When a lawyer speaks for a family, we can often see what the lawyer believes.
Here, the lawyer for the Laundrie family responds to the allegation that they helped their wanted son, Brian get away. This came after it was learned that they took him camping after he returned home in Gabby's van and refused to cooperate with police.
Expected: 'Chris and Roberta Laundrie did not help Brian..."
Instead, we have the present tense & avoidance of the accusation:
"Chris and Roberta Laundrie do not know where Brian is. They are concerned about Brian and hope the FBI can locate him."
1. He avoids issuing a denial on their behalf.
2. He reports what they do not know, but only presently. I believe this to be true---at this moment, they do not know where he is. This is not to say that they do not know what direction he was headed. Likely, they do not have phone contact with him due to tracing, so that, technically, they do not know where he is, in the moment.
3. He then tells us that they want the FBI to find him. This would mean the parents, who did not cooperate with law enforcement are the "good guys."
The portrayal of the "good guys" is often indicative of the contrary.
From this short statement, it would appear that the attorney has a reason to avoid issuing the simple, "the parents did not help him..."
17 comments:
“locate” is not even “find him” , much less “apprehend” - probably the parents will not accept that Brian has even done anything wrong. They’ll maybe say Gabby’s bank account was just “in her name”, too. What did it mean, that “the van was in her name”, as if to suggest it wasn’t really Gabby’s van, but somehow Brian’s, or theirs? Why did Brian tell the police officer he didn’t have a phone, that he used Gabby’s phone, before taking a phone from his pocket? Did Brian have possession of Gabby’s phone as well as his own, or was he too “unworldly” to own a phone, vehicle, or have a bank account himself, whilst availing himself of all Gabby’s? Gabby said she hadn’t driven the van much. Awful to think that after a physical altercation he was trying to lock her out of her van, whilst also having possession of her phone, and all her stuff - maybe trying then to abandon her. Sad he didn’t succeed as the police would have soon found and helped her, having already been called.
I think they did right in deciding Brian was the victim, even if really it was obvious he was not; only the victim, by the hostel regulations, could be accommodated overnight - in giving Gabby possession of the vehicle, not laying charges, removing Brian, they gave her the means of leaving him safely without confrontation - it’s so sad that she did not take the opportunity. Maybe too conscientious a soul to leave him stranded, or not confident to continue her travels alone, or both.
It’s gut wrenching - also to know such a lovely girl lived her last year and longer with parents who didn’t even report her missing, or contact her own parents, but rather took their son “camping” upon his lone return and only, eventually, allow him to speak through lawyers, only to say nothing. It’s so cruel, so disrespecting, maybe their strange favouring is an indication as to why Gabby eventually decided to live in a van?
Did Gabby want to leave Brian? Did Brian not want to live out of a van? I wondered why Gabby wrote that “we both” decided, of them making the road trip, rather than just “we” decided, or “I” - maybe one of them was less keen, or maybe originally she had hoped to go alone? I wonder if Brian persuaded Gabby that she couldn’t do more than only her “little” website, tried to make her somehow dependent upon him, generally undermined her confidence? Did she say to the police officer, “ He doesn’t think I can do any of this?”
Maybe Gabby had wanted to go alone, and Brian persuaded her otherwise. He obviously didn’t want to lose the van even if it didn’t belong to him. Maybe he didn’t want to lose Gabby either, yet he returned with only the van.
Gabby’s mother reportedly said that Gabby had told her earlier this year that she and Brian were no longer engaged, just boyfriend and girlfriend.
Maybe Brian was difficult to leave, but to downgrade an engagement surely signalled an intention toward lessening commitment?
Brian said his biggest fear was that she would lock him out of the van, abandon him - yet it was he who locked Gabby out, to “calm down”. How does that work, in the beating sun, without water? It seems they did not trust each other on something so essential - just that neither would lock the other out. How stressful to even passingly entertain such a thought, let alone to live in fear that might happen, in the heat, in any remote area; they did not even have water in the van at that time, which seems poor planning considering Gabby planned minutely. Brian, when offered, declined plastic-bottled water, while Gabby nursed the bottles she was given - still she did not calm down very much. Brian seemed all too ready to be “the victim”, and to not volunteer that he had hit Gabby, which, as it turned out, was the concern expressed by the 911 caller and the reason for the call.
I mean “locate” need not mean find in a “hands on arrest him” sort of way - as in one can locate a constellation without being able to approach it. It’s a lot less specific than saying they hope they catch him. They don’t hope that, so they don’t really say it.
It must be awful to represent the Laundries - how can attorneys resist the temptation to not “inadvertently” throw some clients under the bus?
Off topic - Jasmine Hartin
Cherisse Halsall, a reporter and anchor at Belize Channel 7, and a CBS News consultant, says Hartin first told authorities Jemmott has been killed by a stranger...
"I don't remember saying that," said Hartin. "Like, it was such a blur. Umm, you know, and I think I was in shock."
"Were you intentionally trying to mislead police at that moment?" Van Sant pressed. "No … not at all," Hartin insisted.
After a jailhouse meeting with an attorney, Hartin reportedly admitted she had fired the fatal shot herself — by accident.
She said Henry Jemmott was her friend and had been urging her to get a gun for personal protection ever since rescuing her from a near sexual assault about a week earlier.
On the night of the shooting, said Hartin, she and Jemmott had been drinking before going to the pier, where she'd given him a shoulder massage and he'd tried teaching her how to load and unload the magazine and bullets from his Glock 17 service pistol.
"I'm holding it like this on the top and like this and I'm trying to get the magazine out," Hartin told Van Sant, demonstrating the way she says she'd held Jemmott's pistol. "Next thing I know, the gun went off."
"And did you have a finger around the trigger?" asked Van Sant. "Not that I thought," Hartin replied.
"Somehow you must have pulled the trigger," Van Sant continued.
"I'd — I'm—I don't know. I — I — I mean, it was an accident or the gun misfired. But consciously did I pull the trigger? No," she said.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/10/another-hate-hoax-black-woman-atlanta-accused-pretending-white-male-member-ku-klux-klan-threatening-black-neighbors/
@ Hey Jude
I've often wondered how defense lawyers can represent such obvious evil. They have to focus on the money and "proof" but disregard morality to do so. The Laundries are horrible people for not even responding to texts and calls from Gabby's family when they were trying to find her. I only hope they can be held accountable, but they knew how to play the lawyer game. Instead of calling Gabby's family to say she didn't come back, they hired a lawyer. It's just disgusting. I also found the lawyers statement of being worried for Brian was disgusting. Oh, NOW you understand the concern of a missing child. Poor sweet Gabby.
last "priority"
"hope the FBI can locate him"
"hope" minimizes expressing a lack of willfulness
Does anyone have any thoughts on John Walsh's Freudian slip? Theoretical? statement (now twice) in interviews, that Laundrie beat Ms.Petito to death? I am aware he has long standing connections in the FBI and elsewhere in law enforcement. The way that he said it and then retracted and edited makes me wonder why he did that. Considering the number of ways she could have died, and where she was found, that's very specific and with no hesitation. Any thoughts?
Mouse - Our legal systems exist because morals aren’t all they are cracked up to be - moral judgements can be calamitous because they arise as much from the emotional as the rational, and because we don’t all share the same morals. It may seem distasteful, but the ability of attorneys to adhere to legal law, though it might sometimes or often conflict with their and our moral beliefs, is necessary to justice.
I enjoy Scott Reisch’s YouTube - he talks from the defence attorney’s perspective. It’s interesting how sometimes moral judgements are made in the comments about defence attorneys, as though their career choice in itself is a moral failure, and as if defending a client means they are okay with the crime of which their client is accused - could be disheartening.
don’t know what type of attorney the Laundries’ have but they should have got one who let them appear human and show care and respect for Gabby and her family, at least - surely they cared, and do care, and are sorely misrepresenting themselves in following the attorney’s advice?
Not sure - because if they cared, wouldn’t they be lamenting with Gabby’s parents, out on their lawn crying, and begging Brian to turn himself in? They would have given Molly Golightly’s laundry basket back to her, with matching indignation - well, they would not even have needed to because she and the other protesters would not have gathered if the parents ever had expressed concern for Gabby, and made Brian speak with the police.
I could believe that initially they had been willing to believe some innocent sounding reason for why Gabby didn’t return with him - maybe that she stayed on with people they met, or she took a flight to her parents, or they broke up and she took off hitchhiking with someone, or she’d broken his heart, said she never wanted anything to do with him or his family again, but any excuse could not be sustained from the time they ignored calls from Gabby’s family, so perhaps they already knew more.
If they really hadn’t suspected anything was very amiss, it might not be suspicious that they all went camping on Brian’s return - it had been pre-booked for the parents before Brian came home, so it would be reasonable to just take him along too, maybe take his mind off Gabby. Even so, wouldn’t they, at some point early on, call or text Gabby or her parents to establish that she was okay? Gabby lived with them for going on two years - she was only twenty-two, and Brian had her van - they would maybe consider themselves like parents in terms of responsibility. We’d all hope for similar consideration of our own young adults so I think it‘s suspicious that Brian’s parents did not enquire after Gabby.
He’s their son - if he told them a “poor-Brian, Gabby left me” type story they’d maybe want to believe him and hope for the best - maybe that’s what happened, and they believed him till Gabby’s parents reported her missing, or even till her body was discovered.
Not sure that works though, because if he told a story and they did nothing to check it out, I’d suspect they weren’t ever quite convinced.
There’s nothing good, but that’s the best I can think of Brian’s parents. Gabby’s treasured van must have been an elephant in the room, or garage - maybe they put it out of sight, but it would not have gone out of mind. It’s mainly due to the van that I can’t believe they didn’t know something was very amiss and that they should have contacted Gabby’s parents the same hour. It would be interesting to know - are they determined to believe and stick with whatever unlikely story their son might have told them, or have they known what happened all the while but chosen not to turn him in? Maybe didn’t know, believed a yarn, unbelieved it, yet still not speaking.
Maybe they won’t make themselves accountable, aren’t able to speak the unspeakable - their silence has spoken volumes, moreso since Cassie sidestepped their attorney.
The people that picked him up hitchhiking allegedly said that he looked clean, with almost nothing in his backpack, yet they say he claimed he'd been sleeping in a tarp for days alone. He apparently specifically mentioned that his girlfriend was working on her website and blog back in her van.
The lady who picked him up hitchhiking separately allegedly says that that he also looked very clean with almost nothing in his bag and that he freaked out when she got on the road to drive him to the Van and said he got out of the car while it was moving in attempts to keep her from going down the road further.
Both of these individuals have made comments on their videos wondering, due to his odd behavior, in retrospect,if he had already killed Gabby, hitchhiked to go shower, dispose of evidence, and call his parents once in cell range.
This makes sense considering his mom has prior camping reservations and changed them before he ever got home.
They also had a lawyer immediately not just for him, but for ALL 3 adults. The only reason you need to lawyer up is if you need protection from something coming. I believe they anticipated this since day one.
It makes sense they would not need to ask what happened to Gabby on their mutual camping trip when he returned because they likely already knew she was beyond help from whatever tale he spun them to gain their assistance.
Jude
I appreciate the defense attorney perspective, justice is the focus, not variable morality. It's so hard to remember that when things seem so "open and close" to me. Good reminder for me.
I agree that parents could have believed themselves an innocent reason for Gabby not coming back. However, once the texts and voicemails started coming in from Gabby's family, that's when Brian's story was clearly a failure, and concern for Gabby should have risen. Gabby not communicating with her mother is sign enough something was wrong. Instead they hired a lawyer, maybe even on Brian's suggestion to further manipulate them. Did his parents keep going with the lie or did they question him further and start the cover up?
I agree that the Laundrie's attorney could have allowed them to look a little more human. Not one peep from Brian, surely he was hoping Gabby wouldn't be found and wanted to wait and see. Then he went national and the boy ran off as a result b/c he couldn't face the wave coming.
OT
Cleo Smith
Missing 4 year old from Australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsjaGjcZq28&t=0s
I have really missed Peter's SA as of late, as I am sure many others have, too.
Any thoughts on this case?
I just got the transcript and will meet with the team for complete analysis
Peter
And today the father finds his belongings and they find human remains. Something fishy finding this one day after the park reopened
Cleo confirmed at campground.
https://thewest.com.au/news/cleo-smith/cleo-search-wa-police-reveal-how-they-placed-cleo-near-blowholes-camping-ground-prior-to-disappearance-ng-b882048006z
WA Police have revealed how they placed Cleo Smith near the Carnarvon campsite she is feared to have been abducted from in the lead up to the little girl’s suspicious disappearance.
Acting Police Commissioner Col Blanch said today that CCTV vision captured from shacks, near the Blowholes camping ground where the family was staying, had shown the four-year-old.
“There were a couple of CCTV cameras in the area and it’s through an analysis of that,” he told media on the sixth day of the desperate search.
I found Peter on Twitter.
Peter, we need you more than ever in these totalitarian times!
It would be fascinating if you could analyze Alex Murdaugh's 911 tape of the double murders of his son and wife. Thank you, I admire your work and talent.
Post a Comment