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

[dixiegirl1035]

To me, this has nothing to do with MG. IMO she is a very minor player. Her part came months after the actual murders.

Who killed those kids, how and when, which person actually snuffed out their lives, and can we prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Not speculation or imagination or jumping to conclusions based on emotions, but hard, undeniable evidence is what a murder trial would be about.

ETA: as an example, a precise cause of death and proof that the defendents possessed that particular type of murder weapon is very important to a conviction.

Understood. I think that on this thread there are two differing kinds of discussions are going on, and sometimes folks miscontrue unless familiar with the previous stance of the OP.

In addition, as to being a "minor player as to murders"... that is also perhaps two different conversations going on. I was talking about her as to the charges against Lori and Chad that exist now, which are indeed months after the murder.

Many of the discussions are throwing out what they think the defense is going to do... and like myself, don't preface with "I don't believe this, but this is where the defense may go" and perhaps some think that is my stance.

I will try to be clearer in the future.

 

[Forever Young]

Understood. I think that on this thread there are two differing kinds of discussions are going on, and sometimes folks miscontrue unless familiar with the previous stance of the OP.

In addition, as to being a "minor player as to murders"... that is also perhaps two different conversations going on. I was talking about her as to the charges against Lori and Chad that exist now, which are indeed months after the murder.

Many of the discussions are throwing out what they think the defense is going to do... and like myself, don't preface with "I don't believe this, but this is where the defense may go" and perhaps some think that is my stance.

I will try to be clearer in the future.

I'm guilty of that, as well as going on a deep dive over something relatively trivial, especially when the news is slow, in an effort to help keep the thread active.

I suppose threads go inactive all the time, but I'm not quite ready for it yet!

This case is going to be going on for many months. It's a good thing we continue to "live" together and not forget the real objective here.

 

[Satchie]

Understood. I think that on this thread there are two differing kinds of discussions are going on, and sometimes folks miscontrue unless familiar with the previous stance of the OP.

In addition, as to being a "minor player as to murders"... that is also perhaps two different conversations going on. I was talking about her as to the charges against Lori and Chad that exist now, which are indeed months after the murder.

Many of the discussions are throwing out what they think the defense is going to do... and like myself, don't preface with "I don't believe this, but this is where the defense may go" and perhaps some think that is my stance.

I will try to be clearer in the future.

No problem...I was just thinking about the issue of when/if conspiracy murder charges will be laid, and it struck me that prosecution may be pondering this critical issue. I think they still have the chance to withdraw current charges and proceed with murder conspiracy, but they don't have a lot of time to construct an air tight murder case.

 

[ivegotthemic]

No problem...I was just thinking about the issue of when/if conspiracy murder charges will be laid, and it struck me that prosecution may be pondering this critical issue. I think they still have the chance to withdraw current charges and proceed with murder conspiracy, but they don't have a lot of time to construct an air tight murder case.

also guilty of the multiple conversations issue, sometimes i think of a legal point and then like 2 hours later think of something related, so sorry for my part lol. so we were actually talking about this in my wrongful convictions seminar earlier this week, my professor, who's been an attorney for 20+ years said every time shes asked the judge for a continuance (more time) its always been granted and IME it usually is as long as its in good faith. the judge has already allowed more time for discovery so i do think its likely theyll allow prosecution as much time as needed as long as its reasonable and in good faith. that being said im unfamiliar with Idaho courts and each jurisdiction is different so they could be stricter about this sort of thing

 

[MsJosie]

Snipped for focus (I inadvertently cut out the reference to “a WS” who had calculated the max time they could get.)



That WS was me. I think each count was 12 years max, plus 5 and fines. I still need to find my original work. It added up to a loooong time in the slammer, pretty close to the equivalent of life at their ages. Still have my fingers crossed they will be charged for and convicted of murder.

887sMtreme thank you so much for the calculation and for looking up the original post. Life sound wonderful.

 

[indicolite22]

Who killed those kids, how and when, which person actually snuffed out their lives, and can we prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Not speculation or imagination or jumping to conclusions based on emotions, but hard, undeniable evidence is what a murder trial would be about.

ETA: as an example, a precise cause of death and proof that the defendents possessed that particular type of murder weapon is very important to a conviction.

Conspiracy to murder carries the same penalty as the murder itself. Therefore it doesn't matter who pulled the trigger, as long as you can prove conspiracy and that it wasn't anyone outside the circle of co-conspirators. (IMO)

ETA: "If two persons plot to kill another (and this can be proven), and the victim is indeed killed as a result of the actions of either conspirator, it is not necessary to prove with specificity which of the conspirators actually pulled the trigger."

Conspiracy (criminal) - Wikipedia

 

[fred&edna]

dbm

 

[887sMtreme]

Answering myself

That WS was me. I think each count was 12 years max, plus 5 and fines. I still need to find my original work. It added up to a loooong time in the slammer, pretty close to the equivalent of life at their ages. Still have my fingers crossed they will be charged for and convicted of murder.

I totally can’t find my original post on this, or anyone else’s. I will cheerfully let somebody else yank the talking stick out of my hand and pass it on to someone with the facts.

 

[887sMtreme]

887sMtreme thank you so much for the calculation and for looking up the original post. Life sound wonderful.

Not so fast there, chum! I cannot find that original post, so I’m shutting up about it.

Somewhere, there is chapter and verse on Idaho sentencing guidelines for the charges leveled against Chad and Lilybelle.

 

[887sMtreme]

Snipped for focus

And i find it unlikely either jury would believe Alex did this all on his own.

Do we have anything to paint AlC into a frame of guilt other than MG’s claim that he was hung-ho about the zombie theory? MG also said he told her “You don’t want to know” when she asked him where JJ was. I know it’s fashionable among us right now to let Melanie off the hook, but she could be said to have given Lori some cover, should she use it to blame it all on her dead brother.

 

[ivegotthemic]

Snipped for focus


Do we have anything to paint AlC into a frame of guilt other than MG’s claim that he was hung-ho about the zombie theory? MG also said he told her “You don’t want to know” when she asked him where JJ was. I know it’s fashionable among us right now to let Melanie off the hook, but she could be said to have given Lori some cover, should she use it to blame it all on her dead brother.

nothing definitive that i can think of but the video of him going back and forth to the storage locker and him being on the property where they found the kids is circumstantial, plus hes "murdered" before and i mean that 100% sarcastically (as i think LV convince alex to do it)

 

[longtimereader]

Is that his parents house? Technically he moved out of his Rexburg home when his daughter moved in, arrest or not. Jmo

There is a voter registration page that lists the address for CD, TD and the rest of the children. 272 N 900 E Springville, UT 84663 | VoterRecords.com

It was last sold in 2015 according to this info on realtor.com 272 N 900 E, Springville, UT 84663 - realtor.com®.

 

[Monger]

I hope you are correct that they are potentially facing long sentences if convicted of the current charges but, I wonder... How is it decided whether the terms would be consecutive or concurrent? Is that the judges decision? And, would either L or C receive credit for time served? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just not sure how the justice system works.

I think it’s the judges decision but I have noticed in other cases (pure speculation, please take this with a grain of salt), .....judges tend to sentence concurrently if the charges stemmed from the same incident. Conversely if the charges are from multiple incidents, judges go consecutive. Just an observation and I’m not a lawyer. There would be public outcry if a defendant got concurrent for two different crimes (since in theory they got away with one). For example:

#1. I drink and drive.(DWI). I hit and kill a pedestrian (manslaughter). I keep driving and don’t stop (failure to stop and identify) the police catch up because a good samaritan reported my plates but I try to avoid them. (fleeing and eluding). So I’ve racked up 4 crimes in this example but it all basically happened at the same time. Assuming I’m not offered a plea deal, I tend to notice that all 4 of these crimes don’t get stacked, they are sentenced concurrent, and basically I’d serve the manslaughter sentence with the other 3 crimes running concurrently.

#2 in this case TR and JJ were killed different days so the charges would not get concurrent sentences. They would run consecutive. You don’t get to conspire to destroy evidence for TR and later conspire to destroy evidence for JJ and get a two for the price of one sentence, essentially getting away with one free. The public would go bonkers.

I’m not a lawyer, this is just what I have observed from watching cases. Hopefully I’m making sense and someone more knowledgeable can help. Please take it with a grain of salt. It’s all MOO

 

[Kemug]

I bet there were steps underway to procure a reservation in the 144,000 by the transfer of money to either account.

Now that I can believe!

 

[Monger]

In Idaho during joinder causes Idaho Court Rule (ICR) 14 provides that if a defendant or the State is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or defendants, the court may order the State to elect between counts, grant separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants, or provide whatever other relief justice requires. The provision for other relief authorizes the use of dual juries in an appropriate case. State v. Beam, 109 Idaho 616, 710 P.2d 526 (1985).

so this means its likely LV and CD will both be in the court at the same time and the prosecutor will present their case against each of them, but LV and CD will each have their own jury to decide their case. From a defense standpoint, it becomes harder for CD to claim "CD didn't know Alex and LV did this" and for LV to say "LV didnt know, Alex and CD did this". For us this is good because having the trials separately allowed for a risk they could blame each other in their own trials, but then both get off scott free (or with a lite sentence) but since they'll be tried together (assuming the motion is granted) the defense teams will have to work together and come up with a strategy that works or makes sense for both. And i find it unlikely either jury would believe Alex did this all on his own. Now there is a chance their attorneys could still blame the other party, but theyll have to do it in front of each other and at the risk that blaming the other person means sending their spouse to jail (granted I doubt either of them would give this morale conundrum a second thought). Joinder definitely makes getting a conviction easier for the prosecution, which is why im confused LV's attorney would file a motion supporting it

BBM
If the cases are joined LV and CD will have their own separate juries? That’s odd. I don’t follow how that works.

I followed Dellen Millard and Mark Smich and for the Tim Bosma and Laura Babcock cases I *think* I recall they were tried together. It’s been a minute. I know they each had separate attorneys defending them and they sat in the same courtroom but they had the same jury. Also they totally both pointed fingers at each other HOWEVER that was a Canadian trial. I assumed it would work the same in the US?

Also if I recall, Dellen opted not to testify (he was asked first and at a disadvantage?) and then Smich (his co-defendant) was asked second and he said “oh yes please” and hiked right up to the stand blaming Dellen. Long story short, Justice was served.

It’s been a minute so apologies if I got any of the details wrong. I know for sure some of you followed those 3 cases also. I guess I need to figure out how it works in the US. I don’t understand 2 separate juries and how that plays.

 

[DippyHippy]

I'm not sure what/how information is allowed to be posted here, so for this post, I won't put a name until I'm told differently. But, I've been reading (and absolutely fascinated) by a lady who is an ex-criminal defence lawyer, who has written about many things to do with this case - lately, how a defence lawyer (on LV's behalf) could argue to not have the cases joined given that CD's charges are 'more' (my wording!) than LV's. She has given her reasoning as to why LV has gone down the 'Agree to Joinder' route. It's fascinating to read and for a non-legal person, it's easy to understand and given her background, it explains how a defence can take a client down a path that, for the untrained person, probably wasn't initially obvious - well, certainly not to me!

As I said initially, I don't know whether we're allowed to mention a person on here, who hasn't been approved by Staff, but it's such an intriguing read. She has it all on a site specific to this case. Can the Mods guide me here please! Thanks in advance

 

[salberg7]

Apparently Lori’s trial has been moved up a month.

Something’s going on. Pressure, pressure and more pressure.

I think Prior will play hardball. I personally like his style.

No I don’t think they will have separate juries if tried together. It will be the same evidence in both.

 

[MsJosie]

Not so fast there, chum! I cannot find that original post, so I’m shutting up about it.

Somewhere, there is chapter and verse on Idaho sentencing guidelines for the charges leveled against Chad and Lilybelle.

life sounds wonderful for CD and LV

I still say thank you for original post...it’s somewhere in these threads.

 

[dixiegirl1035]

BBM
If the cases are joined LV and CD will have their own separate juries? That’s odd. I don’t follow how that works.

I followed Dellen Millard and Mark Smich and for the Tim Bosma and Laura Babcock cases I *think* I recall they were tried together. It’s been a minute. I know they each had separate attorneys defending them and they sat in the same courtroom but they had the same jury. Also they totally both pointed fingers at each other HOWEVER that was a Canadian trial. I assumed it would work the same in the US?

Also if I recall, Dellen opted not to testify (he was asked first and at a disadvantage?) and then Smich (his co-defendant) was asked second and he said “oh yes please” and hiked right up to the stand blaming Dellen. Long story short, Justice was served.

It’s been a minute so apologies if I got any of the details wrong. I know for sure some of you followed those 3 cases also. I guess I need to figure out how it works in the US. I don’t understand 2 separate juries and how that plays.

The latest combined conspiracy trial I followed here at WS was the Dan Markel trial last year in Florida. Lots of phone and electronics and texts analogous to this case, all circumstantial evidence like this case atm, with the exception that the third co-conspirator was alive and testified. MOO

In the trial, Magbanua was tried along with the father of her young children, Sigfredo Garcia. Both were charged with first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and solicitation to murder. And both shared the same jury, to answer your question.

She took the stand, he did not. She had fabulous lawyers MOO, he did not so much. He was guilty on first two charges and got life, she got a hung jury on all charges. It was fascinating to watch, as like you, I was intrigued to see how does that work. (They too had a third person, Rivera, who they threw under the bus who took a plea deal... vs. dead like Alex)

(MOO, They are going to retry Magbanua, and this time, she can point fingers more at the convicted Garcia than she did in the last trial to state she didn't know.)

 

[JerseyGirl]

Court TV expands internationally with launch of new channel in the United Kingdom

Court TV is now available on Sky Television Channel 179, with more distribution agreements expected to be announced.

Court TV's on-air team of anchors, legal correspondents and veteran crime and justice journalists – all of whom are lawyers – offer daily insight and analysis, joined by America's brightest attorneys, most experienced investigators and experts who provide legal views, opinion, discussion and debate.

For U.K. audiences, Court TV also is planning content to explain the differences between the two country's systems, including why cameras are allowed in courtrooms in the U.S. but not in the U.K.

Upcoming U.S. trials Court TV plans to cover and air both in the U.S. and the U.K. include:

• The Death of George Floyd - Four Minneapolis police officers will be tried in the death of George Floyd, which launched a national movement on race in America.
• The Killing of Ahmaud Arbery - Three white men are accused of murder in the death of Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man who was shot while jogging through a south Georgia neighborhood.
• The Case of The Doomsday Cult Mom - Lori Vallow and her husband, Chad Daybell, are facing charges after authorities discovered the bodies of their two children in their backyard. Daybell, a former gravedigger, has authored numerous doomsday books and is rumored to have built a cult-type following.
• "The Jinx" Murder Trial - Robert Durst, a wealthy New York City real estate heir, faces first-degree murder charges in California as police allege he killed his longtime friend, Susan Berman. Authorities suspect Durst in the 1982 disappearance of his wife, Kathleen McCormack, and investigators believe that Durst, the subject of the HBO documentary "The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst," killed Berman because she knew what happened to McCormack.
• The R. Kelly Sex Abuse Case - Entertainer R. Kelly, currently in a federal prison in Chicago, faces numerous racketeering and sex trafficking charges involving five women, with legal problems ignited by the television show "Surviving R. Kelly."