Reply to Van Lifer couple camping in Utah national park - two weeks later fiancee arrives in FL alone

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Van Lifer couple camping in Utah national park - two weeks later fiancee arrives in FL alone"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Detailed timeline

We’re Gabby’s parents not worried in the two weeks before they reported her missing? Last FaceTime was august 25. There was a text august 30 her mom said didn’t sound like her

https://www.reddit.com/r/GabbyPetito/comments/pqvm55/timeline_of_events/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf[/quote]

This is a post on that link, which is interesting. I know there has been talk on this thread about how the lawyer is not a criminal defense attorney.

"I’m a lawyer. Language is very important and how it is used speaks volumes. BL’s lawyer’s statement is a huge tell.

BL’s lawyer wrote, “in cases like this.” He’s essentially admitting that “this” is a “case.” He could have said something like “there is no evidence that any crime has been committed. There is no evidence that Ms. Petito is in any danger. Free adults are allowed to go off the grid and travel independently. My client wishes her well, but has nothing to add.” Instead, the lawyer immediately characterizes the situation as a “case.” Incredibly sloppy and showing his hand.

BL’s lawyer wrote “intimate partners are the first person law enforcement focuses attention on.” That’s true specifically in situations where a partner has gone mysteriously missing or is killed. This reiterates the first point—the lawyer is all but admitting that something bad happened to Gabby. (Furthermore, we can eliminate that her disappearance is a mystery to BL because BL, the man who was going to vow to love her forever, is not concerned with finding her.)

The lawyer wrote, “regardless of whether my client had anything to [sic] with Ms. Petito’s disappearance.” This is so sloppily written—it suggests that he did, in fact, have something to do with it. As a lawyer, you don’t want to write anything that gets people thinking that your client did it if you could at all avoid doing so. You don’t really want to put those words in the same sentence. BL’s lawyer could have said, “even though Mr. Laundrie has committed no crime.”

Think about the difference in saying “regardless if OJ did it” vs “even though OJ didn’t do it.” One suggests OJ did it, and the other suggests he did not do it. May seem like a small thing, but to a person who’s career is communicating, spinning, and persuading, there is a big difference."[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics