NS did say that. But NS said alot of things. The family wanted lots of press because that can help find a missing person. And while each of the adult family members (NS, JP, TP, & JS) spoke to the press at various times, NS did most of the talking and, understandably, she was all over the map. The two links in your post state she knew GP was dead when she heard about the van and that she revealed this for the first time in a new documentary aired in February 2022. That's not really true. She actually talked about that same thing last fall. Here's one example:
The Best for News, Sport, Showbiz, Celebrities
www.the-sun.com
But I doubt the truth of referenced statement anyway. NS may have greatly feared GP was dead & the news the van was in FL may have been shocking. And she very likely had moments she thought GP was dead alternating with moments she hoped she was alive
. But she didn't know for sure GP was dead until the body was found. And honestly, if she DID know she was dead earlier, while that would negate my argument from my previous post, that could ultimately weaken the P's case of IIED. And in their Complaint the P's say they "implored" the L's to tell them if GP was alive (after they knew the van was in FL) and if she wasn't, to tell them where her remains could be found. That suggests they didn't know she was dead no matter what NS said in an interview.
At any rate, the P's legal position in the current case seems to be they didn't know if GP was dead or alive before Sept 19. The Complaint doesn't provide a date when they claim they implored the L's to tell them if GP was alive or dead, but it sounds like that happened in conjunction with their attorney's statement on Sept 16. SB's statement was made on Sept 14. NS was told the van was in FL on Sept 11.
The judge said IF all claims the P's made were presumed to be true (claims that will still have to be proven at trial) the only outrageous action he found in the Complaint was SB's statement. The other instances of remaining silent and going camping for 2 days were not legally outrageous. And SB's statement was outrageous according to the judge because,
IF the L's knew GP was dead (which still has to be proven), the statement was intended to give false hope GP would be found alive. I did not read the statement as claiming GP was alive myself. For me, the statement didn't take a position on life vs death. She could have been alive or might not have been. As I'm sure many here have, I've followed cases involving known deaths and missing bodies where LE has spoken of hoping to bring the victim home and families have said things like we want X brought home to us. That's no different from saying we want X to be reunited with her family, IMO.
If the P's knew for sure GP was dead that seems to go against claims made in their legal filings. It seems much of what gives them a case is that
they didn't know if GP was alive when she was missing. If, after the fact, they are saying in interviews they knew all along she was dead, I don't think that helps their case. And in practical terms, if they knew she was dead, I don't think SB could have said anything that would have made them falsely think she was alive. Certainly the statement SB actually made wouldn't have done that.
So if the P's did know GP was dead, that would seem to negate the outrageousness of SB's statement. Or maybe it just negates it so far as NS goes. I would think it's possible an action could have harmed JP but not NS or vice versa. When he ordered that the original motion be rewritten, the judge noted separate cases needed to be made for each of the L's. It didn't seem to me that was done in a substantive way but merely depended on reformatting and providing new headings to meet the judge's order. Regardless, it would seem there could be separate effects on each of the P's. Even if they were still married to each other, they are separate people. What affects one may or may not affect the other in the same way.
JMO
