Found Deceased WY - Gabby Petito, Grand Teton National Park #87

[al66pine]

Response to GPs Parents' 3rd Amended Complaint

Laundrie family denies knowledge of Gabby Petito’s murder in new court documents

The parents of Brian Laundrie and their former attorney have filed a response to a motion denying they had outright knowledge of the fact that a murder had taken place.

www.kktv.com

In their response, the Laundries again confirmed the communication but denied all other allegations of knowledge of the crime.

@RANCH Thx for your post w link updating us re newly filed Response to the L's 3rd Amended Complaint.

Re this story, reporting is confused/confusing.
First: "In the complaint, filed on Nov. 30, the Laundrie family admitted they received a call from Brian Laundrie in the immediate aftermath of Gabby’s disappearance."
Seems jumbled to me, as L family did not/could not admit anything in the complaint as it is not their doc (but obvs. the L's could make admissions in the L's "Response" doc. filing).

Second: "In their response, the Laundries confirmed..."
The scribd entry at tail end of article does NOT show the Laundrie's "Response " but SB's "Response."*

Reporter or editor may have fumbled.
Or by zigging & zagging in & out of ten windows open on my tablet, maybe I've gotten wires crossed. If so, speak right up. Plz.

If anyone sees image/pdf of "Laundries' Response to Plaintiff's Third Amendment Complaint" I'd look forward to the link. TIA.

<modsnip - not an approved source>

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

If anyone sees image/pdf of "Laundries' Response to Plaintiff's Third Amendment Complaint" I'd look forward to the link. TIA.

They haven't filed one, the article is wrong.

 

[PrairieWind]

Is there a link to the last Amended Complaint?

 

[RANCH]

Is there a link to the last Amended Complaint?

DocumentCloud

embed.documentcloud.org

 

[al66pine]

Bertolino's Response. Excerpts re Sept.14, 2021 Stmt.

¶30 re SB's Release of Sept 14 Public Stmt.
SB "... admits he released a statement in behalf of his clients.... made following urging and demands - some life threatening - for information and comment from Plaintiffs, law enforcement, the press, and the public...." (sbm)
( Defendant denies that that CL & RL had full knowledge of the murder and location of remains)

¶ 32. SB admits he knew that Gabby's Father lived in FL. at time of stmt release.
"The September 14, 2021 statement was not "intended to reach Joseph Petito." Rather the statement was intended to provide a public response to escalating pressure from from Plaintiffs, law enforcement, the press, and the public who were all demanding that ..."
CL & RL "provide information, comment, or other type of response to the events being reported worldwide and incessantly throughout each day at that time...." (sbm)

¶33 SB had ".... no particular intent to distribute to... any particular geographic region. The statement was intended for general public consumption..."(sbm)

Q: So does anyone buy this ---> SB thought that Joseph Petito was enjoying an extended stay in an isolation float pod-sensory deprivation tank or other spidey-hole equivalent, somehow impervious to news while his daughter was missing?
Wouldn't get the word? IDK.

ETA: Thank you @RANCH for another source w SB's Response --->
DocumentCloud

DocumentCloud

embed.documentcloud.org

 

[Doghairrules]

The letter feels creepy to me. Most of us raise our sons to be men, not our boys and her unconditional belief that nothing can come between them leaves me feeling like RL feels there is no room in their relationship for anyone else, including girlfriends.

I'm not sure she's offering support after he killed Gabby but the fact that she talks about 'we will always love each other,' etc, is just way to weird for me.

It IS creepy. I would freak out if either of my parents ever sent me a letter like this. And if it's true that this was written before they left, that ups the creepy factor by at least 1,000 times. MOO

 

[ch_13]

Question for the attorneys:

I'm looking at Steve Bertolino's reply to the Third Amended Complaint. In several places he invokes attorney-client privilege on behalf of BL. For example, item #16:

16. This Defendant is either without knowledge and/or is unable to admit or deny knowledge as to the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint as to do so would violate the attorney-client privilege between this Defendant and by Brian Laundrie (which Brian Laundrie has not waived) and, therefore, this Defendant denies same.

However, he also says that he was acting as the attorney for BL's parents, for example in item #30:

30. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, this Defendant admits he released a statement on behalf of his clients, Defendants CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA LAUNDRIE, on September 14, 2021, which is cited in paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint. The statement was made following urging and demands – some life threatening – for information and comment from Plaintiffs, law enforcement, the press, and the public. This Defendant denies that Defendants CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA LAUNDRIE had “full knowledge” that Gabrielle Petito had been murdered by Brian Laundrie at that time and further denies that Defendants CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA LAUNDRIE knew the whereabouts of her body.

It seems to me that the legal interests of BL and his parents are at odds. The parents claim that they didn't know Gabby was dead, but of course BL did know.

SB put out a statement hoping that Gabby would be found "on behalf of the Laundrie family". Who exactly was his client here? Has SB put himself into any legal jeopardy because of his representation of both parties?

 

[I am not Sherlock H.]

Very observant and interesting ch_13 on the post above:

16. This Defendant is either without knowledge and/or is unable to admit or deny knowledge as to the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint as to do so would violate the attorney-client privilege between this Defendant and by Brian Laundrie (which Brian Laundrie has not waived) and, therefore, this Defendant denies same.

And so hope an attorney would weigh in on this as I am not…..

…..”to do so would violate the attorney-client privilege between this Defendant and by Brian Laundrie (which Brian Laundrie has not waived)”…..

IMO…. not sure that the attorney for the parents of BL, could assert the privilege for his client and communications they may have had with their son? And I believe that privilege would only extend between an attorney and their client(s)? (And if BL was not his client, not sure the lawyer has a privilege with that individual? The way the BL parent’s attorney worded this clause, seems to suggest there might be a little something afoot there?)

Maybe I am misreading this. MOO

 

[RANCH]

Petito’s family withdraws motion to order testimony from Laundrie’s attorney about murder timeline

In the weeks following the missing person case involving Gabby Petito, her parents still had hope their daughter was alive when they made their first public statement.

www.wfla.com

Late Monday, the family of Gabby Petito witdrew a motion to compel the testimony of the attorney who began representing the Laundrie family as the search for the travel blogger unfolded in the summer of 2021.

In their motion, the Petito’s had asked the judge to rule against Bertolino’s claim that attorney-client privilege allows him to refuse to disclose information he learned from Laundrie about Petito.

 

[LinasK]

Gabby Petito lawsuit: Brian Laundrie’s parents finally admit what their son told them, attorney says

The attorney for Gabby Petito’s family says Brian Laundrie’s parents have admitted what their son told them in the days after killing his 22-year-old fiancé in August 2021.

www.wfla.com

Why would you need a lawyer if "gone" meant that she had only left on her own???

 

[TL4S]

Didn't I read that on the phone call where BL told his parents that GP was "gone" and he needed a lawyer, that BL hung up on them? Or am I imaging that? And then SB told them to have BL talk to him only?

Anyway, I'm almost certain that if the L's called SB after that, telling him that BL said GP was "gone," then SB probably ordered them NOT to ask questions. And he likely told BL NOT to say any more about it to anyone. None of them had to lie if BL never actually told them, outright, that he killed her. "Gone" is too subjective, even if we all know what it means. I would imagine that would have been the best legal advice SB could offer at that point.

Jmo.

 

[PrairieWind]

Very observant and interesting ch_13 on the post above:

16. This Defendant is either without knowledge and/or is unable to admit or deny knowledge as to the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint as to do so would violate the attorney-client privilege between this Defendant and by Brian Laundrie (which Brian Laundrie has not waived) and, therefore, this Defendant denies same.

And so hope an attorney would weigh in on this as I am not…..

…..”to do so would violate the attorney-client privilege between this Defendant and by Brian Laundrie (which Brian Laundrie has not waived)”…..

IMO…. not sure that the attorney for the parents of BL, could assert the privilege for his client and communications they may have had with their son? And I believe that privilege would only extend between an attorney and their client(s)? (And if BL was not his client, not sure the lawyer has a privilege with that individual? The way the BL parent’s attorney worded this clause, seems to suggest there might be a little something afoot there?)

Maybe I am misreading this. MOO

Responding to you and Ch-13. I have had trouble getting to see the full Answer from SB. However, from what you have posted, I am assuming that SB is asserting that there was an atty/client relationship with CL and RL AND an attorney client relationship with BL as well. That certainly could be.
If only the parents were his client, conversations with BL would not be privileged. AND conversations between SB, parents and BL would waive privileged with the parents. But if parents and BL were in an attorney/client relationship, that would be all privileged. There does not have to be a signed engagement contract to establish that relationship. But the Petitos might be able to make a case that there never should nor could have been such a relationship. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Megnut]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed due to no link>
Where'd they think Gabby was from "on or about September 1" to "September 11" when they became aware of the search for her?

They think Gabby just gave Brian her van for funsies? And was, what, walking home?

 

[ch_13]

The Laundries filed their answers last night. Attached below.

Hmm, I'm looking at allegation #20 in the Petito filing:

20. On August 29, 2021, Brian Laundrie advised his parents, Christopher Laundrie and Roberta Laundrie, in a frantic telephone call that Gabby was “gone” and he needed a lawyer. On August 29, 2021, Christopher Laundrie and Roberta Laundrie spoke with Steven Bertolino, advising him that Gabrielle Petito was “gone,” that Brian Laundrie needed a lawyer, and sent him a retainer on September 2, 2021.

And here's the Laundrie response. (Both Roberta's and Christopher's appear to be identical).

20. With respect to the allegations contained in paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint, this Defendant admits Defendants CHRISTOPHER LAUNDRIE and ROBERTA LAUNDRIE contacted Defendant STEVEN BERTOLINO on or about August 29, 2021 for purposes of obtaining legal advice and counsel with respect to their son, Brian Laundrie.

This response seems to completely sidestep the phone call that the Laundrie's allegedly had with Brian. They neither admit, deny nor claim lack of knowledge.

 

[Megnut]

Hmm, I'm looking at allegation #20 in the Petito filing:


And here's the Laundrie response. (Both Roberta's and Christopher's appear to be identical).


This response seems to completely sidestep the phone call that the Laundrie's allegedly had with Brian. They neither admit, deny nor claim lack of knowledge.

Yes, before he even arrived home.

If there's any truth to "gone", I suspect that's all Brian could bring himself to say. Sanitized. Like is mercy story.

Jmo

 

[al66pine]

Third Complaint & SB's Response. Disputed Issues?

Parents' Relationship?
Per Gabby's Parents Third Amended Complaint:
¶11. Before GP & BL left on trip, her parents & his parents had a "cordial relationship."

Per Bertolino's Response:
¶11. SB admits Nichole briefly met CL & BL "on a singular occasion in front of her house" in New York. SB is w'out knowledge as to the other allegations in ¶11.

Not a pivotal issue, but I wonder which ¶11 is closer to the mark. Any indication that they had extensive contact other than in-person -- say, phone calls, FB, other soc media?

Thoughts, anyone?

 

[Laura456]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed due to no link>
Where'd they think Gabby was from "on or about September 1" to "September 11" when they became aware of the search for her?

They think Gabby just gave Brian her van for funsies? And was, what, walking home?

Denial can run deep

 

[RANCH]

Third Complaint & SB's Response. Disputed Issues?

Parents' Relationship?
Per Gabby's Parents Third Amended Complaint:
¶11. Before GP & BL left on trip, her parents & his parents had a "cordial relationship."

Per Bertolino's Response:
¶11. SB admits Nichole briefly met CL & BL "on a singular occasion in front of her house" in New York. SB is w'out knowledge as to the other allegations in ¶11.

Not a pivotal issue, but I wonder which ¶11 is closer to the mark. Any indication that they had extensive contact other than in-person -- say, phone calls, FB, other soc media?

Thoughts, anyone?

That's a good question. And one that could be hard to answer.

Let's say the both party's did have contact with each other via social media and phone calls and they were pleasant and respectful in these communications with each other.

Would that mean they were friends or in a relationship? Or they were merely being polite and really didn't like each other much?

I guess one would have to examine the content of these contacts to try and determine whether or not there was a "cordial relationship" between them or instead maybe a "polite acquaintance". JMO.

 

[al66pine]

JP & NS and CL & RL. Parents' Relationship?

.... Would that mean they were friends or in a relationship? Or they were merely being polite and really didn't like each other much?

I guess one would have to examine the content of these contacts to try and determine whether or not there was a "cordial relationship" between them or instead maybe a "polite acquaintance". JMO.

snipped for focus. @RANCH

Yes, agreeing, answer depends on content. Plus
other factors such as frequency.
Imo.

 

[RANCH]

JP & NS and CL & RL. Parents' Relationship?

snipped for focus. @RANCH

Yes, agreeing, answer depends on content. Plus
other factors such as frequency.
Imo.

You have a good point about frequency.

But does frequent contact equal a "cordial relationship" ?

I don't think that's necessarily true. JMO.