Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #55

Status
Not open for further replies.
Emma Daybell said in an interview with Chanley on CourtTV that she (and Tammy’s parents) were not ever notified that her mother was going to be exhumed. She said they found out the same time as everyone else did, via the press release by the Sheriff.

she also said that they have not yet disclosed the autopsy report and the findings from it with her or her grandparents, and that the Sheriff’s office said they will only do that if she comes in for a formal interview with a detective on the case. Seems to me, just IMHO, that they want/need her (or someone) to give them some more information in order to have any case in regards to the death of Tammy. Regardless of the cause of the death or the findings, I find it pretty disappointing, if it is true, that they found out about her exhumation from the media and the press releases; if the Sheriff’s office did not even inform them it was happening, finding out in the media that your mother was dug up from her grave.

Looks to me like the spouse -- Chad -- is next-of-kin. The agency arranging for the exhumation is probably required to notify the next-of-kin and only the next-of-kin. How many people should be notified? 8? 10? 50? Each notification costs the taxpayers $$$.

I think their beef is with Chad.

jmho ymmv lrr
 
Looks to me like the spouse -- Chad -- is next-of-kin. The agency arranging for the exhumation is probably required to notify the next-of-kin and only the next-of-kin. How many people should be notified? 8? 10? 50? Each notification costs the taxpayers $$$.

I think their beef is with Chad.

jmho ymmv lrr
From my brief search on the rules about autopsies in Idaho that'd be correct, but it's confusing so I wouldn't be able to positively state that's the case so let's say I agree and it's just my opinion that she's kinda sorta criticizing her dad, but who knows really.
 
Does Utah code apply when it comes to Tammy's exhumation?

From 26-4-12 Order to exhume body -- Procedure:

(2) (a) A body may not be exhumed until notice of the order has been served upon the executor or administrator of the deceased's estate, or if no executor or administrator has been appointed, upon the nearest heir of the deceased, determined as if the deceased had died intestate. If the nearest heir of the deceased cannot be located within the jurisdiction, then the next heir in succession within the jurisdiction may be served.
 
Does Utah code apply when it comes to Tammy's exhumation?

From 26-4-12 Order to exhume body -- Procedure:

(2) (a) A body may not be exhumed until notice of the order has been served upon the executor or administrator of the deceased's estate, or if no executor or administrator has been appointed, upon the nearest heir of the deceased, determined as if the deceased had died intestate. If the nearest heir of the deceased cannot be located within the jurisdiction, then the next heir in succession within the jurisdiction may be served.
My educated guess is no, they lived in Idaho.
 
I think that LE's conditions around allowing Tammy's kids to view the autopsy report might indicate that they (LE) do not trust them (Daybells) to keep the information confidential, either from CD or possibly, from the press/social media. Think about it: if there are results indicating her death was not by natural means, and if any of them are still sympathetic to their dad, could they know that information without sharing with him or his lawyer? Prior is now implicated in the ownership of their family home, it would not be hard at all for them to converse with him, either.

(I see that squareandrabbet has posted nearly the same thing while I've been typing this up, but I'll continue anyway...)

In other words, I think that LE is telling the world that they do not quite believe that the Daybell kids are fully on the side of justice for Tammy at all cost, and they want to be very cautious about how, and to whom, the autopsy results are released. All MOO.
Does this approach by LE signal whether the autopsy report indicates a suspicious death? If they are willing to share results w/the family does that mean there’s nothing damning in the report?
 
LE are quite rightly playing hardball, IMO. If you don't cooperate with police into the investigation of your mother's potential murder, you are potentially involved and police will not share info with potential suspects. Seems to me, it was likely loyalty to CH that allowed him to get away with, literally, this murder. Perhaps the people around him do actually believe he is a prophet and can do no wrong.

I’m just curious, but does this mean you’re saying Emma might potentially be involved in the death of her own mother and that the reason police would only agree to give her information from the report is if she came in for a formal on-the-record interview...? I think it’s one thing to acknowledge that law enforcement is playing “hardball” in an investigation but to think that she might actually be involved and that is a reason for how she’s speaking to CourtTV now seems like a real stretch to me,...but clearly JMO.

I don’t think she’s involved in the death of her mother. I do however think that she’s a young woman struggling with trying to figure out what all this means, the untimely and unexpected death of her mom, her dad running off with another woman and him in jail for months on end awaiting a serious trial. I think her somewhat explosive reaction to news reporters at her house previously, combined with some of her other online posting, and then seemingly a long silence to the public and the media until now speaks a lot to her state of mind. She’s trying to balance what the media says about her father vs. what she knew and what she thought she knew of her own dad from growing up with him. I can’t begin to imagine trying to balance all of that while continuing to contend with losing both parents, essentially, one to death & another to jail right now. This doesn’t mean I support her or think her actions and what she’s said in the past is ‘right’ or respectful or anything of the sort, but all I thought of that interview was someone who’s trying to figure out if the dad she knows is the same man the media is reporting him to be and all of that. I can’t imagine....but I don’t think this means she was involved in some way and that’s why police won’t give her more information because she’s some suspect on their radar...I don’t think I’ve ever thought that.
 
I’m just curious, but does this mean you’re saying Emma might potentially be involved in the death of her own mother and that the reason police would only agree to give her information from the report is if she came in for a formal on-the-record interview...? I think it’s one thing to acknowledge that law enforcement is playing “hardball” in an investigation but to think that she might actually be involved and that is a reason for how she’s speaking to CourtTV now seems like a real stretch to me,...but clearly JMO.

I don’t think she’s involved in the death of her mother. I do however think that she’s a young woman struggling with trying to figure out what all this means, the untimely and unexpected death of her mom, her dad running off with another woman and him in jail for months on end awaiting a serious trial. I think her somewhat explosive reaction to news reporters at her house previously, combined with some of her other online posting, and then seemingly a long silence to the public and the media until now speaks a lot to her state of mind. She’s trying to balance what the media says about her father vs. what she knew and what she thought she knew of her own dad from growing up with him. I can’t begin to imagine trying to balance all of that while continuing to contend with losing both parents, essentially, one to death & another to jail right now. This doesn’t mean I support her or think her actions and what she’s said in the past is ‘right’ or respectful or anything of the sort, but all I thought of that interview was someone who’s trying to figure out if the dad she knows is the same man the media is reporting him to be and all of that. I can’t imagine....but I don’t think this means she was involved in some way and that’s why police won’t give her more information because she’s some suspect on their radar...I don’t think I’ve ever thought that.
MOO as poster above said, Chad is TDs next of kin.
Emma is one sibling. Devolving any rights from Chad to them MOO would mean all of them.
 
MOO as poster above said, Chad is TDs next of kin.
Emma is one sibling. Devolving any rights from Chad to them MOO would mean all of them.

I was not trying to say that them not giving her any information was wrong because it did not follow established protocols but rather that it is unfortunate, in only my opinion, if it is true that she had to find out from the media....that’s all I was trying to say. I’m sorry I was not able to articulate that better & that multiple people have thought I meant it was bad that they weren’t following some protocols in notifying family. I was only trying to express that I consider it unfortunate if that is how you found out that your mom was being dug up from her grave again. That’s all - nothing more and nothing less.
 
The first media story about the missing children (also mentioning Tammy's death) was published on Dec 20, which was 9 days after Tammy's exhumation. Did LE really keep the family in the dark for that long?
 
Does this approach by LE signal whether the autopsy report indicates a suspicious death? If they are willing to share results w/the family does that mean there’s nothing damning in the report?

I lean toward suspicious results. I think we can fairly reasonably conclude that it was not a medical condition that is potentially hereditary, as withholding relevant medical information from her children would be considered unethical (right?). So, suspicious or something completely random that her kids won't have to worry about down the road.

I think LE wants any sharing of results to be in a very controlled manner and environment, because there will be a lot of public interest when they're released, regardless of what the results actually are, IMO. That, in addition to not feeling like they can fully trust the Daybells, very much MOO.
 
Does Utah code apply when it comes to Tammy's exhumation?

From 26-4-12 Order to exhume body -- Procedure:

(2) (a) A body may not be exhumed until notice of the order has been served upon the executor or administrator of the deceased's estate, or if no executor or administrator has been appointed, upon the nearest heir of the deceased, determined as if the deceased had died intestate. If the nearest heir of the deceased cannot be located within the jurisdiction, then the next heir in succession within the jurisdiction may be served.

I presume it would, because she was buried in Springville, UT. In which case Chad would have been served with the order.
 
Well it’s evident that LE cannot trust the Daybell family especially if one or more of them are leaking the fact that LE made a ‘deal’ with them...that LE would show them the autopsy results in return for the family to keep it confidential. Now if they really were interested in the results why would the family and all, come out and tell about LE ‘deal’. If I was given such a opportunity to view my relatives autopsy result leading to solving of a crime, I would keep my mouth shut that I saw the report and that I talked to LE at all. I would want the case solved.
The family shows they are not trustworthy. I do say thought they are following a cult leader who still has a mental hold over his family. I don’t know if any of the family will accept dead old dad is responsible for anything.
JMOO
 
Prosecution's response to MM's motion:

02/12/2021 Response to Defendant's Declared Motion For Order Directing Attorney Client Privilege Communications

RW doesn't object to MM's request for in-person meetings with Lori, providing that the Covid-19 safety protocols are observed. He objects to the request for the jail security video to be turned off during those meetings. Apparently a virtual box can be drawn around the people meeting so that the person monitoring can't see them. Unsurprisingly RW thinks Lori shouldn't be allowed a cell phone in jail for communication with her attorney.

ETA: MM's Feb 5 tweets are mentioned in the response.
 
Last edited:
I’m just curious, but does this mean you’re saying Emma might potentially be involved in the death of her own mother and that the reason police would only agree to give her information from the report is if she came in for a formal on-the-record interview...? I think it’s one thing to acknowledge that law enforcement is playing “hardball” in an investigation but to think that she might actually be involved and that is a reason for how she’s speaking to CourtTV now seems like a real stretch to me,...but clearly JMO.

I don’t think she’s involved in the death of her mother. I do however think that she’s a young woman struggling with trying to figure out what all this means, the untimely and unexpected death of her mom, her dad running off with another woman and him in jail for months on end awaiting a serious trial. I think her somewhat explosive reaction to news reporters at her house previously, combined with some of her other online posting, and then seemingly a long silence to the public and the media until now speaks a lot to her state of mind. She’s trying to balance what the media says about her father vs. what she knew and what she thought she knew of her own dad from growing up with him. I can’t begin to imagine trying to balance all of that while continuing to contend with losing both parents, essentially, one to death & another to jail right now. This doesn’t mean I support her or think her actions and what she’s said in the past is ‘right’ or respectful or anything of the sort, but all I thought of that interview was someone who’s trying to figure out if the dad she knows is the same man the media is reporting him to be and all of that. I can’t imagine....but I don’t think this means she was involved in some way and that’s why police won’t give her more information because she’s some suspect on their radar...I don’t think I’ve ever thought that.
I wouldn’t say she’s involved in anything, but it’s undeniable that she stood by her father through all of this mess. How could she and her siblings not get even slightly suspicious? Their mother was a healthy, active woman. All of the deaths and the disappearance of the children were made public and they just said “nah, nothing to see here, mom died of natural causes FOR SURE. Dad would never. He just couldn’t wait to get married to this person we never even met before.”

Sure, they most likely grew up in a culture of no questioning of any kind. Don’t question dad. Don’t question mom. Don’t question Church. Don’t question your teacher. Don’t. Question.

I honestly can’t phantom how ALL of his kids could just eat up his whole doctrine like that. It either had been going for a whole lot longer than we think, or they were so programmed to say “yes dad” that they are not mentally equipped to put two and two together.

But they are adults, full grown adults, married, got their own kids. Come on. I distinctly remember one of her brothers being extremely respectful and mature when he talked to reporters for a little bit, to the point that I felt awful for him and thought he should be left alone. So... yeah, she’s scared, yeah she’s grieving. But what about Tylee and JJ? I’m sure they were scared too and they ended up buried in her father’s backyard, the backyard of the same house where her mother died. At some point you have to snap out of it and wake up.

So, if she is STILL behind her father, if she still supports him (which, I have no idea if that’s accurate or not), it’s pretty obvious that LE is not going to tell her anything about Tammy, specially if it’s relevant in a case against Chad. It IS sad and unfortunate, but again, she did it to herself by doing what she did and behaving they way she behaved.
 
Prosecution's response to MM's motion:

02/12/2021 Response to Defendant's Declared Motion For Order Directing Attorney Client Privilege Communications

RW doesn't object to MM's request for in-person meetings with Lori, providing that the Covid-19 safety protocols are observed. He objects to the request for the jail security video to be turned off during those meetings. Apparently a virtual box can be drawn around the people meeting so that the person monitoring can't see them. Unsurprisingly RW thinks Lori shouldn't be allowed a cell phone in jail for communication with her attorney.

ETA: MM's Feb 5 tweets are mentioned in the response.
I've read through the documents and can't see any mention of the jail security video. Which page is it on? (I get a blank page for page 1)
 
[Apologies in advance for the length of the reply, just getting all my thoughts out on this, so it may not seem to have a logical order]

The ongoing Motions and arguments over the jail visitation, Means wanting Lori to have a cellphone so they can communicate with is a really interesting facet of this case to my geeky-mind. In the recent filing (24 pages because of numerous attached Exhibits) I was reminded of a couple things that I think are of note:


-Deputies who work at the Detention Center (in previous affidavits) admit that visitors, including attorneys meeting their clients, do not need to have an appointment when coming to the Detention Center. I found this interesting because they keep (IMHO) belaboring the point that Means would show up unannounced asking to meet with his client and, it seems to be implied, that not giving them notice somehow affects the circumstances in which they’re able to meet. (I don’t see how it does at all, unless he’s turned away completely which he’s alleged has happened before)


-in one of his first meetings with Lori, when their phone call was accidentally recorded, the jail then turned off recording for 24 hour period for both phones in the Public Visitor Room. Everyone seemed surprised when again phone calls were found to have been recorded and only after that, and talking to the Telmate provider for help in deleting the recorded calls, did they disable recording for 365 DAYS.

In late March, when he showed up to meet with Lori, it was the jail staff who said they’d check if the phones in that Room are recorded - they did not say they were asked first by Means - that they were going to check this all on their own, just because of the current visitation restrictions. They were not first prompted by Means to check for recording capabilities on those phones. Their phone calls that day were not recorded. He visited again THE NEXT DAY and this was when the phone calls were mistakenly recorded (they had only disabled it for a period of 24 hours!). The Deputies claimed he never asked for the recording to be turned off, and that they would’ve heard the audio disclaimer on the phone before talking. Should a Defense attorney need to mention upon every visitation that the phones are not being recorded if that is the main way the Jail is providing for attorneys to meet with their clients? There is already an expectation that there communication, since it is privileged, will not be recorded....so do they need to ask before every phone call to disable recording? Shouldn’t the Jail want to do that so that they don’t get into any of this legal headache over calls mistakenly recorded? It seems to me as if they were saying that “Means never asked for it to be turned off, and he would’ve heard the recording disclaimer on the phone before they spoke so this shouldn’t be a surprise, and because of those two factors the calls were mistakenly recorded, ooops we will delete them now”


-Rob Wood of the State tries to argue that “no one else has asked for a special cell phone & Lori shouldn’t get special treatment”, which might be true, but I am reminded that this Detention Center is small, and for all we know there’s only a handful of women there at the moment. In 2017, for instance, they had 238 female inmates.....for the entire year, so I don’t think the argument is as strong as “out of the hundreds of other inmates currently there, not a single one has asked through their attorney for a cell phone for communication”....

I am also recalling that the jail typically has such a low population from their County that they routinely house inmates from other Counties in the state. I just think, if the jail has so few inmates, it’s a bit of a weaker argument to say “no one else has asked for this so therefore Means and his client Lori should get the same as everyone else” if the “everyone else” is just a small number of people.


-The State could certainly be correct when they’re saying “The State is aware of no other inmate that has filed a motion requesting a cell phone due to the required use of Telmate”.....that is a highly specific statement. That statement could be true and you could still have other inmates who have asked for some sort of remedy or change in visitation procedures because of the COVID restrictions....both of those can be true at the same time. That statement does not reflect if anyone else has asked for similar changes so that attorneys could meet with their client, for all we know other attorneys have asked for some help from the Court because of these restrictions.....a defense attorney could argue/Motion for the same thing but cite a different reason and the argument by the State would still be true. I don’t think, because of the specificity in their statement, that “well no one else has asked for special privileges”.


The State, IMO spent more time arguing that Means was just continuing to argue things that have already been decided & ruled upon, IMHO rather than precisely countering his arguments about possible Constitutional rights being violated. Wood says Means is trying to “relitigate facts previously decided”.



I did not think once that the Jail or Court to have a cell phone for their communication but I also do think some of what Means has argued are some factors that are legitimately affecting his ability to meet with his client. I won’t repeat myself too much, as I’ve posted previously here in this thread about numerous cases across the country that have amended jail procedures in the wake of this pandemic and how Courts have recognized this negatively impacting a defendant, their ability to prepare for a trial, and in some instances have (according to some Courts) started to infringe on their Constitutional rights. In possibly one of his only Motions so far that actually does have some legal precedence both in other Courts in Idaho, as well as in other states, I think the current rules for visitation are or could further hinder his ability to prepare for trial. It doesn’t seem very helpful to the Defense if you’re told “here’s a laptop you can use, no it doesn’t have any internet connection or ability to retrieve/access anything online or to display any documents you have on your computer”, that doesn’t seem that helpful to the Defense.
 
Last edited:
If the lawyer owns the house(land and is getting money for it because it is a rental, the hours he bills his client is probably a lot more then he gets in rent money. So CD still has a lawyer bill not to mention who is paying for LVD? The rent money surely would not cover the lawyer fees for both of them!


What may be occurring, and I don't know for sure in this case, is that Prior may have obtained an Affidavit of Equitable Interest in CD's property. As Prior continues to represent CD, he would keep track of his charges, and those charges would be added to Prior's equity in the property. So, in a sense, Prior will be getting paid, just not until the house sells. If Prior's bills eventually come to--say, $100,000--and the house sells for $175,000, Prior would get $100, 000 at the time the proceeds were distributed. The only thing is that a bank or mortgage company will have the first lien, so if the house was still mortgaged, that would cut into the proceeds.

That's how I've seen it work in similar (non-attorney) situations where someone used the equity in a property as collateral.

JMOO
 
Thanks to those who mentioned notice of the exhumation could/should have been made to CD as next-of-kin. That was my first thought, as well, and I feel like if his children weren't made aware it was happening, that's on him.

My take on the daughter's comment about the autopsy report is that LE wants an official statement BEFORE sharing the results. If the report was released first, anyone being questioned could tailor their answers to fit the report. IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
2,246
Total visitors
2,414

Forum statistics

Threads
589,966
Messages
17,928,456
Members
228,022
Latest member
Jemabogado
Back
Top