Found Deceased WY - Gabby Petito, Grand Teton National Park #88

[PrairieWind]

I'm stating it makes no difference because it was that the representation was needed in Wyoming and the ramifications thereof.

First rate nationally known defense attorneys probably weren't affordable hence across state.

The Laundrie parents knew they needed to secure representation in Wyoming that had to be based on something, right?

We can only look at the guilty actions that had to have had an origin of stimuli for that location.

all imo

So because they sought legal advice, then guilt of ..... ? is presumed?

 

[Jade]

So because they sought legal advice, then guilt of ..... ? is presumed?

It’s a true crime discussion forum not a court of law.


All imo

 

[Jade]

I haven't seen any evidence that Mrs. Laundrie, BL's mother, believed these writings. I assume this is just your opinion.

You don’t have to assume. My post included all imo.

Statements of fact I link like everyone else as per WS TOS.


All imo

 

[PrairieWind]

It’s a true crime discussion forum not a court of law.


All imo

And that is ok. But does it matter? Do you assume someone is guilty if they seek legal counsel? Or that they should be subject to higher scrutiny if the do?

 

[cocomod]

And that is ok. But does it matter? Do you assume someone is guilty if they seek legal counsel? Or that they should be subject to higher scrutiny if the do?

Not always, but in this circumstance even the LE said it was very suspect. If they truly thought it was just a breakup, they wouldn't have immediately hired an attorney. They wouldn't have refused to even talk to police if they thought it was just a breakup and their son had returned home. JMHO

 

[Maat99]

I'm just failing to see how the Moab officers were "awful." What did they see that should have led them to do something different?

IMO they decided to disregard the neutral third party reports of who was doing the abusing and who was being abused which was awful.
BL was calm and making jokes. Police knew from the start that BLs story of what he did and didn’t do to GP was a lie.
GP was crying and fearful. She was afraid to acknowledge an assault that police already knew about. The obvious marks on her face were physical evidence supporting what the witnesses reported.
These were the facts at hand.
Police decided to act as though the two independent observers were lying. The guy with every reason to lie is somehow the one who is truthful.
Imagine this in any other scenario. Two independent witnesses see a guy rob a liquor store. Police track down the guy matching the description, driving the exact vehicle seen by witnesses. There is physical evidence of the crime he is accused of in plain sight. He says he didn’t do it. His crying girlfriend seated next to him in the car, holding the evidence, also says he didn’t do it. So police let him go.

 

[Trooper]

It’s a true crime discussion forum not a court of law.


All imo

Like you,Jade, I figure it is safe to assume that the Laundries had some cognisance of a crime that had been committed, that involved their son, and that he needed legal representation ..... no one hires a lawyer because it's only Tuesday, and it might be fun to try it on to stave off boredom. they hire lawyers out of apprehension of some legal horribleness emerging on their horizon. My operational theory is , the Laundries knew exactly what hideous crime had been done, and exactly who did it, and exacly where the crime took place. And they needed a local lawyer , local to the jurisdiction.

 

[Trooper]

Just splitting hairs, but that bounty hunter hails from Denver. Different mountains. I'm just saying, Appalachia ain't claiming him! Lol. I enjoy your posts, btw.

He could only have come from Denver...!! What I was conveying was, his tracking expertise was so far off the mark, he clomping around in the Appalachians, while Bri was lying like a dead dog , done in by his own hand with a convenient and clean shot to the head, ( not like Gabby's terrifying slow death , even if we believe Bri's yarn about it, falling off a cliff, writhing about in agony, he being brave enough to clout her over the head with a big rock, and also , incidentally, strangling her at the same time ) in the swamp just down from Mum and Dads.

 

[Ruminations]

They never followed up after Gabby didn't answer when they asked about the marks she had on her face and arm. One cop was very flippant, saying his wife got anxiety and he'd send her to take showers. They suggested Gabby use a $4 shower. How is that helpful? She had marks, didn't give a clear answer about how they got there and because Gabby wasn't going to admit her abuser abused her, just let it go.

That's MOO, though, as I stated.

I agree with this very much. They messed this up. But I will say on their behalf....

There is no telling if any of their actions would have prevented the criminal from murdering. The police dept. could have hid behind this and hubris and refused to make any changes in their department. I understand that there was legislation, etc., but the department did cooperate and made some changes.

For that reason, while I will never excuse how horrific their response was to the 911 calls and the traffic stop, I can't bash that police department either.

MOO

 

[Sundog]

I'm pretty sure if my home was surrounded by crowds of people carrying signs and screaming every day into the night, my property (my lot) was periodically entered by these people for weeks on end, and some of these people periodically banged on my front door, I'd not conclude those action weren't really harmful but were merely "free speech" that deserves celebration. As an individual, I don't have to allow free or any speech on my private property-- the Constitutional amendment applies to government actions not to those of private individuals or companies. And clearly there are government limits on speech anyway (screaming fire in crowded theater, issuing threats, legally-defined "hate speech," etc)

I can imagine some unhinged person going farther than the crowds did in terms of harm to the L's- it's not as though there is a shortage of unstable people out there. I hope it doesn't happen but unfortunately it's not unimaginable.
MOO

Well said.

 

[Ruminations]

And that is ok. But does it matter? Do you assume someone is guilty if they seek legal counsel? Or that they should be subject to higher scrutiny if the do?

Speaking for myself, personally? Yes. In this case, yes. Obviously, every act of retaining an attorney is not suspicious, and I would not find it suspicious at all if the Laundries did none of the things that they did except retain a lawyer, and, did that retaining after if was known that Gabby was missing.

This did not happen, so, yes I hold them to higher scrutiny for hiring an attorney before it was public information that Gabby was missing.

Do you find that detail, that they retained an attorney for their son before they should know that Gabby was missing neutral?

As Jade pointed out, this is not a court of law. But, and you are an attorney, perhaps you or a colleague in civil law could discuss this, it seems to me that this detail would be a factor in a civil case- a detail that the attorney defending the Laundries in a civil case would NOT want on the record. It proves nothing beyond a reasonable doubt, but it does tip the scales towards making it seem they knew their son was in serious legal trouble which would be absurd if their belief was that the couple broke up.

IANAL, but tell me if I'm wrong. It would be a little harder defending the Laundries in a civil suit if they hired Brian an attorney before Gabby was reported missing rather than after she was clearly missing. I am certain that as a civil-case juror that distinction would matter a lot to me.

MOO

 

[Sundog]

As a member of a jury in either a criminal or civil trial, I would never give any weight to the issue of a person engaging an attorney. That is their legal right in the U.S. under our system of law, and people contact attorneys for various reasons, not only if they have committed a crime or civil violation. Often people are fearful in a situation, or just need clarification, or other. I think the Laundrie's wanted their son to have the option to talk to someone the family knew, and who had legal experience, because they knew he was very upset about something and needed to talk to someone. In a crisis with a teenager or young adult child, you often don't know what to do to help, so you reach out wherever you can for help for them.

 

[PrairieWind]

Speaking for myself, personally? Yes. In this case, yes. Obviously, every act of retaining an attorney is not suspicious, and I would not find it suspicious at all if the Laundries did none of the things that they did except retain a lawyer, and, did that retaining after if was known that Gabby was missing.

This did not happen, so, yes I hold them to higher scrutiny for hiring an attorney before it was public information that Gabby was missing.

Do you find that detail, that they retained an attorney for their son before they should know that Gabby was missing neutral?

As Jade pointed out, this is not a court of law. But, and you are an attorney, perhaps you or a colleague in civil law could discuss this, it seems to me that this detail would be a factor in a civil case- a detail that the attorney defending the Laundries in a civil case would NOT want on the record. It proves nothing beyond a reasonable doubt, but it does tip the scales towards making it seem they knew their son was in serious legal trouble which would be absurd if their belief was that the couple broke up.

IANAL, but tell me if I'm wrong. It would be a little harder defending the Laundries in a civil suit if they hired Brian an attorney before Gabby was reported missing rather than after she was clearly missing. I am certain that as a civil-case juror that distinction would matter a lot to me.

MOO

As an attorney, I personally would NOT make any assumption on guilt or liability based upon a person obtaining a lawyer. Remember, this couple had already had a police interaction. Also keep in mind that a jury cannot consider whether a party had an attorney in determining guilt. In regard to your last paragraph, I am not actually sure what you are asking.

 

[Trooper]

As a member of a jury in either a criminal or civil trial, I would never give any weight to the issue of a person engaging an attorney. That is their legal right in the U.S. under our system of law, and people contact attorneys for various reasons, not only if they have committed a crime or civil violation. Often people are fearful in a situation, or just need clarification, or other. I think the Laundrie's wanted their son to have the option to talk to someone the family knew, and who had legal experience, because they knew he was very upset about something and needed to talk to someone. In a crisis with a teenager or young adult child, you often don't know what to do to help, so you reach out wherever you can for help for them.

Well... either Bri ignored this 'advice'. or he got , like his parents got, bad advice... ( Don't send deceptive letters to grieving frantic parents ) . surely no lawyer, even from Wyoming, would suggest to Bri, that he tootles off home in a van that does not belong to him ( it was owned by Gabby, her mother and Gabby bought it, it was registered in her name ).... and surely, surely, any lawyer worth his/her salt would strongly advise and warn Bri about using a dead persons credit card, and by the way, don't make up messages on the phone to someone you know is dead.

it's just not the done thing and it has repercussions that echo on for years, so don't do that, Bri...

but no!!.. all the advice under the sun was like water off a ducks back, because your Brians of this world know best. more than any one, they live in sort of grandiose parallel universe where whatever they say and think is never wrong .

 

[Ruminations]

As an attorney, I personally would NOT make any assumption on guilt or liability based upon a person obtaining a lawyer. Remember, this couple had already had a police interaction. Also keep in mind that a jury cannot consider whether a party had an attorney in determining guilt. In regard to your last paragraph, I am not actually sure what you are asking.

So, you are saying that the following could not happen in a civil trial:

A LE officer testifies that they found it suspicious that an attorney was retained with 25k around the same time that there were several long phone calls between BL and RL before Gabby was missing, the jury instruction would be to ignore that?

I'm not talking about considering that there was representation. I'm talking about witnesses finding the timing suspicious. Wouldn't it be up to each individual juror to evaluate the LE witness's statement that the timing was suspicious? I thought it would be up to each juror to evaluate if the LE officer was credible in saying so, and in evaluating its relevance.

It seems to me that such information is very relevant to determine where the preponderance of evidence lies, although it may be irrelevant to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And, again, I would indeed find it relevant as a juror. You don't wire 25k because your kiddult rolled through a stop sign while he was stressed out over a break-up. That's like-400? - hours prepaid more or less. And you don't prepare to defend your son in a missing girlfriend case if you don't already know the girlfriend is missing.

To clarify my question: If you were the Laundrie's civil defense attorney would you want it on the record or avoid having it on the record that the Laundries retained an attorney with 25k before they should have known Gabby was missing?

MOO

 

[Ghostwheel]

They never followed up after Gabby didn't answer when they asked about the marks she had on her face and arm. One cop was very flippant, saying his wife got anxiety and he'd send her to take showers. They suggested Gabby use a $4 shower. How is that helpful? She had marks, didn't give a clear answer about how they got there and because Gabby wasn't going to admit her abuser abused her, just let it go.

That's MOO, though, as I stated.

This, however, is not LE's fault, though. Gabby kept saying SHE was the one who was upset, she didn't know where the marks came from (it looked like she didn't really realize she had the marks). This is the problem with any domestic abuse, if the abused says they are the problem, what can a policeman do unless he/she sees someone actually abusing the abused.

I did not see a flippant officer. I saw someone trying to help her calm down with the only thing he had in his toolbox which was his own limited experience. Remember, Gabby kept saying SHE was OCD, SHE was upset, SHE tried to get in the car. She's crying her eyes out and saying she was calm, which doesn't mesh. She looked nearly hysterical to me. Seriously, the officers saw nothing, she claimed no harm to her, and whomever called LE was not around to file charges on what they saw. You can't arrest someone without actual evidence or a complaint. The best they could do was give her possession of her own vehicle and get him away from her at least for the moment.

MOO, as well.

 

[Ghostwheel]

RSBM: Do you find that detail, that they retained an attorney for their son before they should know that Gabby was missing neutral?

I, personally, see that as prudent. I don't know enough to say if his parents did or did not know for an actual fact she was deceased or if they did, when they found out. But if my son was last in the Grand Tetons with his girlfriend and he drove back and she was not with him and he would not say where she was or said he wasn't sure or didn't know, I would suspect something amiss and maybe hire a lawyer. Maybe. I'd probably drive back to where they were both last seen and search myself, but that's a me thing.

Suspecting that your offspring has left behind to die or killed their significant other is not the same as actually knowing. That is where I am unsure. The attorney part makes sense even if you don't know for sure. IMO.

 

[Ruminations]

I, personally, see that as prudent. I don't know enough to say if his parents did or did not know for an actual fact she was deceased or if they did, when they found out. But if my son was last in the Grand Tetons with his girlfriend and he drove back and she was not with him and he would not say where she was or said he wasn't sure or didn't know, I would suspect something amiss and maybe hire a lawyer. Maybe. I'd probably drive back to where they were both last seen and search myself, but that's a me thing.

Suspecting that your offspring has left behind to die or killed their significant other is not the same as actually knowing. That is where I am unsure. The attorney part makes sense even if you don't know for sure. IMO.

I agree that it would not be suspicious if Brian came home without her...they began to get suspicious and didn't know know. But that's not the way it happened. This is the first link I found. There may be better journalism sources.

Brian Laundrie retained high-powered defense team 9 days before Gabby Petito reported missing: lawsuit

Brian Laundrie retained a high-powered defense team in Wyoming with his parents’ money more than a week before his fiancée Gabby Petito was reported missing

nypost.com

MOO

 

[Ghostwheel]

I agree that it would not be suspicious if Brian came home without her...they began to get suspicious and didn't know know. But that's not the way it happened. This is the first link I found. There may be better journalism sources.

Brian Laundrie retained high-powered defense team 9 days before Gabby Petito reported missing: lawsuit

Brian Laundrie retained a high-powered defense team in Wyoming with his parents’ money more than a week before his fiancée Gabby Petito was reported missing

nypost.com

MOO

If this is true, that he actually retained the lawyer, horse of a different color. Never mind, that was a bad headline. He didn't retain the lawyer, his parents did. Very suspicious still, but "gone" could mean missing or wandered off or left. Does make me lean more towards the parents SHOULD have suspected something really bad right away.

 

[Ruminations]

If this is true, that he actually retained the lawyer, horse of a different color. Never mind, that was a bad headline. He didn't retain the lawyer, his parents did. Very suspicious still, but "gone" could mean missing or wandered off or left. Does make me lean more towards the parents SHOULD have suspected something really bad right away.

AND, I would argue, being that they could afford it, there was nothing wrong with getting him an attorney appropriate for something really bad. But there was something wrong, in my opinion, in not immediately telling Gabby's parents that Gabby is not with Brian and they don't know where she is.

I would have told him that whatever happened, it sounds like he is in big trouble, and his only hope is to talk to the attorney they paid for and follow the advice given to the letter. I would have told him that if he failed to do this, I would call the police myself and turn him in/report my suspicions. And I would have done all that in love. I have no doubts Brian's family loved him, and I don't think that love goes away because your child confessed to murder or you suspect your child of murder.

I believe that advice would have saved his life.

MOO