Posted on 10/04/2021 8:46:31 PM PDT by NautiNurse
Florida fugitive Brian Laundrie’s sister told protesters outside her Lakewood Ranch home Monday that her family has been ignoring her following the disappearance of her brother and the death of his fiancée.
When asked if her parents were helping Brian Laundrie evade authorities, she said, "I don't know" and that she hadn't been able to speak with them.
"I'm in the boat where I'm getting ignored by my family and thrown under the bus by my family's attorney," Cassie Laundrie said to a group of protesters Monday in video shared by TikTok user @chroniclesofolivia.
The lawyer Laundrie seemed to be referencing, Steve Bertolino blamed the media. "I do not represent Cassie Laundrie," he told Fox News Digital in a text message Monday night. "Cassie’s comments can only be attributed to the press twisting my words and hers, which were only given to clarify prior mischaracterizations by the press, with the hopes of further sensationalizing this tragic story."
[Snip]
"We are just as upset, frustrated and heartbroken as everybody else," Cassie Laundrie and her husband told the crowd. "I am losing my parents and my brother and my children’s aunt and future sister-in-law on top of this."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“The crazy protesters relocated from the parents’ home in North Port to park outside Cassie’s family home….”
****************************************************************
Jeez, the female lawn-chair sitting protester sure had a loud voice… it actually hurt my ears.
could the fact that brian has not yet been caught be an indicator that brian is in fact innocent of a crime of homicide?
in this conjecture:
brian either killed gabby in self defense, or a party or parties unknown killed gabby and left brian on the hook.
this would help explain brian’s parents behavior, brian’s lawyer’s behavior, and why brian has not yet been caught yet— because the parents helped an innocent person avoid a near certain conviction based on circumstantial but misleading evidence pointing to his guilt.
could a guy with brian’s background evade capture by himself for a month? if not, who besides his parents would be both willing and able to help him?
with all due respect, brian seems like a guy with fairly average intelligence. avoiding capture takes at least some effort as well as smarts and most probably some money. the costs would simply increase over time, and yet brian has not yet been captured (even if he may have been sighted somewhere).
we all now know how easy it is to consider brian guilty without a trial. brian, brian’s parents, and brian’s lawyer probably also realized this.
normal parents would have cut support to brian, and pleaded with brian to turn himself in. something caused brian’s parents not to act normally. presumeably brian is not threatening his own parents, so their weird behavior is unlikely to be coerced.
i know it seems unlikely but maybe someone can review and find some flaws in the above conjecture.
You aren't alone in your suspicions about the double murder occurring within a short window of Gabby and Brian's time in Moab UT.
LEO in Moab has stated there was no connection between the them.
Thanks for posting the full version of the video between Cassie, husband and protesters!
Agree.
Sounds like Cassie isn't very close to her brother (8-9 years apart in age) or her parents. She said her children were at the campground with a campfire cooking smores. Still, it seems logical a question about Gabby would come up.
A couple of weeks before the Ft. DeSoto camping, Cassie knew that Brian was back in Florida while Gabby stayed in UT. Perhaps this minimized concern about Gabby's absence on Sept. 6?
Between the lawn-chair protesters, megaphones and sky banners flying overhead, it certainly is a circus atmosphere at the Laundrie residence. .
Can a lawyer legally advise a fugitive to evade capture for a federal warrant? I would expect a reputable attorney would negotiate with LEO in the event he believed his client was innocent.
> Tpxoc relationship. Explains everything [woman victim, man perp]
... does not explain the parents’ behavior unless the parents were a priori also somehow intimately involved with gabby along with their son, or some other unlikely scenario.
? Can a lawyer legally advise a fugitive to evade capture for a federal warrant?
To my recollection, the warrant was not issued until well after brian disappeared and the lawyer lost touch with brian.
To my recollection, there is no informed public allegation that brian’s lawyer advised brian to break any law.
Your source please if you have one.
a couple of additional points
1. the appearance of brian’s sister’s guatemalan husband in the impromptu response to protesters imho tends to discount the hypothesis that he helped brian escape to the yucatan peninsula where there was a recent alleged brian sighting.
2. imho the haste with which brian drove back to florida has never been adequately explained. if brian is in fact innocent, one possible conjecture is that someone (a third party, or gabby herself) attacked brian. if brian waw wounded, and he was framed, then one possibility is that he would have sought advice from his parents who might have told him to get home as quickly as possible to provide medical treatment. once home, they might then have treated him themselves or arranged for an off duty friend of the family medical professional to treat him. then he could have rested a few days at home before taking off and hiding. the fbi warrant could have been looking among other things for evidence of medical treatment of a wound at the parents’ home. they might have looked in the van for similar.
back to the topic of legal/illegal lawyer advice, something i do not have an answer for is whether or not it is illegal for a lawyer to advise a client to flee based on an arrest warrant that might be anticipated but has not yet been signed off by a judge. since no warrant is yet signed off, any discussion of such a warrant and reaction to it could be categorized as hypothetical, and any hypothetical conversation could be regarded as legal. otherwise, just about any legal conversation runs the risk of becoming illegal in the ex post facto sense (imho).
Well, that sounds like a fine legalese answer “No” to the question.
I don’t see where innocence or self-defense is grounded in any of the rest of your conjecture. His actions suggest the exact opposite.
let me illustrate the last point i made in my previous post.
say i go to a lawyer for some legal advice on farming. i schedule the meeting in advance with the lawyer telling him the general topic in a few words as i have just described.
at the meeting, i ask the lawyer about whether i can hypothetically grow marijuana on my farm ror something like that. the lawyer proceeds to inform me that it might or might not be a violation of state law, but it would be a violation of federal law. i ask him hypothetically what i should do if i get caught. since it is hypothetical and violations are common, the lawyer might tell me first, don’t get caught. did he just violate the law?
at this time, i may not have actually planted any marijuana, making it hypothetical. alternatively, i might have already planted marijuana and i just lied to the lawyer. does it matter?
most people probably skip the legal mumbo jumbo preamble “this is in the purely hypothetical situation, bla bla...”
how can law school be legally taught if law students cannot discuss situations in the hypothetical sense? how can such a law be enforced if only the lawyer and his client are present during the conversation and all conversations are at least nominally protected by attorney client privilege?
The above is an assumption.
To my recollection, there is no informed public allegation that brian’s lawyer advised brian to break any law.
Lawyer-client privilege would prevent such information being public.
> I don’t see where innocence or self-defense is grounded in any of the rest of your conjecture. His actions suggest the exact opposite.
The conjecture incorporates that brian is guilty of poor judgment, plus world class level bad luck. What we have so far on record is PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of GABBY INJURING BRIAN WHILE BRIAN IS DRIVING A CAR. We also have on record evidence of homicide, but no named alleged perpetrator(s) yet, and no indication of whether or not the homicide might have been in self defense (as might have been the case). So we are back to the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE we HAVE SO FAR, which points away from Brian.
Brian set himself up for being a patsy once he started on the trip. I have heard it stated that LE and the courts are slanted in favor of women against men (putting it circumspectly). If brian is innocent of murder/manslaughter and LE and the courts favor women over men, then that might give brian a reason to make himself scarce. I notice that brian still has not yet been charged with murder or manslaughter. So whatever his actions suggest to you, so far they do not by themselves constitute a sufficient grounds to generate a murder/manslaughter arrest warrant. In which case, your dismay should be addressed most appropriately to LE. I’m not sure you will get anywhere though considering that the conjecture i have made would likely need to be disproven in a jury court. “his actions suggest...” does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. at least not without some more than suggestive actions that would be in common with a framed person or an LE fingered patsy. Whether we like it or not, there are cases of innocent people serving time for crimes that they were found guilty of but which they did not commit, and our legal system is supposedly designed to minimize this danger via the full jury trial process.
Seriously far fetched.
What are you, Brian’s uncle?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.