Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, Tylee Ryan, 16, Tammy Daybell, 49, Charles Vallow, 62, Oct 2019 *Arrests* #64

Status
Not open for further replies.

squareandrabbet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
3,699
Reaction score
36,385

So in other words, Lori wants both (a), a new attorney; and (b), the LDS church to pay for it?

Good luck with that...

After this conversation, Means says McConkie called Madison County Prosecutor Rob Wood and disclosed the statements Lori made during the phone call. Wood then contacted public defender Jim Archibald, who Boyce appointed as Means’ co-counsel on the case in August. Wood told Archibald that Lori told McConkie she wants “a new, not state-appointed attorney,” according to Means.

Kriton and McConkie, a firm that represents The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, previously issued a statement to EastIdahoNews.com, claiming it received an unsolicited call from Lori asking for help. The firm says it told Lori it could not give her advice or representation and told her to contact the Idaho Bar if she needed help finding a new attorney.
 

MsJosie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
4,829
Reaction score
19,191
I doubt the Judge will change the Prosecutor to a non LDS member. I heard everyone was Mormon on the case, except for 2 people. This was mentioned on the Hidden True Crime tonight. I am searching to find the two names for sure but I believe it is MM and one of the state prosecutors.….but if the Judge removes the Prosecutor for being LDS, then next thing MM will ask for everyone to be removed. What a nightmare.

Here is link to Hidden True Crime. I am slowly fading as it’s 4am…I don’t know if I can stay awake to listen to it again. This podcast has been approved by Tricia. I really likes when Tricia, Lauren and the Good Lori all get on a podcast and chat together. That’s a great trio.

Anyway, here is link to podcast

 

Tortoise

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
21,667
Reaction score
101,642
My understanding of JP's motion is that he wants an independent (special) prosecutor appointed for this enquiry/hearing into what exactly happened, not that he's asking for a permanent new prosecutor on the case, at this stage.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211623/Motion for Discovery Concerning Events.pdf


Personally I think this will blow over and the enquiry will show that this is not the scandal it is being made out to be, in respect of the prosecutor's involvement. I trust RW to have taken every step to protect the integrity of the case and to protect his team from this kind of attack. I'm sure there is going to be more 'incoming' while MM is on the case.
 

indicolite22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
8,484
Reaction score
68,321
I doubt the Judge will change the Prosecutor to a non LDS member. I heard everyone was Mormon on the case, except for 2 people. This was mentioned on the Hidden True Crime tonight. I am searching to find the two names for sure but I believe it is MM and one of the state prosecutors.….but if the Judge removes the Prosecutor for being LDS, then next thing MM will ask for everyone to be removed. What a nightmare.

Here is link to Hidden True Crime. I am slowly fading as it’s 4am…I don’t know if I can stay awake to listen to it again. This podcast has been approved by Tricia. I really likes when Tricia, Lauren and the Good Lori all get on a podcast and chat together. That’s a great trio.

Anyway, here is link to podcast

Lori Hellis said near the beginning of the video that there was a statute in Idaho law according to which a person, who was subpoeanaed from another state to testify, can't be arrested or served legal papers on that occasion. That means that MM's all-encompassing discovery subpoena that MG was served with during her stay in Idaho for the grand jury testimony had no legal standing. Consequently his motion that she be punished for ignoring his suppoena doesn't either. If the subpoena had been served properly, there would still need to be a court order for her to respond before MM could ask for contempt of court.

ETA: Lauren Matthias stated in the video that a youtuber who had been in contact with MM claimed that she (the youtuber) wrote MG's subpoena.
 
Last edited:

JolietJake

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2015
Messages
270
Reaction score
2,481
I was thinking.... In the McConkie matter, RW had no interest in contacting MM but he did contact JA. JA seems to have little to do with MM. MM is a loose cannon and is wasting the time and resources of the state, taxpayers, etc, with ridiculous motions. I'm surprised Judge Boyce had already thrown him off the case. I was wondering if JA can be the one to make a request to get a real lawyer/partner.
 

BUF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2014
Messages
8,217
Reaction score
52,731

SleuthD-o-doubleg

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
966
Reaction score
15,877
He even wants these people sequestered ?

Chad Daybell's attorney wants a non-LDS special prosecutor following alleged IDHW incident - East Idaho News

Prior requested an evidentiary hearing to call witnesses, including an IDHW staff member, McConkie and Wood. Prior wants to also have witnesses sequestered, or kept in a hotel or other location to keep them isolated.
Well at least JP is following through with what he said when he tried to get RW thrown off the case.

All jmo moo imo
 

SleuthD-o-doubleg

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
966
Reaction score
15,877
Replying to myself so I can include some quotes from the article.

These two quotes seem phrased strangely to me as I was reading it, maybe someone could explain more or has some insights I may be missing:
“Prior says the Daybells are charged as co-defendants so the incident “also implicates” Chad’s “due process, fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.” Prior says Chad must be allowed to fully investigate “this serious matter” through discovery.
...
Prior asks for the judge to issue an order stating Wood and other members of the prosecution team should not talk with McConkie, IDHW and the IDHW employee. He also wants an order issued to stop Wood or prosecutors from making public statements about the allegations. Chad’s last request is the appointment of the special prosecutor.”

I just want to know who is calling the shots here, CD or JP? I know JP works for CD since he is CDs lawyer. Was this requested by CD or JP? Can CD make requests through the court? Wouldn’t it have to come from JP on behalf of CD? Wouldn’t JP be doing the investigating into allegations?

All jmo moo imo
 

squareandrabbet

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2018
Messages
3,699
Reaction score
36,385
Replying to myself so I can include some quotes from the article.

These two quotes seem phrased strangely to me as I was reading it, maybe someone could explain more or has some insights I may be missing:
“Prior says the Daybells are charged as co-defendants so the incident “also implicates” Chad’s “due process, fair trial and effective assistance of counsel.” Prior says Chad must be allowed to fully investigate “this serious matter” through discovery.
...
Prior asks for the judge to issue an order stating Wood and other members of the prosecution team should not talk with McConkie, IDHW and the IDHW employee. He also wants an order issued to stop Wood or prosecutors from making public statements about the allegations. Chad’s last request is the appointment of the special prosecutor.”

I just want to know who is calling the shots here, CD or JP? I know JP works for CD since he is CDs lawyer. Was this requested by CD or JP? Can CD make requests through the court? Wouldn’t it have to come from JP on behalf of CD? Wouldn’t JP be doing the investigating into allegations?

All jmo moo imo

Well, if they’re counting ‘Chad’s first request’ as ‘being fully allowed to examine this serious matter through discovery’, then no way is Chad calling his own shots, because not only is it posturing lawyer delay tactic nonsense (I see no reason to believe that Chad has turned overnight into an expert on discovery); but it’s also something that Chad wouldn’t in a million years know to ask for.

Also, they don’t say ‘on advice of my attorney’ for no reason. They say it because clients need the advice. So if that’s the definition of the Chad cart driving the Prior horse, I’d say it’s a problem for many defendants and not just Chad - they agree but the attorney needs to tell them what to do.
 

SleuthD-o-doubleg

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
966
Reaction score
15,877
Well, if they’re counting ‘Chad’s first request’ as ‘being fully allowed to examine this serious matter through discovery’, then no way is Chad calling his own shots, because not only is it posturing lawyer delay tactic nonsense (I see no reason to believe that Chad has turned overnight into an expert on discovery); but it’s also something that Chad wouldn’t in a million years know to ask for.

Also, they don’t say ‘on advice of my attorney’ for no reason. They say it because clients need the advice. So if that’s the definition of the Chad cart driving the Prior horse, I’d say it’s a problem for many defendants and not just Chad - they agree but the attorney needs to tell them what to do.
Thanks for the response! Glad I’m not the only one seeing the confusing word play here.
 

Ruminations

Eating ice cream.
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
623
Reaction score
6,088
Thanks pizzaman…..the last one is interesting. I bet MM is shaking in his boots from whatever his client released. All has been quiet….waiting for the storm to hit.

I am sure he (and Prior) are indeed shaking. I doubt whatever was revealed, if anything relevant, would be admissible if it occurred before Lori is deemed competent. Prior is probably trying to find out what it is, and prevent it from becoming public if it hurts his client- or let Means just impulsively blurt it out some day in an adolescent outburst if it harms (only) Lori.

Inadmissible only takes you so far unless you bring in a jury from another planet.

MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top