Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 #5

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
LogicbeforeJudgement said:
That is their word. Nothing more. I had my ex's whole family against me and it still didn't make me guilty of what they were saying. That's the point...what makes what they say so believable? Are they believable just because they said it first or have I missed a ton of proof that was proven to be more than circumstantial evidence or hearsay? People are too quick to say or think that things must be true without having any facts. MOO
Click to expand...

There are a lot of reasons people believe the things they do. Some of them are because there are people who have firsthand knowledge of facts; some are swayed by the things they've observed in the behaviors of other people; some people find court documents convincing...etc. A lot of what you are asking about is in the context that has been provided by the last 250 pages or so of discussion about this.
 
squareandrabbet said:
Well, how often is it "circumstantial"? 15% of the time? 2% of the time? You seem to be approaching this issue as if LE doesn't have a clue in the world as to the patterns of Waco-esque cults, or domestic abusers, or liars (perjurers), etc., and I don't call that exactly logical. I would call it "extreme skepticism", but JMO.
Click to expand...
That is not at all what I am saying. What I'm saying is LE are going off of what they know from accounts that people may or may not be making up. LE is just doing their jobs. However, that still doesn't mean any crimes have been committed or that LE will find evidence of such. It is logical to look at all aspects rather than to look at only one side. I mean, isn't that what the courts do? In the court of public opinion, people tend to judge before hearing everything instead of looking at the whole picture. That's all I'm saying here. Everything I say is opinion just as everyone else's, but because it doesn't go along with what others believe it must be wrong, right?
*Edited to change while to whole.
 
LogicbeforeJudgement said:
That is their word. Nothing more. I had my ex's whole family against me and it still didn't make me guilty of what they were saying. That's the point...what makes what they say so believable? Are they believable just because they said it first or have I missed a ton of proof that was proven to be more than circumstantial evidence or hearsay? People are too quick to say or think that things must be true without having any facts. MOO
Click to expand...
I had to put up with garbage and lies in Family Court from soon-to-be-ex, BUT, valuable as your opinion is, I don't believe it lines up with KNOWN facts and if I'm not mistaken, KVallow had conversation(s) with Lori herself that were "strange". Bottom line, NO MOM who's child needs a service animal and medication and schooling takes him away from that and No Mom denies a safety check of her kids. (unless she has a feeling she is being investigate for the killing of ex-husband)
 
LogicbeforeJudgement said:
Well, I can't say they are for sure, but I don't assume that they are not safe. MOO
Click to expand...
Maybe you should make a list, with all the reasons you believe they are safe on one side, and all the reasons/indications that they are in danger on the other. Maybe then you will start to understand what we are saying. If not, I'm not sure what to tell you. Moo.
 
LogicbeforeJudgement said:
Exactly, but most take everything they read or get second hand as the gospel and prejudge before even having all the facts. I have to say the grandmother was smart about going to FB and the media to get their narrative out because people sure don't fair well in the court of public opinion. MOO
Click to expand...
All of the things being reported are coming from public records, law enforcement from their investigation, and from people who have first-hand knowledge of what Lori said or did. Those same things are what would be used in a family court if this comes down to custody or in a court of law if charges are laid.

Lori has always had the opportunity to just show up at the Rexburg Police Department and tell them where the children are. She can refute whatever she wants if she is so inclined. But one thing that is for certain is that if the children are not presented to law enforcement (i.e. seen in person) not only does this not end, but instead escalates.

This will get worse for anyone aiding Chad/Lori or hiding the children. Missing children that are considered to be endangered makes it very easy for judges to issue search warrants and subpoenas. If they were to be located and seen in person by law enforcement it makes it much more difficult for law enforcement to get those warrants and subpoenas to track down everyone known to have been in contact with either of them. Lori and Chad and those aiding them really should be smarter about all of this but apparently they are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
 
tresir2012 said:
For slander (or libel as it is termed when in print) those slandered would have to come forward and go to court so would have to come out of hiding. Also, if something is true, it isn't slander/libel. JMOO.
Click to expand...
As I said, she better hope it's true. If it's not, then that's where the slander/libel comes in. IMO
 
LogicbeforeJudgement said:
How do you know they are in danger and distressed? The key is exactly as you said it...you do not understand. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that these people have done anything wrong. This is the problem...people base thing on what they understand rather than trying to look at other perspectives. It's the whole I don't understand so they must be guilty of something mindset. MOO
Click to expand...

So is it your opinion this whole case is a huge misunderstanding cooked up by a dead man?
 
LogicbeforeJudgement said:
That is their word. Nothing more. I had my ex's whole family against me and it still didn't make me guilty of what they were saying. That's the point...what makes what they say so believable? Are they believable just because they said it first or have I missed a ton of proof that was proven to be more than circumstantial evidence or hearsay? People are too quick to say or think that things must be true without having any facts. MOO
Click to expand...
Just because you have had people lying about you does not mean Charles' relatives are lying about the situation. They are relating their side as relatives of the victims. Lori's and Chad's relatives have not spoken in MSM at all. We support the 3 states LE and the FBI dealing with this. Presumably, your situation did not include 4 separate LE agencies looking for you I hope.
 
Jethro4WS said:
All of the things being reported are coming from public records, law enforcement from their investigation, and from people who have first-hand knowledge of what Lori said or did. Those same things are what would be used in a family court if this comes down to custody or in a court of law if charges are laid.

Lori has always had the opportunity to just show up at the Rexburg Police Department and tell them where the children are. She can refute whatever she wants if she is so inclined. But one thing that is for certain is that if the children are not presented to law enforcement (i.e. seen in person) not only does this not end, but instead escalates.

This will get worse for anyone aiding Chad/Lori or hiding the children. Missing children that are considered to be endangered makes it very easy for judges to issue search warrants and subpoenas. If they were to be located and seen in person by law enforcement it makes it much more difficult for law enforcement to get those warrants and subpoenas to track down everyone known to have been in contact with either of them. Lori and Chad and those aiding them really should be smarter about all of this but apparently they are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Click to expand...
If you're referring to me as helping them, I can assure that I am most definitely not! I don't know any of these people. I'm just an open minded individual who has been through something's very similar and know first hand that things aren't always as they appear. If I'm wrong then it won't be the first time, but if I'm right then I'd imagine there might a lot of people feeling pretty full themselves once the evidence or lack there of is presented. JMOO
 
tresir2012 said:
Just because you have had people lying about you does not mean Charles' relatives are lying about the situation. They are relating their side as relatives of the victims. Lori's and Chad's relatives have not spoken in MSM at all. We support the 3 states LE and the FBI dealing with this. Presumably, your situation did not include 4 separate LE agencies looking for you I hope.
Click to expand...
It also doesn't mean they aren't lying either though. Don't presume, you never know how wrong your presumptions might just be. I said it in another post, but I'll say it here again...my experience has been one of those you wouldn't believe it if I told you. That's why I'm not so quick to believe what everyone else believes.
 
LogicbeforeJudgement said:
That is their word. Nothing more. I had my ex's whole family against me and it still didn't make me guilty of what they were saying. That's the point...what makes what they say so believable? Are they believable just because they said it first or have I missed a ton of proof that was proven to be more than circumstantial evidence or hearsay? People are too quick to say or think that things must be true without having any facts. MOO
Click to expand...
As I have posted earlier, she is proving their case for them. She is demonstrating her instability, her delusional state, her disregard for the children. When you take off with your children and disrupt their lives due to your own irrationality and paranoia, it becomes necessary that someone investigates whether you are a proper care provider. Trust me, I know. I am currently embroiled in a custody dispute. While there would not have been anything legally preventing me from leaving the state with my son, it would not have been in his best interest ( he also has special needs and on meds), and would have reasonably raised questions about my stability and mental state. Moo.
 
j55stand said:
Yes, he is a hit man. Here is legal proof.
Click to expand...

I preface this saying that I’m not up to speed on this case and the allegations, and just looked at that document on my phone so I may be missing something, but I didn’t see any allegation or admission in that document saying he was paid to kill someone. Am I missing something?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 83 more.
Total: 4,430 (members: 84, guests: 4,346)

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
4,346
Total visitors
4,430
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,488
Messages
17,969,710
Members
228,788
Latest member
Soccergirl500
Back
Top