Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Tammy Daybell, 49, Sept & Oct 2019 *Arrests* #58

Status
Not open for further replies.
@MTW2011 That's another good point you have made. Any opinion? A guess, perhaps?
IMHO if Lori was about to flip on Chad - and give up all of this incriminating information and evidence - the State would not be strongly objected to simply postponing this first appearance hearing, not at all.

If she was going to offer up information and/or try to get some plea deal, I do not see any reason why the State would object to pushing back this hearing....they would be getting information out of her, so why would you object to pushing back this? Pushing it back would not change (if there was some agreement) that she would be giving up information...IMO.

The Judge obviously ruled that whatever the Defense said/presented/argued was enough to push this back, and in my mind that signals that it is something bigger. Not something that would derail this case or have charges dropped or anything of the sort but something that is more helpful to the Defense than it is to the State.

I keep going back to - why would the State object to this? It is a First Appearance hearing, sometimes the charges are read if that is not waived, there would be no discussion of bond at this other than to say there is "no bond" set, there would be no need to discuss custody because she is in custody and is remaining in custody.....
Just my opinion.
 
Dang it! To have been a fly on the wall during the side-bar! Why do you think Lori was granted a continuance. Means wanted it, Woods didn't. I am guessing the judge awarded it because he doesn't want there to be any grounds for mistrial later. Do you think Lori will turn on Chad? The more I see, the more I wonder if she really believed the crap Chad was feeding her.

I think it is a delay tactic related to her representation. Means may have wanted to quit or maybe they want to add another attorney. Planning ahead in case it becomes a death penalty trial. I don’t think it has anything to do with the meat of the charges. Since Means has a crappy hand he may just be delaying to delay. Woods seemed exasperated
 
Jmo. She is faking..there is not anything bigger for the defense..She always controls things and this is her only way to do it now. The poor pitiful me act..And Means has fallen for it..
He can't be her attorney for a death penalty case.. MG is not going to come up with anything..It's just part of her game..JMO
 
I think it is a delay tactic related to her representation. Means may have wanted to quit or maybe they want to add another attorney. Planning ahead in case it becomes a death penalty trial. I don’t think it has anything to do with the meat of the charges. Since Means has a crappy hand he may just be delaying to delay. Woods seemed exasperated
It could be possible.....but why would the Court agree it is worth pushing back a FIRST APPEARANCE hearing?
Defendants who get arrested (and have their first appearance very soon after) many of them don't have an attorney, many of them may have one but need to contact them, many may need a public defender, people change attorneys after a first appearance very often because the first appearance happens so quickly, if you want to retain a private attorney it is usually hard to get that done from jail within the typical 24 hours after arrest for a first appearance. So if Means was leaving or trying to leave - why would the State object to pushing this back? Why would the Court agree it is worth pushing it back?

There are no real arguments happening at this, the charges may have been read, but bond, custody status, all those other "details" that are part of a 1st appearance are pretty much already decided before going into this, since she was already in custody. If Means was leaving soon the Court, I think, would've pushed for the first appearance today and then new counsel comes on whenever....

I don't think it is a stall tactic, and I don't think this is some small thing and the Court decided to push back a first appearance just for some small reason. That would seem really, really odd considering what actually happens at a first appearance. JMHO.
 
Chad Daybell hears charges read in court; Lori Daybell given a continuance - East Idaho News

Found this tidbit in East Idaho News but doubt it answers The Question...

...."It’s not clear why the continuance was issued by Eddins. Based on previous court hearings we know that all of Lori’s future court proceedings were put on hold in March for an undetermined amount of time, for an unknown reason...."
Yes, her only control is to pretend she can't deal with it..jmo
 
I've missed alot being in and out with illnesses so its going to take a few minutes (weeks) to play catch up.
MOO is they both plea out. Personally if I'm a prosecutor I'm not dealing on this one. As much as I'm for the death penalty I'd prefer they both attempt to serve LWP with people who despise child killers. They need to suffer.

I sure hope there's no plea bargaining agreement because there are no bodies to find. Let this couple face the charges, trials, and punishments.
 
Scott Reisch saying IF insurance was paid out, they may go after the money by fighting the agreement that Prior had with Chad on his house.

MOO I'm still not sure that he got the money, as the SS for Lori said she received it, but the two insurance charges for Chad said he submitted... but did NOT mention he received.

The fraud would come out of his act to place a claim for her death. Not necessarily getting the money. Although it has been reported in MSN that he did receive it. I don't have the link, so IMO
 
Chad Daybell hears charges read in court; Lori Daybell given a continuance - East Idaho News

Found this tidbit in East Idaho News but doubt it answers The Question...

...."It’s not clear why the continuance was issued by Eddins. Based on previous court hearings we know that all of Lori’s future court proceedings were put on hold in March for an undetermined amount of time, for an unknown reason...."
BBM - do we have any court paperwork for this? Could it be something relating to mental capacity?
 
I think Lori is trying to plead incompetent to stand trial. While Idaho does not have an insanity defense... a person can be incompetent to stand trial and they have to be brought back to a standard where they are again competent to stand trial. Yep, that’s my opinion on this whole thing.
 
I think Lori is trying to plead incompetent to stand trial. While Idaho does not have an insanity defense... a person can be incompetent to stand trial and they have to be brought back to a standard where they are again competent to stand trial. Yep, that’s my opinion on this whole thing.
Would any evidence need to be submitted to support that she is not competent?
 
My original thoughts back when the court ordered a stay on hearings for Lori was that this was to do with MM pursuing a complaint through the bar association about RW. I still think that could possibly be the case, but today there is a second prosecutor involved in charging her. So that gives me pause enough to consider it could be something new that's been added to the mix. I'm also wondering about the mental competency aspect now, maybe she's asked for an evaluation because she's going to start with malingering now. It fits with her being so manipulative and always having to feel like she's winning.

I don't think it's to do with wanting alternative legal representation, that can be fixed later on.

MOO for the time being
 
IMHO if Lori was about to flip on Chad - and give up all of this incriminating information and evidence - the State would not be strongly objected to simply postponing this first appearance hearing, not at all.

If she was going to offer up information and/or try to get some plea deal, I do not see any reason why the State would object to pushing back this hearing....they would be getting information out of her, so why would you object to pushing back this? Pushing it back would not change (if there was some agreement) that she would be giving up information...IMO.

The Judge obviously ruled that whatever the Defense said/presented/argued was enough to push this back, and in my mind that signals that it is something bigger. Not something that would derail this case or have charges dropped or anything of the sort but something that is more helpful to the Defense than it is to the State.

I keep going back to - why would the State object to this? It is a First Appearance hearing, sometimes the charges are read if that is not waived, there would be no discussion of bond at this other than to say there is "no bond" set, there would be no need to discuss custody because she is in custody and is remaining in custody.....
Just my opinion.
Yet again, you raise excellent questions. Bottom line: All that was scheduled to happen today was reading of charges to LV, followed by judge inquiring if she understood them. Yet defense had good enough explanation, according to judge, for that not to happen.
 
Yet again, you raise excellent questions. Bottom line: All that was scheduled to happen today was reading of charges to LV, followed by judge inquiring if she understood them. Yet defense had good enough explanation, according to judge, for that not to happen.
She probably started singing and dancing and speaking in tongues when MM read her the charges. Forgot what her name was...
 
Yet again, you raise excellent questions. Bottom line: All that was scheduled to happen today was reading of charges to LV, followed by judge inquiring if she understood them. Yet defense had good enough explanation, according to judge, for that not to happen.
Well - thank you first of all. I don't think I could even form some of these opinions without constantly surrounding myself with other great minds here and elsewhere.

I also think the "good enough" reason goes even further, this is (again) only a first appearance, it is IMO so unlike anything else where the Judge may decide to rule for a Motion by the Defense to err on the side of caution and for future appellate issues. I cannot think of anything where that type of reasoning would apply - because what would happen later on.....Defense appeals and one reason is that the Judge didnt allow them to push back a hearing where they would hear solely about new charges, potential penalties for those charges, bond/no bond, custody status, etc.....

That, in my mind, is so far away from something like in a trial, Defense makes a typical Motion for mistrial, it is denied by the Court but they did that to preserve the record and for appeals, why would the Court agree to push back something that is so small in compared to the rest of this? I certainly have more questions than answers! ha.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
1,698
Total visitors
1,876

Forum statistics

Threads
589,969
Messages
17,928,506
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top