Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #85
- Thread starter PommyMommy
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
CA CA – Joyce Elizabeth Harper, W/F, 31, Potrero, San Diego County, 1 Jan 1975
- Latest: Diane Redfern
- Status
legalmomma
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,736
- Reaction score
- 16,964
Order is here
Last edited:
Warwick7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 9,829
- Reaction score
- 108,551
Yes, but you said "he removed her shoes."
There is no msm to back that up. As a matter of fact that has never been reported on...
Last edited:
Warwick7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 9,829
- Reaction score
- 108,551
BOOM!!
BAM!!!!!!
"Judge writes: "Because the Laundries’ statement by their attorney in the context of the unique facts of this case is objectively outrageous, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have stated causes of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the Laundries."
Warwick7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 9,829
- Reaction score
- 108,551
Judge says this statement shows the Laundries did not merely just stay silent. They spoke through this statement. And it allows for the Petitos argument that they were misled (Petitos claim Laundries knew Gabby was dead at that time). And being misled caused suffering.
Judge writes:
"If the facts of this case truly were about silence with no affirmative act by the Laundries,
the Court would have resolved this case in the Laundries’ favor on the concept of legal duty..."
"But they did not stay silent."
Judge writes:
"If the facts of this case truly were about silence with no affirmative act by the Laundries,
the Court would have resolved this case in the Laundries’ favor on the concept of legal duty..."
"But they did not stay silent."
ilovewings
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 9,061
- Reaction score
- 69,081
I agree- we aren't walking in their shoes: the lawsuit goes forward. I cannot imagine the grief they continue to experience. I hope they find peace some day.
Now it will be up to the P's to prove that the L's knew about GP's death at the time that their attorney made this statement on their behalf.
I wonder if the L's can appeal this decision? Probably not, since it just a ruling on a motion to dismiss.
bestill
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 8,993
- Reaction score
- 65,867
And if they do prove that what happens to the L's, can they be charged for obstruction?
If the P's prevail in the civil lawsuit, then the L's pay the damages that the P's are seeking in the lawsuit, I assume. I doubt that LE would open a criminal case against the L's because I doubt that the P's civil lawsuit will turn up criminal facts that LE and the FBI are not aware of, and as others have posted, a civil case is very different from a criminal case regarding standards of evidence, etc.
Mike in WNY
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2017
- Messages
- 437
- Reaction score
- 2,637
So, it would seem that the judge is saying the the Bertolino statement was "outrageous"... within the context of the hearing - in which the judge must take all the plaintiff's statements as truth. That would include, assertions that the defendants did absolutely know of the death and other related aspects. It's a very narrow and conditional ruling, IMO. In effect he's reaffirming that the plaintiffs must prove their case.
Also, should this case be successful incorporating this judge's comment, it would seem to me that it could result in more absolute silence of those that "know stuff.' 'cuz then it's hazardous to say a little bit. One would pretty much have to say all or nothing. Be careful for what you wish is the phrase that again comes to mind.
Also, should this case be successful incorporating this judge's comment, it would seem to me that it could result in more absolute silence of those that "know stuff.' 'cuz then it's hazardous to say a little bit. One would pretty much have to say all or nothing. Be careful for what you wish is the phrase that again comes to mind.
Since it is not SB who is representing the L's as attorney for the civil lawsuit, I wonder if the attorney who is representing the L's can say that SB spoke out of turn, without consulting his clients when he made that statement. He would have to throw SB under the bus, and the L's would probably have to file a complaint with the state Bar in Florida, and maybe even file a lawsuit against SB. It does happen that lawyers can get ahead of themselves, say things that don't represent the clients' view or position, and this may be the case here.
The L's could claim, and perhaps rightly so, that they gave SB permission to make a statement that they hoped GP would be found, whether alive or deceased, and the term "reunited" with her family if found deceased was SB's choice of words and was not what the L's intended when they gave SB permission to release a statement.
I guess it all depends on what evidence the P's can show at trial. The two sides still have the option to settle.
Agree. It doesn't amount to more than this.
bestill
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 8,993
- Reaction score
- 65,867
SB is not a member of the Florida Bar, he is a member of the NY Bar, if I'm understanding it correctly. As I reflect on it now the L's never had a Florida attorney speak on their behalf at all. I am wondering if that will be an out for them in this Florida lawsuit. Just musings on my part.
Good point. This might be an issue as the case moves forward.
Warwick7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 9,829
- Reaction score
- 108,551
BBM
"...Christopher Laundrie and Roberta Laundrie spoke with Attorney Steve Bertolino, and sent him a retainer on Sept. 2, 2021.”
They sent him a retainer, he was their attys when he made the statement.
Brian Laundrie’s Parents Are Trying To Have The Petitos' Lawsuit Dismissed
The Laundrie family's lawyer says the claims that they kept quiet about knowing their son had killed fiancée Gabby Petito are "baseless" and "frivolous."
Nikynoo
Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 4,708
- Reaction score
- 28,722
I don't think that is what the Judge is saying. The 'facts' in the complaint need to be backed up by evidence (now at trial) to make the statement by Bertolino 'outrageous'. The Judge has to take the statement in the complaint as 'facts' - but the P's need to provide evidence at trial that they are indeed facts.
Yes, the judge is not confirming that SB's statement on behalf of the family was "outrageous," he is simply using the term that was used by the P's in their lawsuit and indicating that they can move forward with this claim, and now it is up to the P's to (1) provide evidence to show that the L's knew that Gabby was deceased at the time of that statement and (2) that the statement must be interpreted to mean that GP would be alive when found and reunited with her family, and (3) that the statement was intended to mislead, and (4) that the average person would find this statement to be "outrageous" (the P's term) if #2 and #3 were proven to be true.
- Status