ID - Doomsday Cult Victims - Joshua Vallow - Tylee Ryan - Tammy Daybell - Charles Vallow - *Arrests* #68

[indicolite22]

If grandparents don't count as immediate family, why was Arhcibald trying to take the grandmother title away from Kay?

 

[Ruminations]

That’s not how I read the Idaho Constitution, alas. The Woodcocks are not considered victims because they are not immediate family. Even if they were considered de facto grandparents or aunt/uncle, they wouldn’t fit the bill. This is a mess.

I'm not so sure and I think all of this debate about the definition of immediate family is a red herring.

You don't need to be immediate family to be a victim. You need to have been harmed significantly by the crimes. If you happen to be "immediate family" of a homicide victim, you are statutorily a victim. So, say, Colby, as the brother of a homicide victim, would be statutorily a victim even if he were lucky enough to have not been very harmed- such as if he never had known he had had siblings before their passing. (Although that would be a mind *advertiser censored*** too.)

Kay and Karry, in my opinion we're very harmed by this homicide, especially JJ's. They were his first parent figures when he was itty and vulnerable and fragile. When he was adopted, they stayed close with him as grandparents rather than parents, even when he lived very far away. When Lori dussapeared, they co-parented with Charles, including having JJ stay at their home- with which he was very familiar- at times. They face timed with him several times a day. They were very close to him. Losing him victimized them greatly.

Then, when they were correctly concerned for his safety (as well as their own, increasingly, as the puzzle was coming together) they were vilified by the accused murderers and their supporters in public. Accused of attempting to kidnap JJ. Accused of being part of a fictional murder plot against Lori. They were dragged through the media and largely supported, but with plenty of hurtful accusations and questions such as about ghe decision to allow him to be adopted in the first place. Leaving the media spotlight was not an option unless they were willing to give up on their JJ.

There relationship with JJ was as close as any immediate family- and they endured not only the loss but being accused of the same crimes it turned out the accused allegedly committed- by the accused.

Whether they are kinship foster parents, biological grandparents or aunt and uncle by adoption is an off topic question. The question is: Are they victims?

IMO, the answer is clearly "Yes!" That makes their relationship to the victims irrelevant.

Therefore, they should be allowed to watch the entire trial (If they wish) even if they may be called as witnesses.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

If grandparents don't count as immediate family, why was Arhcibald trying to take the grandmother title away from Kay?

The paranoid part of me says: to keep Shiftlet out.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

If for some legal reason the Woodcock's are stripped of their right to be classed as Grandparent's to JJ, I am left wondering just who in the hell is going to be able to claim his remains so he can be laid to rest after these trials? I remember Kay and Larry being so visibly upset because he and Tylee's remains had never been released.

I apologize if my post is too much, but there is so much hatred and evil in Lori that she will do anything just to hurt others.

Because this family title stuff is a wild goose chase the defense has sent us on.

And remember when the kids were missing and Christopher Parret (?) claimed with was just a lot of nonsense caused by Gramma and Gramps? Suddenly it was caused by a different relation?

It is a big deal, and Steve S is wrong to say it wouldn't matter if the Woodcocks were not potentially witnesses. Because if they are not victims, they also do not have a "right" to a seat. They have literally already missed the first reservation, haven't they?

Is the defense trying to get all aunts and uncles out of reserved for victim seats?

MOO

 

[fred&edna]

Archibald's own client referred to Kay as JJ's grandmother (when speaking with LE).

I wonder where he draws the line as to LVD's BS? He must have really massive hip-boots. imo

 

[indicolite22]

I'm not so sure and I think all of this debate about the definition of immediate family is a red herring.

You don't need to be immediate family to be a victim. You need to have been harmed significantly by the crimes. If you happen to be "immediate family" of a homicide victim, you are statutorily a victim. So, say, Colby, as the brother of a homicide victim, would be statutorily a victim even if he were lucky enough to have not been very harmed- such as if he never had known he had had siblings before their passing. (Although that would be a mind *advertiser censored*** too.)

Kay and Karry, in my opinion we're very harmed by this homicide, especially JJ's. They were his first parent figures when he was itty and vulnerable and fragile. When he was adopted, they stayed close with him as grandparents rather than parents, even when he lived very far away. When Lori dussapeared, they co-parented with Charles, including having JJ stay at their home- with which he was very familiar- at times. They face timed with him several times a day. They were very close to him. Losing him victimized them greatly.

Then, when they were correctly concerned for his safety (as well as their own, increasingly, as the puzzle was coming together) they were vilified by the accused murderers and their supporters in public. Accused of attempting to kidnap JJ. Accused of being part of a fictional murder plot against Lori. They were dragged through the media and largely supported, but with plenty of hurtful accusations and questions such as about ghe decision to allow him to be adopted in the first place. Leaving the media spotlight was not an option unless they were willing to give up on their JJ.

There relationship with JJ was as close as any immediate family- and they endured not only the loss but being accused of the same crimes it turned out the accused allegedly committed- by the accused.

Whether they are kinship foster parents, biological grandparents or aunt and uncle by adoption is an off topic question. The question is: Are they victims?

IMO, the answer is clearly "Yes!" That makes their relationship to the victims irrelevant.

Therefore, they should be allowed to watch the entire trial (If they wish) even if they may be called as witnesses.

MOO

I hope the victimhood criteria for non-immediate family isn't living in the same household as the murder victim(s). It wouldn't matter if the person is a grandparent or an uncle/aunt.

Are Charles' oldest sons considered immediate family in this case and victims by default? Or perhaps they are not on the witness list and don't need to worry about being barred from attending?

 

[indicolite22]

The paranoid part of me says: to keep Shiftlet out.

MOO

How does reclassifying Kay affect SS's status? I was under the impression that SS wouldn't testify against Lori, so no reason for the defense to keep her out for jury purposes (her presence wouldn't negatively affect the jurors).

 

[SteveS]

"Steve S is wrong to say it wouldn't matter if the Woodcocks were not potentially witnesses."

Please don't take my words out of context. My point that "it wouldn't matter" was purely related to the ability to be able to see the trial. As witnesses, there can be limits. But if they were not witnesses, their presence would certainly be permitted.

As to the discussion at hand ...

Boyce has already ruled that ALL witnesses will be barred from attending, except those who are "victims."

He then took up the issue of "who is a statutorily or legally defined victim who would not be subject to the exclusion order just entered." He shared that he had already reviewed the definitions as found in the Idaho Constitution and Idaho Code of who is a victim, and he listed legal cases reviewed.

Then BOYCE mentioned a gray area in the statutes re "immediate family member."

For that reason, it seems clear to me that Boyce has telegraphed that his decision will hinge on how he can define who is an "immediate family member." And when he says it's a gray area, it hints that he's aware he might be creating a precedent -- ie, new Idaho law -- with his decision. So he wants the parties to tell him who they think should be granted that classification and why, and then he will decide.

That's why I believe Boyce will be VERY cautious here, conservative, not aggressive, in making definitions that decide what WITNESSES also get to watch the testimony of other witnesses, and will be looking far beyond the issue of whether the W's get to watch. I believe he won't want to risk a ruling that is questionable as to the rights of the defendant because of the other case issues and the desire to keep from providing issues for appeal. But we'll see.

 

[CSIDreamer]

The paranoid part of me says: to keep Shiftlet out.

MOO

But why?

 

[Ruminations]

How does reclassifying Kay affect SS's status? I was under the impression that SS wouldn't testify against Lori, so no reason for the defense to keep her out for jury purposes (her presence wouldn't negatively affect the jurors).

I don't know if she's on the witness list or not.

Am I whacked to think she was part if grand jury witness list? I could be mistaken.

It wouldn't be up to her except if asked to self incriminate, but there is no point in bringing in a hostile witness much of the time.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

I hope the victimhood criteria for non-immediate family isn't living in the same household as the murder victim(s). It wouldn't matter if the person is a grandparent or an uncle/aunt.

Are Charles' oldest sons considered immediate family in this case and victims by default? Or perhaps they are not on the witness list and don't need to worry about being barred from attending?

Unless I. found a significant reason NOT to do so, and I would have all my staff and half my family researching this, I woukd rule like this as a judge:

I woukd say that the law was written suggesting that immediate family is automatically considered to be a direct victim of a homicide. Therefore, a person in a relationship equivalent to immediate family woukd likewise be directly a victim of a homicide.

An immediate family member does not have to live with the homicide victim. A separated parent might not live with a child. Adult siblings don't typically live together.

Since an immediate family member us presumed to be directly victimized by a homicide, a person in functionally the same relationship as an immediate family member would be directly victimized.

Kay and Larry raised JJ during his earliest days. They were active, hands on grandparents when he lived with his adoptive family. When his adoptive mother fled, they co-parented with his adoptive father. When his adoptive father was murdered, they worked to confirm his safety in his stead. When his adoptive mother was incarcerated, they moved to resume the primary parenting role as guardians. They are as close as an immediate family member. As immediate family members are presumed to be directly victimized by a homicide, they were directly victimized by this homicide.

In addition, they were victimized by the alleged murders suggesting they were plotting to murder them, or take away the (deceased) child.

The statute says a victim has to be directly victimized- and presumes that an immediate family member of a homicide victim is automatically directly victimized. Others can be directly victimized, too. Since the grandparents are very analogous to immediate family member, it follows they were directly impacted.

I am a bit miffed that the prosecution did not properly prepare victims ahead of this trial. I am worried that Kay and Larry won't be given seats unless they obtain reservations even if they have completed testifying to top it all off, if this is not properly settled. I am livid that the defense had to add "nasty" - and distracting nasty at that- by saying KW/LW just named themselves. It changed the subject from where it should be: making sure this is a fair trial and that testimony is not tainted while protecting the rights of the victims.

MOO.

 

[SteveS]

I am worried that Kay and Larry won't be given seats unless they obtain reservations even if they have completed testifying to top it all off, if this is not properly settled.

If they do end up with the opportunity to watch, by one solution or another, I think this is going to be a complete non-issue. Wait and see, Boyce (who is effectively the trial's ticketmaster) will give them reserved seats, no muss no fuss. (And he's free to give reserved seating to anyone he likes -- it doesn't take any ruling that might be a subject for case appeal or might be used as a precedent in a different trial.)

 

[indicolite22]

Unless I. found a significant reason NOT to do so, and I would have all my staff and half my family researching this, I woukd rule like this as a judge:

I woukd say that the law was written suggesting that immediate family is automatically considered to be a direct victim of a homicide. Therefore, a person in a relationship equivalent to immediate family woukd likewise be directly a victim of a homicide.

An immediate family member does not have to live with the homicide victim. A separated parent might not live with a child. Adult siblings don't typically live together.

Since an immediate family member us presumed to be directly victimized by a homicide, a person in functionally the same relationship as an immediate family member would be directly victimized.

Kay and Larry raised JJ during his earliest days. They were active, hands on grandparents when he lived with his adoptive family. When his adoptive mother fled, they co-parented with his adoptive father. When his adoptive father was murdered, they worked to confirm his safety in his stead. When his adoptive mother was incarcerated, they moved to resume the primary parenting role as guardians. They are as close as an immediate family member. As immediate family members are presumed to be directly victimized by a homicide, they were directly victimized by this homicide.

In addition, they were victimized by the alleged murders suggesting they were plotting to murder them, or take away the (deceased) child.

The statute says a victim has to be directly victimized- and presumes that an immediate family member of a homicide victim is automatically directly victimized. Others can be directly victimized, too. Since the grandparents are very analogous to immediate family member, it follows they were directly impacted.

I am a bit miffed that the prosecution did not properly prepare victims ahead of this trial. I am worried that Kay and Larry won't be given seats unless they obtain reservations even if they have completed testifying to top it all off, if this is not properly settled. I am livid that the defense had to add "nasty" - and distracting nasty at that- by saying KW/LW just named themselves. It changed the subject from where it should be: making sure this is a fair trial and that testimony is not tainted while protecting the rights of the victims.

MOO.

Immediate family members could technically be estranged, so probably not all the same criteria apply for non-immediate members or non-family.
Would Lori's mom be classified as a victim?

 

[indicolite22]

I am livid that the defense had to add "nasty" - and distracting nasty at that- by saying KW/LW just named themselves.

MOO.

SBM. Which was also not true. Kay was JJ's bio grandmother from the moment he was born. She didn't appoint herself as one. When he was adopted she didn't have to change her status to aunt.

 

[Onsdag]

Didn't the Woodcocks seek to become the legal guardians of JJ while the children were still missing?

Woodcocks seek temporary custody of grandson J.J. Vallow

REXBURG – Kay and Larry Woodcock have filed for temporary guardianship of their missing grandson, seven-year-old J.J. Vallow.

www.rexburgstandardjournal.com

"REXBURG – Kay and Larry Woodcock have filed for temporary guardianship of their missing grandson, seven-year-old J.J. Vallow.
The couples’ hope is that once J.J. and his 17-year-old sister, Tylee, return to Rexburg, the state will allow them to take custody of J.J. While they have no legal right to Tylee, Kay Woodcock said that they would willingly help her as well.
The couple has retained a lawyer here and filed paperwork last week with the state asking to be J.J.’s guardians once he returns. The temporary guardianship lasts for six months, she said."

Whatever happened to that? I realize things changed when they were found deceased, but I would think that should have some bearing on any legal rulings. Especially since Charles had the foresight and clearly intended Kay to become JJ's guardian by bequeathing his life insurance to her specifically to take care of JJ should something happen to him (Charles).

 

[SteveS]

Didn't the Woodcocks seek to become the legal guardians of JJ while the children were still missing?

That attempt to become guardians didn't mean anything unless they were GRANTED guardianship - and they weren't (afaik).

One other thing here about the family issue -- while it's being treated dismissively in this forum, the fact that JJ had been legally adopted does matter. A lot. It did indeed create a legal change in the standing of the W's. When that happened, legally they were no longer grandparents of JJ at all. That was over.

And in general, the various states regard all the rights of "biological grandparents" as being given up when their grandchild is legally adopted. So even if it seems cruel to say they aren't really grandparents, it's one of the legal facts of the situation, and was very pertinent to the courtroom discussion.

 

[NeverPersonal]

Is no one going to comment on how horrific her jailhouse makeup looks? Good lord, it looks like she hit every branch on the way down.

hahaha. you are right. my first thought was it looked like funeral makeup...

 

[887sMtreme]

Didn't the Woodcocks seek to become the legal guardians of JJ while the children were still missing?
<snipped for focus>
Whatever happened to that?

The matter was not resolved before JJ was found deceased, so it became a moot point.

 

[fred&edna]

Is "victim" qualified differently in various Idaho statutes? I feel sure I noticed this while reading through much of Idaho legal info online. However, not knowing which would apply in this case (and not being an attorney) I'm not sure how to interpret the info. Does only one statute apply? (Possibly dumb questions but I'm obviously unafraid to ask )

 

[Ruminations]

SBM. Which was also not true. Kay was JJ's bio grandmother from the moment he was born. She didn't appoint herself as one. When he was adopted she didn't have to change her status to aunt.

Well, did Lori's Mom help raise Tylee? Physically take care of her? Become concerned when she was missing? Help search for her? Feel distressed as an immediate family member would when she was missing? Or when she learned that she was deceived into believing Tylee was fine? Was her grief similar to the grief an immediate family member would experience when the children were found?

I think the answers are closer to yes for Summer. I've seen a little more evidence of time Summer and Tylee we're together than Janis, but I don't know their whole history.

I think the point of the Idaho victim right laws is "direct" victims "directly" harmed have certain rights, including witnessing legal proceedings. And the statute says that persons who were immediate family of homicide victims are presumed to have been directly harmed.

So if any Cox's were involved in a victim's life to the same degree and with the same intensity as a parent or sibling, for instance, they were directly harmed. If the involvement was more analogous to an aunt/uncle/cousin perhaps not.

That is the way I see it. I think it is obvious that Kay and Larry were not in a relationship with JJ just as grandparents or sibs of a parent. They were in a parental role- the very first in a parental role in his life- and it never ended. When it was clear that his adoptive parents could not care for JJ, they were ready to resume primary parenting.

MOO


Edit: oops. Quoted the wrong post. I meant to respond to the "are the Cox's direct victims, then?" post. I make so many errors and typos because this is so raw. It's bad enough when there are legitimate legal issues brought up that could have a disappointing end. It is not an unreasonable idea to make sure the trial can be conducted fairly with a witness attending. And the answer could be sadly, no- it would not be fair to the defendant. But I don't foresee harm in the KW or LW case because I think their story is locked in- it only evolved with hindsight understanding. I could be wrong: there could be a problem with their being present in the courtroom. But nobody is bothering to discuss what that could possibly be. It is really disturbing to me that the discussion is all about irrelevant legal statuses. MOO