Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #84

[NCWatcher]

I like to see how they can separate the pain and suffering they have because Brian killed Gabby from the pain and suffering they allege from the Laundries not talking to anyone.

Hypothetical. Let's say the Laundries had told them on August 28th that Brian confessed to killing Gabby. They would obviously have severe mental anguish from them providing that news. Could Gabby's parents sued them for that?

I'm confused with this lawsuit. What law or contract did the Laundrie's break? JMO.

I'm guessing the legal case to be made is that not knowing G was dead was worse than knowing she was. So the P's would have suffered less had they known she was dead sooner? Hmm. That the L's breach of some unidentified duty caused that additional suffering because the L's knew she was dead (per the P's)? That doesn't make sense to me. The P's would have suffered differently certainly, but less? Or is "different" suffering good enough?

I've not yet seen anyone make explicit the claim the L's had a legal duty to the P's. Not even the Complaint does that. So I don't understand why experts like the one in @Balthazar's link would opine all that's needed for the P's to prevail could be in the L's phones. Even assuming the content of the old texts exist (and I'm not sure that's likely & phone companies don't save text content, I don't believe and the L's could have new phones), and assuming the texts help to establish the P's claims about the L's (not sure that's likely either), how does that sort of info create a duty? I understand discovery may yield things we haven't thought of, but given the facts we do know, what could establish a legal duty between two sets of parents of adult children? Adult children who may or may not have still been engaged but who were definitely in a romantic relationship?

Seems to me what's really needed for a win is a hybrid action that's between negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Something that doesn't require a duty to breach like negligence does and doesn't require the defendants' conduct to be legally outrageous like IIED does. But maybe the goal isn't to win. I personally find that quite unlikely. The P's may want information but they also want to win IMO. And they want to collect more than $100K from the L's.
JMO

 

[Satchie]

I think it's so unlikely that, having killed his girlfriend, BL would write out a confession to his parents in a text message, including the location of her body (gps coordinates?). How would he know they wouldn't immediately take it to police?

I also don't believe he would confess to them at all. It's not like this is a mafia family that's going to be fine with that. He killed himself, after all, so he didn't really think he'd get away with it, as many killers do, and this says to me he could not endure the potential public exposure, shame and guilt, including what it would bring on his family.

Perhaps his parents were savvy enough to guess and fear what might have happened, but I doubt they had anything like proof, and certainly not knowledge of which campsite it happened at, that could have affected the search.

JMO

 

[Nikynoo]

I'm guessing the legal case to be made is that not knowing G was dead was worse than knowing she was. So the P's would have suffered less had they known she was dead sooner? Hmm. That the L's breach of some unidentified duty caused that additional suffering because the L's knew she was dead (per the P's)? That doesn't make sense to me. The P's would have suffered differently certainly, but less? Or is "different" suffering good enough?

I've not yet seen anyone make explicit the claim the L's had a legal duty to the P's. Not even the Complaint does that. So I don't understand why experts like the one in @Balthazar's link would opine all that's needed for the P's to prevail could be in the L's phones. Even assuming the content of the old texts exist (and I'm not sure that's likely & phone companies don't save text content, I don't believe and the L's could have new phones), and assuming the texts help to establish the P's claims about the L's (not sure that's likely either), how does that sort of info create a duty? I understand discovery may yield things we haven't thought of, but given the facts we do know, what could establish a legal duty between two sets of parents of adult children? Adult children who may or may not have still been engaged but who were definitely in a romantic relationship?

Seems to me what's really needed for a win is a hybrid action that's between negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Something that doesn't require a duty to breach like negligence does and doesn't require the defendants' conduct to be legally outrageous like IIED does. But maybe the goal isn't to win. I personally find that quite unlikely. The P's may want information but they also want to win IMO. And they want to collect more than $100K from the L's.
JMO

I agree, and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[cnmccarthy]

I mean in my opinion, I think the Petito's are aware the Laundrie's are magical people and magical people can do magical things - especially with magical lawyers.

We all watched on TV -said magic- the day they walked into the reserve and in less than a few hours walked out with their son's belongings & inadvertently his bones were discovered nearby - -when trained FBI and most of the local law enforcement spent weeks/money/dogs/fancy equipment/ and found nothing.

So my cheers to the Petito's attempt to dispel all that magic...

Absolutely love this. Lmao

 

[Skigirl]

.

 

[Gardenista]

Gabby Petito's Family Working with Politicians to Help Save Missing People

Just found this--I didn't realize it's only a requirement in 11 states

Reporting missing persons to a national database now the law in Pennsylvania

 

[acutename]

I'm guessing the legal case to be made is that not knowing G was dead was worse than knowing she was. So the P's would have suffered less had they known she was dead sooner? Hmm. That the L's breach of some unidentified duty caused that additional suffering because the L's knew she was dead (per the P's)? That doesn't make sense to me. The P's would have suffered differently certainly, but less? Or is "different" suffering good enough?

I've not yet seen anyone make explicit the claim the L's had a legal duty to the P's. Not even the Complaint does that. So I don't understand why experts like the one in @Balthazar's link would opine all that's needed for the P's to prevail could be in the L's phones. Even assuming the content of the old texts exist (and I'm not sure that's likely & phone companies don't save text content, I don't believe and the L's could have new phones), and assuming the texts help to establish the P's claims about the L's (not sure that's likely either), how does that sort of info create a duty? I understand discovery may yield things we haven't thought of, but given the facts we do know, what could establish a legal duty between two sets of parents of adult children? Adult children who may or may not have still been engaged but who were definitely in a romantic relationship?

Seems to me what's really needed for a win is a hybrid action that's between negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Something that doesn't require a duty to breach like negligence does and doesn't require the defendants' conduct to be legally outrageous like IIED does. But maybe the goal isn't to win. I personally find that quite unlikely. The P's may want information but they also want to win IMO. And they want to collect more than $100K from the L's.
JMO

I understand the inability to id a "legal duty" in this complaint. This case is definitely complicated for me because the Ls had counsel and were presumably following counsel's advice. There are some articles on civil conspiracy and civil aiding and abetting but no one is saying that such offenses are neatly defined in statute.

Aiding and Abetting Matters

 

[Mike in WNY]

I understand the inability to id a "legal duty" in this complaint. This case is definitely complicated for me because the Ls had counsel and were presumably following counsel's advice. There are some articles on civil conspiracy and civil aiding and abetting but no one is saying that such offenses are neatly defined in statute.

Aiding and Abetting Matters

Interesting. And, I suppose, that would only come into play if or when there is some proof that the alleged "aider"/"abettor" knew of the crime... and knew that the person being assisted committed the crime. In the subject situation, to my knowledge, that has yet to be done.

 

[NCWatcher]

I understand the inability to id a "legal duty" in this complaint. This case is definitely complicated for me because the Ls had counsel and were presumably following counsel's advice. There are some articles on civil conspiracy and civil aiding and abetting but no one is saying that such offenses are neatly defined in statute.

Aiding and Abetting Matters

I don't have access to the above linked article past the abstract. But without being able to read the full article, it seems to me that for the L's to be guilty of civil aiding and abetting (A&A), as @Mike in WNY said there would have to be proof the L's knew of the crime and knew BL committed it. So far, there's no evidence of that.

The L's refusal to answer the P's calls, their decision to block them on their phones and on Facebook on Sept 10 (assuming that's true) wouldn't matter as I am pretty sure those actions would be totally irrelevant to A&A. And I'm pretty sure not talking to LE, whether on the instructions of an attorney or not, is not a crime nor a civil wrongdoing. I know some people think American citizens shouldn't be able to refuse to answer LE's questions. I don't agree. But regardless, right now we do have that right.

Just about everything else cited in the Complaint would likely be legally irrelevant to a charge of A&A except for the dubious claim the L's kept BL's location "secret" while they were "believed to be making arrangements for him to leave the country." For example, Point #23 in the Complaint--the L's decision to camp at Ft DeSoto on Sept 6-7--legally doesn't matter for A&A (& likely doesn't matter for Negligence either but may appeal to a juror's emotions.)

Given that the presence of a legal duty to the complaining party is the first element of Negligence, I do think establishing that the L's had a legal duty to the P's will be necessary. I'm not really seeing how the fact the L's were acting on legal advice makes a difference in that particular regard. It's possible if a duty were established, the fact that they were following legal advice could become relevant. But I don't see how legal representation makes it harder to establish that a duty existed. Personally I think a duty didn't exist and that's why it can't be established. And that's got to matter. You can't have a breach of a duty that didn't exist. And without a breach, you can't show damages were caused by a breach.

JMO

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Both of them were served on March 14, 2022.

 

[I'm Nobody]

I'm guessing the legal case to be made is that not knowing G was dead was worse than knowing she was. So the P's would have suffered less had they known she was dead sooner? Hmm. That the L's breach of some unidentified duty caused that additional suffering because the L's knew she was dead (per the P's)? That doesn't make sense to me. The P's would have suffered differently certainly, but less? Or is "different" suffering good enough?

I've not yet seen anyone make explicit the claim the L's had a legal duty to the P's. Not even the Complaint does that. So I don't understand why experts like the one in @Balthazar's link would opine all that's needed for the P's to prevail could be in the L's phones. Even assuming the content of the old texts exist (and I'm not sure that's likely & phone companies don't save text content, I don't believe and the L's could have new phones), and assuming the texts help to establish the P's claims about the L's (not sure that's likely either), how does that sort of info create a duty? I understand discovery may yield things we haven't thought of, but given the facts we do know, what could establish a legal duty between two sets of parents of adult children? Adult children who may or may not have still been engaged but who were definitely in a romantic relationship?

Seems to me what's really needed for a win is a hybrid action that's between negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Something that doesn't require a duty to breach like negligence does and doesn't require the defendants' conduct to be legally outrageous like IIED does. But maybe the goal isn't to win. I personally find that quite unlikely. The P's may want information but they also want to win IMO. And they want to collect more than $100K from the L's.
JMO

So well thought out. Complicated for sure. I, too, have been searching for what legal "duty" the L's may have had to the P's.. Closest I came was a "special relationship" but even that doesn't work for an adult child.

What about using res ipsa loquitur / "the thing that speaks for itself" to prove negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress?
The P's must prove 3 things:

1. The incident was of a type that does not generally happen without negligence
2. It was caused by an instrumentality (means to an end) solely in defendant’s control
3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause

I don't know whether or not the P's have a mystery witness regarding Brian getting out of the country, seems too specific if no evidence.
I still don't think the lawsuit is about money. How else can you get someone's attention after you've tried every other thing?

JMO not a lawyer.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

 

[NCWatcher]

So well thought out. Complicated for sure. I, too, have been searching for what legal "duty" the L's may have had to the P's.. Closest I came was a "special relationship" but even that doesn't work for an adult child.

What about using res ipsa loquitur / "the thing that speaks for itself" to prove negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress?
The P's must prove 3 things:

1. The incident was of a type that does not generally happen without negligence
2. It was caused by an instrumentality (means to an end) solely in defendant’s control
3. The plaintiff did not contribute to the cause

I don't know whether or not the P's have a mystery witness regarding Brian getting out of the country, seems too specific if no evidence.
I still don't think the lawsuit is about money. How else can you get someone's attention after you've tried every other thing?

JMO not a lawyer.

Res Ipsa Loquitur

I'm not an attorney either. That's an interesting idea but I don't think it can work.

According to this site
Res Ipsa Loquitur: Definition, Examples & Cases - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

"Under the common law of negligence, the res ipsa loquitur doctrine indicates that a breach of a party's duty of care may be inferred from the events that occurred." (bold added by me)

So I think what that doctrine means is, it's obvious the documented harm couldn't have happened without negligence. Examples from the above site-- a surgical patient gets a serious infection and a sponge is found inside his body, someone walking on the sidewalk is crushed by a falling piano......So the fact of exactly how the negligence occurred may not have to be proved under that doctrine. It speaks for itself-- the sponge was inside the person. How else could it get there but during the recent surgery? The piano crushed Person X on the sidewalk. How else could that happen except through the negligence of the people moving the piano?

Is it possible for the thing here speak for itself? Not to me. It's not obvious to me that if the L's hadn't blocked the P's on FB and on their phones there wouldn't have been harm to the P's. It's not obvious to me that harm to the parents of a murdered woman could only come from the parents of the presumed murdering boyfriend not talking to them. It's not obvious to me that a delay in finding a dead body means people who interacted with the probable murderer must have been negligent.

But most importantly--- I don't think that doctrine allows the absence of a duty to be ignored. I don't think what's being said is that if harm occurred, then a duty of care can be inferred. I think it's saying a breach on the part of someone with a duty can be inferred from the outcome.

The surgeon had a duty of care, the movers had a duty of care... Those cases seem to me to be more typical cases of negligence--- they involve what we think of as "accidents" by people who control the situation (the move, the surgery, the car in the accident, the biting dog, etc) But no one is saying the L's did something accidentally or were careless. While BL could have blocked the P's numbers in his parents' phones, it's more likely they did it. Not an accident. They simply acted in ways the P's didn't like and ways other people might not like. But that doesn't mean they were negligent OR that they had a duty of care to the P's. I do wonder if the reason G&B's engagement was mentioned in the Complaint (even though we were told earlier by the P's that had been called off) is to try to create a duty. I don't think it does though. Both G&B were adults.
JMO

Edited to add: Personally I doubt the P's have a witness who can attest the L's were trying to get B out of the country. The Complaint says "it is believed they were making arrangements for him to leave the country." That suggests to me they don't have a "smoking gun" witness, at least not yet. As to the specificity, ex-FBI agents had predicted that in the fall. And about a week before BL's remains were found John Walsh was claiming BL had escaped to Mexico with the L's help.

John Walsh says he thinks Brian Laundrie is hiding out in Mexico after getting help from family | Daily Mail Online

 

[Trebor5591]

From the story: "The police were talking to Steven (Bertolino, the Laundries' lawyer), and all the media frenzy stuff started. Brian found out that they might arrest his mom. That's when he left," the source said.

The article claims Brian shot himself because he feared the police would arrest his mother. However--the story does not say WHY the police would want to arrest his mother....

Any thoughts on why the police would be interested in arresting Roberta Landrie?

Brian Laundrie fled home after 'fearing his mom was going to be arrested'

MOO

 

[Laura456]

From the story: "The police were talking to Steven (Bertolino, the Laundries' lawyer), and all the media frenzy stuff started. Brian found out that they might arrest his mom. That's when he left," the source said.

The article claims Brian shot himself because he feared the police would arrest his mother. However--the story does not say WHY the police would want to arrest his mother....

Any thoughts on why the police would be interested in arresting Roberta Landrie?

Brian Laundrie fled home after 'fearing his mom was going to be arrested'

MOO

Also if both parents were so worried about him and begging him not to leave, why would they not tell the police asap...?

"We are worried for the wellbeing of our son. He has just left our residence"

 

[Allabouttrial]

From the story: "The police were talking to Steven (Bertolino, the Laundries' lawyer), and all the media frenzy stuff started. Brian found out that they might arrest his mom. That's when he left," the source said.

The article claims Brian shot himself because he feared the police would arrest his mother. However--the story does not say WHY the police would want to arrest his mother....

Any thoughts on why the police would be interested in arresting Roberta Landrie?

Brian Laundrie fled home after 'fearing his mom was going to be arrested'

MOO

Yeah I have an idea. The Sun wrote the article....

 

[Laura456]

Can

Also if both parents were so worried about him and begging him not to leave, why would they not tell the police asap...?

"We are worried for the wellbeing of our son. He has just left our residence"

In addition why would they say the wrong day when confronted by police about Brian? Were they just in a bad mental state and couldn't recall?

 

[Gemmie]

Yeah I have an idea. The Sun wrote the article....

LOL! My first thought after seeing the OP ask Q's about a "MSM" article... was "I wonder what the "MSM" source is?". Then I see your comment and had to laugh.

The Sun is a tabloid, and not legit MSM IMHO. While tabloids can make for interesting reading, their content should not be taken as fact. Again, IMHO.

From the 'About Us' link at the very bottom of that article: The Sun.com is a US online edition of The Sun, Britain’s largest newspaper.

From wiki - The Sun is a British tabloid newspaper, published by the News Group Newspapers division of News UK, itself a wholly owned subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

Scrolling further down the wiki page: The U.S. Sun is an online version of The Sun for the United States.

The Sun (United Kingdom) - Wikipedia

 

[Wallendo]

It is interesting that Bertolino seems to know who the source is. He specifically states that this person is "her" and isn't that close to the family.

The source of this article seems to imply that RL did something that she does not want revealed. I wonder if this is somehow related to the possible visit to the cell phone store discussed earlier in this case.

Also, if BL was concerned about his mother being arrested, it would seem that he would want to defend her in some way.

I wonder how much the source was paid for this information.

 

[Mike in WNY]

It is interesting that Bertolino seems to know who the source is. He specifically states that this person is "her" and isn't that close to the family.

The source of this article seems to imply that RL did something that she does not want revealed. I wonder if this is somehow related to the possible visit to the cell phone store discussed earlier in this case.

Also, if BL was concerned about his mother being arrested, it would seem that he would want to defend her in some way.

I wonder how much the source was paid for this information.

I'm not convinced that portion of the publication can be understood clearly.

"Bertolino said there are inaccuracies with the report and said the source claiming to be close to the Laundrie family is not. "I don't know what her motives are."

What is "the report"? The way this is worded, and it's standalone positioning within the whole piece, makes it suspect to me. Even the combination of the two sentences in the particular paragraph can be questioned. Is the "her" actually referencing the "source"? Could be. But, then again, it could be a poor (or strategic) phrasing pattern.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

They still have some time before the Answer to the Complaint is due, but I keep checking the court's website to see if anything has been filed. I'm assuming they will file a MTD before the Answer.