Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #54

[Forever Young]

<snipped>The case broke in the media on December 20 when it was all said and done. I have never heard the news story that you describe (mentioning a friend who changed their mind) and would appreciate a source. IIRC we haven't heard about MG's involvement in the news until much later. We first heard about her lie at Chad's preliminary hearing

It was a blimp on the radar screen. It was NBC Nightly News, and the name of the friend was not mentioned. I've looked, but can't really expect every blurb on the daily news to be easily found. It may have been taken down because it was a false story. I was not posting on websleuths at the time of the early story just breaking, but was aware of it from very early on when the story of missing kids first broke.

As I said, the police knew that JJ wasn't with Lori the next day. So the second part of MG's statement was a lie. There was no reason to trust the first part.

I thought LV, CD, and AC had scattered and ran by the next day. If they were not in Rexburg on Thanksgiving, it backed up MG's story that Lori was coming down to AZ for Thanksgiving and was out of town. So they could not have known that JJ was not with Lori.

I think that's why the authorities still held out hope that the kids were in Hawaii.

 

[Monger]

to piggy back off this, i was curious about Idaho court rules for making a decision on the motion for joinder and found

Idaho Court Rule - Rule 12. Pleadings and Motions Before Trial; Defenses and Objections.
(d)Motion Date- Motions under Rule 12(b) must be filed within 28 days after the entry of a plea of not guilty or seven days before trial whichever is earlier. In felony cases, motions under Rule 12(b) must be brought on for hearing within 14 days after filing or 48 hours before trial, whichever is earlier. The court may shorten or enlarge the time and, for good cause shown or for excusable neglect, may relieve a party of failure to comply with this rule.

Its at the courts decretion when to decide on the motion for joinder, so it looks like it could be a while before they make a ruling.

When I was going through CD and V events and hearings history for their cases (available on the Idaho icourt portal) I found it REALLY interesting LVs attorney filed a motion in support of joinder and CDs attorney filed a motion objecting to joinder. Im hoping this signals the start of each of them pushing their own individual agendas and maybe even perhaps one of them flipping

MM filed in support of Joinder? I’ve been dying to read it! Can you link that? I’m real lazy.

 

[ivegotthemic]

MM filed in support of Joinder? I’ve been dying to read it! Can you link that? I’m real lazy.

i havent actually looked for the official motion, TBH it probably wont be provide any interesting info but on 9/1 Vallow filed Memorandum in support of Motion for Joinder

iCourt Portal - Online records & payments for the Idaho courts

 

[indicolite22]

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22-20-838/Memorandum in support of Motion for Joinder.pdf

 

[Monger]

MM's Memorandum in support of Motion for joinder: https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22-20-838/Memorandum in support of Motion for Joinder.pdf

This looks like RW memo. With certificate of service to MM? Am I confused? Wouldn’t be the first time...haha.

 

[indicolite22]

This looks like RW memo. With certificate of service to MM? Am I confused? Wouldn’t be the first time...haha.

Yes, you are correct. It's not a motion on MM's part. My bad. I posted a link before reading it.

 

[Satchie]

Re BBM
When its their turn in a trial, either side (Prosecution or Defense) can call whatever witnesses they want to the stand. So if the Prosecution decides they do not want to call her to testify, then when its the Defense turn, the Defense could call her up to testify and then the Prosecution will likely want to question her during their "cross-examination" of that Defense witness to try to repair any damage from her testimony that the Defense pulled out of her.

Some trials are fascinating to watch and this one is setting up to be a doozy of a trial. There is so much strategy and tactics involved for both sides, it can get very interesting.

My understanding of the main trial proceedings is the Prosecution always goes first to present their case and they will call up all their witnesses one by one. During each witness testimony, the opposing side can elect to "cross examine" (question) that same witness right after the other side is done with their questioning. This continues until all the Prosecution witnesses are called up to testify.

Then its the Defense turn.
The defense begins calling all their witnesses. And the same holds true that the Prosecution can elect to "cross examine" each of them after the Defense is done with their questioning.

So if a certain witness is not used or called up by the Prosecution, then it doesn't necessarily mean that the witness will not eventually be called to the stand by the Defense. And so the Prosecution needs to be ready with how they will question her during their cross examination of her. They can elect not to call her and not to do any cross examination of her if the Defense calls her, but usually its to their benefit to at least cross examine a witness if a lot of damage was done to their case by the Defense turn with her.

The bottom line for either side is they will usually call a certain witness if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

The strategies and tactics by both sides can get really interesting and dicey at times. Some of us have watched trials and others have seen enough from movies and documentaries to have seen some of the tactics that are employed. One of the things an attorney does is they try to bring out the testimony from the witness that they want the jury to hear and they try to limit the witness to just answering the question they have posed to them. A lot of times a witness will want to add more to the answer but they are promptly cut off by the attorney if they are fixing to say something the attorney doesn't want the jury to hear. That can happen and especially if a witness is considered "hostile" to the side. The attorney will tell the witness to just answer Yes or No and they will cut them off as the witness tries to add more if it hurts their case. That is where the other side can help themselves by cross examining that same witness and then they can bring out the extra information that the other side did not want the jury to hear.

It is all very interesting and quite a chess match in certain cases like this one is shaping up to be.
All JMO

Criminal Trial Overview - FindLaw

Yes, I agree that the process of managing witnesses is key to a trial.

In my past observation, where the defendents are obviously guilty, they (naturally) call few witnesses on their own behalf. The defense concentrates on trying to discredit the prosecution witnesses. But IMO, the key word is 'trying'. Just because a defense lawyer makes a very dramatic show out of questioning the prosecution witnesses, doesn't mean a jury will buy it.

IMO, when the defense succeeds is when they undermine the prosecution's credibility, not any particular witness:

OJ Simpson: the bloody glove doesn't fit! The prosecution's framing me.

Casey Anthony: it was an accident and bad Daddy covered it up, like he's covered up abusing me.

Robert Durst: it was self-defense and I was scared of the mean New York prosecutoress.

MOO

 

[Monger]

Yes, you are correct. It's not a motion on MM's part. My bad. I posted a link before reading it.

I see what you guys see on the court portal. Both are on the same day. Is one a motion and another a memorandum both by RW? I’ve not heard anything about MM responding but I’d love to see his response if anyone can find anything!

 

[indicolite22]

I thought LV, CD, and AC had scattered and ran by the next day. If they were not in Rexburg on Thanksgiving, it backed up MG's story that Lori was coming down to AZ for Thanksgiving and was out of town. So they could not have known that JJ was not with Lori.

Lori couldn't have picked up JJ the same day from Arizona because MG was in Utah when she spoke to LE in the evening. Also, Lori's neighbor saw Lori and Alex packing their car the same evening in Rexburg. That would mean that Lori went to Utah, picked up JJ and returned to Rexburg. Time-wise none of that makes sense.

If Lori had been simply out of town with JJ, she would have had no problem proving that he was alive and get the police off her back.

I think that's why the authorities still held out hope that the kids were in Hawaii.

There was no indication that the children were ever in Hawaii.

Technically JJ could have been staying somewhere else with a relative the entire time, although there would be no need to play charades.

 

[Colorado303]

Hatfield, I agree. A poster, threads back, said these two cannot be tried for murder after this trial and if/when they are convicted....double jeopardy. They can serve the time for these crime/crimes only even its 5 or 20 years if convicted. I would like them to be tried for murder, but if not, stay in jail the entire sentencing time, no early out for being good and praying. LVD is 47, CD is 52, add 20 years on 67 and 72. Prison will not be nice. Still they Can have years left but where ever they live, who ever they live with, watch out. I would not turn my back if I wanted to live

Agree. And tack on any additional charges they can think of. Social security fraud for one.

 

[carolann0308]

I admire anyone who can give MG the benefit of the doubt. As a juror I’d have an impossible time overlooking the fact that she lied to police during a missing children investigation. It’s a huge problem for the prosecution, along with her bizarre interviews... I’ve seen nothing so far that shows she is a trustworthy person. Maybe with more separation in time from the events, which weren’t that long ago, she might seem more genuine?

It will be hard to be on that jury.
Chad's ex wife's died under suspicious circumstances, he had the children's dead bodies in his backyard. Lori let someone kill her kids then lied about their well-being & Multiple DEAD ex husbands. MG lied to the police about JJs whereabouts. MG may be spilling the beans now, but a reliable witness??? Not as long as she still believes in visions and people being 'chosen' for life, death or zombiehood

 

[indicolite22]

It will be hard to be on that jury.
Chad's ex wife's died under suspicious circumstances, he had the children's dead bodies in his backyard. Lori let someone kill her kids then lied about their well-being & Multiple DEAD ex husbands. MG lied to the police about JJs whereabouts. MG may be spilling the beans now, but a reliable witness??? Not as long as she still believes in visions and people being 'chosen' for life, death or zombiehood

What factual info about Charles' and Tammy's deaths could be legitimately brought up at the children's trial?

Clearly MG doesn't believe in Chad's zombie doctrine. If she was still a cult member she would not have testified against Lori and Chad. Her other beliefs are not on trial.

 

[lacegrl130]

Agree. And tack on any additional charges they can think of. Social security fraud for one.

Why couldn’t they be tried for murder? I don’t understand how that conclusion could be reached?

 

[Colorado303]

Why couldn’t they be tried for murder? I don’t understand how that conclusion could be reached?

We don’t know if they will or won’t be. A lot of us believe LE has been taking their time getting ducks in a row, and there’s no hurry since LV and CD are in safely in jail for the foreseeable future. However, after Chad’s pre-trial hearing a lawyer commented if Lori and Chad are tried for the current crimes they may not be able to be tried for murder. His theory being much of the evidence needed to convict them for murder would already have been used to convict them of current charges. And relying on that same evidence to prosecute new charges (murder) could constitute double jeopardy,

With that in mind some are getting nervous that if strong evidence of murder exists we would have seen charges by now. Especially since the FBI deployed a team of people to Rexford who left months ago, shortly after the children’s bodies were recovered. Enough time for autopsy results and electronic data analysis.

Add to that it’s been over a year since CV was murdered and Tammy died a year ago, yet no there have been no charges in those cases either.

I’m not saying I agree that it’s looking less likely that murder charges will be filed. Frankly I go back and forth. I won’t argue either side since I have no idea. I’m just answering the question you asked as to why someone would speculate murder charges aren’t in the works.

 

[CSIDreamer]

Why couldn’t they be tried for murder? I don’t understand how that conclusion could be reached?

I don't understand either. None of the charges against them are for murder. I don't think either child was murdered in Chad's backyard, although I could be wrong. Jmo

 

[Monger]

We don’t know if they will or won’t be. A lot of us believe LE has been taking their time getting ducks in a row, and there’s no hurry since LV and CD are in safely in jail for the foreseeable future. However, after Chad’s pre-trial hearing a lawyer commented if Lori and Chad are tried for the current crimes they may not be able to be tried for murder. His theory being much of the evidence needed to convict them for murder would already have been used to convict them of current charges. And relying on that same evidence to prosecute new charges (murder) could constitute double jeopardy,

With that in mind some are getting nervous that if strong evidence of murder exists we would have seen charges by now. Especially since the FBI deployed a team of people to Rexford who left months ago, shortly after the children’s bodies were recovered. Enough time for autopsy results and electronic data analysis.

Add to that it’s been over a year since CV was murdered and Tammy died a year ago, yet no there have been no charges in those cases either.

I’m not saying I agree that it’s looking less likely that murder charges will be filed. Frankly I go back and forth. I won’t argue either side since I have no idea. I’m just answering the question you asked as to why someone would speculate murder charges aren’t in the works.

Just wanted to add that Chandler PD has indicated charges are likely to be filed in regards to CV.

ETA: Link!
The latest on Charles Vallow's death and when charges could be filed against Lori Daybell | East Idaho News

 

[Hatfield]

We don’t know if they will or won’t be. A lot of us believe LE has been taking their time getting ducks in a row, and there’s no hurry since LV and CD are in safely in jail for the foreseeable future. However, after Chad’s pre-trial hearing a lawyer commented if Lori and Chad are tried for the current crimes they may not be able to be tried for murder. His theory being much of the evidence needed to convict them for murder would already have been used to convict them of current charges. And relying on that same evidence to prosecute new charges (murder) could constitute double jeopardy,

With that in mind some are getting nervous that if strong evidence of murder exists we would have seen charges by now. Especially since the FBI deployed a team of people to Rexford who left months ago, shortly after the children’s bodies were recovered. Enough time for autopsy results and electronic data analysis.

Add to that it’s been over a year since CV was murdered and Tammy died a year ago, yet no there have been no charges in those cases either.

I’m not saying I agree that it’s looking less likely that murder charges will be filed. Frankly I go back and forth. I won’t argue either side since I have no idea. I’m just answering the question you asked as to why someone would speculate murder charges aren’t in the works.

Below is a link and at very top it summarizes the Double Jeopardy clause and like anything else with legal stipulations it is a little confusing. lol

I missed that other lawyer's comments about his theory but after reading through the example cases that are listed below the summary, I am starting to understand why that lawyer may have had concerns about it.
Its not as clear cut and dry as we would think it was.

Double Jeopardy

 

[Chelly]

Not addressed to me, but if I were a juror, no, I would not acquit CD and LV because of MG's testimony. I'm glad that her testimony is not needed to support the more serious felony charges, and I am even more glad that things have gone as well as they have so far.

Had things gone the way it was planned, LV and CD could be out of the country right now, and who knows how many years it could take to find them, if ever, and extradite them back to the U. S.

What could have been a disaster, thankfully, was not. I'm just glad they're in custody, but that is no thanks to MG. LE had the three of them right there, and they got away.

From what I am understanding, MG basically waited out the week of Thanksgiving through the first week of December before recontacting the police and changing her story. That is where the 10-12 days of delay estimation comes from.

Who knows if AC might still be alive if only MG would have picked up the phone the first time Rexburg police called, while LE had them in sight.

I think what she said supports the solicitation charge, I just don't put much credit in her character, and therefore no credit in any character evaluations she might offer. Her own character is weak and she shows that she herself is a poor judge of character.

There is another motive for her testimony, and that is to exonerate herself. Maybe that's what really bothers me, and as I said, I'm glad not much really hangs on her testimony. IMO

BBM...I wonder how they could have fled the U.S.? It was posted in earlier threads, LV did not have a passport. If she applied for one, LE would have been tipped off, passport denied. It is easy to cross into Mexico without a passport. (Getting back into U.S. would be impossible though). But still, without offshore accounts, how could they have funded a disappearance?

 

[Forever Young]

BBM...I wonder how they could have fled the U.S.? It was posted in earlier threads, LV did not have a passport. If she applied for one, LE would have been tipped off, passport denied. It is easy to cross into Mexico without a passport. (Getting back into U.S. would be impossible though). But still, without offshore accounts, how could they have funded a disappearance?

I'm not sure as I have no experience in trying to do this, though I do have a passport. Not even sure if any LE was notified when I got mine, or if any kind of background check was run. I had heard, conversely, that it was Chad who did not have a passport, and not sure about that either.

LV was carrying around cash in a baggie in Hawaii, so obviously didn't want any cards traced. Can't cash be converted to foreign currency? This was just speculation on my part as to what could have happened.

Obviously they were trying to hide. I honestly thought it was the news media who tracked them down in Hawaii, and was not on the part of LE. Nothing is too hard when you are running for your life, but again, to me, shows a lack of pre-planning for everything that could go wrong.

 

[MsJosie]

Hi Chelly! Have not seen you posts in a long time.

I was thinking about the passport....No one knows just who CD or LVd really knew. Who were there followers, shady or clean. At that time whatever followers they had may have had shady connections to people who make forgery ID’s such as drivers license, wedding/death certificates, and Passports. With all the money LVd supposedly had, she could have paid the fee for one.
These two thought they got away with the crimes and did not plan ahead. They got caught! IF they had planned ahead they would be gone. A fake passport could have a fake name and it would have taken LE awhile to trace her. IF they had thought ahead, they could hav3 changed their looks. CD already lost weight. Colored contacts, add some hair he could have gotten through. Now LVd could have really changed, short date hair, add some clothes for weight, she could really look different.
But the did not think ahead and just how much money did they have? They sure did not use it wisely but spent it. I guess it was better to live like millionaires then to stay quiet and not get caught.

ForeverYoung go to almost any bank and get US money exchanged...even change it on the black market fit a fee! Again they should hav3 changed their looks to do this.

Think like a crook...that’s what family LE say....so anything COULD Have been possible! The screwed up and got caught.