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

[Ilex]

I'm sure they have multiple goals for this lawsuit. One of them is to extract a large amount of money from the Laundrie's.

In their civil cover sheet section II is titled "Amount Of Claim." There are several amount ranges starting at $8000 or less. They selected the largest amount possible, over $100,000. If money was not a goal they could have selected a lower amount. JMO.

READ: Gabby Petito's parents lawsuit against Brian Laundrie's parents - East Idaho News

I'd hate to be asked to put a price on a parent's love and their suffering over the loss of their child.

 

[Sundog]

<snipped for focus>

Everyone agrees the Laundries actions were outside of the realm of what's acceptable, ethical or moral. We all sat with our mouths open when we found out that while the Petitos were worried that Brian and Gabby were missing, Gabby's van had been in the Laundrie's driveway for days and Brian had been home with his family. The country sat in stunned silence when it was days after Brian had run off before the Laundries alerted LE. It wasn't just Gabby's family who were astounded and appalled, everyone was, so much so that mobs formed outside the Laundrie's home in protest of their actions. We even say we understand why Gabby's parents are upset, that's because we believe the Laundries were civilly wrong.

We don't all agree on this, and we don't all agree on the actions and sentiments of the mobs that formed outside of the Laundrie's home. We don't know the reasons behind the Laundrie's actions and the decisions they made at the time, and we will probably never know.

 

[carbuff]

Does Florida law make it a crime to know about somebody else's crime and not report it? Not all states do.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

In some ways it is comparable because it shows the difference between a civil and criminal case. In OJ's case, he was found not guilty at a criminal trial, but shown to be guilty in civil trial. Same here, while criminally the Laundries may not be guilty of any wrongdoing, they may be found guilty in a civil trial.
The Goldman family didn't go after OJ's family because they hadn't attempted to obstruct an investigation or help a known murderer escape capture, which is what Gabby's family are alleging.

Just gonna throw my two cents in here - no one is guilty at a civil trial. They are liable or not liable. Also, remember the burden of proof is very different between criminal and civil trials.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

I'm sure they have multiple goals for this lawsuit. One of them is to extract a large amount of money from the Laundrie's.

In their civil cover sheet section II is titled "Amount Of Claim." There are several amount ranges starting at $8000 or less. They selected the largest amount possible, over $100,000. If money was not a goal they could have selected a lower amount. JMO.

READ: Gabby Petito's parents lawsuit against Brian Laundrie's parents - East Idaho News

Small claims damages in FL can go up to $8,000. So if they claimed $8,000 or less, it wouldn't have made it to civil court.

Yes, they pled for damages in the amount over $100,000, but most plaintiff's plead a top amount even if they don't think they can get it.

 

[Sillybilly]

Does Florida law make it a crime to know about somebody else's crime and not report it? Not all states do.

The 2021 Florida Statutes

Florida statute 777.03 (1)(a):

777.03 Accessory after the fact.—
(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

<bbm>

What I can't quite figure out is if/how the above wording relates to the subsequent statutes that only refer to "any person". IOW, is it a given that all 777.03 statutes subsequent to (1)(a) are meant to include that wording even though it is not specifically stated in the individual statute?

(c) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

 

[NCWatcher]

I see what you're saying, if a criminal proceeding had been brought and had failed to find proof of wrongdoing, then it would be acceptable (even in the face of a not guilty verdict) to bring a civil case because there would be the underpinning of a legal issue. Without criminal charges, then you believe a civil case has no merit. Add right to silence and protection from self incrimination.

Here's where we disagree and why:

A civil action doesn't need to be illegal. It's not criminal to slander someone. Defamation is a civil tort, not a criminal offense. In fact, only 13 states still consider prosecuting defamation as a criminal offense, and even then it's very rare. Defamation Law Made Simple

So yes, the Laundries not telling Gabby's parents Brian had returned home without her and had killed her, even if they knew, may not be criminal which is why there are no criminal proceedings on that point. But like slander and libel isn't criminal it's not civilly right. The Laundries ignoring Gabby's family and withholding vital information did cause them pain and distress and may be civilly wrong.
Additionally there is evidence that the Laundries attempted to plan and help Brian escape, according to Gabby's family. If true, and if there is evidence of this, then a criminal charge could happen, but likely only on that issue.

Everyone agrees the Laundries actions were outside of the realm of what's acceptable, ethical or moral. We all sat with our mouths open when we found out that while the Petitos were worried that Brian and Gabby were missing, Gabby's van had been in the Laundrie's driveway for days and Brian had been home with his family. The country sat in stunned silence when it was days after Brian had run off before the Laundries alerted LE. It wasn't just Gabby's family who were astounded and appalled, everyone was, so much so that mobs formed outside the Laundrie's home in protest of their actions. We even say we understand why Gabby's parents are upset, that's because we believe the Laundries were civilly wrong.

In this civil proceeding Gabby's parents are asserting that the Laundries actions brought them pain and suffering. This isn't about what Brian did, it's about what his parents did. Again back to slander, is it normal, appropriate and civilized to cause pain to someone else and ruin their reputation under any circumstance? The Peititos are asking a jury to decide if it's morally, ethically and normal for the Laundries to have behaved as they did.

I applaud the Laundrie's attorney for making this about free speech and confusing this with a criminal trial, but this case is about feelings and pain and suffering as civil cases typically are, even while some of the Laundries actions were legal. The jury would only determine whether the Laundrie's actions were so abnormal and egregious that Gabby's family should be compensated for their pain and suffering.

We are miles apart on this it seems. I really don't see any similarity to the Goldman action except that both cases involve civil actions after a death. I also think you've misrepresented my view of the Goldman action in your summary. But it's not worth correcting since the Goldmans are a side issue.

I also do not agree that "Everyone agrees the Laundries actions were outside of the realm of what's acceptable, ethical or moral."
That may be true for all the people you talk to in your private life but I've talked to quite a few people who wouldn't agree with you and some have said they'd do exactly what the L's did. And the L's were acting on the advice of their counsel, a fact that apparently bothered the P's given the repeated mention of the L's legal representation in the P's Complaint.
But leaving aside who we talk to in our private lives, it does not seem to me that even everyone on Websleuths agrees with your position.

There is also no proof the L's knew BL killed GP. I understand you think there's no other explanation for the L's actions except that they knew. But in my view there are plenty of possible reasons for their actions starting with following legal advice. And there's a bit of a logical problem-- supposedly the civil action is justified because the L's knew by Aug 28 BL killed GP. But when the lack of any proof for that contention is mentioned, the answer is "that's why a trial is needed-- to find the proof!" I know that facts come to light during discovery. But it's a bit weird for the basis for the lawsuit to be awaiting discovery as things go forward.

I get that the P's suffered. You think they deserve compensation/money for their suffering and they think so too. But they suffered mostly because their daughter is dead (or at least I think it's safe to assume that.) The L's didn't kill their daughter. And the L's conduct was legally permissable and legally protected.

You said the L's lawyer made the case about "free speech." I don't think that's the only Constitutional argument he made. I think the 5th and 6th amendments were also addressed. But regardless, he's not the first one to suggest 5th amendment issues were involved. Gabby's mother made that argument back in Sept.
Gabby Petito's mom Nichole Schmidt slams Brian Laundrie's sister over interview | Daily Mail Online

 

[carbuff]

The 2021 Florida Statutes

Florida statute 777.03 (1)(a):

777.03 Accessory after the fact.—
(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

<bbm>

What I can't quite figure out is if/how the above wording relates to the subsequent statutes that only refer to "any person". IOW, is it a given that all 777.03 statutes subsequent to (1)(a) are meant to include that wording even though it is not specifically stated in the individual statute?

(c) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Thanks, Sillybilly.

I think I'm sorry I asked

 

[TL4S]

We are miles apart on this it seems. I really don't see any similarity to the Goldman action except that both cases involve civil actions after a death. I also think you've misrepresented my view of the Goldman action in your summary. But it's not worth correcting since the Goldmans are a side issue.

I also do not agree that "Everyone agrees the Laundries actions were outside of the realm of what's acceptable, ethical or moral."
That may be true for all the people you talk to in your private life but I've talked to quite a few people who wouldn't agree with you and some have said they'd do exactly what the L's did. And the L's were acting on the advice of their counsel, a fact that apparently bothered the P's given the repeated mention of the L's legal representation in the P's Complaint.
But leaving aside who we talk to in our private lives, it does not seem to me that even everyone on Websleuths agrees with your position.

There is also no proof the L's knew BL killed GP. I understand you think there's no other explanation for the L's actions except that they knew. But in my view there are plenty of possible reasons for their actions starting with following legal advice. And there's a bit of a logical problem-- supposedly the civil action is justified because the L's knew by Aug 28 BL killed GP. But when the lack of any proof for that contention is mentioned, the answer is "that's why a trial is needed-- to find the proof!" I know that facts come to light during discovery. But it's a bit weird for the basis for the lawsuit to be awaiting discovery as things go forward.

I get that the P's suffered. You think they deserve compensation/money for their suffering and they think so too. But they suffered mostly because their daughter is dead (or at least I think it's safe to assume that.) The L's didn't kill their daughter. And the L's conduct was legally permissable and legally protected.

You said the L's lawyer made the case about "free speech." I don't think that's the only Constitutional argument he made. I think the 5th and 6th amendments were also addressed. But regardless, he's not the first one to suggest 5th amendment issues were involved. Gabby's mother made that argument back in Sept.
Gabby Petito's mom Nichole Schmidt slams Brian Laundrie's sister over interview | Daily Mail Online

I kind of wonder if one reason for the lawsuit is actually to try to pinpoint her date of death. That would be a painful question to have no answer to. Jmo.

 

[Sillybilly]

Thanks, Sillybilly.

I think I'm sorry I asked

My sincere apologies

 

[NCWatcher]

I'd hate to be asked to put a price on a parent's love and their suffering over the loss of their child.

I agree. BUT the lawsuit isn't and can't be over their suffering because their child is dead. (Or is it? The cause of their suffering is one of the issues discussed in the MTD.)

Of course the P's are suffering because their 22-year old daughter is dead. But the L's didn't kill her or even cause her death accidentally. And no matter what the L's did in September, she'd still have been dead and the P's would have still suffered.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Accessory After the Fact in Florida

Under Florida Statute 777.03, the crime of Accessory After the Fact is committed when a person maintains, assists, or aids a person known to have committed a felony, intending for the person to avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial, or punishment for the felony.[1]

A person has no duty to report another person to law enforcement just because they suspect or know that the other person committed a felony.

It is a defense to the crime of Accessory After the Fact if a person’s conduct was limited to merely disavowing knowledge or refusing to cooperate with an investigation.

Accessory After the Fact in Florida

 

[carbuff]

My sincere apologies

It's really quite a quagmire, isn't it?

 

[al66pine]

GP's Parents' Lawsuit.

I'd hate to be asked to put a price on a parent's love and their suffering over the loss of their child.

@Ilex I understand ^ hesitation re parent stating a dollar amt.

But when a "Prayer for Relief"* in a Complaint or Petition seeks money damages from defendant, it or a related document (such as cover sheet in this case) normally must specify a dollar amt or a $ amt range.
_____________________________
* "A prayer for relief, in the law of civil procedure, is a portion of a complaint in which the plaintiff describes the remedies that the plaintiff seeks from the court. For example, the plaintiff may ask for an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, an injunction to make the defendant stop a certain activity, or all of these...."
See also:
prayer for relief
Prayer for relief, often shortened to prayer, is also called a demand for relief or demand.

 

[borndem]

Just saw this -- Please forgive if it's already been posted...

Petito, Laundrie Lawsuit: Jury Trial Set For 2023 In Sarasota County
A trial has been ordered in the lawsuit filed by Gabby Petito's family against Brian Laundrie's parents over claims they knew she was dead.

Tiffany Razzano, Patch Staff
Posted Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 9:40 am ET|Updated Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 10:11 am ET
VENICE, FL — A jury trial date has been set in Sarasota County in the civil lawsuit filed by Gabby Petito's family against the parents of her confessed killer and fiancé, Brian Laundrie.
The lawsuit filed by Joe Petito and Nichole Schmidt in March claims that Laundrie's parents, Chris and Roberta Laundrie, knew their son had already killed the 22-year-old woman during the period she was considered missing last year.
[...]
There's a chance the lawsuit could be dismissed by then, as a new attorney for the Laundries, P. Matthew Luka with Trombley & Hanes, P.A. in Tampa, filed a motion for dismissal on March 30.

Source:
Petito, Laundrie Lawsuit: Jury Trial Set For 2023 In Sarasota County

 

[Ilex]

The 2021 Florida Statutes

Florida statute 777.03 (1)(a):

777.03 Accessory after the fact.—
(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

<bbm>

What I can't quite figure out is if/how the above wording relates to the subsequent statutes that only refer to "any person". IOW, is it a given that all 777.03 statutes subsequent to (1)(a) are meant to include that wording even though it is not specifically stated in the individual statute?

(c) Any person who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a capital, life, first degree, or second degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

In FL family members and spouses are exempt from that statute unless the primary crime involved child abuse, murder of a child under 18 or domestic violence. The statute was written to safeguard the family unit from unnecessary pressure and fracture. Florida felt that a strong family unit was of more societal benefit than the prosecution of family who who aid them.

FL does have laws regarding reporting crimes, but it's about high crimes like treason and terrorism, and it's coupled with actively attempting to conceal the crime, so more or less being an accessory after the fact. Chapter 876 Section 33 - 2018 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

There are federal laws about reporting felony crimes like murder, but again they also include attempting to conceal the crime. 18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony
Courtnee Brantley was convicted under that law after her boyfriend killed two police officers in FL. Court Of Appeals Upholds Conviction Of Courtnee Brantley For Misprision Crime Committed Following Police Murders

 

[Ilex]

GP's Parents' Lawsuit.
@Ilex I understand ^ hesitation re parent stating a dollar amt.

But when a "Prayer for Relief"* in a Complaint or Petition seeks money damages from defendant, it or a related document (such as cover sheet in this case) normally must specify a dollar amt or a $ amt range.
_____________________________
* "A prayer for relief, in the law of civil procedure, is a portion of a complaint in which the plaintiff describes the remedies that the plaintiff seeks from the court. For example, the plaintiff may ask for an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees, an injunction to make the defendant stop a certain activity, or all of these...."
See also:
prayer for relief
Prayer for relief, often shortened to prayer, is also called a demand for relief or demand.

I know, just thinking generally how hard it would be to put a price on.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Given the foundation the Petitos have started, if the filing requires a dollar amount to be listed, I imagine they would want to put any funds they receive in such a lawsuit into the foundation, and could easily put a high value on their claim with that in mind, regardless whether it fits the legal aspect of determining what their claim should be "worth". MOO

 

[Ilex]

I agree. BUT the lawsuit isn't and can't be over their suffering because their child is dead. (Or is it? The cause of their suffering is one of the issues discussed in the MTD.)

Of course the P's are suffering because their 22-year old daughter is dead. But the L's didn't kill her or even cause her death accidentally. And no matter what the L's did in September, she'd still have been dead and the P's would have still suffered.

I'm not sure what you meant by "their child is dead"? I'm going to assume you mean that the suffering over their child's is going to be there regardless of whether the L's had reported the murder or not. The question is did the L's actions add to that pain? Did the L's, by not returning the calls or, as the complaint alleges by attempting to help their son flee, add to that pain? Was the L's behavior an acceptable societal norm? What happens in the next case where the victim's family might not be so lucky as to have a passerby filming at the right moment? IMO these questions indicate a need to debate, have a discussion and conclusion, much like a trial would do.

 

[NCWatcher]

I'm not sure what you meant by "their child is dead"? I'm going to assume you mean that the suffering over their child's is going to be there regardless of whether the L's had reported the murder or not. The question is did the L's actions add to that pain? Did the L's, by not returning the calls or, as the complaint alleges by attempting to help their son flee, add to that pain? Was the L's behavior an acceptable societal norm? What happens in the next case where the victim's family might not be so lucky as to have a passerby filming at the right moment? IMO these questions indicate a need to debate, have a discussion and conclusion, much like a trial would do.

I was responding to a comment that certainly seemed to imply damages requested in the current civil trial would be to compensate for the suffering caused by the loss of their daughter. That's not quite true. In fact that's an issue raised in the MTD.