Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #35

Status
Not open for further replies.

indicolite22

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
8,523
Reaction score
68,555
I wonder if Lori thought her kids had too.

It just makes me wonder if she had no fear of death - either for herself or her children. Like it was just a mere milestone you had to pass through like a turnstile or gate, and all she did was get her kids in queue. I seriously believe that LEO should have a suicide watch on Lori (and Chad) as if they cannot be together in this life - what would keep them from moving into their portals and pulling a Heaven's Gate sort of stunt on or near 6/22/2020?
BBM. The kids were declared zombies, which is as far off an elevated being as possible.
 

Tortoise

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
21,894
Reaction score
102,881
I just don't see how implying the kids are dead provides a defence against the charges? It's not enough for the lawyer to do sock puppet speculation. There would have to be actual evidence produced to support this idea. And anyway, if the theory is the kids died later somehow, wouldn't that prove she abandoned them?

Otherwise the defence gets into admitting knowing something about death which is IMO the whole bind of these charges

IMO these charges are just a stalking horse for murder charges to come
I don't see it that way. It's not implying the kids are dead, or any sock puppet speculation or admission of death - it will be the state witnesses' testimony that the status of the children is not known, and I would expect that would have to be an established fact to determine a failing of duty of care.
 

mrjitty

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2014
Messages
8,007
Reaction score
57,344
I don't see it that way. It's not implying the kids are dead, or any sock puppet speculation or admission of death - it will be the state witnesses' testimony that the status of the children is not known, and I would expect that would have to be an established fact to determine a failing of duty of care.

LV need only commit the actus reus of the offence at some point in the past.

There is plenty of evidence that can be placed before the Court to support the obvious and natural inference that she has abandoned the kids and failed to support them. Namely they have not been in her custody for months and she has not made any financial provision for them.

I agree the prosecution cannot prove the kids current status, but for these proceedings they don't need to.

Of course the defence can try to speculate some exculpatory version, (e.g the kids are in hiding) but without hard evidence to support such a contention, it is hard to believe it would be successful to raise a real doubt.

Of course it is always possible to imagine an exculpatory version (eg the kids died in an accident so weren't abandoned) but I think that is too theoretical. The defence would have to place a definitive version on the table rather than merely suggesting things within their direct knowledge might of happened or can't be ruled out

Any jury properly directed, is entitled to make the obvious inference

Otherwise it would be possible for LV to defend these charges by implying she might have murdered the kids. IMO that is an absurd result that for practical reasons, cannot succeed at trial.
 

wenwe4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
9,486
Reaction score
7,207
Who did all of Chad's spiritual work before he came along? I mean it has got to be a fulltime job ridding the universe of zombies and strong dark spirits. Certainly with all of these specifically identified dark beings, there must have been an ongoing problem (disturbance in the force perhaps) for quite some time for CD, LVD, and MBP to have run into so many in such a small geographic area
 

Tortoise

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
21,894
Reaction score
102,881
LV need only commit the actus reus of the offence at some point in the past.

There is plenty of evidence that can be placed before the Court to support the obvious and natural inference that she has abandoned the kids and failed to support them. Namely they have not been in her custody for months and she has not made any financial provision for them.

I agree the prosecution cannot prove the kids current status, but for these proceedings they don't need to.

Of course the defence can try to speculate some exculpatory version, (e.g the kids are in hiding) but without hard evidence to support such a contention, it is hard to believe it would be successful to raise a real doubt.

Of course it is always possible to imagine an exculpatory version (eg the kids died in an accident so weren't abandoned) but I think that is too theoretical. The defence would have to place a definitive version on the table rather than merely suggesting things within their direct knowledge might of happened or can't be ruled out

Any jury properly directed, is entitled to make the obvious inference

Otherwise it would be possible for LV to defend these charges by implying she might have murdered the kids. IMO that is an absurd result that for practical reasons, cannot succeed at trial.
I suppose so. I seesaw on this.

There are two possibilities - either they're dead and she murdered them in some capacity, because a mother wouldn't fail to report their murders otherwise, or they're alive and she's not caring for them. The second possibility seems so absurd, that children would just disappear and the parent behave in the way she is, in every respect as if they don't exist. I suppose the only upside I can see is that the state can't be accused of going in heavy handed and assuming the worst and laying the highest charges, so she is being given the benefit of the doubt by this route. The prosecutor does have that argument available - if the state can't establish life is she arguing the appropriate charges would be murder?

It doesn't seem to force the issue of life though, and if she stays silent and accepts a prison term, it a/ makes murder even more likely and b/ seems to be an inversion of justice for the children, whereas if she were charged with murder she at least gets to prove they are alive to defend herself, can't claim an injustice, and it does seem to align more with the circumstantial evidence.

I have to wonder if the prosecutor accepting the delays requested by the defense sees it as more time to get a robust murder case together.

MOO
 

DI_Isokawa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Messages
542
Reaction score
5,156
I suppose so. I seesaw on this.

There are two possibilities - either they're dead and she murdered them in some capacity, because a mother wouldn't fail to report their murders otherwise, or they're alive and she's not caring for them. The second possibility seems so absurd, that children would just disappear and the parent behave in the way she is, in every respect as if they don't exist. I suppose the only upside I can see is that the state can't be accused of going in heavy handed and assuming the worst and laying the highest charges, so she is being given the benefit of the doubt by this route. The prosecutor does have that argument available - if the state can't establish life is she arguing the appropriate charges would be murder?

It doesn't seem to force the issue of life though, and if she stays silent and accepts a prison term, it a/ makes murder even more likely and b/ seems to be an inversion of justice for the children, whereas if she were charged with murder she at least gets to prove they are alive to defend herself, can't claim an injustice, and it does seem to align more with the circumstantial evidence.

I have to wonder if the prosecutor accepting the delays requested by the defense sees it as more time to get a robust murder case together.

MOO

There is a third possibility, which is that the children were handed off to a third party and moved somewhere outside the reach of the authorities, where they either perished or are being held against their will. In this circumstance the authorities would leave Chad and others alone and interacting with Lori in the hope they would let something slip or make contact with the third parties. Just opinion and speculation on my part, but not impossible.
 

wenwe4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
9,486
Reaction score
7,207
There is a third possibility, which is that the children were handed off to a third party and moved somewhere outside the reach of the authorities, where they either perished or are being held against their will. In this circumstance the authorities would leave Chad and others alone and interacting with Lori in the hope they would let something slip or make contact with the third parties. Just opinion and speculation on my part, but not impossible.
Agreed, since this is the whole "defense strategy" LVD & CD have been using. Unfortunately, time to "trust" them that they got the kids to a safehouse to protect them has come and gone. There is no one to protect the children from anymore except LVD & CD. If Lori's fear is the grandparents will gain custody of JJ, they already will (provided he is actually alive) because of the criminal acts she has committed (stealing funds from SSI, fleeing LEO, lying & obstructing, etc) she will be doing jail time. Kids can't wait to grow up for the parents to finish jail sentences. If she were looking at 2+ years of incarceration - her parental rights would be terminated so JJ could be free to be adopted.
It also doesn't explain why she would keep TR's whereabouts secret, except to make sure that JR's family would not be able to have TR in their care. My opinion is that is way more important to Lori that she WIN her battle against her ex's, than it was to make sure the kids health, welfare, and emotional needs were met by caring & loving people who wanted them.
If she has nothing left to hold onto (ie: living in Paradise w/CD & becoming a god) - then holding out on the kids whereabouts is all she has left. If she admits the kids are dead - she will be facing murder or accessory charges. If she says they are alive - she has to prove it by producing the kids or there is nothing to support her claim.
 

natsound

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,128
Reaction score
1,918
The Freeman article discusses how Chad never mentioned his near-death experiences to her, shafted her out of her book rights, posted coldly about the death of his wife, then ran off and married someone else who's children are missing.

And she's saying HE was deceived?

How do the gears turn in the minds of some of these people who were connected to this pair?
 

natsound

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,128
Reaction score
1,918
I’m probably one of only a few who’s bothered by this but reporter Justin alum is continually using a personal Facebook account and commenting repeatedly on the photos of others in this case, asking for them to reach out to him. I’ve always thought he’s commenting on photos because most profiles are locked down and they are not connected as “friends”, and sending them a FB message without being friends causes the message to go into a “requests” section. I also thought using a personal account instead of the official NEWS one was odd and I’ve seen comments get copied/pasted then deleted shortly after and then same thing commented again. I don’t know, this has just bothered me before because I’ve believed there are some more people who would come forward but are scared and become even more hesitant when they’re feeling bombarded by the media. Am I crazy for thinking this type of stuff could prevent others from sharing their story? It’s OK if the answer is yes....maybe this is something many reports do nowadays and I’ve just never noticed or realized this was mainstream practice.

I haven't seen one of his posts, but I can say from working in the media that reporters who want to "own" a story will try to reach out for interviews with people connected to the story. I hope he's doing it kindly and diplomatically. It can turn some people off, but there really is no other way to reach those people. Again, I haven't seen any of his posts or requests, and I'm not sure why he would take those steps from his personal account, but it sounds like he's interested and committed to the story.
 

CSIDreamer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
9,607
Reaction score
77,649
In regards to Lori saying she hid the children for their safety. We've only heard that from people she needed to explain their disappearance to, haven't we? I don't remember Lori or Chad ever speaking to anyone connected with LE or the press and saying "the children are in danger, they are hidden out of an abundance of caution". Correct me if I'm wrong. Jmo
 

nhmemorymaker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Messages
5,064
Reaction score
36,385
The Freeman article discusses how Chad never mentioned his near-death experiences to her, shafted her out of her book rights, posted coldly about the death of his wife, then ran off and married someone else who's children are missing.

And she's saying HE was deceived?

How do the gears turn in the minds of some of these people who were connected to this pair?

Did you watch the youtube video of Suzanne and Nate? Video gives a bit more dimension to the conversation... Though subtly discussed...what I heard loud and clear was that Chad is a total fraud.... She came to him because she had a NDE... She was almost surprised that "he believed her"--but NEVER mentioned his NDEs. I am more than convinced that he made them up, based on Suzanne's comments... Her book came out in 2004, one of the first published by Springhill. HIS autobiography came out in 2017, after he moved to Rexburg.

 

Spartygirl

Verified Insider - Michael Vanzandt case
Joined
May 3, 2016
Messages
4,179
Reaction score
40,511
I'll take Clearing up Money Lori Spent That She Didn't Have for $200,000, Alex. What is leased cars? What is leased homes? What is beauty products and treatments? What is travel?
I would also like to add " What is storage unit"?? What is "Planning a wedding, buying wedding rings and wedding dress/clothes" ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top