If that is the case, that the Ps want to make public the contents of the diary for some reason other than for their own personal reasons, then I hope the judge would block this if possible to protect the privacy of the L's and their deceased son. Perhaps the judge in this case could rule that the Ps have the right to view the document/diary under court supervision, no cell phone cameras, note-taking, copying, etc. and that they can not make this pubic, and then return the material to the L's. Perhaps this could be a compromise position.
My own opinion is that they likely do not have the legal right to obtain or see this document, that it should go to his next of kin, his parents in this case.
Interesting points.
I don't know if a judge can put a permanent "gag" on the P's. And if he could, if he orders BL's materials to be shared with the P's, I'm not sure he can order them not to tell anyone (e.g., relative, close friend) what the materials said. And what's to stop the
that person from openly sharing? I think it's sort of like toothpaste and its tube. Once it's out, it's out. I also don't know how much "mediation" is typically orchestrated by a judge hearing a wrongful death case. I guess it depends on the judge.
I would have thought the FBI would have told the P's what the "took responsibility" note essentially said. Maybe not what it said word-for-word but I would have thought they would have been told much more at that final meeting about the note's claim than the public ever was. (Or more about the
notes, plural. We keep saying "note" but the FBI report actually says there were written statementS in which BL took responsibility. So
maybe multiple notes.) I definitely don't think the P's would have been given the notebook to examine (or that ANY physical evidence would have been brought to the Tampa mtg for the P's examination.) But as someone else mentioned (can't find the post to give credit) the writing in the notebook is likely pretty illegible to the naked eye after being under water. Of course, the FBI probably took other "writings" when they searched the house.
But unless the P's attorney has been misquoted, as part of the wrongful death suit they want the notebook and they want other "writings" of BL's. (FWIW, the attorney said they would "get" not "see" the materials.) Of course, it's not clear who has the notebook now. I'd think the FBI wouldn't be in the business of storing property while family squabbles over ownership play out. (Many crimes probably cause or worsen family strife so disputed property claims could frequently arise.)
I understand the P's want to know what happened and they might think they will if they read BL's writings. But I do not understand what the legal basis would be for the P's to be awarded those things or other items of an obvious personal nature if they belonged to BL. And I assume the notebook belonged BL unless there's strong evidence to the contrary. (Did it say in the front "This notebook belongs to Gabby Petito?" Are most of the writings and drawings in the notebook GP's?) Evidence the notebook belonged to GP is the only obvious way I (as a layperson) could see it awarded to the P's in court. And I'd think the evidence would need to be more than a statement of ownership by the P's.
I suppose one could claim any writings of BL's have monetary value as part of the estate because they could be sold to some sleazy news outlet or even to some murder memorabilia collector but that's a pretty horrible position to argue, I'd think. But if the suit isn't defended, wouldn't that do away with the P's even gaining access to the notebook
contents and other writings through discovery? (As was mentioned by
@Nikynoo.) And if the P's are awarded damages that exceed the value of the estate funds, maybe the monetary value argument will be made.
JMO
www.deseret.com
