So true
Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #30
- Thread starter Patch Tuesday
- Start date
- Status
So true
JJ makes this a bit more nuanced. He has been formally identified through 1) medical specialist prescribing FDA indicated medication for autism associated aggressive behaviors, 2) was evaluated and met criteria for special education, and 3) met criteria for having a disability and receiving federal disability payments BEFORE CV death (in a much earlier thread there was reference to a communication from Lori to his school in AZ, in the context of notification of withdrawal, thanking them for assistance in providing documentation so he could receive this). If Lori cannot document that he is receiving appropriate care for his heavily documented medical diagnosis; that is not only “neglect” in the common context of not providing for a minor, it is MEDICAL neglect.
TexieLouWho21
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2020
- Messages
- 189
- Reaction score
- 2,420
Has the Ring doorbell video been cleaned up enough to hear what's going on in the background? It sounds like someone comes to the door and gets onto one of the boys. MOO It sounds like a female says something to JJ. Then there is a conversation when the lady runs to the house. I'm sure the police know what is said. I'm wondering if it was ever released to the public. I just wanted to know what was said to the kids in all honesty. IMO It might tell more about the frame of mind the person was in that day. Just a day to day frame of mind.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,833
- Reaction score
- 8,204
Neighbors said in the October video, JJ Vallow yells, “Get the hell out of here!” before running into his townhome with the little boy.
The video faintly captured the other boy’s reply, “don’t say that word, that’s a bad word.”
Once inside the townhouse, what appears to be a woman’s voice was heard saying, “don’t say that word. I mean it, don’t say that word.”
Lori Vallow's Neighbors Share Footage Showing Child Behaving Erratically Before Disappearance
CSIDreamer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2015
- Messages
- 9,912
- Reaction score
- 79,975
Minors don't count towards spousal privilege. Jmo
indicolite22
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2019
- Messages
- 9,871
- Reaction score
- 81,479
Events before marriage don't count either.
Idaho Law, Spousal Privilege in Crim Cases. Available to Chad or Lori?
1. Where? Crim charges re the kids are being brought in ID, right? So ID statute applies.
2.a. When? Would any relevant stmts btwn them have pre-dated their marriage? If so, IDK if ID SpousalPriv would attach to such pre-marriage stmts.
2b. When? IIRC, Lori & Chad were married this past summer, so there would be no issue re the July 1, 2018 effective date* of ID statute below. If I'm wrong on marriage date, possibly wrong re SpPriv.
IIRC, this statute allows either spouse to claim the SpPriv and refuse to testify. BUT per ID's statutory exceptions below, SpPriv is not avail to either spouse (to refuse to testify or to prevent the other from testifying), when---
d.1. "Communication relevant to an issue concerning the physical, mental or emotional condition of or injury to a child, or concerning the welfare of a child including, but not limited to the abuse, abandonment or neglect of a child." bbm
Per ^ I doubt whether either Lori could prevent Chad from testifying or whether Chad could refuse to testify re spousal "confidential communications" involving a child/the children's physical, mental, or emotional condition or injury. Just imo.
Possible 5th A issue? If either refused to testify based on claimed SpPriv, and if prosecutor argued that no SpPriv exception because of child-related issue, seems either Chad or Lori could refuse to testify based on Fifth A'mt.
Kinda thinking aloud here, my 2 cents, could be wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Rules of Evidence
Rule 504. Husband-Wife Privilege.
(a) Definition. A communication is "confidential" if it is made during marriage privately by any person to the person's spouse, and is not intended for disclosure to any other person.
(b) General rule of privilege. A person has a privilege to prevent testimony as to any confidential communication between the person and his or her spouse made during the marriage.
(c) Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person or by the spouse on behalf of the person, or by the lawyer for the person on behalf of the person. The authority of the spouse or lawyer to do so is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(d) Exceptions. There is no privilege under this rule:
(1) Child related communications. In a criminal or civil action or proceeding as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the physical, mental or emotional condition of or injury to a child, or concerning the welfare of a child including, but not limited to the abuse, abandonment or neglect of a child.
(2) Criminal action. In a criminal action or proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime against the person or property of (A) the other spouse, (B) a person residing in the household of either spouse, or (C) a third person committed in the course of committing a crime against the other spouse or a person residing in the household of either spouse.
(3) Special proceeding. In proceedings (A) under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, or (B) concerning desertion or non-support of a spouse.
(4) Civil action. In a civil action or proceeding by one spouse against the other involving the person or property of the other.
(5) Proceedings for guardianship, conservatorship or hospitalization. There is no privilege under this rule for communications relevant to an issue in proceedings for the appointment of a guardian or conservator for a person for mental illness or to hospitalize the person for mental illness."
* (Adopted March 26, 2018, effective July 1, 2018.)
ETA: @indicolite22 and @CSIDreamer -- agreeing w both of your posts, just above.
sbm @ajaylee Thanks for bringing up this issue. Text of ID statute below.
1. Where? Crim charges re the kids are being brought in ID, right? So ID statute applies.
2.a. When? Would any relevant stmts btwn them have pre-dated their marriage? If so, IDK if ID SpousalPriv would attach to such pre-marriage stmts.
2b. When? IIRC, Lori & Chad were married this past summer, so there would be no issue re the July 1, 2018 effective date* of ID statute below. If I'm wrong on marriage date, possibly wrong re SpPriv.
IIRC, this statute allows either spouse to claim the SpPriv and refuse to testify. BUT per ID's statutory exceptions below, SpPriv is not avail to either spouse (to refuse to testify or to prevent the other from testifying), when---
d.1. "Communication relevant to an issue concerning the physical, mental or emotional condition of or injury to a child, or concerning the welfare of a child including, but not limited to the abuse, abandonment or neglect of a child." bbm
Per ^ I doubt whether either Lori could prevent Chad from testifying or whether Chad could refuse to testify re spousal "confidential communications" involving a child/the children's physical, mental, or emotional condition or injury. Just imo.
Possible 5th A issue? If either refused to testify based on claimed SpPriv, and if prosecutor argued that no SpPriv exception because of child-related issue, seems either Chad or Lori could refuse to testify based on Fifth A'mt.
Kinda thinking aloud here, my 2 cents, could be wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Rules of Evidence
Rule 504. Husband-Wife Privilege.
(a) Definition. A communication is "confidential" if it is made during marriage privately by any person to the person's spouse, and is not intended for disclosure to any other person.
(b) General rule of privilege. A person has a privilege to prevent testimony as to any confidential communication between the person and his or her spouse made during the marriage.
(c) Who may claim the privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the person or by the spouse on behalf of the person, or by the lawyer for the person on behalf of the person. The authority of the spouse or lawyer to do so is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
(d) Exceptions. There is no privilege under this rule:
(1) Child related communications. In a criminal or civil action or proceeding as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the physical, mental or emotional condition of or injury to a child, or concerning the welfare of a child including, but not limited to the abuse, abandonment or neglect of a child.
(2) Criminal action. In a criminal action or proceeding in which one spouse is charged with a crime against the person or property of (A) the other spouse, (B) a person residing in the household of either spouse, or (C) a third person committed in the course of committing a crime against the other spouse or a person residing in the household of either spouse.
(3) Special proceeding. In proceedings (A) under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, or (B) concerning desertion or non-support of a spouse.
(4) Civil action. In a civil action or proceeding by one spouse against the other involving the person or property of the other.
(5) Proceedings for guardianship, conservatorship or hospitalization. There is no privilege under this rule for communications relevant to an issue in proceedings for the appointment of a guardian or conservator for a person for mental illness or to hospitalize the person for mental illness."
* (Adopted March 26, 2018, effective July 1, 2018.)
ETA: @indicolite22 and @CSIDreamer -- agreeing w both of your posts, just above.
Last edited:
FindingJoLee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2020
- Messages
- 910
- Reaction score
- 9,992
That should be fun for her attorneys to overcome. Particularly if any of the clothing she searched were clicked on and purchased....and then turned up at her wedding a month later.
CSIDreamer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2015
- Messages
- 9,912
- Reaction score
- 79,975
I've randomly pondered trying to find her wedding dress. Kind of a "what Lori wore" type of project. Jmo
I agree. For all we know, CD could be responsible for initiating all of these deaths.
If he is the cult leader and they all believed his self serving “visions” and were happy to do his bidding, then he should certainly be locked up along with Lori.
dot...dot...dot
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2020
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 501
Several super sleuth shoppers from a popular SM group have already tackled this project. Can be seen on a Mar 24 thread.
I’m partial to the one that has 4 pieces: •DownEast camisole t shirt
•Amazon lace body suit
•Amazon skirt
•Amazon tulle table runner
alexwood
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2013
- Messages
- 7,936
- Reaction score
- 23,314
That table runner is a nice touch! Lovely . . . was that the train on her wedding dress?
CSIDreamer
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2015
- Messages
- 9,912
- Reaction score
- 79,975
I'll look. A table runner? Lol.
FindingJoLee
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2020
- Messages
- 910
- Reaction score
- 9,992
She has a tulle sash, so I suspect that's what they're referring to.
There's definitely a scoop-neck cap-sleeve tee and a tulle sash involved. The rest of the outfit has a stretch floral lace, 3/4 sleeve top (and it probably is a bodysuit -- there's no closure in the back) and it's floor length.
carbuff
Well-Known Member
I agree that anywhere along the route is possible, though it sounds like LE is pretty convinced she never left the park.
But they wouldn't have had to leave just to find a dark location. Most of Yellowstone National Park is wilderness, and even the more crowded areas have many isolated areas nearby. You can drive long stretches of road and not see anything but elk, bison, and the steam of geysers just off the road.
nhmemorymaker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2020
- Messages
- 6,178
- Reaction score
- 46,014
i do believe someone posted it earlier!! Tis a sweet demure dress! Just sayin.
nhmemorymaker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2020
- Messages
- 6,178
- Reaction score
- 46,014
I forget who said they thought it was outside the park. I do too. Unless the task was specifically planned around one of the geysers ... i just don't think they would have done it with so many people around. I still feel there is another person involved. I hope we find out if anyone else was in that picture at YNP.
- Status