Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #57

Status
Not open for further replies.
On further thought, it is also possible that Prior is trying to get Nate and testimony about the day Chad’s backyard was searched. Many will recall that Nate had a helicopter ready to go, was flying over the scene as Chad was seeing police outside his property that morning, maybe Prior is trying to demonstrate leaks possibly coming from LE to the media and use that in further support for his arguments about changing the venue. JMHO.
FBI and LE arrived shortly after 7 a.m., Nate was nearly an hour later. It's approx. 40 minutes drive from EIN to the Daybell property in Salem. He has plenty of friends on whom to call for such a quick favor. No. He didn't have a helicopter waiting. But, he chose a helicopter for the news coverage and overview it would provide. His associates could not get as close by road as he could by air since the roads were blocked a mile out in every direction.

IDK
I mean, if there were tons of cars and searchers in the area and at the Daybell house, anyone could have called the news station and tipped it in.
I am wondering if it is about Hawaii ???
Nate was there also so maybe something about that ??
JMO
Nate's not on trial here. Neither is Heather. Prior should focus on a solid defense rather than arguing that people don't like it when bad things are done to children in Fremont County, so we should try the case elsewhere.
 
FBI and LE arrived shortly after 7 a.m., Nate was nearly an hour later. It's approx. 40 minutes drive from EIN to the Daybell property in Salem. He has plenty of friends on whom to call for such a quick favor. No. He didn't have a helicopter waiting. But, he chose a helicopter for the news coverage and overview it would provide. His associates could not get as close by road as he could by air since the roads were blocked a mile out in every direction.


Nate's not on trial here. Neither is Heather. Prior should focus on a solid defense rather than arguing that people don't like it when bad things are done to children in Fremont County, so we should try the case elsewhere.

while Nate & Heather are “not on trial”, a “solid defense” doesn’t even come up yet....we are talking about the Motion to Change Venue hearing. This isn’t in front of a jury, this is in frying of a judge. If Prior think these people being called to testify would help support his arguments for changing the venue for the actual trial, then I think at the very least he should be allowed to subpoena them.

I absolutely want Chad and Lori to be held accountable and responsible for all the actions - but I also want them to have a fair trial, so they have even less arguments and solid ground to stand if and when appeals come up someday. Not allowing the Defense to call someone because they’re not the ones on trial, or because we think they should focus on an actual defense for the crimes their client is accused of, I don’t think ultimately helps get us towards the justice everyone wants in this case - for JJ, for Tylee, for Tammy, for Joe Ryan, for Charles, for everyone who has been deeply affected and impacted forever because of the actions of these two.

[and this comment is not meant to single your reply out, even though I am quoting it. I’ve seen many similar comments on social media pages for Nate saying similar things, about how Prior should focus on the defense of these child killers and stop “harassing” Nate and similar comments about how he’s calling Nate to try and stop him from reporting further on the case. Just....just stuff that I don’t think is all that accurate IMHO]

I want justice for these children and everyone else. I want them to be held accountable for their actions. I also want them to have a fair trial. And I think all those things can coexist at the same tome IMHO.
 

I think it’s very likely it’ll be quashed. I think the ONLY possible leeway that might be extended by the Court in considering this is that this revolves around the Motion to Change the Venue. The Court might think ahead to appellate issues if the Defense is denied to call some witnesses in their efforts to argue why the venue needs to be changed - and since the venue change Motion is tied very closely with “we need a fair trial somewhere” arguments - that is the only possible leeway I think the Court may think harder about. Even with that, I still think it’ll likely be quashed.

If this was trying to call a reporter in front of the jury - during the actual trial - then I think it would be quashed without much of any second thought - due to the first amendment and large amount of precedent regarding subpoenaing journalists to testify in open court. JMHO.
 
Snipped for focus
Mr. Prior (and/or Mr. Means) cannot subpoena anyone for the grand jury process....the grand jury process is entirely separate.
Thanks! I confess to having misunderstood the nature of the subpoena. Nevertheless, it places Nate in a professionally threatening position. I worked for the Reporters Committee during the Pentagon Papers and other hot-button 1A cases in the 70s, so this is knee-jerk for me.

Edited to add: RCFP has already chimed in on this case, though in sa different context.
 
Snipped for focus

Thanks! I confess to having misunderstood the nature of the subpoena. Nevertheless, it places Nate in a professionally threatening position. I worked for the Reporters Committee during the Pentagon Papers and other hot-button 1A cases in the 70s, so this is knee-jerk for me.

Edited to add: RCFP has already chimed in on this case, though in sa different context.

It seems very threatening to me. Like they're planning to accuse him of deliberately spreading prejudicial information, or something.
 
It seems very threatening to me. Like they're planning to accuse him of deliberately spreading prejudicial information, or something.

yeah, I can see that. I wouldn’t be surprised if Prior tries to bring up that his client was bothered / intimidated / annoyed / “harassed” / any other word to that effect by Nate. He “followed” them to Hawaii, he repeatedly met up with them, filming them and asking questions, continuing to do so when it was clear they wouldn’t talk to him. We haven’t seen video of Chad or Lori saying “please leave us alone and stop bothering us”, so who knows if they ever did, but I would not at all be surprised if arguments that sound like this come up with Prior. And it does make some sense to me - this reporter followed them through multiple locations, constantly tried to get something from them, helped bring this story to much, much more than a local level.

now - with all that said - I personally do not think Nate or EIN crossed some line, he was doing his job; I am ONLY trying to present what I think the defense argument MIGHT be regarding all of this - that’s all. Of course the actions of Chad and Lori themselves could be said to have brought all of this on themselves, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Defense tries to argue that some of the following thru other states, getting exclusive footage of them in airports and with their rental cars, visiting their property (remember that crazy video with Emma, who made it clear her disdain for reporters?? Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking of with all of this. Of course it’s pure speculation on my part - but I think thinking about what and why the Defense is doing this - or trying to - is interesting lol )
 
yeah, I can see that. I wouldn’t be surprised if Prior tries to bring up that his client was bothered / intimidated / annoyed / “harassed” / any other word to that effect by Nate. He “followed” them to Hawaii, he repeatedly met up with them, filming them and asking questions, continuing to do so when it was clear they wouldn’t talk to him. We haven’t seen video of Chad or Lori saying “please leave us alone and stop bothering us”, so who knows if they ever did, but I would not at all be surprised if arguments that sound like this come up with Prior. And it does make some sense to me - this reporter followed them through multiple locations, constantly tried to get something from them, helped bring this story to much, much more than a local level.

now - with all that said - I personally do not think Nate or EIN crossed some line, he was doing his job; I am ONLY trying to present what I think the defense argument MIGHT be regarding all of this - that’s all. Of course the actions of Chad and Lori themselves could be said to have brought all of this on themselves, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Defense tries to argue that some of the following thru other states, getting exclusive footage of them in airports and with their rental cars, visiting their property (remember that crazy video with Emma, who made it clear her disdain for reporters?? Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking of with all of this. Of course it’s pure speculation on my part - but I think thinking about what and why the Defense is doing this - or trying to - is interesting lol )

Yeah, that more or less follows what I was thinking. A tenacious reporter doing his job well can be awfully intimidating to a wrongdoer :D
 
It seems very threatening to me. Like they're planning to accuse him of deliberately spreading prejudicial information, or something.

The threat I’m referring to isn’t as direct as that, though now you mention it, I cringe a bit. I was referring instead to the possibility that if Nate is asked about his sources, he may be pressured to reveal them, which as a journalist myself, he would not want to do. No source in the future would ever want to talk to him on background or in confidence again, because they wouldn’t trust him to keep silent about their identity other than maybe to his editor. That would effectively ruin his career. That’s the threat I meant. And that’s the sort of thing the Reporters Committee defends journalists and publishers against.
 
yeah, I can see that. I wouldn’t be surprised if Prior tries to bring up that his client was bothered / intimidated / annoyed / “harassed” / any other word to that effect by Nate. He “followed” them to Hawaii, he repeatedly met up with them, filming them and asking questions, continuing to do so when it was clear they wouldn’t talk to him. We haven’t seen video of Chad or Lori saying “please leave us alone and stop bothering us”, so who knows if they ever did, but I would not at all be surprised if arguments that sound like this come up with Prior. And it does make some sense to me - this reporter followed them through multiple locations, constantly tried to get something from them, helped bring this story to much, much more than a local level.

now - with all that said - I personally do not think Nate or EIN crossed some line, he was doing his job; I am ONLY trying to present what I think the defense argument MIGHT be regarding all of this - that’s all. Of course the actions of Chad and Lori themselves could be said to have brought all of this on themselves, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Defense tries to argue that some of the following thru other states, getting exclusive footage of them in airports and with their rental cars, visiting their property (remember that crazy video with Emma, who made it clear her disdain for reporters?? Yeah, that’s what I’m thinking of with all of this. Of course it’s pure speculation on my part - but I think thinking about what and why the Defense is doing this - or trying to - is interesting lol )
If that’s the Defense’s intent it seems counterproductive to a change of venue request. All those incidents you mention were seen nationally. Moving the trial a few hundred miles away isn’t going to make them go away.
 
The threat I’m referring to isn’t as direct as that, though now you mention it, I cringe a bit. I was referring instead to the possibility that if Nate is asked about his sources, he may be pressured to reveal them, which as a journalist myself, he would not want to do. No source in the future would ever want to talk to him on background or in confidence again, because they wouldn’t trust him to keep silent about their identity other than maybe to his editor. That would effectively ruin his career. That’s the threat I meant. And that’s the sort of thing the Reporters Committee defends journalists and publishers against.
BBM
I suspect if it comes to that, rather than revealing his sources Nate will be doing a special report titled “A first-hand perspective of life inside an Idaho jail”.
 
If that’s the Defense’s intent it seems counterproductive to a change of venue request. All those incidents you mention were seen nationally. Moving the trial a few hundred miles away isn’t going to make them go away.

they were seen nationally but they were also seen all over this smaller town, “thanks” to this reporter from this area.....if I had to try and guess what he will argue, it would mention some stuff like that ^^.

I totally see your point, and agree, that it is a weak argument; moving elsewhere won’t do much except it may finally flip-flop and cause the State and everyone else have to travel far for Court like how Prior & Means live so far away and have done tons of traveling so far.

Heck, for all we know Prior is it might actually taking up some residence in Chad’s former house because then he’d be much closer for court each day, ha!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
1,105
Total visitors
1,263

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,830
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top