Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #31

Status
Not open for further replies.

tresir2012

Former Member
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
11,156
Reaction score
56,457
On the list of witnesses I still


Would a witness be listed if they were considered hostile? I am puzzled that some names are absent?
GB is not on there right? Perhaps he is a witness for the Defence or as you say a hostile witness. MOO
Indeed.

Interesting that she reveals personal details that we weren’t aware of: she was taken from her mother, Stacey Cope, when she was 6 and Stacey died 3 years later, when Melani was 9. She also states she was told lies about her Mother. It has been generally speculated that Lori raised her. This posts cracks a door that has been closed to us regarding the Cox family and it’s dysfunction.
We don't know but she could have been raised by her father. I don't think she is referring to Lori there because they are like sisters apparently. MOO.
 

cmiller8617

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Messages
72
Reaction score
349
GB is not on there right? Perhaps he is a witness for the Defence or as you say a hostile witness. MOO

We don't know but she could have been raised by her father. I don't think she is referring to Lori there because they are like sisters apparently. MOO.

I was thinking that CP should be on the list. Didn't he publicly post of a conversation that he had with CD and LV, and that he knows or understands what is going on with the kids?
 

tresir2012

Former Member
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
11,156
Reaction score
56,457
I was thinking that CP should be on the list. Didn't he publicly post of a conversation that he had with CD and LV, and that he knows or understands what is going on with the kids?
Yes he should be on there too IMO. And JR who had visions the kids are ok. Unless that is JB on the list? What about RJM? Witness for defence maybe?
 

cmiller8617

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Messages
72
Reaction score
349
Yes he should be on there too IMO. And JR who had visions the kids are ok. Unless that is JB on the list? What about RJM? Witness for defence maybe?

I think Tortoise posted this about JB a couple days ago;

Re: mm on the witness list -

Julie Black, owner of Kauai Dreams Realty found an email [...] Would the owners be interested in leasing this property to a clean couple with no pets or children?"

Email shows Lori Vallow's husband home hunting for 'clean couple with no pets or children'
 

tresir2012

Former Member
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
11,156
Reaction score
56,457

tresir2012

Former Member
Joined
May 7, 2019
Messages
11,156
Reaction score
56,457
TY for finding and posting the whole document. Interesting to read Madison County's reasons for not providing a lot of the Discovery items. Eg. Where Lori's attorney has asked for autopsy results for CV, TD,AxC and JR the answer (paraphrased) is to correctly say the autopsies are not in the jurisdiction of Madison County and are nothing to do with the missing children case.

Her attorney was clearly hoping that Madison County were going to do most of his work for him.
MOO.
 

CuriousQuiet1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
784
Reaction score
7,642
Those wondering how/why Means is on this case and not the other two competent lawyers can answer their questions with one word, money. Means is the dollar store lawyer and all Chad and Lolo can afford or all Chad is willing to pay. The billable hours Means is creating are astronomical. Even with Dollar Store Means his expenses alone will run 10’s of thousands. The case won’t be thrown out due to his incompetence. A verdict may be overturned because of it but the charges won’t be vacated.

Carry on, stay safe and best wishes.
Is he spending 9 hours in the car to visit Lori on his own time or does she get billed for those 9 hours he is in the car (hopefully listening to Intro to Criminal Defense on audio book)?

If Means gave her the flat fee option he has to be regretting that.
 

CuriousQuiet1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2020
Messages
784
Reaction score
7,642

Midwestmom2019

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2019
Messages
2,440
Reaction score
20,801
There is no spousal privilege in this case.

Why? Always an exception to the general rule.
Aha. Exception bc it relates to the children. It also varies state to state from what I just read.
Good to know. So now he’ll have to not recall anything. I wonder how that will work. Maybe he needs to be out of subpoena range? What other method can he use to avoid testifying against Lori?
 

CSIDreamer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
9,574
Reaction score
77,297
Why? Always an exception to the general rule.
Aha. Exception bc it relates to the children. It also varies state to state from what I just read.
Good to know. So now he’ll have to not recall anything. I wonder how that will work. Maybe he needs to be out of subpoena range? What other method can he use to avoid testifying against Lori?

All he has to do is claim the 5th. No one can be "forced" to talk on the stand. Jmo

Imo it won't matter what action he takes on the stand, Lori will only look like her bad self. And he will look bad, as well.
 

Diddian

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
1,975
Reaction score
34,675

My thinking is that the post is an attempt at emotionally manipulating her children. If I were a judge seeing this in court in association with a child custody dispute, this would definitely lean me in the direction of keeping this person away from the children - in written and spoken communications as well as in person.

IMO, the writer of that FB post hopes her children look for communications she may post there and she knows that it is the rare child who doesn't painfully miss their mother when kept away from her, so she is attempting to use that pain to:
(1) relate to them on that level ("I was kept away from my mother too, so I know exactly how you feel" - paraphrasing);
(2) demonize those who are making that happen (her ex-husband, his family, the courts and associated officials);
(3) raise herself above those she has demonized ("I am more in touch with God than they are. I see the larger plan"); and
(4) to appeal to them to continue to believe they will have her in their lives ("I know we will be together someday" - paraphrasing; this is particularly manipulative as it directly appeals to that heartfelt wish of a child to have both parents closely active in their lives).

If she wasn't incredibly manipulative - despite the cost to her children - before LV's association with CD, she has become a near-master at it under their tutelage.
 
Last edited:

indicolite22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
8,485
Reaction score
68,328
My thinking is that the post is an attempt at emotionally manipulating her children. If I were a judge seeing this in court in association with a child custody dispute, this would definitely lean me in the direction of keeping this person away from the children - in written and spoken communications as well as in person.

IMO, the writer of that FB post hopes her children look for communications she may post there and she knows that it is the rare child who doesn't painfully miss their mother when kept away from her, so she is attempting to use that pain to:
(1) relate to them on that level ("I was kept away from my mother too, so I know exactly how you feel" - paraphrasing);
(2) demonize those who are making that happen (her ex-husband, his family, the courts and associated officials);
(3) raise herself above those she has demonized ("I am more in touch with God than they are. I see the larger plan"); and
(4) to appeal to them to continue to believe they will have her in their lives ("I know we will be together someday" - paraphrasing; this is particularly manipulative as it directly appeals to that heartfelt wish of a child to have both parents closely active in their lives).

If she wasn't incredibly manipulative - despite the cost to her children - before LV's association with CD, she has become a near-master at it under their tutelage.
The post in question was later removed and the page has since been scrubbed and rebranded.
 

Diddian

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
1,975
Reaction score
34,675
The post in question was later removed and the page has since been scrubbed and rebranded.

TOO LATE for the person who posted it. I'm guessing it would be safe to say someone has saved a copy of that post and it will appear in court proceedings someday.

Shameful to have posted it in the first place.

And the "scrubbing and rebranding?" That's what they call evidence of "consciousness of guilt."
 

indicolite22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
8,485
Reaction score
68,328
TOO LATE for the person who posted it. I'm guessing it would be safe to say someone has saved a copy of that post and it will appear in court proceedings someday.

Shameful to have posted it in the first place.

And the "scrubbing and rebranding?" That's what they call evidence of "consciousness of guilt."
I don't see scrubbing and rebranding as something bad necessarily. After all, she has a new husband and maybe it's a new start.

Her post seemed to me more like a deluded opinion, but not necessarily harmful to her cause (she posted worse in the past). She will play an innocent mother in court as well.
 

Diddian

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2020
Messages
1,975
Reaction score
34,675
I don't see scrubbing and rebranding as something bad necessarily. After all, she has a new husband and maybe it's a new start.

Her post seemed to me more like a deluded opinion, but not necessarily harmful to her cause (she posted worse in the past). She will play an innocent mother in court as well.

In family court, where custody disputes are heard and resolved, she's not going to get a jury; she's going to get a judge and they have heard and seen it all, including attempts by one parent to manipulate the children and to poison how they see their other parent. Such attempts are considered psychologically abusive to the children. That is what MBP has done and it doesn't go away by erasing a post.
 

Tortoise

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
21,683
Reaction score
101,704
I was thinking that CP should be on the list. Didn't he publicly post of a conversation that he had with CD and LV, and that he knows or understands what is going on with the kids?
I don't think there is a duty to call CP as a witness. Lori hasn't been charged with killing her children and so her and Chad using a third party to disseminate the claim that the kids are alive and well a/ doesn't mean they are not abandoned and not supported by Lori, and b/ is wholly hearsay, because it doesn't prove the truth of what they told him. Lori and Chad can prove it to the court themselves, and it isn't improved by CP telling it.

Contrast that with MG, and she was asked by Lori and Chad to lie to police that she had JJ, when she didn't have him. I believe those statements will be allowed into evidence, as an exception to the hearsay rule, because they are not being used to prove the truth of whether she had/didn't have JJ, they are pertinent to the charges of solicitation and obstructing police, and MG can be cross-examined for credibility and truth. The issue for the jury is whether the statements were made to her, constituting the elements of a crime. The jury can disbelieve her if for instance she is shown to be dishonest or to have a motive for lying about what they said.

JMO

Is this right @AZlawyer ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top