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

[Mike in WNY]

One thing I found very odd yesterday. Well, actually two. Overall I thought the P's attorney did a very good job (although as a lay person I thought he was not on point with the dead body case examples but was appealing to emotion. In those cases the infliction of distress occurred because the person knew at the time of the distressing overt action the person was dead---& in one case the person was actually at the funeral! That's hardly the case here.) Anyway, he seemed much more competent than he appeared in the first complaint he wrote and that was odd. However, one other very odd thing, and maybe he just wasn't thinking (a dangerous thing in court, I'd think) at one point the P's attorney seemed to say all this could have been prevented had the L's called in an anonymous tip to LE. That makes zero sense to me (even assuming the L's had info to share and I'm not at all sure they did.)

First, how would a tip not tied to the L's help "exonerate" the L's from the guilt for the P's suffering the P's claim they carry? A failed responsibility that they say means monetary compensation is needed, as was mentioned several times by their attorney?

Second, this case got lots of publicity. Don't we all think LE got plenty of tips saying GP was dead? (And some talking about "near water" I'm sure.) And look at all the wild sitings of BL that were reported. Some pics we saw here looked nothing like him except it was a white guy under 50. And there was not a shortage of "tips" from the media and from retired federal agents. BL is in Mexico, in New Zealand, in NY, on the AT, had escaped in a boat from Ft. DeSoto, is hidden under the ground in the L's garden... Tip lines rarely solve crimes but in rare cases they might. But a tip that GP was dead? Even one saying she was in WY? And when was a tip line even established? After Sept 10 if that's when GP was reported missing. Or was he suggesting the L's call the NPPD to report a dead body in WY before she was reported missing? Isn't that the police dept that wouldn't take a missing person report from NS? But they would respond to an anonymous tip about a crime over 2000 miles away?

I can't believe the anonymous tip was a serious suggestion. But, of course, he was talking to potential jurors in everything he said.

Yeah. That whole 'anonymous tip' thing was just weird and off the wall to me. I suppose he may be doing the best he can with what I believe is a very weak position.

 

[Nikynoo]

I have a questions about the estate case -
1. it looks like it will go to trial even if in default - why is this?
2. they cannot recover more than is in the estate (estimated I believe to be around 20k) - the jury could award more than 20k but the P's will never recover more and it must be costing them more than 20K in legal costs. So, what is the point of this litigation exactly?

 

[Mike in WNY]

I'd be interested to know that if - for the sake of discussion - the plaintiffs are successful and receive a finding that the defendants caused some amount of increment distress how that distress is quantified for a monetary award. After all, even had the plaintiffs received information about their daughters state-of-being and location, the daughter would still have been dead once found. So, if I understand correctly, the incremental distress was only in play for some few days.

 

[Mike in WNY]

I have a questions about the estate case -
1. it looks like it will go to trial even if in default - why is this?
2. they cannot recover more than is in the estate (estimated I believe to be around 20k) - the jury could award more than 20k but the P's will never recover more and it must be costing them more than 20K in legal costs. So, what is the point of this litigation exactly?

I can't speak to #1. #2- in my mind the underlying point is to assert entitlement with (misplaced) vengeance.

 

[Wallendo]

I am not bothered by the L's failing to appear. In fact, other than a public relations opportunity, I wonder why GP's family bothered to show up. From the beginning, this hearing was going to be nothing more than two lawyers arguing points of the law in front of a judge, or in this case a Zoom Judge. At no point were any facts of the case going to be argued.

I suspect there will be many more more hearings like this in this case as I suspect the Petito's lawyers will try to force as much information as possible out of the Laundrie's, whose own lawyers will fight that as much as possible.

 

[NCWatcher]

I have a questions about the estate case -
1. it looks like it will go to trial even if in default - why is this?
2. they cannot recover more than is in the estate (estimated I believe to be around 20k) - the jury could award more than 20k but the P's will never recover more and it must be costing them more than 20K in legal costs. So, what is the point of this litigation exactly?

I honestly don't know. And if the L's default (which most people seem to think would make sense) why does there have to be a jury trial? Those are expensive in terms of cost to the government but also carry cost to those who must serve and take off from work, find child/elder care, etc.. And I'd think it could be hard to find an unbiased jury. The judge seemed to hint at that although it seemed like the P's attorney sort of poo-poohed that which I found odd. Maybe it doesn't matter if there's no opposition if the jury is overtly biased? Or maybe it's a "trial run" (in all senses of those words) for the other trial for emotional distress? And another way to try to make the L's suffer? It maybe the reporters are right who have opined it's to get hold of the notebook?

 

[RANCH]

If BL confessed to his parents that he killed GP why did he feel it necessary to do it again in his notebook?

 

[wnk]

What could the plaintiff's get from text messages? BL admitting he killed GP? We already know that.

I don't think that the Laundrie's had a duty to report. JMO.

There may be text messages that could implicate the Laundries in harboring a fugitive, aiding and abetting, or concealing evidence/a body. Right now, we don't know if they did those things, but if their records are subpoenaed in these charges, it could help the Petitos gauge exactly how much the Laundries were involved and whether there are more charges that should be pursued.

(Disclaimer: IANAL and I'm not sure if this would even be a reasonable strategy for finding out this information, but it was a possible motive that popped into my head.)

 

[RANCH]

There may be text messages that could implicate the Laundries in harboring a fugitive, aiding and abetting, or concealing evidence/a body. Right now, we don't know if they did those things, but if their records are subpoenaed in these charges, it could help the Petitos gauge exactly how much the Laundries were involved and whether there are more charges that should be pursued.

(Disclaimer: IANAL and I'm not sure if this would even be a reasonable strategy for finding out this information, but it was a possible motive that popped into my head.)

Bl wasn't a fugitive at that time and the question of whether the Laundrie's had a duty to report remains. Their lawyer said yesterday that they didn't have a duty to report. I guess we will see when this goes to trial. JMO.

 

[Sundog]

The only reason Bertolino isn't a defendant is because he's not a citizen of the state of FL - said by the Petitos attorney

So the Petito's lawyer is saying that he would have filed a civil lawsuit against Bertolino if Bertolino was a citizen of Florida? Then I guess there would have had to be two separate lawsuits, and two separate hearings and judges, and Bertolino would have had to remove himself as attorney for the Laundies, as how could he represent them if he was charged with the same "crime."

They will have to prove that Bertolino knowlingly lied in his statement, but how could they prove it since his knowledge of the case was based on what the Laundries told him, and what they told him is attorney-client privilege.

 

[Sundog]

If his clients allow him to, yes. However, the Judge has already said that the attorney is the agent for his client, so I'm not sure how far that would go.

I am sure there is quite a bit of case law or precedent on how the courts deal with situations where the attorney gets ahead of his/her client or otherwise misrepresents his/her client. If that is the case here, the judge will consider the case law on this matter. IMO.

 

[Sundog]

Agree. And I think that's the intent of Gabby's family, at least of her mother (along with wanting to punish the L's because of what BL did.) Remember though when the search for GP was ongoing NS said she understood BL had a Constitutional right to silence but she thought laws needed to be changed. That people shouldn't have that right when someone is missing. (And I guess not when someone is dead, kidnapped, raped, robbed, whatever, but she just said the right needed to be removed when a person is missing.)

We're already letting people convicted of serious crimes out of jail/prison early because of overcrowding. Not sure how it could work if lots more people become criminals because silence is deemed illegal. And if people choose jail over talking are we likely to need even a bigger "stick" than jail to force talking? I guess in the "olden days" LE used methods they can't now use. Going backwards wouldn't be good IMO.

I seriously doubt that this case will have any impact at all on the 5th amendment. The judge may rule on whether the 5th amendment applies in the specific circumstances of the case being discussed here, but that is not unusual and doesn't impact the 5th amendment at all. If the judge gives a new and unprecedented ruling/interpretation of the application here of the 5th amendemnt, then it will definitely be appealed and would probably not go any further. The U.S. Supreme Court is not going to overturn the 5th amendment regardless of the wishes of the Petito family.

 

[Sundog]

Personally, I don't think they have any evidence, they hope to get evidence to support their claims through discovery.

Would this be misuse of the justice system or acceptable by the courts?

 

[RANCH]

Would this be misuse of the justice system or acceptable by the courts?

I asked that once and was told that it's common in civil cases for plantiff's to use the proceedings to gain the evidence needed to prevail. Doesn't seem right to me. JMO.

 

[RANCH]

Luka explained that the standards for outrageous conduct are extremely high in Florida and argued that the Laundrie's actions do not fall under this.

Looks like the standard is very high in Florida. Does the actions of the Laundrie's meet this high standard? I don't feel that it does. JMO.

A claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress requires a plaintiff to establish that:

1. the defendant’s conduct was intentional or reckless;
2. the conduct was outrageous;
3. the conduct caused emotional distress; and
4. the emotional distress was severe.

Florida courts have stated that in order for conduct to rise to level of outrageousness, it must go beyond all bounds of decency and be regarded as odious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Moreover, a person’s subjective response to the conduct does not control the question of whether the tort occurred. Instead, the conduct at issue is evaluated objectively by the Court to determine whether it was “atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community”.

Judge in Petito-Laundrie case to decide whether it goes to trial in 2 weeks

The parents of Gabby Petito filed a lawsuit against Brian Laundrie's parents citing "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

www.wtsp.com

Claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - DLD Lawyers

The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”) presents a remedy to victims of outlandish and outrageous behavior.

dldlawyers.com

 

[Sundog]

Personally, I don't think they have any evidence, they hope to get evidence to support their claims through discovery.

I wonder if the Laundries will plead the 5th on a discovery disposition.

 

[Nikynoo]

I am not bothered by the L's failing to appear. In fact, other than a public relations opportunity, I wonder why GP's family bothered to show up. From the beginning, this hearing was going to be nothing more than two lawyers arguing points of the law in front of a judge, or in this case a Zoom Judge. At no point were any facts of the case going to be argued.

I suspect there will be many more more hearings like this in this case as I suspect the Petito's lawyers will try to force as much information as possible out of the Laundrie's, whose own lawyers will fight that as much as possible.

I wonder whether the court will order mediation?

 

[Nikynoo]

I wonder if the Laundries will plead the 5th on a discovery disposition.

I have no idea. I would hope not, as that would surely bring out the haters again.

 

[Wallendo]

I wonder if the Laundries will plead the 5th on a discovery disposition.

I suspect they will claim attorney-client privilege for many of the questions.

My big question at this point is who gets deposed first. In the limited number of cases with which I have been involved, the plaintiff is generally deposed first in order to demonstrate that there is some reason for the case to proceed. If this happens, GP's family will be asked under oath why they believe the BL told his parents what happened and why they believed that the L's tried to get BL out of the country. Having this information would greatly assist the L's prior to their depositions. If the L's are deposed first, they will have to be careful with their responses. The the P's are deposed first and state that they believe these allegations because they read on websleuths.com, the L's can simply respond "I don't remember" to pesky details that could haunt them later.

 

[Nikynoo]

Would this be misuse of the justice system or acceptable by the courts?

Well, no. Anyone can file a claim for more or less anything. You have to prove your claims in court and the way you do this is through discovery. My fear is that this will turn into a mud slinging contest, which will do damage to both sides. The Plaintiffs need to be prepared for the mud that will be slung their way. I simply cannot understand why they have bought this action. I really hope the court orders mediation. I am curious as to what it is the Plaintiffs want - is it just $$$ or something else?