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

[RANCH]

Legally or morally?

They blocked Gabby's parents on all forms of communication while she was "missing"

Maybe the Laundries didn't know what happened to Gabby. JMO.

 

[NCWatcher]

<modsnip>

Let’s assume that they knew GP’s body was <modsnip> out somewhere in the wilderness, <modsnip> and they knew that GP’s parents had no idea what had become of her, and were riding that crazy roller coaster of terror to hope, hour after hour, day after day.

Let’s forget for a moment about what’s legal. Did they have a moral right to stay silent?

Lawsuits aren't about morality though except for the moral code we have codified in law. Beyond that, people are allowed to hold different moral beliefs. Look at the debates over the morality of abortion, for example. Plus, the question starts with assumptions, namely that the L's knew G was dead, they knew where her body was, and they knew her corpse might be greatly harmed where it was. In the filing, evidence that they knew all of that is missing. We'll see what is presented in court. I'd also like to know why the L's would have had a legal duty to the P's.

It is interesting the filing states the couple got engaged in July 2020. NS has been quoted as saying the engagement had been called off.
Mother of missing Gabby Petito says boyfriend and his family IGNORED her desperate texts | Daily Mail Online

But even if they were still engaged, I don't see how that changes the L's legal responsibility.

JMO

 

[LinasK]

On any cell service & phones I know of blocked calls go to voicemail. Sometimes the caller hears one ring. On my service from Verizon, a blocked caller hears the exact same thing everybody hears when a phone is turned off temporarily. But I don't think the phone company can attest to which numbers I've blocked on my phone. If I want some other sort of block so that calls are stopped higher up the line so not even voicemail gets through, then the phone company would know because I think the company would have to do it (if those kinds of blocks are still possible.)

Blocking a number on the phone is hardly "programming the phone" though. It takes about 10 seconds. I could easily see someone else in the house besides the phone owner blocking a particular number in a variety of situations. In this case I'd be hard pressed to argue RL had a stronger motive to block calls from the P's than BL did. But I agree it's hardly illegal to refuse particular calls or even to refuse to answer the phone altogether.

JMO

Speaking from my own experience, phone companies still do blocks- at least on landlines, probably cell phones too. A couple of years ago we got a really nasty message from some woman who obtained our unlisted number. Also, I know that you can block calls from phones that don't disclose their caller ID, and the person will get a message that the caller isn't accepting those calls. Phone records from phone companies probably require a subpoena.

 

[Megnut]

At the risk of redundancy, I still say this lawsuit may be less about damages and more about dialogue. Without a trial, this might be the only way for Gabby's family to gain access to L family phone records.

The piece of closure they may be seeking is a date --

Which phone records might clarify.

Boxed out, perhaps they're turning to the civil court to compel that answer.

I gather it's not forthcoming, and that's what is driving this action.

BL took enough.

If Gabby's family have reason to believe that L's phones and BL's notebook contain the answer to date and time, isn't this exactly what a family would do, through proper channels, to compel a response?

Of course the L's have a right to remain silent. I just find it indecent.

JMO

 

[acutename]

Lawsuits aren't about morality though except for the moral code we have codified in law. Beyond that, people are allowed to hold different moral beliefs. Look at the debates over the morality of abortion, for example. Plus, the question starts with assumptions, namely that the L's knew G was dead, they knew where her body was, and they knew her corpse might be greatly harmed where it was. In the filing, evidence that they knew all of that is missing. We'll see what is presented in court. I'd also like to know why the L's would have had a legal duty to the P's.

It is interesting the filing states the couple got engaged in July 2020. NS has been quoted as saying the engagement had been called off.
Mother of missing Gabby Petito says boyfriend and his family IGNORED her desperate texts | Daily Mail Online

But even if they were still engaged, I don't see how that changes the L's legal responsibility.

JMO

have not read the complaint- and I should. To me, the possible legal problem for the L's, IMO, is that they had GP's van. ...and it did not belong to any of them....so... what were they doing with it?

 

[Satchie]

I don't think the Laundries did anything wrong.

I agree, the crime occurred when BL killed Gabby. If someone could have prevented that, and deliberately chose not to, then there could be a case against them.

How can anyone establish some kind of scale of pain and assign responsibility to various individuals, based on them acting within their legal rights after someone else committed a crime. Can you say to another family, "well you should be grateful they found her body right away, or within the first week, or two weeks, that saved you a lot of pain." or "Aren't you lucky, you'd never met her killers parents, and the media weren't parked on their doorstep, that sure saved you from pain over your daughter's murder".

JMO

 

[acutename]

The complaint is extremely poorly-written, to put it mildly. It’s borderline sanctionable, IMO, and I’m sure many tort & civil procedure professors will distribute this complaint to their students on Monday. A negligence cause of action requires four things: duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. This complaint, on its face, is missing the first two elements.

I presume the claim is that Ls owed a duty to communicate with Ps or that Ls owed a duty to Ps to communicate with LE. Those duties don’t exist IMO.

I believe that the atty is aiming for "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

What is needed to prove intentional infliction emotional distress?
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. Google (not sure if FL law has any specific different definition?)

See item #24 and on, in the complaint. PDF: Brian Laundrie Suit | PDF

I did read the complaint and it repeats the common internet suggestion that BL was to leave the country and that the L's were helping him. (See #32) Have not seen what evidence there is of that ....

 

[NCWatcher]

have not read the complaint- and I should. To me, the possible legal problem for the L's, IMO, is that they had GP's van. ...and it did not belong to any of them....so... what were they doing with it?

The filing doesn't mention possession of the van (at least that I could see.) And as we've discussed here before, it's very possible the L's thought the van was jointly owned. Gabby called it "our van" on Instagram. She very well may have spoken of it that way to the L's. But even if she didn't, BL drove the van there, not the L's. BL had worked on outfitting it for the trip in the L's driveway. There was no reason for the L's to have examined the registration, IMO. And it was impounded on Sept 11, I believe. So I don't really see why it poses a problem for the L's. We have no idea what BL told them about where GP was. (I know what the filing claims he told them before he came home. But at this point, that's just a claim.)
JMO

 

[Shamrock1]

I believe that the atty is aiming for "intentional infliction of emotional distress."

What is needed to prove intentional infliction emotional distress?
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. Google (not sure if FL law has any specific different definition?)

See items #24 on in the complaint. PDF: Brian Laundrie Suit | PDF

I did read the complaint and it repeats the common internet suggestion that BL was to leave the county and that the L's were helping him. (See #32) Have not seen what evidence there is of that ....

As a few people pointed out, it’s a negligence complaint. But in general, IIED is extremely hard to establish. So is NIED. Not answering the phone doesn’t come close to outrageous conduct.

 

[Gardenista]

Maybe Cassie gave them the info about the phone blocking, leaving the country etc...

 

[Trident]

Your child is “your child” your/their/ entire life.

I always tell my adult children that being a parent is a life sentence.

 

[Gemmie]

complaint. PDF: Brian Laundrie Suit | PDF

I did read the complaint and it repeats the common internet suggestion that BL was to leave the county and that the L's were helping him. (See #32) Have not seen what evidence there is of that ....

Snipped and BBM for focus.

I wonder what info the P's have? I'd think you'd need to have some in order to include that in your complaint. Otherwise it's all pure speculation which won't go far. At least I don't think.

 

[acutename]

As a few people pointed out, it’s a negligence complaint. But in general, IIED is extremely hard to establish. So is NIED. Not answering the phone doesn’t come close to outrageous conduct.

#32 says "willful."

The filing doesn't mention possession of the van (at least that I could see.) And as we've discussed here before, it's very possible the L's thought the van was jointly owned. Gabby called it "our van" on Instagram. She very well may have spoken of it that way to the L's. But even if she didn't, BL drove the van there, not the L's. BL had worked on outfitting it for the trip in the L's driveway. There was no reason for the L's to have examined the registration, IMO. And it was impounded on Sept 11, I believe. So I don't really see why it poses a problem for the L's. We have no idea what BL told them about where GP was. (I know what the filing claims he told them before he came home. But at this point, that's just a claim.)
JMO

van is in #20 but not really emphasized

 

[TL4S]

I can only speak for myself, but when I write a post showing doubt of any kind in regards to the moral, ethical, or legal guilt of the Ls, it is NOT because I am defending them, their actions, or especially BL's actions. And it is in no way intended to lessen the victimization of GP or her family. I'm trying to look at the facts for what they are in a legal standpoint. The laws might be about the only thing that kept people from marching in to that L home and stringing them up. No, we can be civil, even if we think they are not.

It feels like we're having to take sides on the issues, when imo, the court is ultimately going to decide matters as they apply to the law. It's just the way it is. I certainly don't have to like the Ls, but I can't fairly judge somebody without all the evidence in front of me. That does not mean I'm loving on the Ls, or hating on the Ps and Ss.

The truly guilty party took his own life. If every detail comes out and the Ls did everything the Ps and Ss claim they did, and they are horrible people, then hopefully they can be held legally accountable in some form and that GP's family can find justice in that. But they won't, imo. There's no justice for the hell they will feel for the rest of their lives. And the Ls will live their own version of hell, either way. Thanks to BL.

 

[NCWatcher]

van is in #20 but not really emphasized

Right. I don't think there is any dispute BL drove the van there. There are reasons IMO the L's could have thought it was jointly owned. But even if they didn't, I don't see how BL parking it at their house gets them "in trouble." BL wasn't ever charged with anything to do with the van so I just don't see why it would be a legal issue for the L's.
JMO

 

[Shamrock1]

#32 says "willful."



van is in #20 but not really emphasized

Willful doesn’t mean outrageous. And even if the conduct rose to the level of an intentional tort (this is a negligence action), there’s no allegation that Ls owed a duty to Ps.

 

[LinasK]

Right. I don't think there is any dispute BL drove the van there. There are reasons IMO the L's could have thought it was jointly owned. But even if they didn't, I don't see how BL parking it at their house gets them "in trouble." BL wasn't ever charged with anything to do with the van so I just don't see why it would be a legal issue for the L's.
JMO

I think he would have been held on theft charges for the van once they got him into custody on the bank fraud charges. Maybe they get the Laundries on possession of stolen property?

 

[NCWatcher]

I think he would have been held on theft charges for the van once they got him into custody on the bank fraud charges.

Could be. Might have just concentrated on the murder charge though.

My only point was they hadn't filed against BL so it's hard for me to see why the L's would have been guilty of something van-related now. At any rate, I don't think there is anything in the complaint alleging the L's were responsible for the van being at their house.

Edit re your edit: As for possession of stolen property, I seriously doubt anyone would go to the trouble to criminally charge that now. (Or really ever.) Courts are terribly crowded and charging parents because an adult son took a van that wasn't his and parked at their house seems quite a stretch.
JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

“In the lawsuit, Joe Petito and Schmidt say that the Laundries refused to respond to them or law enforcement when they inquired whether Gabby Petito was alive and if not, where her remains were.”
Gabby Petito's parents sue Brian Laundrie's parents, claiming they knew of her killing and were helping son escape - CNN

In those early days I’m rather shocked Pepito/Schmidt would’ve presented the possibility GP was dead to the Laundries and furthermore inquired on the location of her remains.

 

[RANCH]

I think he would have been held on theft charges for the van once they got him into custody on the bank fraud charges. Maybe they get the Laundries on possession of stolen property?

Florida Statutes
812.022 Evidence of theft or dealing in stolen property.—

(2) Except as provided in subsection (5), proof of possession of property recently stolen, unless satisfactorily explained, gives rise to an inference that the person in possession of the property knew or should have known that the property had been stolen.

Chapter 812 Section 022 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate