Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #28

Status
Not open for further replies.

Patch Tuesday

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2019
Messages
128
Reaction score
664
Police searching for Rexburg children believed to be in serious danger | East Idaho News

I believe this is going to be a more complicated case than it looks on the surface. The children's mother (Lori Wallows) recently married a man (Chad Daybell) a few weeks after his wife died. It was presumed the late wife had died of natural causes but was exhumed recently and her death is now being investigated.
The new wife's husband was shot in a family argument earlier this year:

Chandler Police identify man who was shot dead during family fight

The husband and wife are not cooperating with police and have since vanished.

ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *MEDIA MAPS TIMELINE*NO DISCUSSION


Timeline Links (Update 7):
Part I (1968 - 2017)
Part II (Dec 2017 - 10 July 2019)
Part III (11 July 2019)
Part IV (12 July 2019 - 30 Nov 2019)
Part V (December 2019)
Part VI (January 2020)
Part VII (February 2020)


Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5
Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10
Thread #11
Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15
Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20
Thread #21
Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24 Thread #25 Thread #26 Thread #27
 

Attachments

  • joshua-tylee.jpg
    joshua-tylee.jpg
    78.2 KB · Views: 1
Last edited by a moderator:
ADMIN NOTE:

This thread is dedicated to discussion of two missing kids, JJ and Tylee.

The thread does not exist to chit chat about your own religious doctrines, discuss temples, tithing, BYU, physical appearance, etc. Forty seven of such off topic posts have just been removed.

Do not ignore Moderator warnings.

Stay on topic or thread reply bans or TOs will be issued.
 
JMO but the rule allowing either party to demand a different judge for no reason at all seems goofy as hell to me. And annoying. Is this unique to ID or is it common and I just didn’t know it?
 
A sketchy dude with links to PaP, Chandler LE, Lori, Melanie, and Chad. He is another person known to have traveled between Phoenix and Rexburg, ID in 2019 after CV died, has plenty of experience with guns, and IMO looks a bit like AxC. I could tell them apart if they were standing next to each other but if one of them was shooting at me out the window of a car at my moving car and I didn't get a great look...
He was in Idaho after CV was killed? Interesting!
 
This JM guy is one creepy and potentially dangerous man. I would not be surprised if he is neck deep in this. This guy needs more scrutiny.

On another note, I’m depressed the prelim looks to be pushed back. What a bummer.
 
He was in Idaho after CV was killed? Interesting![/QUOT
This JM guy is one creepy and potentially dangerous man. I would not be surprised if he is neck deep in this. This guy needs more scrutiny.

On another note, I’m depressed the prelim looks to be pushed back. What a bummer.
dbm
 
Last edited:
JMO but the rule allowing either party to demand a different judge for no reason at all seems goofy as hell to me. And annoying. Is this unique to ID or is it common and I just didn’t know it?
This and rules similar to this are pretty common among state judicial codes. Any trial lawyer will tell you that there are notorious judges in every system who pose a serious obstacle to them. Sometimes it can be personal animosity, other times it may be the judge's personality or even overt bias for or against one side or the other. Getting a judge disqualified is very difficult and, as they say, "if you strike at the king you'd better kill him." No lawyer wants to be stuck trying a case against a judge who he or she tried to remove from the case unsuccessfully. Thus, the theory is that a rule like this protects clients and attorneys by providing an automatic "do-over" with no questions asked. If you are a prosecutor assigned to a judge with a reputation of being too lenient it provides the State the same opportunity of having a "mulligan" by getting a new judge on a one-time basis per trial. If you are defense counsel facing a "hanging judge" it gives your client a shot at a more fair outcome. I believe most trial lawyers agree the provision is a safety valve that they would not like to lose even if it does muck up the system a bit occasionally.
 
JMO but the rule allowing either party to demand a different judge for no reason at all seems goofy as hell to me. And annoying. Is this unique to ID or is it common and I just didn’t know it?
JMO but the rule allowing either party to demand a different judge for no reason at all seems goofy as hell to me. And annoying. Is this unique to ID or is it common and I just didn’t know it?
But what RexSleuth said was very important. This was the judge the worked the guardianship case for Larry and Kay. I think that is a good reason to request another judge.
 
This and rules similar to this are pretty common among state judicial codes. Any trial lawyer will tell you that there are notorious judges in every system who pose a serious obstacle to them. Sometimes it can be personal animosity, other times it may be the judge's personality or even overt bias for or against one side or the other. Getting a judge disqualified is very difficult and, as they say, "if you strike at the king you'd better kill him." No lawyer wants to be stuck trying a case against a judge who he or she tried to remove from the case unsuccessfully. Thus, the theory is that a rule like this protects clients and attorneys by providing an automatic "do-over" with no questions asked. If you are a prosecutor assigned to a judge with a reputation of being too lenient it provides the State the same opportunity of having a "mulligan" by getting a new judge on a one-time basis per trial. If you are defense counsel facing a "hanging judge" it gives your client a shot at a more fair outcome. I believe most trial lawyers agree the provision is a safety valve that they would not like to lose even if it does muck up the system a bit occasionally.
Is a "hanging judge" like a "hanging chad"?? sorry..just popped out.
 
This JM guy is one creepy and potentially dangerous man. I would not be surprised if he is neck deep in this. This guy needs more scrutiny.

On another note, I’m depressed the prelim looks to be pushed back. What a bummer.
We have actually been "eyeing" him for a very long time. It is just that he is on the outskirts and is not as vocal as CP and JuRo. Many of us are waiting for him to be outed... lots of info is out there. But he seems to be keeping quite a low profile.
 
Don't know how to quote the post from a prior thread, so I won't. :)

But last night there was a post that was pointing out how much money Lori is going to spend in their estimation just getting to the preliminary hearing. While I agree it isn't going to be cheap and having 3 lawyers isn't going to help keep costs down if for no other reason than some time will be spent coordinating with each other that wouldn't be needed if there was only one, I think that estimate was extremely overstated. TBH, part of me says the poster wasn't really serious and part of me thinks they were. But it makes multiple assumptions, most of which I think are probably wrong. One guess or assumption, how much Lori will be charged per billable hour, might be reasonably accurate. However, it also assumed that each attorney has 40 billable hours per week. If they're working 40 hours a week then all 40 hours are not going to be billable, so to get this many billable they'd have to be working in excess of 40 hours a week. Possible, I dont know. But I also think it is extremely unlikely that all 3 attorneys are only working on Lori's case and nothing else for the foreseeable future. I suspect they had other cases and obligations that existed before taking Lori on. The demands from those cases are part of the reason they need more time (same goes for the presecutor).

MOO
 
Don't know how to quote the post from a prior thread, so I won't. :)

But last night there was a post that was pointing out how much money Lori is going to spend in their estimation just getting to the preliminary hearing. While I agree it isn't going to be cheap and having 3 lawyers isn't going to help keep costs down if for no other reason than some time will be spent coordinating with each other that wouldn't be needed if there was only one, I think that estimate was extremely overstated. TBH, part of me says the poster wasn't really serious and part of me thinks they were. But it makes multiple assumptions, most of which I think are probably wrong. One guess or assumption, how much Lori will be charged per billable hour, might be reasonably accurate. However, it also assumed that each attorney has 40 billable hours per week. If they're working 40 hours a week then all 40 hours are not going to be billable, so to get this many billable they'd have to be working in excess of 40 hours a week. Possible, I dont know. But I also think it is extremely unlikely that all 3 attorneys are only working on Lori's case and nothing else for the foreseeable future. I suspect they had other cases and obligations that existed before taking Lori on. The demands from those cases are part of the reason they need more time (same goes for the presecutor).

MOO

It isnt unusual to put a junior partner or paralegal on high profile cases. They bill to the case. I think it's possible. Jmo
 
...last night there was a post that was pointing out how much money Lori is going to spend...

I think that estimate was extremely overstated...

It was grossly exaggerated. I’m thinking something in the neighborhood of 20-25K for a retainer on these charges. It’s not a complicated case that requires reams of discovery or investigation. Regardless of the noise surrounding her you produce the kids or explain what’s going on and this is down to misdemeanors. If more charges come and/or she drags these out it’s going to be expensive. Her financial sustainability will be tested.
 
JMO but the rule allowing either party to demand a different judge for no reason at all seems goofy as hell to me. And annoying. Is this unique to ID or is it common and I just didn’t know it?

This and rules similar to this are pretty common among state judicial codes. Any trial lawyer will tell you that there are notorious judges in every system who pose a serious obstacle to them. Sometimes it can be personal animosity, other times it may be the judge's personality or even overt bias for or against one side or the other. Getting a judge disqualified is very difficult and, as they say, "if you strike at the king you'd better kill him." No lawyer wants to be stuck trying a case against a judge who he or she tried to remove from the case unsuccessfully. Thus, the theory is that a rule like this protects clients and attorneys by providing an automatic "do-over" with no questions asked. If you are a prosecutor assigned to a judge with a reputation of being too lenient it provides the State the same opportunity of having a "mulligan" by getting a new judge on a one-time basis per trial. If you are defense counsel facing a "hanging judge" it gives your client a shot at a more fair outcome. I believe most trial lawyers agree the provision is a safety valve that they would not like to lose even if it does muck up the system a bit occasionally.

I agree^ We have this rule in AZ and it’s a lot better than having motions to disqualify for cause filed all the time. One important part of the rule that keeps it working well is that you can only use it ONCE and only BEFORE the judge has made any decision in favor of one side or the other.

Don't know how to quote the post from a prior thread, so I won't. :)

But last night there was a post that was pointing out how much money Lori is going to spend in their estimation just getting to the preliminary hearing. While I agree it isn't going to be cheap and having 3 lawyers isn't going to help keep costs down if for no other reason than some time will be spent coordinating with each other that wouldn't be needed if there was only one, I think that estimate was extremely overstated. TBH, part of me says the poster wasn't really serious and part of me thinks they were. But it makes multiple assumptions, most of which I think are probably wrong. One guess or assumption, how much Lori will be charged per billable hour, might be reasonably accurate. However, it also assumed that each attorney has 40 billable hours per week. If they're working 40 hours a week then all 40 hours are not going to be billable, so to get this many billable they'd have to be working in excess of 40 hours a week. Possible, I dont know. But I also think it is extremely unlikely that all 3 attorneys are only working on Lori's case and nothing else for the foreseeable future. I suspect they had other cases and obligations that existed before taking Lori on. The demands from those cases are part of the reason they need more time (same goes for the presecutor).

MOO

It isnt unusual to put a junior partner or paralegal on high profile cases. They bill to the case. I think it's possible. Jmo

I thought that estimate was high also. This will not be a full-time case for everyone working on it. That said, the fees through the preliminary hearing, if it’s postponed until May, might exceed $100,000.

ETA: On the other hand, they might have taken it on a flat fee based on the nature of the charges (rather than on an hourly fee), in which case the fee will be MUCH less. My understanding is that criminal defense attorneys at the trial court level do this often.
 
The question remains, where is all the monies coming from? Some money they may have but the rest for the future? Who is paying the future, the followers? That will dry up. Follow the money like in other cases, a lot of info will be revealed.

So glad she is still in jail.
 
Something is rotten in the state of Arizona (Chandler and Phoenix police departments, to be specific), and one Websleuths poster, @j55stand , sensed it back in December! (She hasn't been the only WS member to suspect this but she was, I believe, the first of us.)

See this post in the very first thread:
ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019

Of course now the circumstantial evidence is much more clear with the release of the FBI documents. IMO, the subject line of the emails alone is telling. It will be interesting to see if the Chandler police will be able to (put the brunt of the blame on one retired officer and) clean up their reputation a bit after dropping the ball when they had a chance to investigate further into CV's death. (oh, if only they had!)

p.s. I want to echo what @watergirl62 said at the end of the last thread in regard to the meaning of "start putting anything to the group as a whole" at the end of the second FBI document.
ID - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #27
I also took it to mean that the FBI wasn't talking about the PaP group as a whole, but that the sender, having looked up the podcaster's employment history and connections to Chandler homicide, was going to call one person to discuss before they presented any info to the (whole) group doing the investigating.
 
What we know - there was a man at the storage unit in Rexburg ID, with Lori, on 2nd October, some 3 hours after BB was shot at in Gilbert AZ, from a vehicle identified as Tylee's Jeep Wrangler. The man and Lori at the storage unit were NOT using Alex's truck that day and the man did not look like Chad according to Nate, ( @Gardener1850 the timeline needs to be amended to reflect this - the info came from Gray Hughes interview of Nate Eaton at the 26:12 min mark).

I think there is a good chance that Alex was the shooter in Gilbert, based on:

a/ Alex being the shooter of Charles,
b/ (unsure of US legal requirements here so I will just say probably) driver insurance permissions regarding Tylee's Jeep?
c/ Alex's involvement helping his niece Melani with moving and trespassing etc
d/ if it was him at the storage unit why wasn't he using his own truck as he did on other occasions?
e/ Alex appears to have been served papers in San Tan Valley regarding his residence there on 1st October.
f/ Alex truck is at the storage unit on later dates when what appears to be gun cases are dropped off there.

What is clear is that there are others involved in this whole mess. If Alex wasn't the shooter at BB it was someone else (sorry to state the obvious). If Alex was the shooter at BB, it seems likely that there was an accomplice driving the Jeep unless he immediately threw down the gun and jumped into the driver's seat to follow BB, but more importantly there was definitely someone helping Lori at the storage unit on 2nd October to stash away the tire which seems likely to have been taken off the back of the Jeep to enable the opening of the rear window.

So, in my opinion, we have more than just Alex who is prepared to kill for this mission or be involved in plots to kill, and I therefore have less of a problem in believing that Alex was taken out, to protect the identity of the accomplice/s, and/or to protect Lori and possibly Chad. He may have even moved and changed his name to hide from the accomplice/s.

I'm sure police must know who was helping Lori at the storage unit on 2nd October because the manager there made notes of all the vehicles. I hope the police act quickly to round them all up, because I wouldn't feel safe if I knew any of them. I do not believe Alex committed suicide, especially not from guilt, over two months after the children disappeared and being bothered with stuff like marriage. It is tempting to think he might push the self-destruct button if Lori ordered him to, but I'm less inclined to think that knowing there are others with dark secrets still on the loose.

moo

links -
Nate Eaton interview:

Storage Unit video (see 1.25 mark for man wheeling in tire):
Lori Daybell abandoned a storage unit in Rexburg full of children's items | East Idaho News

ed: spelling
 
Last edited:
This and rules similar to this are pretty common among state judicial codes. Any trial lawyer will tell you that there are notorious judges in every system who pose a serious obstacle to them. Sometimes it can be personal animosity, other times it may be the judge's personality or even overt bias for or against one side or the other. Getting a judge disqualified is very difficult and, as they say, "if you strike at the king you'd better kill him." No lawyer wants to be stuck trying a case against a judge who he or she tried to remove from the case unsuccessfully. Thus, the theory is that a rule like this protects clients and attorneys by providing an automatic "do-over" with no questions asked. If you are a prosecutor assigned to a judge with a reputation of being too lenient it provides the State the same opportunity of having a "mulligan" by getting a new judge on a one-time basis per trial. If you are defense counsel facing a "hanging judge" it gives your client a shot at a more fair outcome. I believe most trial lawyers agree the provision is a safety valve that they would not like to lose even if it does muck up the system a bit occasionally.
Very good. However, I didn't see the judge as being biased against them, perhaps they saw the unattainable $1m bail as a kill shot on her. I don't see the next judge folding for a lower bail, especially IRT additional charges that seem to be bubbling up. The NEW judge may be more irritated with them than the current. #Gamble

ETA: Lori has been thinking, since the judge popped the gavel on her with a $1m bail, "I need to get the hell out of here!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
3,799
Total visitors
3,889

Forum statistics

Threads
591,444
Messages
17,951,895
Members
228,504
Latest member
mj175
Back
Top