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

[Ilex]

Plaintiff's Filed their response to the Motion to Dismiss.

So would the L's actions be described as an accessory after the fact or as misprision of a felony?

 

[tlcya]

So would the L's actions be described as an accessory after the fact or as misprision of a felony?

the allegations appear to be the L's hired an attorney and refused to speak to the P's . . . erego, they must have known that GP was dead or dying and exactly where. This argument is flawed from the get. MOO

 

[NCWatcher]

just now reading the response to MD. MOO it is not great at clearing up the very real issues outlined in the MD

I just really do not think they have a case here. But they probably know that. Their daughter is dead. They feel the Laundries are culpable. facts are not feelings and feelings are not facts. But I don't think they really care about winning. IMO It's about punishing the Laundries for their perceived slights and moral failings. So the object isn't a win. Its a you won't forget us or our beautiful daughter because we will spend the rest of our lives making you miserable type thing. again just MOO.

I think you are right the goal is to punish the L's. I just don't think this court filing is going to give the P's as much lasting satisfaction as they seem to think. Focusing on the Foundation and taking the high road might have led to eventual peace. But this detour? And what in the world is the P's attorney thinking? He's supposed to be respected...I thought.

I've said it before but I really do wonder if the lawsuit isn't also a step in the P's plan to try to legally limit the right to remain silent. NS has said more than once that laws need to be changed to limit that Constitutional right. Her feeling is (or was) that it needs to be very limited in the case of missing persons.

Gabby Petito's mom Nichole Schmidt slams Brian Laundrie's sister over interview | Daily Mail Online

The above article was published before Gabby was found. And, of course, NS was very frustrated by events at the time. But it seems like more than 6 months later she and JP may still be in the same emotional place so far as the L's silence goes.
JMO

 

[Ilex]

the allegations appear to be the L's hired an attorney and refused to speak to the P's . . . erego, they must have known that GP was dead or dying and exactly where. This argument is flawed from the get. MOO

It's reasonable to conclude the L's knew their son had murdered his fiance. People don't retain a lawyer for their son who came home in his fiance's vehicle, using her bankcards, avoiding her parents' calls, without that fiance if those parents aren't aware their son committed a crime, but that will be for a judge to decide.

 

[NCWatcher]

It's reasonable to conclude the L's knew their son had murdered his fiance. People don't retain a lawyer for their son who came home in his fiance's vehicle, using her bankcards, avoiding her parents' calls, without that fiance if those parents aren't aware their son committed a crime, but that will be for a judge to decide.

We don't know that the L's retained their usual lawyer for their son as early as the P's claim, we don't have any reason to think the L's knew BL used GP's bank cards (not only has that not been proven in court, in their Complaint I don't believe the P's even make that claim), we don't know that the L's knew the van was GP's (GP called it "our van" and BL did the camper conversion work at the L's house so the L's could have easily thought it was jointly owned), and there could have been all kinds of reasons to avoid contact with the P's including that BL spun a yarn about a breakup. We also only have the P's word for it that they had a "cordial relationship" with the L's. I might not feel cordial towards a man who called my son by a girl's name to try to intimidate him (as JP said he did) but maybe that's just me.

Overall it's not clear to me that if true, those things prove the L's knew B committed a crime much less knew that he killed GP. But you are right, the judge will have to decide whether to dismiss the case or let it go to a trial.
JMO

 

[ZoriahNZ]

Unfortunately, while I can deeply sympathize with their pain and frustration, I do suspect that this lawsuit will prove a fruitless endeavour legally for the P's.

 

[Mike in WNY]

I can't help but wonder if the perceived frailties in both the subject complaint and the most recent plaintiff "rebuttal" is some quirky strategy. I actually got a chuckle from plaintiff's answer... effectively it said 'there are no failings with our complaint, but give us a chance to rewrite it.' Whatever.

Also, I find it interesting that the plaintiffs, in filing this thing in the first place, are shifting focus away from their deceased daughter and presumed murderer, and onto themselves and the defendants. It is now all about them. It all seems like such a huge gamble for which the odds are stacked far in the plaintiff's disfavor.

And, for more wondering, I wonder who is bankrolling the plaintiff's legal work(?).

As I've mentioned previously, I do hope that the plaintiffs have considered the old adage 'be careful for what you wish.'

 

[Ilex]

We don't know that the L's retained their usual lawyer for their son as early as the P's claim, we don't have any reason to think the L's knew BL used GP's bank cards (not only has that not been proven in court, in their Complaint I don't believe the P's even make that claim), we don't know that the L's knew the van was GP's (GP called it "our van" and BL did the camper conversion work at the L's house so the L's could have easily thought it was jointly owned), and there could have been all kinds of reasons to avoid contact with the P's including that BL spun a yarn about a breakup. We also only have the P's word for it that they had a "cordial relationship" with the L's. I might not feel cordial towards a man who called my son by a girl's name to try to intimidate him (as JP said he did) but maybe that's just me.

Overall it's not clear to me that if true, those things prove the L's knew B committed a crime much less knew that he killed GP. But you are right, the judge will have to decide whether to dismiss the case or let it go to a trial.
JMO

And there's the rub, we don't know. No one knows. The simplest answer when you look at the actions of the L's is they knew their son murdered Gabby and actively did what they could to cover it up, including helping their son escape under the watchful eyes of LE during an investigation. We can argue the details, but I believe it should go to court so the P's can have those questions answered. I fell the L's have twisted constitutional rights to protect criminal acts, so I applaud the P's for protecting their daughter's constitutional rights. I hope the courts will define the line between allowing a criminal a proper defense and addressing the callous behavior exhibited by the L's that I feel perpetuates these tragedies we see occurring more often in our families and communities. Someone somewhere knows something, and no one speaks-this is wrong, both morally and legally, and while everyone has constitutional rights those rights were never meant to be twisted in such a fashion as to protect the criminal or those who aid them. IMO Gabby's life, everyone's life, is worth these questions being answered.

 

[NCWatcher]

And there's the rub, we don't know. No one knows. The simplest answer when you look at the actions of the L's is they knew their son murdered Gabby and actively did what they could to cover it up, including helping their son escape under the watchful eyes of LE during an investigation. We can argue the details, but I believe it should go to court so the P's can have those questions answered. I fell the L's have twisted constitutional rights to protect criminal acts, so I applaud the P's for protecting their daughter's constitutional rights. I hope the courts will define the line between allowing a criminal a proper defense and addressing the callous behavior exhibited by the L's that I feel perpetuates these tragedies we see occurring more often in our families and communities. Someone somewhere knows something, and no one speaks-this is wrong, both morally and legally, and while everyone has constitutional rights those rights were never meant to be twisted in such a fashion as to protect the criminal or those who aid them. IMO Gabby's life, everyone's life, is worth these questions being answered.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your feelings. But as an earlier post stated, feelings aren't facts.

I think we are all sympathetic to the pain the P's must be feeling. I know I am. But the existence of pain doesn't mean the L's have done anything illegal or that this case should ever go to court. I also don't see how this case could possibly relate to Gabby's Constitutional rights. The case isn't brought on behalf of her estate. She was dead before the P's claim the L's were involved. The L's certainly did not kill her. Their silence didn't make her more dead than she already was. And the dead have very limited rights anyway.

It seems to me the case is about the P's disagreement with the L's (likely legally-protected) actions and inactions and the P's belief they were harmed by the L's silence. I don't think they've made a good case. But I do think the Complaint makes it clear the case is about the P's suffering. Simply because questions exist about some of the facts doesn't mean that a court case is justified though. Our legal system doesn't work that way. Our system also doesn't exist to punish people who have broken no laws but are perceived as "immoral."

I also don't see how anyone could possibly make the case the L's helped BL "escape under the watchful eyes of LE." He merely walked out of the house and drove away. And then a day or two later, those "watchful eyes of LE" mistook his 55-year old somewhat stocky mother for the 23-year old fairly slim young man. That was hardly the L's fault plus when BL went to the swamp, he wasn't wanted by LE for anything. So he was hardly escaping at that time.

I don't think this civil case will limit the Constitutional right to silence. Unlike in some authoritarian countries Americans are not generally required to be police informers nor are we required to provide evidence against ourselves. We can't lie to LE but we don't have to speak. You very well may be right that the P's hope to limit the rights of all Americans but I don't think they'll succeed. At least I hope not.
JMO

 

[Ilex]

Well, you are certainly entitled to your feelings. But as an earlier post stated, feelings aren't facts.

I think we are all sympathetic to the pain the P's must be feeling. I know I am. But the existence of pain doesn't mean the L's have done anything illegal or that this case should ever go to court. I also don't see how this case could possibly relate to Gabby's Constitutional rights. The case isn't brought on behalf of her estate. She was dead before the P's claim the L's were involved. The L's certainly did not kill her. Their silence didn't make her more dead than she already was. And the dead have very limited rights anyway.

It seems to me the case is about the P's disagreement with the L's (likely legally-protected) actions and inactions and the P's belief they were harmed by the L's silence. I don't think they've made a good case. But I do think the Complaint makes it clear the case is about the P's suffering. Simply because questions exist about some of the facts doesn't mean that a court case is justified though. Our legal system doesn't work that way. Our system also doesn't exist to punish people who have broken no laws but are perceived as "immoral."

I also don't see how anyone could possibly make the case the L's helped BL "escape under the watchful eyes of LE." He merely walked out of the house and drove away. And then a day or two later, those "watchful eyes of LE" mistook his 55-year old somewhat stocky mother for the 23-year old fairly slim young man. That was hardly the L's fault plus when BL went to the swamp, he wasn't wanted by LE for anything. So he was hardly escaping at that time.

I don't think this civil case will limit the Constitutional right to silence. Unlike in some authoritarian countries Americans are not generally required to be police informers nor are we required to provide evidence against ourselves. We can't lie to LE but we don't have to speak. You very well may be right that the P's hope to limit the rights of all Americans but I don't think they'll succeed. At least I hope not.
JMO

Facts are that accessory after a fact and misprision are illegal. Just wanted to add that feelings do matter, that's why courts allow impact statements when making decisions on sentencing.

 

[NCWatcher]

Facts are that accessory after a fact and misprision are illegal. Just wanted to add that feelings do matter, that's why courts allow impact statements when making decisions on sentencing.

Many states don't have misprision laws. Several online sources I saw stated Florida does not recognize misprision of a felony but only recognizes misprision in the context of treason. I don't know if that's true but I'm pretty sure Florida officials know.

For misprision to occur at the federal level there has to be some sort of affirmative step taken to conceal the felony. So it's not just a matter of failing to inform on someone. For example, lying to LE would be an affirmative step. And we know the L's didn't do that since they didn't answer questions. Failing to speak to the P's would be entirely irrelevant. And remaining silent re: LE wouldn't be an affirmative step. And, of course, a required element is that the person knew the felony had been committed. There's no clear evidence the L's knew BL had killed GP other than the P's claims.

So far as being an accessory after the fact, there apparently have been no moves made to charge the L's criminally either at the state level or the federal level. That suggests to me there's insufficient evidence to support charges. That could change, I suppose, but I'm not sure how those crimes are relevant to the current civil case. (We now know the civil case is for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, something we didn't know until the Plaintiffs" Rebuttal was released.)

Finally, "victim impact" statements may be heard during the sentencing phase of a trial after a guilty verdict has been reached. Those statements are not used to determine guilt. But the P's Complaint as written seems to boil down mostly to feelings-- "We feel pain, therefore you must have done something illegal. And if it wasn't illegal you should still be punished because you did things that hurt us like go on a 2-day camping trip."

I do feel sympathy (for all the parents.) I doubt the case can proceed. But we'll see.
JMO

 

[Mike in WNY]

Many states don't have misprision laws. Several online sources I saw stated Florida does not recognize misprision of a felony but only recognizes misprision in the context of treason. I don't know if that's true but I'm pretty sure Florida officials know.

For misprision to occur at the federal level there has to be some sort of affirmative step taken to conceal the felony. So it's not just a matter of failing to inform on someone. For example, lying to LE would be an affirmative step. And we know the L's didn't do that since they didn't answer questions. Failing to speak to the P's would be entirely irrelevant. And remaining silent re: LE wouldn't be an affirmative step. And, of course, a required element is that the person knew the felony had been committed. There's no clear evidence the L's knew BL had killed GP other than the P's claims.

So far as being an accessory after the fact, there apparently have been no moves made to charge the L's criminally either at the state level or the federal level. That suggests to me there's insufficient evidence to support charges. That could change, I suppose, but I'm not sure how those crimes are relevant to the current civil case. (We now know the civil case is for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, something we didn't know until the Plaintiffs" Rebuttal was released.)

Finally, "victim impact" statements may be heard during the sentencing phase of a trial after a guilty verdict has been reached. Those statements are not used to determine guilt. But the P's Complaint as written seems to boil down mostly to feelings-- "We feel pain, therefore you must have done something illegal. And if it wasn't illegal you should still be punished because you did things that hurt us like go on a 2-day camping trip."

I do feel sympathy (for all the parents.) I doubt the case can proceed. But we'll see.
JMO

Yeah. I pretty much agree. I perceive this as the plaintiffs chose to be upset because they *felt* entitled to whatever (if any) relevant information that the defendants had. Sure, maybe I'd have felt that way too - emotionally. But intellectually, I'd recognize that I was not *entitled*.

 

[MassGuy]

Jury trial ordered in Petito lawsuit against Laundries next year, court documents show | WFLA

VENICE, Fla. (WFLA) — A jury trial has been ordered and scheduled for the lawsuit filed by the parents of Gabby Petito against the parents of Brian Laundrie.

The suit filed by Joe Petito and Nichole Schmidt last month claims Laundrie’s parents knew all along their son murdered 22-year-old Petito. The attorney for Chris and Roberta Laundrie has already filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, calling it “baseless.”

The jury trial, if it does happen, won’t begin anytime soon.

According to court documents obtained by WFLA.com, a trial in front of a jury has been set for the week of Aug. 14, 2023 at the South County Courthouse in Venice, Florida. The trial’s term window doesn’t begin until next year due to scheduling in the Sarasota County court system.

The jury trial, barring dismissal, is expected to be open to the public, which could draw international media attention. It would mark the first time the Petito case reaches a courtroom and, while it would be a civil case instead of a criminal one, it could reveal the highly-anticipated evidence Petito and Schmidt claim to have to support their accusations that the Laundries were told their son murdered Gabby Petito and sought to help him flee the United States.

While a date has been set, the case still faces the possibility of being dismissed after the Laundries’ attorney filed the motion for dismissal on the grounds their clients exercised their constitutional right to refrain from speaking and have “continuously relied on counsel to speak for them.”

more at link

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Docket Update:

4/13/2022 30 JURY TRIAL - CIVIL SC SET FOR 08/14/2023 AT 9:00 AM IN H , JDG: CARROLL, HUNTER W 0
4/13/2022 29 MANDATORY DOCKET SOUNDING SET FOR 08/04/2023 AT 8:45 AM IN H , JDG: CARROLL, HUNTER W 0
4/13/2022 28 PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCES SOUTH COUNTY - CIRCUIT COURT SET FOR 07/07/2023 AT 9:30 AM IN H , JDG: CARROLL, HUNTER W 0
4/13/2022 27 *** CANCELLED - COURT EVENT SET EVENT: MOTIONS DATE: May 9 2022 10:15AM JUDGE: CARROLL, HUNTER W LOCATION: JACS 0
4/13/2022 26 ORDER SETTING TRIAL 5
4/13/2022 25 ORDER - CASE MANAGEMENT 2
4/13/2022 24 ORDER - GRANTING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT 2
4/13/2022 23 NOTICE OF HEARING 2
4/13/2022 22 REPORT- CASE MANAGEMENT 6
4/13/2022 21 OBJECTION - REFERRAL MAGISTRATE 2
4/12/2022 20 COURT EVENT SET EVENT: MOTIONS DATE: May 9 2022 10:15AM JUDGE: CARROLL, HUNTER W LOCATION: JACS

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Instead of filing a response to the MTD, Plaintiff's requested, and the Order Granted, for Leave to Amend the Complaint.

 

[LinasK]

Jury trial ordered in Petito lawsuit against Laundries next year, court documents show | WFLA

VENICE, Fla. (WFLA) — A jury trial has been ordered and scheduled for the lawsuit filed by the parents of Gabby Petito against the parents of Brian Laundrie.

The suit filed by Joe Petito and Nichole Schmidt last month claims Laundrie’s parents knew all along their son murdered 22-year-old Petito. The attorney for Chris and Roberta Laundrie has already filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, calling it “baseless.”

The jury trial, if it does happen, won’t begin anytime soon.

According to court documents obtained by WFLA.com, a trial in front of a jury has been set for the week of Aug. 14, 2023 at the South County Courthouse in Venice, Florida. The trial’s term window doesn’t begin until next year due to scheduling in the Sarasota County court system.

The jury trial, barring dismissal, is expected to be open to the public, which could draw international media attention. It would mark the first time the Petito case reaches a courtroom and, while it would be a civil case instead of a criminal one, it could reveal the highly-anticipated evidence Petito and Schmidt claim to have to support their accusations that the Laundries were told their son murdered Gabby Petito and sought to help him flee the United States.

While a date has been set, the case still faces the possibility of being dismissed after the Laundries’ attorney filed the motion for dismissal on the grounds their clients exercised their constitutional right to refrain from speaking and have “continuously relied on counsel to speak for them.”

more at link

Yea! So glad to see that this trial is moving forward. I agree with what Ilex said a few posts up. The Petito family deserves accountability. <modsnip>

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Yea! So glad to see that this trial is moving forward. I agree with what Ilex said a few posts up. The Petito family deserves accountability. <modsnip>

This is procedural. They had to file a CMC statement. They filed a joint one and in that, they decided on a trial date, and other dates that are required in civil litigation in FL. I really think that even if this case does survive a MTD, it'll be settled. MOO.

 

[RANCH]

Someone somewhere knows something, and no one speaks-this is wrong, both morally and legally, and while everyone has constitutional rights those rights were never meant to be twisted in such a fashion as to protect the criminal or those who aid them.

SBM

I disagree. The right to remain silent applies to everyone including criminals. Persons exercising that right should not be punished for doing so in a criminal case.

In this civil case if the Laundrie's invoke the Fifth Amendments right to remain silent for depositions, testimony or documents I'm not sure if it could be used against them.

A witness giving deposition testimony in a civil case is generally entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment whenever there is a realistic possibility that his answer to a question can be used in any way to convict him of a crime, and it need not be probable that a criminal prosecution will be brought or that the witness’s answer will be introduced in a later prosecution; the witness need only show a realistic possibility that his answer will be used against him.

One aspect of the privilege against self-incrimination is a witness’s right in a civil proceeding to refuse to respond to questions or document requests on the grounds that his answer may tend to incriminate him.

I guess if there is a possibility for criminal prosecution then the Laundrie's could continue to remain silent even if this does go to trial. I would think that would negatively affect the plaintiffs case. JMO.

I'm not sure about this so everyone feel free to read more about Florida law on this subject in the link below. I hope that any of our lawyers can post their thoughts as well.

Pleading the Fifth in Florida Civil Cases – When Self-Incrimination Arises

 

[Skigirl]

This is procedural. They had to file a CMC statement. They filed a joint one and in that, they decided on a trial date, and other dates that are required in civil litigation in FL. I really think that even if this case does survive a MTD, it'll be settled. MOO.

I very highly doubt her parents will settle. I don't think they are after money. Unless a settlement includes the answers they are seeking. They may not win, they may not get to trial, but I highly doubt that a settlement is in the cards.

 

[RANCH]

This is procedural. They had to file a CMC statement. They filed a joint one and in that, they decided on a trial date, and other dates that are required in civil litigation in FL. I really think that even if this case does survive a MTD, it'll be settled. MOO.

Settled for money. JMO.