CO Father of missing baby 25 years ago reaches out to parents of baby Lisa

[annalia]

Of course it's ok to ask. Nope I'm not a lawyer. I just follow a lot of celebrities who sue magazines. First famous one I think was Carol Burnette.

Defamation of character is harder to prove (I'm assuming because the boundaries are easier to cross)

But just because we put two and two together and assumed that he meant THIS GUY doesn't mean he can sue.

Look at Zanny in CA's case. The woman who had the same name whom it seemed she was fingering is still trying to sort it out in court.

Seems to be tied into proving damages, not just "how dare you say that!"

http://www.personalinjurylawyer.com...er/proving-harm-defamation-character-lawsuits

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

Thanks Chewy. I was thinking of posing the question in the thread for lawyers, but if it was known here that you were a lawyer I didn't want it to seem like I was insulting you. That's why I asked.

Also, AFAIK, slander and defamation go hand in hand. Making defamatory statements is slandering someone. Both words are even used in the definition I posted. Suing someone for defamation means that they were damaged from it. As of this minute it doesn't look like the neighbor was damaged but we don't know if that will change in the future because of what GA said. Libel would be if it was in print.

I'm not sure that it matters so much if we here at WS can put two and two together. It was aired and public knowledge who Motorcycle guy picked out. So what GA said identifies him as being the same person.

But shoot, I can be way off here and not know what the heck I'm talking about. :crazy:

 

[Well Done 99]

While I respect Mr Abeyta and his work with families of missing children, I don't respect the finger-pointing at the neighbour. Mr Abeyta may be former LE, but he is not privy to the different LEA's investigation of this case and has no business pointing a finger at the neighbour. None at all. LE has already been all over the neighbour, even gave him a polygraph. If Mr Abeyta has information that will help, then he can take it to either the local LE working the case, or the FBI and leave it that that.

There's a world of difference between us Jane and Joe Q. Public here at WS and someone like Mr Abeyta, because of who Mr Abeyta is, he carries a certain weight and a responsibility, and it's not responsible to run to the media and publicly point fingers without evidence - former LE or not - actually, being former LE, I would have expected better from Mr Abeyta.

I'm terribly sorry his baby was abducted, but that doesn't make his current public finger-pointing without evidence OK.

JMHO, of course.

ETA: If he IS former LE. I have not found confirmation of that.

Totally agree. It's already been stated that noone closely involved really wanted to speak to him so, unless he has been told by motorcycle guy or someone else exactly who it was they saw, by NAME, GA is in no better position to theorize on whodunnit than we armchair guys are ... he can only be making an assumption.
Sure, he's a little more high profile than most, and may be given more leeway than the rest of us to poke around, but that doesn't make him right.
As for being former LE, pfffft, so is George Anthony ..... but you wouldn't want him snooping around your neighborhood and coming to conclusions.

 

[1&2&3]

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15953146/neighbor-says

Reporter Jim Spellman said a spokesman for the Kansas City Police Department confirmed that the neighbor has been cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of baby Lisa. The spokesperson said the department "has moved on from him," according to CNN."

The above is in reference to JB, husband of Samantha, Deborah's drinking buddy. The article is not naming him and says he, JB, says he passed an LDT. However, with the statement highlighted in red, it reinforces my belief that this person is off the radar. He is trying to get back with his wife, so he does not fit the image as kidnapper.

____________________

My computer & I are having a struggle as it does not want to copy & paste from multiple areas tonight!

 

[Chewy]

Well think of all the blind items in magazines that are printed. As long as they can say that someone else fit the description they are in the clear.

His identifiers are very vague really. It could be the husband or the wife, or the homeless guy or the woman who received the phone call, just based on the things he said. The only thing really specific he said is that they were trained, so unless someone went to school for Baby Snatching 101 they'd have a hard time making it stick.

The thing about the law I do know, from knowing a few lawyers is that television sensationalizes how easy it is to sue someone. Just because you can sue doesn't mean you will win. Lawyers won't even pick up the case because it's not worth their time. Judges won't even entertain the suit because it is a waste of time etc.

But I'm curious, please do start a new thread about it. It would be interesting to see what happened. He basically accused someone flat out of kidnapping his son, on his website, I'm wondering how he got away with that as well.

 

[DeAnn]

I am not being snarky or a SA when I ask this question. What keeps me and other posters safe on this site. Could we be sued for slander if something was said about another person and that person thought they were being slandered? I really have wondered this for a long time. tia if anyone knows.

You could be sued depending on the comments. For example, the comments that someone made the other day about Debbie Bradley's father had potential slander written all over them to me.

Some have said CNN cut Gil off. If that's true, I don't think that was an accident. The neighbor could get an attorney and look closely at Gil and the Examiner article. Public figure is a key when it comes to libel, defamation and slander.

It would be harder to defame Debbie Bradley at this point. It would be real easy for Gil to slander the neighbor because he's not a public figure while I would argue that Debbie Bradley has become a public figure. Reckless disregard for the truth is also important.

 

[Angelonline]

I would love to see a link to A. Mr Abeyta's former occupation where he received training an education in finding missing children and B. a link showing cases he has worked on and helped to solve.
I also had never heard of him until now and I follow a lot of cases. I do feel for him reading his story, but I am not willing to accept what someone says as fact without links.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Do you (mods) think we could merge this thread with the other one about Mr Abeyta?

 

[In da Middle]

You could be sued depending on the comments. For example, the comments that someone made the other day about Debbie Bradley's father had potential slander written all over them to me.

Some have said CNN cut Gil off. If that's true, I don't think that was an accident. The neighbor could get an attorney and look closely at Gil and the Examiner article. Public figure is a key when it comes to libel, defamation and slander.

It would be harder to defame Debbie Bradley at this point. It would be real easy for Gil to slander the neighbor because he's not a public figure while I would argue that Debbie Bradley has become a public figure. Reckless disregard for the truth is also important.

But how is it slander? He didn't say the guy DID it. He only stated that he suspected he had something to do with it and shared his findings with LE. I am not following what he said that is untrue. While it may not have been a good thing to mention publicaly, there was nothing untrue stated.

 

[DeAnn]

But how is it slander? He didn't say the guy DID it. He only stated that he suspected he had something to do with it and shared his findings with LE. I am not following what he said that is untrue. While it may not have been a good thing to mention publicaly, there was nothing untrue stated.

I am not going to repeat it (because then I'm culpable) but there was a specific quote that was quite problematic when it comes to reckless disregard imo.

ETA: I'm just saying be very careful.

 

[Sherbie]

There's also the important matter of whether something is stated as fact or as an opinion. Always a good idea to include, "I think/believe" or JMO, IMO, etc., when theorizing. Opinion is generally protected and a lot easier to defend than statements put forth as fact.

ETA: IMO! :crazy:

 

[Debthree]

Why are there two threads on Gil Abeyta? It's hard enough to keep up with one thread on any topic!! :waitasec:

 

[annalia]

But how is it slander? He didn't say the guy DID it. He only stated that he suspected he had something to do with it and shared his findings with LE. I am not following what he said that is untrue. While it may not have been a good thing to mention publicaly, there was nothing untrue stated.

Is the issue also that someone can't come out and publicly state that they have named a suspect? LE hasn't said he is a suspect, how could a civilian like GA say that he is naming one? He is putting himself out there as a professional and saying this person is now a suspect of a serious crime.

.ABEYTA: I`m saying to you that we have prepared a document naming a suspect near the family that has the experience, had the opportunity to be able to do this. Also, I want to add that that had the training to do this. Remember that -- training to do this. And so --

He may not have used his name but it's obvious who he is identifying. It would be obvious to anyone that's knows the neighbor too. Maybe just a poor choice of words on GA's part, but that's the problem when people put themselves into the middle of cases when they're not really qualified as investigators.

JMHO

 

[RANCH]

Is the issue also that someone can't come out and publicly state that they have named a suspect? LE hasn't said he is a suspect, how could a civilian like GA say that he is naming one? He is putting himself out there as a professional and saying this person is now a suspect of a serious crime.



He may not have used his name but it's obvious who he is identifying. It would be obvious to anyone that's knows the neighbor too. Maybe just a poor choice of words on GA's part, but that's the problem when people put themselves into the middle of cases when they're not really qualified as investigators.

JMHO

BBM: I admit that I know little of Mr Abeyta. He's claiming to be a professional in what profession? TIA.

 

[Karmaa]

But how is it slander? He didn't say the guy DID it. He only stated that he suspected he had something to do with it and shared his findings with LE. I am not following what he said that is untrue. While it may not have been a good thing to mention publicaly, there was nothing untrue stated.

Thanks - that was my original point, LOL! If GA had named a name, he could be opening himself up for defamation charges. Since he didn't he's "probably" safe.

And I would encourage anyone who has questions to go look up for themselves what the laws are. There has been some misinformation here - private citizens are definitely able to be sued - and much more likely to lose than journalists. BUT the hard part is proving that ALL of the legal components are met. Anyway, if someone is worried, I wouldn't trust me or any other poster to give you legal information. Look it up yourself

 

[Donjeta]

[/B]

I don't like the word "apparently" when used by witnesses. I also hate the word "amazing", spoken in a court of law, to describe a person. It is weak. And don't get me started on "Absolutely"...I shutter at the word..

Webster definition of "Apparently":
Used by speakers or writers to avoid committing themselves to the truth of what they are saying.

.......and that is how I feel about the neighbor and her choice of words when she states she ,apparently,saw Lisa in her crib. She is not convincing.

OT but I don't think we have ever seen a video of the neighbor using those words. It's a reporter paraphrase, so IMO it could be the reporter who avoids committing themselves to the truth of the statement. (I wouldn't blame them. I keep wanting to insert seven apparently's in every sentence I write about the case.)

 

[Donjeta]

http://www.kctv5.com/story/15953146/neighbor-says

Reporter Jim Spellman said a spokesman for the Kansas City Police Department confirmed that the neighbor has been cleared of any involvement in the disappearance of baby Lisa. The spokesperson said the department "has moved on from him," according to CNN."

The above is in reference to JB, husband of Samantha, Deborah's drinking buddy. The article is not naming him and says he, JB, says he passed an LDT. However, with the statement highlighted in red, it reinforces my belief that this person is off the radar. He is trying to get back with his wife, so he does not fit the image as kidnapper.

____________________

My computer & I are having a struggle as it does not want to copy & paste from multiple areas tonight!

The way I see it, the police have said they have moved on from him and it means either:

1) they don't think that he did it
2) they think he might have done but they don't want anyone to know what they think.

Either way, it might be a bad idea for anyone to name him a suspect.

 

[Whisperer]

Has everyone researched Gil's Son's case? It was controversial, for sure. I understand and sympathize with him...however, I think he sees everything through his own experience and certainly doesn't ever want a parent to be charged. In reality, the parents/family is involved in about 95% of the cases when it involves babies.

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

There may be some protection but I don't think that is it. See definition below. I will keep looking and see if I can find more on the subject. But, I am pretty sure they can be charged with libel.

freedom of the press  noun the right to publish newspapers, magazines, and other printed matter without governmental restriction and subject only to the laws of libel, obscenity, sedition, etc.

Yeah...and this case is so convoluted it is almost OBSCENE.ullhair:

 

[IHAVENOCLUE]

Even though he doesn't actually come out with his name, he didn't need to, there's no question who he's referring to. I wonder if he could be potentially be sued?

From the link in the OP

What is the prepared document he is referring to? TIA

 

[Donjeta]

What is the prepared document he is referring to? TIA

Assuming it's the seven page report he says he submitted to FBI detailing his investigations and why he thinks this guy is the one.