seems the P's don't want a settlement, they want everything they've asked for. And answers that the L's likely don't have. (To why questions) And some blood. If the P's likely wouldn't settle for less, why would the L's offer to settle? Isn't the point of settling to minimize damage? But what's worse than losing everything? The threat of more crazed demonstrators? That's likely a given no matter what, unfortunately. I guess going through a trial would be hard---- but as you say, that's true for both sides. The P's did lots of eye-rolling in court when the L's attorney spoke during that very brief and fairly benign hearing so it's not going to be easy for either side.
 

Warwick7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
6,926
Reaction score
79,248
Someone earlier, I can't remember who, asked something like is Rielly's memory so bad that he can't remember any specifics in the letter?

No.

Around the 5:19 mark Rielly makes it very clear. He says: "I'm not comfortable without having it in front of me because I'll be paraphrasing and I don't want to paraphrase something that serious."
 

borndem

Anglophile & registered demwit
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
17,460
Reaction score
41,799
Just saw this -- here is his sad, sad, so sad story:

'I Ended Her Life': Laundrie Confessed In Notebook To Killing Petito​

In notebook found near his body in Sarasota County park, Brian Laundrie wrote that killing his fiancée, Gabby Petito, in WY was "merciful."​

Tiffany Razzano's profile picture

Tiffany Razzano, Patch Staff
Verified Patch Staff Badge

Posted Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:32 pm ET|Updated Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:41 pm ET
SARASOTA COUNTY, FL — Months after his death, Brian Laundrie's written confession of killing his fiancée, Gabby Petito, near a Wyoming national park at the end of August 2021 has been released to the public.
Steven Bertolino, an attorney representing the Laundrie family, provided pages from the notebook, which was found near Laundrie's remains in a Sarasota County park, to Fox News Digital after meeting with the FBI.
[...]
Laundrie, who called her death "an unexpected tragedy," wrote that they were crossing a stream at the Spread Creek Dispersed Camping area when Petito fell in.
He said that he tried carrying her down the stream and back to their car but was unable to safely carry her. So, he started a fire, keeping her close to the heat because she was freezing and injured, though he was unsure of the extent of her injuries.
------------------
More here:
 

RANCH

United we stand, divided we fall.
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
15,868
Reaction score
27,590
Someone earlier, I can't remember who, asked something like is Rielly's memory so bad that he can't remember any specifics in the letter?

No.

Around the 5:19 mark Rielly makes it very clear. He says: "I'm not comfortable without having it in front of me because I'll be paraphrasing and I don't want to paraphrase something that serious."
That was me and why would Reilly have to paraphrase? Just say "I came to my conclusion because RL said XYZ". And even if he did paraphrase it wouldn't change the meaning of the statements in the letter.

It's obvious to me that Reilly doesn't want to give any specific information from the letter he says he read at this time because it wont help his case. JMO.
 

MsBetsy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
18,928
Reaction score
166,346
Just saw this -- here is his sad, sad, so sad story:

'I Ended Her Life': Laundrie Confessed In Notebook To Killing Petito​

In notebook found near his body in Sarasota County park, Brian Laundrie wrote that killing his fiancée, Gabby Petito, in WY was "merciful."​

Tiffany Razzano's profile picture's profile picture

Tiffany Razzano, Patch Staff
Verified Patch Staff Badge

Posted Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:32 pm ET|Updated Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 3:41 pm ET
SARASOTA COUNTY, FL — Months after his death, Brian Laundrie's written confession of killing his fiancée, Gabby Petito, near a Wyoming national park at the end of August 2021 has been released to the public.
Steven Bertolino, an attorney representing the Laundrie family, provided pages from the notebook, which was found near Laundrie's remains in a Sarasota County park, to Fox News Digital after meeting with the FBI.
[...]
Laundrie, who called her death "an unexpected tragedy," wrote that they were crossing a stream at the Spread Creek Dispersed Camping area when Petito fell in.
He said that he tried carrying her down the stream and back to their car but was unable to safely carry her. So, he started a fire, keeping her close to the heat because she was freezing and injured, though he was unsure of the extent of her injuries.
------------------
More here:
So basically he is saying he killed her because she was cold and in pain, since he didn't know the extent of her injuries other than a small bump on her head.

I wonder if it occurred to him as he was writing how ridiculous it sounds. He had plenty of time to invent a story yet this is what he came up with.
 

Warwick7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
6,926
Reaction score
79,248
That was me and why would Reilly have to paraphrase? Just say "I came to my conclusion because RL said XYZ". And even if he did paraphrase it wouldn't change the meaning of the statements in the letter.

It's obvious to me that Reilly doesn't want to give any specific information from the letter he says he read at this time because it wont help his case. JMO.
What he didn't want to paraphrase was the exact information about RL "assisting" with reference to Gabby. Brian E. said "you mean after Gabby was dead?" Reilly said yes.

There is nothing wrong with Reilly not wanting to paraphrase that particular, serious, information from Raberta.

And there was certainly nothing wrong with his memory.
 

RANCH

United we stand, divided we fall.
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
15,868
Reaction score
27,590
So basically he is saying he killed her because she was cold and in pain, since he didn't know the extent of her injuries other than a small bump on her head.

I wonder if it occurred to him as he was writing how ridiculous it sounds. He had plenty of time to invent a story yet this is what he came up with.
Yes. His made up story is utterly absurd. It shows how twisted his mind was. He was a sick and pathetic . JMO.
 

RANCH

United we stand, divided we fall.
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
15,868
Reaction score
27,590
What he didn't want to paraphrase was the exact information about RL "assisting" with reference to Gabby. Brian E. said "you mean after Gabby was dead?" Reilly said yes.

There is nothing wrong with Reilly not wanting to paraphrase that particular, serious, information from Raberta.

And there was certainly nothing wrong with his memory.
Looks like we agree on this.
 

Warwick7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
6,926
Reaction score
79,248
"He told WFLA: “I find it ironic that Mr Bertolino says he was, in full transparency, releasing this."

“Well, someone should ask him why he doesn’t release the entire notebook – but more importantly, ask him why he doesn’t release Roberta Laundrie’s letter to her son.”

 

MsBetsy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2018
Messages
18,928
Reaction score
166,346
What he didn't want to paraphrase was the exact information about RL "assisting" with reference to Gabby. Brian E. said "you mean after Gabby was dead?" Reilly said yes.

There is nothing wrong with Reilly not wanting to paraphrase that particular, serious, information from Raberta.

And there was certainly nothing wrong with his memory.
I wish he would have at least said what it was she was offering assistance with. If it was getting out of the country, which they are claiming, why wouldn't he just say?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top