TRIAL OF CHAD DAYBELL CHARGED WITH MURDER OF JJ VALLOW, TYLEE RYAN AND TAMMY DAYBELL #2

[nodamselindistress]

But wait a minute . . . doesn't Laurie have 2 deceased sisters? One of the sisters is Melani Boudreaux Pawlowski's mother who died with Alex Cox in attendance; then, there is another, that we learned about just recently, who died of SIDS (born possibly in 1972?). Janice Cox wrote an article about it that was published in Reader's Digest (pub. between 1972-1974?). But last time I checked, nobody could locate that article.

Check the other thread on this page, the Readers Digest article has been located in some kind of archive. I was not able to access it or read it.

 

[iamshadow21]

But wait a minute . . . doesn't Laurie have 2 deceased sisters? One of the sisters is Melani Boudreaux Pawlowski's mother who died with Alex Cox in attendance; then, there is another, that we learned about just recently, who died of SIDS (born possibly in 1972?). Janice Cox wrote an article about it that was published in Reader's Digest (pub. between 1972-1974?). But last time I checked, nobody could locate that article.

There's also another brother, Adam, who was labelled dark because he was the only one who gave Charles the time of day.

 

[Trebor5591]

There's also another brother, Adam, who was labelled dark because he was the only one who gave Charles the time of day.

Adam Cox is a guest on Court TV at times. A well spoken guy, IMO.

 

[SteveS]

It’s funny you say that because Ratliff said Prior had made calls to him. You can hear it loud and clear.

Boyce states explicitly that Ratliff does not represent the defendant (or anyone else in the case).

Ratliff agrees, and says explicitly that what he filed was "WITHOUT the permission of the defendant or his trial counsel," and that "I am not Mr Daybell's attorney, and never was."

Yes, Ratliff then - trying to offer an excuse - says Prior had previously called him asking for help, but then admits that Prior did NOT ever retain him for help on the case or ask him to appear for the defendant, and again admits that he filed this WITHOUT the permission of the defendant or his counsel. It's all made very clear.

Ratliff ultimately stated that he was there on his own, wanting to "intervene" in the case - in essence, he's a citizen bystander who wants to butt in and correct something that he feels is amiss, without any authorization from either party in the case. It's like you or me going to butt into the case and try to bring up ideas we have from our discussions. Boyce shuts it down before it even starts, firmly stating that is not allowed in criminal cases, and he cites the case law.

Boyle ruled it to be a "frivolous filing" (pointless waste of time for the court and all the parties in the case), and whatever Ratliff had to say in the motion was consigned to the scrap heap and never considered as to whether it had any merit. It's irrelevant. It's on the same level of weight to the trial as what we say in this forum.

 

[Ruminations]

Boyce states explicitly that Ratliff does not represent the defendant (or anyone else in the case).

Ratliff agrees, and says explicitly that what he filed was "WITHOUT the permission of the defendant or his trial counsel," and that "I am not Mr Daybell's attorney, and never was."

Yes, Ratliff then - trying to offer an excuse - says Prior had previously called him asking for help, but then admits that Prior did NOT ever retain him for help on the case or ask him to appear for the defendant, and again admits that he filed this WITHOUT the permission of the defendant or his counsel. It's all made very clear.

Ratliff ultimately stated that he was there on his own, wanting to "intervene" in the case - in essence, he's a citizen bystander who wants to butt in and correct something that he feels is amiss, without any authorization from either party in the case. It's like you or me going to butt into the case and try to bring up ideas we have from our discussions. Boyce shuts it down before it even starts, firmly stating that is not allowed in criminal cases, and he cites the case law.

Boyle ruled it to be a "frivolous filing" (pointless waste of time for the court and all the parties in the case), and whatever Ratliff had to say in the motion was consigned to the scrap heap and never considered as to whether it had any merit. It's irrelevant. It's on the same level of weight to the trial as what we say in this forum.

Boyce doesn't want a mistrial. If this was a stunt for the defense, as I strongly suspect it was, there is no benefit to the court or the prosecution to call that out. Furthermore, it would be very hard to prove that it is a stunt for the defense when Prior and Radcliffe have denied colluding.

Nothing makes sense other than this being a stunt for the defense. I don't see what else it could be. It was perfectly timed for maximum interference. If it were an impulse, drinking and lawyering, as many have quipped, then there was no need to bring it to the stage of showing cause. It could have been quietly withdrawn.

It sounds like Boyce effectively played defense in two ways: He did not continue the case and kept whatever dribble there is in the body of the motion sealed.

MOO

 

[minusfour]

How long were Charles Vellow and Lori married before his death?

 

[Spartygirl]

IMO the podcasts were also influential, starting with Julie Rowe's. Lori was a fan. IIRC, even Alex was listening to them while trucking. He offered money to his nephew (Adam's son) for reading one of the doomsday books.

Just catching up in here so you may have already posted it but do you have a reference to when AxC offered money to his nephew ??
I dont remember ever reading or seeing this before and am curious to what book it was and when it happened.
TIA

 

[indicolite22]

Just catching up in here so you may have already posted it but do you have a reference to when AxC offered money to his nephew ??
I dont remember ever reading or seeing this before and am curious to what book it was and when it happened.
TIA

IIRC, this info is from Justin Lum's interview with Lori's nephew. I'll check if time frame was given.

ETA: It's at about 8:50 in the video. The book was Chasing paradise, written by Chad. Alex offered ZC $100 to read it. No specific time is mentioned. ZC lived with Lori and Charles from 2018 until the end of January 2019. For some time in 2019 ZC also lived with BB and MBP. He states earlier in the video that he first heard Lori talking about Chad's books in 2017 when the family relocated back to Arizona from Hawaii.

 

[alexwood]

The Zack Cox interview with Justin Lum (FOX 10) is from 2 years ago -- according to YouTube. So that would have been 2022. (Not an exact date, sorry to say.)

 

[Spartygirl]

IIRC, this info is from Justin Lum's interview with Lori's nephew. I'll check if time frame was given.

ETA: It's at about 8:50 in the video. The book was Chasing paradise, written by Chad. Alex offered ZC $100 to read it. ZC lived with Lori and Charles from 2018 until the end of January 2019. He states earlier in the video that he heard Lori talking about Chad's books in 2017 when the family relocated back to Arizona from Hawaii.

Thank you,... I have not seen that before.
I appreciate you sharing it

 

[Love Never Fails]

Boyce states explicitly that Ratliff does not represent the defendant (or anyone else in the case).

Ratliff agrees, and says explicitly that what he filed was "WITHOUT the permission of the defendant or his trial counsel," and that "I am not Mr Daybell's attorney, and never was."

Yes, Ratliff then - trying to offer an excuse - says Prior had previously called him asking for help, but then admits that Prior did NOT ever retain him for help on the case or ask him to appear for the defendant, and again admits that he filed this WITHOUT the permission of the defendant or his counsel. It's all made very clear.

Ratliff ultimately stated that he was there on his own, wanting to "intervene" in the case - in essence, he's a citizen bystander who wants to butt in and correct something that he feels is amiss, without any authorization from either party in the case. It's like you or me going to butt into the case and try to bring up ideas we have from our discussions. Boyce shuts it down before it even starts, firmly stating that is not allowed in criminal cases, and he cites the case law.

Boyle ruled it to be a "frivolous filing" (pointless waste of time for the court and all the parties in the case), and whatever Ratliff had to say in the motion was consigned to the scrap heap and never considered as to whether it had any merit. It's irrelevant. It's on the same level of weight to the trial as what we say in this forum.

I get all that. But in court Ratliff says Prior made calls to him . Plural. More than one. Ane we will never know for sure. It is a moot point but Ratliff said it in court.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Boyce doesn't want a mistrial. If this was a stunt for the defense, as I strongly suspect it was, there is no benefit to the court or the prosecution to call that out. Furthermore, it would be very hard to prove that it is a stunt for the defense when Prior and Radcliffe have denied colluding.

Nothing makes sense other than this being a stunt for the defense. I don't see what else it could be. It was perfectly timed for maximum interference. If it were an impulse, drinking and lawyering, as many have quipped, then there was no need to bring it to the stage of showing cause. It could have been quietly withdrawn.

It sounds like Boyce effectively played defense in two ways: He did not continue the case and kept whatever dribble there is in the body of the motion sealed.

MOO

I am sure sure Prior would like a qualified DP atty to help him but yes, it seemed to be a stunt. In any case, it isn’t going to happen. judge Boyce quashed that.

 

[aafromaa]

My question about Prior's "testimonial" questions:

Why is Prior testifying that Chad went to church the morning of the last Sunday that JJ was alive, and why is Prior testifying that Chad showed up for the real estate appointment in his church clothes?

What is he trying to prove (aside from the obvious that Chad went to church)?

MIO

Once upon a time a long long time ago in this story, MG either gave testimony or statement to LE or media interview where she said she thought that the property visit was on Monday. I wish I could remember - my best guess is it was one of the LE interviews. I think it took a conversation with DW to show it was on Sunday because he was so obviously bothered that CD & the realtor would want to talk business on a Sunday. I only remember it having been originally said it was Monday - well probably it was said it was on the 23rd - MG was very unclear in her days/dates in early LE interviews so I think that is how it happened - I just know that once DW testified in the pre-liminary hearing I remember having to correct my time line. I believe DW that it was Sunday and I think that clarified it for MG who then also began saying Sun when asked about it - it likely was clarified in grand jury hearings but I didn’t know it until the preliminary hearing. Anyway, I think JP forgot to straighten out his timeline or something when that info came out and that he thinks he’s setting up an alibi for CD not to have been at home when AC came to bury JJ Monday morning after MG & DW left to go see his son. That’s my best guess as to what JP was trying to do because as you say there is no other reason to point out CD was in his church clothes since JJ was photographed at home Sunday morning.

Have you noticed, JP doesn’t seem very familiar with the facts of this case for someone who has had several years to prepare as he told that reporter in his pre-trial interview? Perhaps he spent too much time trying to find ways to say it was all LVD’s fault and not enough time learning the details of the crimes.

 

[indicolite22]

I get all that. But in court Ratliff says Prior made calls to him . Plural. More than one. Ane we will never know for sure. It is a moot point but Ratliff said it in court.

My two cents. JP probably called every DP certified lawyer for availability. Maybe this one didn't say no outright. JP doesn't have client money to pay someone to intervene. Would a working lawyer put their reputation on the line for a few bucks?

 

[Onsdag]

Boyce doesn't want a mistrial. If this was a stunt for the defense, as I strongly suspect it was, there is no benefit to the court or the prosecution to call that out. Furthermore, it would be very hard to prove that it is a stunt for the defense when Prior and Radcliffe have denied colluding.

Nothing makes sense other than this being a stunt for the defense. I don't see what else it could be. It was perfectly timed for maximum interference. If it were an impulse, drinking and lawyering, as many have quipped, then there was no need to bring it to the stage of showing cause. It could have been quietly withdrawn.

It sounds like Boyce effectively played defense in two ways: He did not continue the case and kept whatever dribble there is in the body of the motion sealed.

MOO

I strongly disagree that this was a stunt put on by the defense. This is what was reported back when the motion was first filed (emphasis added):

Judge seals last minute motion asking to delay Chad Daybell's trial; jury selection continues - East Idaho News

BOISE — A motion to delay the trial of Chad Daybell was filed late Friday night but little is known about why it was filed and what is contained in the motion. Terry Ratliff, a lawyer who practices in Mountain Home, filed the motion through the iCourt portal. Wendy Olson, an attorney hired by...

www.eastidahonews.com

"On March 29, 2024, at 11:42 p.m. MST, a non-party presented for filing its ‘MOTIONE {sic] TO INTERVENE AND TO CONTIUE [sic] THE ThtAL IN THESE PROCEDINGS [sic).,” Boyce wrote in his order. “Both the state and the defense have raised concerns about the impropriety of this attempt to intervene – procedurally and substantively. Additionally, both the state and the defense have requested the court immediately seal the document, or alternatively strike it from the case.”

So it's apparent that from the very beginning Prior was not happy with Ratliff's attempt to interfere with the case and asked for it to be thrown in the trash where it belongs.

He may have tried reaching out to several DP qualified attorneys (of which Ratliff is one - may heaven help those he's represented), but from all appearances he wasn't ever able to find anyone willing/able to help. Ratliff simply appears to have reconsidered at the very last second, without consulting with Prior (or even his own better judgment), and forcefully tried to interject himself into this case - much to everyone's (including Prior's) annoyance.

Just my take.

 

[aafromaa]

Hoping we will find out who attended the pool party at the Charles trial (assuming Lori insists on pleading not guilty).

But at this point I hope she does.

Also I thought Lori was married to Charles for far longer than like, a year.

She married CV in 2006. She was only married to Colby’s dad for a little over a year though.

 

[Onsdag]

Have you noticed, JP doesn’t seem very familiar with the facts of this case for someone who has had several years to prepare as he told that reporter in his pre-trial interview? Perhaps he spent too much time trying to find ways to say it was all LVD’s fault and not enough time learning the details of the crimes.

Quite frankly I think it's justifiable/forgivable considering how twisted, convoluted, complex, and crazy this whole case has been. Even websleuths who have been following this case extremely closely regularly get facts and details mixed up.

 

[aafromaa]

It’s funny you say that because Ratliff said Prior had made calls to him. You can hear it loud and clear.

I think JP probably spoke to every death penalty qualified attorney in the state at some point so he may have spoken to him about that but he never joined the defense team which gave him no standing to file the motion or identify himself as attorney for the defendant. I hope he gets another reprimand from the ethics committee for this.

 

[aafromaa]

Check the other thread on this page, the Readers Digest article has been located in some kind of archive. I was not able to access it or read it.

The one in that index is from a medical publication and reprinted in Reader’s Digest - not anything Janis Cox wrote. Reader’s Digest primarily reprinted articles from other publications (often condensed for RD). They did not accept unsolicited submissions from unknown authors so Janis’s was more likely one of their “reader submissions” than a true article and as such is not shown in the index. You’d have to look at each of those reader submission sections (listed at the bottom page of the index by section title not article or author name) - so you’d have to look at each section in each issue to find which one was written by whom. What can I say…in the 70’s I was an avid reader of RDs lol. I’ve given this info to Trisha & she has passed it along to Megan. I did suggest she check that issue though since they could have put a reader submission in the same issue as the professional article on the same topic.

 

[aafromaa]

My two cents. JP probably called every DP certified lawyer for availability. Maybe this one didn't say no outright. JP doesn't have client money to pay someone to intervene. Would a working lawyer put their reputation on the line for a few bucks?

Probably not for a few bucks…but Ratliff might have thought he could get added to the defense team and paid by the state since he is DP qualified. And he might not have even done it for that but can you imagine the publicity for him if he had been successful? Too bad it backfired on him - now we all know his name but most of us would not call him if we needed a lawyer because he looked foolish