Investigator delves into the LIVE Petito v. Laundrie Civil Case Protective Order Hearing – uncovering crucial details and evidence in the case of missing woman Gabby Petito and her boyfriend Brian Laundrie. The protective order hearing provides a glimpse into the tumultuous relationship between the couple, ultimately leading to Petito’s disappearance and Laundrie’s subsequent disappearance and death. This high-profile case has captured national attention as authorities work tirelessly to unravel the mysterious circumstances surrounding Gabby Petito’s tragic fate.
@Ltenn
Why in all of this are they not highlighting the fact about the van being located in Florida and that’s when they realized Brian was home but Gabby was not?
@georgettebrusso8306
Replay crew: Their case against the lawyer is reminiscent of the serial killer case from upstate NY where the killer told the lawyer where to find bodies and he didn't report it to police.
@integralmath
It's peculiar that both you and the judge distorted the lawyer's argument about what 'reunited' means. He explicitly stated, which both you and the judge ignored, that the proposition is ambiguous because it doesn't explicitly state whether the person is alive or dead. And then he listed a series of organizations, including the United States itself (among other government agencies and NGOs besides). Now, you talk occasionally about the need to use one's reasoning to control one's emotions. Well, on this issue, both you and the judge failed.
The judge instantly turned his statement that 'reunited' is a term that is used to refer remains and to living persons into an abomination along the lines of 'so, what you're saying is that it can only mean remains and anyone who hears would inexorably believe it means remains?' It's essentially the Kathy Newman v. Jordan Peterson interview. In the same way that 'what if any' gives you a laugh because of Elaine's intellectually defective, toddler like efforts, so too does this judge's nakedly disingenuous response to the argument made.
He's saying that word X is compatible with meaning A and meaning B and no other word, or combination of words, in the proposition specifies which meaning is meant and therefore its use doesn't imply state of the world A' or B'. That a particular set of people elected to interpret it to mean A' and then seek to profit from that interpretation by way of a money judgment in litigation because A' is foul to them doesn't alter the fact that nothing in the statement itself implies that the state of the world is A' rather than B'. In short, conclusion A' is a product of their own choosing and not of his clients' speaking.
And you follow the path of the judge by incorrectly claiming that he's arguing that someone who hears 'reunited' would think 'dead person's remains' not 'living person'. This you do notwithstanding the fact that he explicitly addressed that by way of a rhetorical device known as procatalepsis; viz., 'the term reunited is ambiguous'. He's explicitly, in advance, denying that someone would draw one conclusion or the other by noting that a person is free to draw either conclusion precisely because 'reunited' is freely used to refer to the reunification of a living person with family and the remains of a previously living person with family. You are trying to portray his argument that something is permissible to be an argument that something is mandated.
And he couldn't have been clearer; so, how you and the judge both missed it is a mystery.
@isabellel4352
This attorney needs Toastmasters
@kcsvantasticvoyages9729
And he ultimately he came home without her…uh huh.
@jamiemcwilliams9376
This judge looks so young! She’s really sharp. It’s nice to see professional lawyers after Murdaugh trial!
@Bugsy01
The entire time Luka was arguing, all I could think of was how much he sounded like Andrew Tate.
@xosammyj09
03:04:07 the gavel toss 😂😂😂
@kaitlinadair1356
I wish I could get all legal analysis in VPR terms. You are SPOT ON with that comparison!
@dikshaedythe6042
Mother so much looks like Gabbbie.
@lilKitty2525
I was worried before hour one.. but by hour 15min.. this is going forward… Buddy just opened this can of worms. Legal argument made or not.. we the people can change laws when the "polite society" says BS and that's when we make amendments, changing the game.. As a lawyer.. you would think you wouldn't want to open that when you're defending someone.. 😏 poor guy is going to be known for changing this standard.
@lauriewoods8018
How can you hide evidence legally?
@joanibuck833
I find that the subtitles are more distracting than helpful.
@nonya9561
Let her rest 😒
@sandityche
Replay Crue: RE Letter… I have a third take away… She wrote it before the murder BUT with the knowledge that her son COULD & MIGHT end up killing Gabby. If so… could this make her a co-conspirator and liable for criminal prosecution? Thus them fighting so hard to keep out?
@angelalopez4809
Q: late to this but on the topic of bad Brian’s don’t forget all the Petersons 😅 😂
@footballfootball6693
Emily! Thank you so much for saying out loud everything I’m thinking…Code Red!!
@caranoblitt6212
Somebody take away this attorney’s shovel cause he needs to stop digging himself a deep hole!
@franceswolfaardt5165
The way I ooh-ed for this man having a very organised binder situation 🤦♀️ I'm going to have to go do some serious self reflection.
@CuriousCat8010
I just love watching court with Emily!
@ashsgrammy5710
Isn’t it illegal to hide knowledge of a crime after the fact?
@sassgirl
Verbal diarrhea at its best. Flush 😤 the lawyer…Mr Red
@darlenea1779
EDB use E-6000 on your gavel. Works great.
@gbear3199
The lawyer talked about military remains being "reunited" with their family. In my experience they are "returned" to their family. Sigh. Reunited does imply to me alive.
@shirleymason3853
Embarrassment won’t kill her?
@monicaLynn7
The letter is fanciful descriptions of how incredibly unhealthy the mother / son relationship was!!!! Omg
@Jayneisere04
I hears it the 2ns time
@ladyace5446
That letter was disgusting and absurd. BUT truth be told, it also sounded like a freak show mom trying to uplift her son AFTER HE WAS DUMPED.
ECHO
ECHO
ECHO
ECHO
@alexfarrell2054
The books 🥹🤣that lawyer wenttttt
@christophergiatras6298
? If he knew where she was and didn't provide that information that's outrageous isn't it?
@mireille0115
I actually do see a way to defend the letter, which is basically what they did with depp. if they have other letters/samples of her writing/speech that show she has a tendency for flowery language i think the argument that she could have written it before any of this happened becomes stronger
@denimdevotionsme
Mrs. L certainly planted thoughts in her son's head at the VERY minimum that he could commit such acts and she'd be there to assist. If you lack self control and know you've got assistance, hmmm…
@tamararutland-mills9530
This is such a tricky case. it can easily flip either way so quickly. The first lawyer is especially talented. And, the nation is listening because it can set a precedent for what is acceptable in a decent society and where our nation stands on this issue.
@mayrabonfante8162
The only reason i think Roberta could have written that letter before the trip, and used that language, is because she knew her son would kill Gabi….
@peachespavalko1980
🙋♀️ Replay crew. Cannot wait to see your perspective on this exciting day!
Hope you and yours are having a fantastic holiday weekend.🇺🇸
@yubantwo2086
PS: would it not be most relevant to also know where and when the letter was found? For instance, in Gabby's van parked 8n the Laundries' garage, in the car Brian drove to the park where his parents found the car & Brian's things?
@yubantwo2086
I just couldn't hold out any longer from commenting with an hour still to go. EDB is too fabulous in explaining the law & arguments but also in tasteful objections with a bit of hysterical comic relief (the cow & gavel were particularly humorous).
Back in real time and while watching this, the fact that Brian had left on the life changing adventure with Gabby in her van,, had left Gabby in a hotel to drive to his parent's to "clean out a storage space to SAVE money, then drove back out to where he'd left Gabby only to return back to Florida without Gabby a few short weeks later to go on a family pow wow vay cay, it seems to me combined with Bertilino's statement should be a slam dunk at this stage.
@jollicrafts
After seeing the press conference, anyone mentioned the fact that the Petito’s divorced and both remarried someone who looks exactly like their ex? Lol
@tigerlily102511
Another thing that confuses me is how Bertollino represents the Laundries yet he isn't licensed in Florida.
Also, it is absolutely unacceptable to "wish" that Gabby was reunited with her family YET they would not give Gabby's family any information about her at all.
It's basically ridiculing Gabby's family to be honest. Gabby's family basically had to go on a scavenger hunt for Gabby and without the Van life video, they wouldn't have even known where to start
@tigerlily102511
What bothers me about this case is how the Laundries are acting like victims. They're not victims. From the beginning, when Brian called them before he came home, they knew something had happened because they retained an attorney for Brian.
Brian was unwilling to talk to law enforcement when he came home alone in Gabby's vehicle. His parents did everything possible to shield Brian from facing what he did, including withholding Gabby's whereabouts from her parents.
They're also responsible for the outcome of the search for their son. Keeping Brian from law enforcement, hiding the truth about what happened and protecting him from prosecution actually did not help Brian. It allowed to plan his own demise, taking the coward's way out in order to avoid jail time. It's absolutely disgusting.
So now the Laundries are actually putting themselves in the same category as Gabby's parents, playing victim, when they had every opportunity to save their son's life by turning him over to law enforcement. I understand they were trying to protect their child but in the end, they let their child walk out the door with a firearm, without his phone, knowing that he was in a bad place mentally.
Brian's father had the ability to keep Brian from walking out the door. Period….
So to say that they're victims is unacceptable. Yes, they lost their child which is absolutely terrible. However, they seem to forget/not accept that Brian killed Gabby. That he was responsible for her death and they kept this information from Gabby's parents which added insult to injury.
This is such a terrible case.