ID - Doomsday Cult Victims - Joshua Vallow - Tylee Ryan - Tammy Daybell - Charles Vallow - *Arrests* #67

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
wnk said:
I live in Utah, so although I'm not LDS, I am familiar with the culture.

This is an interesting strategy, IMO, considering how many LDS adherents are already "no true Scotsman"-ing the Vallow-Daybells and claiming that they are fringe-group extremists. Presenting evidence that LDS leadership (who are supposed to have the power of discernment) knew about what CD & LVD were teaching in their books and podcasts and not only did not call them in for disciplinary hearings, but still allowed them temple recommends and callings may not have the effect the defense is hoping for, IMO.
Click to expand...
I have a family member who is so far down the conspiracy theorist rabbit hole he's on another planet. I honestly can't tell if he's severely mentally ill as well, or just out of touch with reality. He regularly spouts the absolutely batpoop things he believes to anyone who'll listen. He gently gets told by his bishop that what he believes is not in line with church teachings or beliefs. He is still considered temple worthy and goes whenever he's in the city. And he is nowhere near as photogenic or sociable as LVD.

You have to be pretty extreme, in my experience, to get more than tutted at by ward or stake-level authorities.
 
iamshadow21 said:
But it's the defense team requesting this. They wouldn't be looking for things to make their client seem at odds with church authority or weirdly over-zealous in belief or practice. Even though her behaviour shows she is clearly both of those things. They'd be looking for successful church callings, regular attendance, tithing paid, etc. Things to show she's a good little LDS girl.
Click to expand...
I dunno about all this. Just my opinion, but I'm not sure what being a "good little LDS girl" has to do with the charges. Based on what I've read, she's never been as devout on the inside as her outward actions would seem to portray. 2 divorces, 1 murdered husband, 1 affair, only one biological child. To me, it doesn't add up. I think they're trying to uncover something else in the records. All JMO

ETA I think I said that wrong. Just, her actions don't add up to a good little LDS girl. Plus, she isn't a little girl. She's a full blown adult. More JMO
 
Last edited:
CSIDreamer said:
I dunno about all this. Just my opinion, but I'm not sure what being a "good little LDS girl" has to do with the charges. Based on what I've read, she's never been as devout on the inside as her outward actions would seem to portray. 2 divorces, 1 murdered husband, 1 affair, only one biological child. To me, it doesn't add up. I think they're trying to uncover something else in the records. All JMO

ETA I think I said that wrong. Just, her actions don't add up to a good little LDS girl. Plus, she isn't a little girl. She's a full blown adult. More JMO
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree, she's a bad woman who by her own actions, has ended up in prison on charges of capital murder.

But defense will be looking for anything that makes their client look sympathetic, and church records is somewhere to look.

Doesn't mean they'll find anything.
 
iamshadow21 said:
But it's the defense team requesting this. They wouldn't be looking for things to make their client seem at odds with church authority or weirdly over-zealous in belief or practice. Even though her behaviour shows she is clearly both of those things. They'd be looking for successful church callings, regular attendance, tithing paid, etc. Things to show she's a good little LDS girl.
Click to expand...
But if they think they're going to use that, wouldn't that open the door for the topic of seeing/discussing Lori's obsessive OVERinvested attendance by the prosecution too, up to and including potentially dragging in Charles and his pre murder claims that she’s in the temple every day doing who knows what?

I shouldn't think the latter is something that they would want to do.
 
squareandrabbet said:
But if they think they're going to use that, wouldn't that open the door for the topic of seeing/discussing Lori's obsessive OVERinvested attendance by the prosecution too, up to and including potentially dragging in Charles and his pre murder claims that she’s in the temple every day doing who knows what?

I shouldn't think the latter is something that they would want to do.
Click to expand...
It probably would, but maybe they think it's worth it. IDK.

I'm not saying it's for sure what they're doing it for, it was just a guess. Moo, and all that. It might be something completely different they're looking for.
 
indicolite22 said:
Lori's obsessive temple attendance doesn't necessarily indicate fringe beliefs. The beliefs came from somewhere else. Also, their beliefs are not on trial, their actions are. They could believe in zombies and not murder anyone. (All IMO)
Click to expand...
I agree.

It's their choices and actions that have led them to this place, facing the justice system. They chose violence, against adults, against children. Whatever beliefs they have are just window dressing.
 
CSIDreamer said:
I dunno about all this. Just my opinion, but I'm not sure what being a "good little LDS girl" has to do with the charges. Based on what I've read, she's never been as devout on the inside as her outward actions would seem to portray. 2 divorces, 1 murdered husband, 1 affair, only one biological child. To me, it doesn't add up. I think they're trying to uncover something else in the records. All JMO

ETA I think I said that wrong. Just, her actions don't add up to a good little LDS girl. Plus, she isn't a little girl. She's a full blown adult. More JMO
Click to expand...
Jodi Arias and Scott Falater also both professed to be good Mormons. Both got convicted of murder.
 
Ruminations said:
You can't force a witness to testify against themselves. You can compel a witness to testify against a co-defendant if it does not incriminate the witness.
Click to expand...

Not if they are tried together. You can't force defendant #1 to testify against defendant #2 if defendant #1 is being tried in the same trial as defendant #2.

Because you can never ever force a defendant to take the stand in their own trial. Time and time again we see defendants choosing not to take the stand in their own trials. Constitutional right.

Even co-defendants not tried together cannot be forced to testify against each other and can plead the 5th. If co-defendant #1 pleads innocent and co-defendant #2 pleads innocent but you try to force co-defendant #2 to testify in co-defendant #1's trial, that puts co-defendant #2 in jeopardy under cross examination.

But if co-defendant #2 pleads guilty, then normally the plea deal calls for co-defendant #2 to testify against
co-defendant #1 in order to keep their plea deal. If co-defendant #2 has a plea deal in place then co-defendant #2 is not jeopardizing their own trial by giving possible incriminating statements against co-defendant #1.

When 2 co-defendants plead innocent and are each having separate trials there are only very limited circumstances where the judge would not accept a co-defendant's 5th amendment right not to testify against their co-defendant.

This could include child abuse of their children.

This is tricky. If someone presumed innocent on trial had been forced to testify against a co-defendant against their 5th amendment rights, they might have grounds for appeal.
 
Last edited:
Cool Cats said:
Not if they are tried together. You can't force defendant #1 to testify against defendant #2 if defendant #1 is being tried in the same trial as defendant #2.

Because you can never ever force a defendant to take the stand in their own trial. Time and time again we see defendants choosing not to take the stand in their own trials. Constitutional right.

Even co-defendants not tried together cannot be forced to testify against each other and can plead the 5th. If co-defendant #1 pleads innocent and co-defendant #2 pleads innocent but you try to force co-defendant #2 to testify in co-defendant #1's trial, that puts co-defendant #2 in jeopardy under cross examination.

But if co-defendant #2 pleads guilty, then normally the plea deal calls for co-defendant #2 to testify against
co-defendant #1 in order to keep their plea deal. If co-defendant #2 has a plea deal in place then co-defendant #2 is not jeopardizing their own trial by giving possible incriminating statements against co-defendant #1.

When 2 co-defendants plead innocent and are each having separate trials there are only very limited circumstances where the judge would not accept a co-defendant's 5th amendment right not to testify against their co-defendant.

This could include child abuse of their children.

This is tricky. If someone presumed innocent on trial had been forced to testify against a co-defendant against their 5th amendment rights, they might have grounds for appeal.
Click to expand...

Forgot to ADD a LINK to my above post:

www.everydayevidence.org

6th vs. 5th: Rights of Defendants and Co-Defendants

In a recent S.C. Court of Appeals opinion, the court had to analyze the Sixth Amendment rights of a defendant vs. the Fifth Amendment rights of a co-defendant. Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has a strong right to present a full case of evidence and call witnesses as may be necessary to...
www.everydayevidence.org www.everydayevidence.org

In a recent S.C. Court of Appeals opinion, the court had to analyze the Sixth Amendment rights of a defendant vs. the Fifth Amendment rights of a co-defendant.

Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has a strong right to present a full case of evidence and call witnesses as may be necessary to present a full defense. However, if a defendant wishes to call a co-defendant as a witness, then his Sixth Amendment rights will run up against the co-defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
 
I suppose the young Daybells are still strongly supportive of their father. But I wouldn't be surprised if a few doubts are slowing creeping into one or two of them. They seem reasonably intelligent to me, so how can there not be a doubt or two? But being immediately stomped upon probably.
 
Cool Cats said:
Forgot to ADD a LINK to my above post:

www.everydayevidence.org

6th vs. 5th: Rights of Defendants and Co-Defendants

In a recent S.C. Court of Appeals opinion, the court had to analyze the Sixth Amendment rights of a defendant vs. the Fifth Amendment rights of a co-defendant. Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has a strong right to present a full case of evidence and call witnesses as may be necessary to...
www.everydayevidence.org www.everydayevidence.org

In a recent S.C. Court of Appeals opinion, the court had to analyze the Sixth Amendment rights of a defendant vs. the Fifth Amendment rights of a co-defendant.

Under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has a strong right to present a full case of evidence and call witnesses as may be necessary to present a full defense. However, if a defendant wishes to call a co-defendant as a witness, then his Sixth Amendment rights will run up against the co-defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
Click to expand...

Nice explanation- and exactly what I meant. If a person pleads guilty with an agreement their testimony can be compelled both as part of the agreement and because the person is no longer incriminating themselves- the charge is resolved and can't be brought back.

I wasn't referring to the co defendant's right to exculpatory witnesses- im talking about the prosecution's duty to present their case. The prosecution can't compel a witness to testify against themself but they can't if the witness' case is already resolved with a plea agreement.

In the hypothetical that Lori pleads out and testifies against Chad, she would likely have 5th amendment claims regarding information that could help convict her in Charles' murder, but not the other 3 murders.

MOO
 
Last edited:
Kemug said:
I suppose the young Daybells are still strongly supportive of their father. But I wouldn't be surprised if a few doubts are slowing creeping into one or two of them. They seem reasonably intelligent to me, so how can there not be a doubt or two? But being immediately stomped upon probably.
Click to expand...

It has been nearly a year and a half since that crazy, flat-affect 48 hours interview. Those kids (whom I neither pity nor envy) have to have at least peeked at some of the way they have been reported on in the media/social media, and how it has been received on social media. They have to have gotten some case info from sources other than their father.

(How much contact are they even allowed with their father- especially the eldest 2- when they are also witnesses to their mother's murder or the immediate aftermath/coverup?)

So I would think there is some evolution in thought. Especially on the part of the one who really seemed emotional (L.) Maybe the fake cryer and her brother, who were cold enough to have no response to dead children buried in Dad's yard, will be the slowest to change. All they did was logic out why Dad had nothing to do with it. (Dad is too smart to bury in his own yard; Dad is too good at digging graves to have done this sloppy work.) An icy soul like that would move more slowly.

I also think there is some evidence that Chad had gotten into the eldest the most. E. voiced Rowe's books. G. told a witness that Dad's books were visions, not fiction. That would slow down change.

Yet, pre-trial, silence does not mean there has been no change. If anything, refusal to repeat something like 48 hours is promising. Even if the attitude of all 5 of them is, "Yeah, he did it," it would not mean they should run to the press. At most, amend or add to a statement to LE.

MOO.
 
Ruminations said:
In the hypothetical that Lori pleads out and testifies against Chad, she would likely have 5th amendment claims regarding information that could help convict her in Charles' murder, but not the other 3 murders.
Click to expand...
Even if Lori had no hand at all in the murders of her children (which I don't believe), she is still guilty of not reporting them missing, and not caring where they were and what had happened to them. But I personally believe that she was fully involved. MOO
 
documents filed in Chad's case

filed 25 Jan 2023 - notice of service - John Prior says Chad's notice of alibi was served on the State on 3 Jan 2023, and disclosure of Chad's forensic pathologist's expert witness report on 25 Jan 2023
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211623/012523 Notice of Service.pdf

filed 26 Jan 2023 - declaration of Greg Hampikian in support of motion to extend time - he says he is retained as DNA expert for Chad and will need 8 weeks from receipt of State's DNA evidence to review and provide his report
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211623/012623 Declaration of Greg Hampikian.pdf

filed 26 Jan 2023 - motion in limine filed by the State to exclude any potential mental health evidence for Chad at the time of the crimes, based on his waiver of the defense
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211623/012623 Motion in Limine.pdf
 
document filed in Lori's case -

26 Jan 2023 - filed by the State - motion in limine on mental health evidence - State is asking for an order excluding evidence from a mental health expert at any time - State wants a ruling that the introduction of evidence of her beliefs is not a justification to open the door at trial to mental condition evidence as a defense to negate guilt
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/012623 Motion in Limine on Mental Health Evidence and Memorandum in Support.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 138 more.
Total: 3,776 (members: 139, guests: 3,637)

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
3,637
Total visitors
3,776
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,122
Messages
17,963,602
Members
228,688
Latest member
Kenzo2011
Back
Top