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

Status
Not open for further replies.

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
11,738
BBM

The Judge is confirming SB's statement was outrageous. He was not "simply" mimicking Reily's term. Those 8 pages make it clear.
Outrageous in the context of the facts of the case as alleged in the P's Complaint (that the L's knew GP was dead and knew where her body was etc) if those facts cannot be proven, then the outrageousness doesn't stand.
 

Warwick7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
6,957
Reaction score
79,484
True. And when the property was divvied up with the FBI in Tampa (& the notebook confession released) I had already wondered if SB was acting as an attorney that day. I wondered because people were saying he ought to have released RL's letter and/or given Reilly a copy. I disagreed partly because he wasn't representing them in the current lawsuit involving Reilly. At any rate, I'm pretty sure the L's could have asked a non-attorney to meet with the FBI and to deliver the confession to Fox. So I do wonder. Of course I also wonder if he accepted a retainer.... We don't know if he did. The P's say he did but that may not be true He could be a friend. If he did accept one though, he may rue the day. But if he wasn't their attorney there's no privilege either....
JMO
 

Warwick7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
6,957
Reaction score
79,484
So...the judge has denied Christopher and Roberta Laundrie’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Gabby's parents.

"Judge Hunter W. Carroll ruled the Petito family at this stage had a valid claim against the Laundrie’s and allowed the lawsuit to advance."

"Before her body was found, the Laundrie’s released a statement through their attorney, saying it was their ” hope that the search for Miss Petito is successful and that Miss Petito is reunited with her family.”

"As alleged by the Plaintiffs, the Laundries made their statement knowing that Gabby was dead, knowing the location of her body, and knowing that her parents were frantically looking for her. If this is true, then the Laundries’ statement was particularly callous and cruel, and it is sufficiently outrageous to state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress,” the court order said."

 

Wallendo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
143
Reaction score
1,186
People can be held responsible for statements made by their lawyer: Amber Heard "won" $2,000,000 for a statement made by Johnny Depp's lawyer.

On the other hand, this case is quite different. Bertolino made no accusations against GP or her parents. Any knowledge of the case he possessed would have been told to him by BL or his parents, and this is protected by attorney-client privilege. SB has stated that, at the time, he represented all three Laundries. If BL provided his lawyer with false information leading to the public statement, can his parents be held liable?

BL's "confession" is complete bull****. Based on this bizarre tale, I have no reason to believe he was brutally honest with his parents or his lawyer. I know many posters here believe he told his parents all the details of his crime, but that just seems too out of character for the person who claimed to have help put her out of her misery.

In this case, I suspect only two people knew what really went down out west, and both of them are dead. I suspect that when this lawsuit is over, there will still be divisions among us as to the L's actions and motives.
 

floridafreshsqueez

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2019
Messages
25
Reaction score
406
Outrageous in the context of the facts of the case as alleged in the P's Complaint (that the L's knew GP was dead and knew where her body was etc) if those facts cannot be proven, then the outrageousness doesn't stand.
Looks like the Judge disagreed with you :)
 

Mike in WNY

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Messages
436
Reaction score
2,633
So...the judge has denied Christopher and Roberta Laundrie’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Gabby's parents.

"Judge Hunter W. Carroll ruled the Petito family at this stage had a valid claim against the Laundrie’s and allowed the lawsuit to advance."

"Before her body was found, the Laundrie’s released a statement through their attorney, saying it was their ” hope that the search for Miss Petito is successful and that Miss Petito is reunited with her family.”

"As alleged by the Plaintiffs, the Laundries made their statement knowing that Gabby was dead, knowing the location of her body, and knowing that her parents were frantically looking for her. If this is true, then the Laundries’ statement was particularly callous and cruel, and it is sufficiently outrageous to state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress,” the court order said."

I'll suggest that the most critical words in that document are "If this is true...". I'd like to have seen an complimentary statement of "If this is not true...".
 

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
11,738
Looks like the Judge disagreed with you :)
No, he didn't. His decision re: the MTD had to assume the alleged facts in the Complaint are true. At trial there will be no such assumption. The plaintiffs will have to prove the L's knew what the P's claim they knew. IF the L's had no clue GP was dead, SB's statement certainly isn't outrageous.
JMO
 

gliving

Woof
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
24,503
"Reilly told Sarasota County Court, Florida: 'This is case not simply about the silence of Robert and Christopher Laundrie who knew their son had brutally murdered Gabby Petito.'

He said it also wasn't about their 'callous refusal despite pleas from the Petito family' to speak out about whether not Gabby was alive – or if she wasn't the location of her body.

'It's about a course of conduct that they committed from when they learned on August 28, 2021 that their son had brutally murdered Gabby Petito,' he said."


(BBM)
 

Warwick7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
6,957
Reaction score
79,484

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
11,738
Thanks.

I can't read the full statement-- the edges are cut off-- but I think it says the P's look forward to discovering what the L's knew. I know several people posting here have opined the P's hope to find evidence for their various claims through the discovery process (such as the claim the L's knew GP was dead) That they don't really have evidence yet. Sounds like that's the case. But they'll need that evidence eventually.

Since the judge said the L's silence wasn't a problem will evidence of their silence and their vacation for 2 days be presented at trial?
JMO
 

TL4S

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
3,150
Reaction score
27,105
See, but to me, this statement is discouraging to the idea that the Ps already have evidence, such as something obtained from the FBI. It says they "look forward to discovering the information the Ls knew about G's death and her whereabouts, and in particular getting a copy of any correspondence, emails and texts..." and so on.

ETA: You beat me to it @NCWatcher...
 

gliving

Woof
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
24,503
Thanks.

I can't read the full statement-- the edges are cut off-- but I think it says the P's look forward to discovering what the L's knew. I know several people posting here have opined the P's hope to find evidence for their various claims through the discovery process (such as the claim the L's knew GP was dead) That they don't really have evidence yet. Sounds like that's the case. But they'll need that evidence eventually.

Since the judge said the L's silence wasn't a problem will evidence of their silence and their vacation for 2 days be presented at trial?
JMO
1656610837888.png
9:48 AM · Jun 30, 2022
 

Mike in WNY

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2017
Messages
436
Reaction score
2,633
Why is SB still releasing statements on behalf of the L's? They have a Florida attorney representing them who argued their case before the Judge last week. Seems to me that SB is oversteeping.

Why not? I'd think the defendants - as well as plaintiffs - could have anyone they want to be a public spokesperson. To my knowledge, unless there's some type of court gag-like order, folks have all manners of people speak for them - family, friends, attorneys, public relations reps, clergy, etc. Sometimes, they even speak for themselves. I'd bet, in this case, it certainly allows a bit of an insulating factor, too... and the interested public already "knows" the guy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top