Legallyatlaw

10/22/2026

🚨 LINDSAY CLANCY UPDATE: JUDGE DENIES REDDINGTON’S REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE HOLDOUT JUROR! ⚖️

Well, we have another development in the Lindsay Clancy case, and this one is particularly interesting from a legal perspective.

Judge William Sullivan has DENIED the defense’s request for an evidentiary hearing to investigate holdout juror Michael Desronvil. And if you’ve been following this case, you know exactly why this is significant.

Remember, Clancy’s first trial ended in a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Following that mistrial, allegations began surfacing about the lone holdout juror, including claims regarding his conduct during deliberations, his understanding of the law, his jury questionnaire, and potential cellphone use. Attorney Kevin Reddington sought to investigate those allegations, arguing that there were legitimate concerns about whether the juror had properly fulfilled his obligations.

WELL, THE JUDGE IS NOT ALLOWING THAT INVESTIGATION TO MOVE FORWARD.

Judge Sullivan determined that the defense had not established a sufficient legal basis for the requested post-mistrial inquiry. The court also addressed the limitations on investigating a juror’s subjective reasoning and conduct during deliberations.

Now, as a criminal defense attorney, I find this fascinating because there is a VERY important distinction between a juror refusing to follow the law and a juror simply reaching a different conclusion than everyone else.

A jury is not required to agree with the majority. In fact, the entire purpose of requiring unanimity is to ensure that every juror independently evaluates the evidence and applies the law. If 11 jurors believe the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and one juror disagrees, that disagreement alone does NOT establish misconduct.

But what happens if the allegation is that the juror refused to apply the court’s instructions, relied on outside information, or was dishonest during jury selection? Now we are potentially talking about something very different. And that is precisely why the defense wanted an evidentiary hearing.

HERE IS THE PROBLEM FOR THE DEFENSE.

Courts are extremely protective of jury deliberations. There are significant legal limitations on questioning jurors about what occurred behind closed doors, particularly when the inquiry involves their thought processes, opinions, or reasoning. There is a difference between investigating objectively verifiable misconduct and attempting to examine WHY a juror voted a particular way.

And just because allegations have been made does not automatically entitle a party to question a juror. The defense needed to establish a sufficient legal foundation for that investigation. Judge Sullivan determined that the necessary showing had not been made.

BUT LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING.

The judge denying this request does NOT necessarily mean every allegation against the juror was false. It means the court did not find a sufficient legal basis to authorize the requested investigation. Those are two entirely different conclusions.

NOW, WHAT ABOUT DOUBLE JEOPARDY?

This is where things get even more interesting. Reddington has also been pursuing an argument that retrying Lindsay Clancy would violate her constitutional protections against double jeopardy.

And before everyone starts screaming that you cannot try someone twice for the same crime, that is NOT how double jeopardy works in every circumstance.

Generally speaking, when a criminal trial ends in a properly declared mistrial because the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict, the prosecution is permitted to retry the defendant. A hung jury ordinarily does not constitute an acquittal.

However, there are circumstances where the basis for declaring a mistrial, prosecutorial misconduct, or other constitutional considerations can create arguments against retrial. The defense is attempting to establish that this case falls within an exception to the general rule. And that is a difficult legal argument.

SO WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE LINDSAY CLANCY?

The request to investigate the holdout juror has been denied. The separate double jeopardy challenge remains unresolved, and the next scheduled court date is November 2, 2026.

This ruling does NOT mean Lindsay Clancy has been convicted. It does NOT mean the court has authorized a retrial through a final ruling on the pending double jeopardy motion. And it certainly does NOT mean the defense has exhausted every available legal argument.

It means one avenue the defense was pursuing has now been closed at the trial court level.

MY TAKE?

I think the most interesting issue here is the tension between protecting the secrecy and independence of jury deliberations and ensuring that every defendant receives a fair trial before jurors who actually follow the law. Both principles are incredibly important.

We cannot allow attorneys to investigate jurors simply because they dislike a verdict or because one juror disagreed with everyone else. But we also cannot ignore legitimate, legally supported allegations of juror misconduct merely because they involve something that happened during a trial.

The distinction is whether there is sufficient admissible evidence of misconduct to justify judicial intervention. And that is where this fight becomes a question of law rather than public opinion.

NOVEMBER 2 IS NOW THE DATE TO WATCH.

The question is no longer simply what happened during jury deliberations. The larger issue is whether the Commonwealth can constitutionally put Lindsay Clancy on trial again.

And I will be watching that argument very closely.

10/21/2026

🚨 SPLIT VERDICT IN THE TIMOTHY HAUSCHULTZ TRIAL — FOUR GUILTY VERDICTS, TWO ACQUITTALS, AND A JUDGE WHO HAD SOME STRONG WORDS FOR THE PROSECUTION! ⚖️

After eight days of trial and two days of jury deliberations, a Wisconsin jury has returned a split verdict in the trial of Timothy Hauschultz, finding him guilty on four of six charges stemming from the death of Ethan Hauschultz. But before we get into the verdict, we NEED to talk about some of the comments made by Judge Carey Reed earlier in the proceedings, because I found those particularly interesting from a legal perspective.

FIRST, THE VERDICT:

Count 1: Neglecting a child resulting in death — GUILTY

Count 2: Intentionally contributing to the delinquency of a child resulting in death — NOT GUILTY

Count 3: Child abuse, intentionally causing harm, party to a crime — GUILTY

Count 4: Intentionally contributing to the delinquency of a child, felony — GUILTY

Count 5: Child abuse, intentionally causing harm, party to a crime — NOT GUILTY

Count 6: Child abuse, intentionally causing harm, party to a crime — GUILTY

NOW, LET’S TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THIS CASE EVEN REACHED THE JURY.

On October 19, after the prosecution rested its case, the defense challenged the sufficiency of the State’s evidence and sought a directed verdict. Essentially, the defense argued that the prosecution had failed to present sufficient evidence connecting Timothy Hauschultz to the criminal conduct at issue, particularly the abuse committed by Damian Hauschultz.

And Judge Reed had some things to say.

The judge reportedly described the prosecution’s presentation of evidence as “just bizarre” and questioned the manner in which the State had organized and presented its case. He also expressed frustration that some of the prosecution’s clearest explanations of its theory appeared to emerge only when prosecutors were responding to the defense’s motion.

Now, as a criminal defense attorney, I find those comments significant. When a judge openly questions the prosecution’s presentation of evidence, that is something worth paying attention to. But here’s what people need to understand: criticizing the presentation of a case and determining whether the evidence is legally sufficient are two entirely different things.

A motion for a directed verdict is NOT asking the judge to determine whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. The question is whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a much different standard than the one jurors apply when ultimately deciding guilt. Judge Reed denied the motion, allowing the charges to proceed to the jury.

SO WHAT DOES THIS SPLIT VERDICT ACTUALLY TELL US?

First, a split verdict does NOT mean the jury was deadlocked or unable to reach an agreement. It means the jury reached different conclusions on different charges. Each criminal charge has separate legal elements that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury can find sufficient evidence to convict on one charge while simultaneously determining the State failed to meet its burden on another.

What I find particularly interesting here is the distinction between the two charges involving death. The jury found Timothy guilty of neglecting a child resulting in death but NOT guilty of intentionally contributing to the delinquency of a child resulting in death. Those are different offenses requiring different elements of proof.

The jury also returned different verdicts on the intentional child abuse charges involving party-to-a-crime liability. And let’s talk about that for a second. Under Wisconsin law, party-to-a-crime liability can extend criminal responsibility beyond the person who physically commits an offense. Depending on the evidence and the applicable legal theory, someone who intentionally aids or abets criminal conduct can also be held responsible. But simply being associated with someone who commits a crime does NOT automatically make another person criminally liable. The State still has to prove the necessary elements.

The fact that the jury convicted on some of those counts but acquitted on another is worth examining. Without knowing exactly how the jury evaluated each allegation, however, we cannot say precisely why jurors reached those different conclusions.

AND HERE IS WHERE THE JUDGE’S EARLIER COMMENTS BECOME EVEN MORE INTERESTING.

We had a judge openly questioning how the prosecution presented its evidence. We had a defense arguing that the State failed to establish the necessary connection between Timothy and the criminal conduct. We had a judge ultimately deciding there was legally sufficient evidence to allow the jury to consider the charges. And now we have a jury returning four convictions and two acquittals.

Does that mean the jury agreed with the judge’s criticism? No. We cannot make that assumption. Does it mean the prosecution failed entirely? Absolutely not. Four guilty verdicts demonstrate that the jury found the State met its burden on four separate offenses. But it also means the jury was not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt on every charge. And that distinction matters.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The case now moves toward sentencing. The court will need to determine the applicable penalties for the convictions, including whether any sentences will run concurrently or consecutively, subject to Wisconsin law. A guilty verdict does not automatically tell us the exact sentence a defendant will receive.

MY FINAL THOUGHTS:

This case is an important reminder that criminal trials are not simply about whether jurors believe something terrible happened. The death of Ethan Hauschultz was horrific. But the legal system requires something more than outrage, emotion, or association with another person’s criminal conduct. It requires proof of each element of each charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the burden the prosecution carries, and it never shifts to the defense.

Here, the jury determined that burden was satisfied on four counts and not satisfied on two others. You can acknowledge the seriousness of the convictions while also recognizing the significance of the acquittals. And you can recognize the judge’s concerns about the prosecution’s presentation without incorrectly concluding that those concerns required dismissal.

Four convictions. Two acquittals. Strong judicial criticism. And sentencing still to come.

This is exactly why I always say the law is in the details.

10/21/2026

🚨 CORNELL 7 UPDATE: ONE DEFENDANT DROPPED FROM LAWSUIT, AND MORE DRAMA AT CORNELL!

Well, we have some interesting developments in the Cornell 7 case today, October 20, and I think we need to clear up a few things before people start running with headlines.

FIRST, ONE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN DISMISSED FROM THE CIVIL LAWSUIT.

Orazio Petito, a former president of Cornell’s Chi Phi fraternity, has officially been dismissed from Jane Doe’s lawsuit WITH PREJUDICE. Why? Because according to reporting, he was incorrectly identified as the fraternity president at the time of the alleged October 2024 assault.

Petito was NEVER one of the seven men accused of sexually assaulting Jane Doe. He was named in connection with allegations that he failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the alleged conduct at the fraternity house. His attorney says they had the wrong person and that his client deserved to be removed from the case.

And here’s where the attorney in me comes out. A dismissal WITH PREJUDICE means Jane Doe cannot simply turn around and refile those same claims against Petito. That’s a final dismissal of those claims, not just a temporary removal.

But let’s be VERY clear. This does NOT mean the allegations against the Cornell 7 have been dismissed. It does NOT mean the entire lawsuit is falling apart. And it does NOT establish whether the alleged sexual assaults occurred.

It means one individual, who was allegedly incorrectly identified as holding a leadership position, is no longer a defendant. And quite frankly, if someone was improperly named in a lawsuit, correcting that matters. Due process and accountability go BOTH ways.

SECOND, JANE DOE IS SPEAKING OUT ABOUT CORNELL’S LEADERSHIP.

CBS News reported today that Jane Doe sent a letter to Cornell’s Faculty Senate describing how she felt unsupported and disbelieved by university president Michael Kotlikoff. Cornell has disputed her characterization of the president’s comments.

Meanwhile, faculty members are considering a vote of no confidence in the university’s administration over its handling of the allegations.

Think about that. What started as allegations involving a fraternity has now turned into a much larger controversy about how one of the country’s most prestigious universities handles reports of sexual assault.

And remember, New York Attorney General Letitia James has been appointed to oversee the renewed criminal investigation. The seven men accused in the civil lawsuit have denied wrongdoing, and no criminal charges have been filed against them as of today’s reporting.

There are still MANY unanswered questions in this case, and I think it’s important that we distinguish between allegations, actual evidence, procedural developments, and findings of fact.

Because removing one defendant from a civil lawsuit is a legitimate legal development. But it is NOT a verdict on the remaining allegations.

And the Cornell 7 case is far from over. ⚖️

10/20/2026

🚨 36 CALLS FOR HELP. TWO LITTLE GIRLS DEAD. AND A FAMILY DEMANDING ANSWERS.

I want to talk about the deaths of Emory and Harlow Deacon, because the more information that comes out about this case, the more questions I have about what happened BEFORE these two little girls were found dead.

On October 14, Live 5 News reported on the first public comments from the family of Justine May, the mother accused in connection with the deaths of her two daughters. And what this family is alleging is absolutely heartbreaking.

According to the family, there were 36 calls for help over approximately 40 days. Not one phone call. Not one concerned relative. Thirty-six reported attempts to get someone to intervene. Family members, friends, and professionals were reportedly raising concerns about May’s mental health and the safety of her children. And yet, two little girls are dead.

One of the most troubling allegations involves a September 20 welfare check. According to the family, a deputy encountered May sitting in her vehicle. She reportedly told the deputy that her daughters were inside the home sleeping. The deputy allegedly left without physically seeing either child.

Read that again. A welfare check involving concerns for two young children, and according to the family’s account, neither child was actually seen.

Now, I want to be careful here. We do not have every dispatch recording, every report, or every interaction between the family and responding agencies. There may be additional information that has not been made public. But if this account is accurate, it raises serious questions about the scope and adequacy of that welfare check.

The family also alleges they were warned that continued calls to authorities without a legitimate emergency could result in arrest. Imagine being a family member who genuinely believes children may be in danger, repeatedly asking for help, and allegedly being told that continuing to call could result in criminal consequences.

On September 28, the family says relatives once again contacted authorities by email. They reportedly did not receive a response until the following day, when the girls had already been discovered.

And now the family is demanding an independent investigation into the actions of multiple agencies, including law enforcement, social services, emergency communications, and mobile crisis services.

HERE IS WHERE THE LAW COMES INTO PLAY.

There are two separate questions that need to be examined. First, whether Justine May is criminally responsible for the deaths of her daughters. That question belongs in the criminal justice system, where the prosecution carries the burden of proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Second, whether government agencies received credible warnings, what they knew, what they did in response, and whether their actions complied with applicable law, policies, and professional standards. Those are separate issues, and investigating one does not excuse or diminish the other.

A person can be held criminally responsible for an act while an entirely separate investigation examines whether institutional failures contributed to the circumstances surrounding that act.

But I also want to make an important legal distinction: a tragic outcome does not automatically establish negligence, and negligence does not automatically establish civil liability against a government agency. Issues involving governmental immunity, statutory duties, causation, and the specific facts of each agency’s involvement can make these cases legally complicated. That does not mean the questions should go unanswered. It means the investigation needs to be thorough, independent, and supported by evidence.

I want to know what was communicated during those reported 36 calls. Were the children specifically identified as being in danger? Were reports documented? Were referrals made? Did agencies communicate with one another? What was the stated purpose of the September 20 welfare check? What policies governed the deputy’s response? And why, according to the family, were the children not physically observed?

Those are legitimate questions.

I also think we need to discuss the mental health component of this case. May’s family has described serious concerns about her mental health and repeated efforts to obtain intervention. Mental illness does not automatically eliminate criminal responsibility. But when people are repeatedly reporting concerns about someone’s mental state and the welfare of young children, we should be examining whether the systems designed to respond to those concerns functioned as intended.

And we need to be very clear about something else. We cannot say that any particular intervention would definitely have prevented these deaths. We simply do not have enough evidence to make that conclusion. But we absolutely can ask whether meaningful opportunities to assess the children’s safety were missed.

Because Emory and Harlow deserved to be safe. Their father deserves answers. Their extended family deserves answers. And the public deserves to know whether the agencies entrusted with protecting vulnerable children responded appropriately to the information they received.

The family’s allegations must be investigated, not automatically accepted as proven facts, but certainly not dismissed without scrutiny either.

Thirty-six reported calls for help. Multiple agencies. A disputed welfare check. Two children who are now gone.

At what point does a series of warnings become an emergency that demands a different response?

That is the question I cannot get past. And I hope the independent review provides real answers, because Emory and Harlow deserve far more than finger-pointing between agencies. They deserve accountability, wherever the evidence leads.

10/20/2026

LINDSAY CLANCY: THE CARFAX REPORT HAS EVERYONE TALKING. LET’S DISCUSS.

A CARFAX report allegedly connected to Lindsay Clancy’s vehicle is making its way around social media, and people have a LOT of questions.

According to claims circulating online, the vehicle reportedly underwent detailing just days after the January 24, 2023 tragedy involving Cora, Dawson, and Callan Clancy. There are also allegations that a woman brought the vehicle in for the service. At this point, I have not independently verified the report, the service date, or the identity of the person allegedly involved.

So what is everyone discussing?

Some people are questioning the timing. Why would a vehicle be detailed so soon after such a devastating event? Others are wondering who arranged the appointment, who had access to the vehicle, and whether investigators ever examined its service history.

There is also speculation about whether the detailing could have affected potential evidence. Some are connecting this information to broader questions they have raised about the investigation and the timeline presented at trial.

On the other hand, people are pointing out that vehicle detailing is not inherently suspicious. There could be an entirely ordinary explanation for the service, assuming it actually occurred. A CARFAX entry also does not necessarily establish who brought the vehicle in or what services were performed.

Now, let’s talk about the legal significance.

Even if the report is authentic, the next question is relevance. What connection, if any, does the vehicle have to the underlying criminal allegations? Was there evidence associated with the vehicle? Was it ever examined by investigators? And would the service records actually establish anything material to the case?

Those questions matter because a vehicle being detailed is not, by itself, evidence of wrongdoing or destruction of evidence.

I also think it is important to distinguish between information that was not discussed publicly during trial and information that investigators never obtained. Those are not necessarily the same thing.

The Clancy case has generated significant public discussion, particularly following the mistrial, and people continue examining virtually every aspect of the investigation.

The CARFAX discussion is another example of how quickly a new piece of alleged information can generate competing theories.

I am interested in seeing whether the actual records are authenticated, whether anyone involved provides clarification, and whether this information has any genuine evidentiary significance.

For now, there are questions, allegations, and plenty of speculation, but not enough verified information to draw conclusions.

10/20/2026

🚨 LINDSAY CLANCY: THE HOLDOUT JUROR SPEAKS OUT — AND THE CELLPHONE CONTROVERSY CONTINUES ⚖️

UPDATE FROM OCTOBER 15, 2026 | FOX NEWS INTERVIEW

Michael Desronvil, the lone holdout juror in the Lindsay Clancy murder trial, sat down with Fox News’ Kayleigh McEnany for his first televised interview following the mistrial. And there is A LOT more to this story than simply one juror disagreeing with the other 11.

Desronvil maintains that he never had reasonable doubt about Clancy’s criminal responsibility. He described her actions as methodical, rejected the defense’s postpartum psychosis argument, and said Patrick Clancy’s emotional 911 call was among the evidence that affected him most.

But let’s talk about the cellphone issue.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has requested that Judge William Sullivan preserve juror questionnaires, cellphone sign-in sheets, and courthouse surveillance footage involving all 12 jurors and six alternates. However, the request for specific cellphone records targets Desronvil alone, covering 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on each day of deliberations.

Desronvil’s response? Everyone had cellphones, and he maintains they were used during breaks, NOT deliberations.

Reddington is also seeking an investigation into whether Desronvil truthfully answered questions during jury selection, including questions potentially involving his prior legal history. Desronvil denies lying under oath and maintains that his answers were truthful. A prior domestic violence charge against him was dismissed.

Desronvil also alleged that journalists went through his mail and peered into the windows of his home following the mistrial. He says he has surveillance footage documenting the conduct.

NOW LET’S TALK LAW.

Eleven jurors favored finding Clancy not criminally responsible. Desronvil disagreed. That resulted in a mistrial, not an acquittal or conviction.

Being the lone holdout is NOT juror misconduct. Jurors are not required to surrender their independent judgment simply because everyone else disagrees. However, jurors ARE required to follow the law, comply with the court’s instructions, answer material jury-selection questions truthfully, and avoid improper outside influences.

If a juror was improperly communicating with outsiders during deliberations or concealed information material to jury selection, that could raise legitimate legal concerns. But allegations must be supported by evidence, and a disagreement over the verdict is not enough by itself to justify invading a juror’s privacy. And there’s another important distinction: the defense’s request to examine cellphone records does NOT mean the court has found misconduct or authorized that examination.

Regardless of whether you agree with the 11 jurors or the one holdout, the integrity of the process matters. One juror has every right to disagree. One juror does not have the right to disregard the law. And those are two VERY different things.The question now is whether the defense can establish a sufficient legal basis for further inquiry into alleged misconduct.

10/20/2026

🚨 TRUE CRIME MONDAY | OCTOBER 19, 2026 ⚖️

Major developments in several high-profile criminal cases. Here’s what’s happening in the courtroom.

🔴 BRYAN KOHBERGER: His defense is seeking to remove Judge Steven Hippler from post-conviction proceedings, alleging bias based on his statements and emotional reaction at sentencing. Kohberger pleaded guilty to the murders of four University of Idaho students. His October 15 hearing was canceled. The recusal issue remains unresolved. Strong sentencing remarks alone do not necessarily establish judicial bias.

🔴 GAUDREAU BROTHERS: Sean Higgins rejected a 28-year plea agreement in the deaths of Johnny and Matthew Gaudreau. Independent testing reportedly confirmed a .08 blood alcohol concentration. Jury selection is scheduled for December. Rejecting a plea deal carries significant sentencing risks.

🔴 ALEX MURDAUGH: A judge authorized independent testing of unidentified male DNA found beneath Maggie Murdaugh’s fingernails. The DNA reportedly does not match family members. His retrial is scheduled for April 2027. The defense could use the evidence to challenge the prosecution’s case, although unidentified DNA alone does not establish innocence.

🔴 D4VD MURDER CASE: Singer David Burke faces murder charges in the death of Celeste Rivas-Hernandez. He has pleaded not guilty, with trial scheduled for February 2027. Prosecutors must prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

🔴 LEE GILLEY: An Italian court rejected extradition on the existing capital murder charge involving the death of his pregnant wife in Texas. A lesser charge could allow extradition. International restrictions on sentencing are central to the dispute.

🔴 MAMTA KAFLE BHATT: Surveillance footage reportedly shows Naresh Bhatt purchasing air freshener and gloves after his wife’s disappearance. He has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors may present the purchases as circumstantial evidence.

⚖️ LEGAL TAKEAWAY: DNA evidence, judicial impartiality, plea negotiations, and circumstantial evidence can all shape the outcome of a criminal case. Allegations are not convictions, and every defendant retains the protections of due process.

The law matters. The evidence matters. And the process matters.

10/19/2026

🚨 GABBY PETITO’S MURDER WAS “JUSTIFIED”?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

I am absolutely DISGUSTED. And quite frankly, my heart breaks for the Petito family all over again.

Australian comedian Nick Trapani has reportedly been dropped from a professional gig after a disturbing clip resurfaced from his podcast, where four men laughed and joked about the murder of Gabby Petito. During the conversation, one of the men suggested her murder was “justified.” They then proceeded to make degrading, sexualized comments about her appearance.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?!

Gabby Petito was 22 years old. TWENTY-TWO. She was strangled to death by someone she loved and trusted. Her family endured the unimaginable pain of losing their daughter, and then had to grieve while the entire world watched. And now, years later, they have to see grown men sitting around a microphone laughing about her murder?

Imagine being her mother. Her father. Her siblings. Imagine hearing strangers discuss your murdered daughter as though her life was nothing more than material for a comedy routine.

Trapani has since apologized, acknowledging that although he did not personally make the remarks, he laughed along and allowed the conversation on his platform. But here’s my question: Why was the murder of a young woman ever funny in the first place?

Gabby was a daughter. A sister. A young woman with an entire future ahead of her. She was a victim of domestic violence, and her death should NEVER be reduced to a punchline. The Petito family has worked tirelessly to turn their unimaginable loss into awareness about domestic violence. They deserve compassion. They deserve respect. And Gabby deserves to be remembered for her life, not mocked for the horrific way it ended.

To the Petito family, I am so incredibly sorry that you have to endure this kind of cruelty on top of everything you’ve already been through. Gabby Petito deserved to live. Her murder was NEVER justified. And it certainly isn’t funny.

Her family's incredible foundation can be found here: https://gabbypetitofoundation.org/

Supporting missing persons and domestic violence prevention through education, advocacy, and community programs. Join us to make a difference.