ID - Doomsday Cult Victims - Joshua Vallow - Tylee Ryan - Tammy Daybell - Charles Vallow - *Arrests* #67

[Cool Cats]

JA stated the exact date based on the resets of her time stayed. I'll look for it but it was well before the April date

Thanks @Niner ETA- One of Lori’s lawyers, Jim Archibald, argued that since she hadn’t waived her right to a speedy trial, the court needed to set a date as soon as February, 2023. “For purposes of trial, my client has not waived her speedy trial. By our calculation, we cannot agree to anything past Feb. 21, 2023,” said Archibald. “The court needs to set our client’s jury trial for that time. If it’s after, then we believe her speedy trial rights have been violated & we will file a motion to dismiss the case.” Judge Boyce explained his ruling by stating that Lori had been in jail for almost two & a half years & as Archibald mentioned, had not waived her right to a speedy trial. “By my calculations, I have Ms. Vallow, who has been in custody two years & 10 days since her initial arrest. Mr. Daybell has waived his right to a speedy trial & has been in jail 912 & a half days by my calculation". “The length of incarceration is of great concern to me. I have a defendant who has never waived her right to a speedy trial.”

Do you know what this means:

"Judge Boyce explained his ruling"

What ruling? A speedy trial ruling?

This is disturbing from the judge:

“By my calculations, I have Ms. Vallow, who has been in custody two years & 10 days since her initial arrest."
".......The length of incarceration is of great concern to me. I have a defendant who has never waived her right to a speedy trial.”

 

[Chelly]

Oh for heaven's sake. You can't play the incompetent to stand trial card and expect a speedy trial at the same time.

 

[pizzaman12]

Oh for heaven's sake. You can't play the incompetent to stand trial card and expect a speedy trial at the same time.

When her case was stayed, it was not going towards that timeframe. JA actually gave a breakdown of how that date came about. I actually thought it was earlier than his calculations. Regardless, the trial date is far later than what she's entitled to. Will his ruling to extend it hold up down the road? We'll see

 

[fred&edna]

Oh for heaven's sake. You can't play the incompetent to stand trial card and expect a speedy trial at the same time.

I liked the way you said that

 

[fred&edna]

And, here's Nate...

 

[wnk]

Oh for heaven's sake. You can't play the incompetent to stand trial card and expect a speedy trial at the same time.

Unfortunately, I think that's exactly the strategy -- whatever CD's lawyers say they want, LVD's will demand the opposite, just to delay things and complicate matters more for the courts. Just one of the ways that she'll hunt down every technicality in the book in order to avoid being held accountable.

 

[fred&edna]

Did Covid shut-downs play a part in any court delays related to this case??

 

[Cool Cats]

Sins of our Mother review – this true-crime series gets more shocking with every episode

Murder, religious fanaticism and a belief in the apocalypse combine in this impossibly twisty Netflix series about a ‘Doomsday mom’ – and the investigation into deaths in her family

www.theguardian.com

Sins of Our Mother is about as Netflix True Crime as it gets.

Over three episodes, each more shocking than the last, it tells the story of Lori Vallow, who became known as the “Doomsday mom” in the US media, after an astonishing series of events involving numerous deaths, religious fanaticism, light and dark spirits and “zombies”.

 

[Ruminations]

Motion to Dismiss filed be Lori’s attorney for alleged failiure to adhere to speedy trial (that she never waived) JMOO but probably just for appeal, but the State may now scramble to try and show good cause for delaying, definitely interesting trying to balance their stro kg arguments of trying them together w/ not violating anyone’s rights. As usual, this seems circus like.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/012623%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20for%20Lack%20of%20Speedy%20Trial.pdf

Okay. I say call her bluff then. Trial Feb 23. Scramble to get a jury now.

Wood claimed (after the kids were found when talking to Summer) that the case against Lori was stronger than the case against Chad. He also said "people" (then citing Lori's family members) say this is not the Lori they knew before Chad came along. He was suggesting to Summer that Lori should talk first. In addition, Wood told Summer that Lori was nearly ready to talk to prosecutors shortly before the children were found but was talked out of it by Chad. Wood characterized Chad's interactions with Lori as spiritual abuse.*

I take that to mean that the evidence without Lori testifying is tight. Which would possibly prevent her from going to trial and making a plea deal. No matter the deal, prosecutors would insist she testify against Chad, wouldn't they? And Lori would have to be truthful to keep the deal. She will also want to highlight every possible mitigation- including Chad's spiritual abuse upon her as Wood observed.

Later, on national TV, Chad's children telegraphed that Chad's defense will be that he was framed. This sounds in contrast to the "good cop" routine Wood was selling- where Chad supposedly changed and abused Lori.

As long as neither of them see as much as an ankle bracelet for the rest of their lives, I'll be satisfied. And maybe there will be more info with the trials separated- forcing testimony of the accused.

The other possibility is Lori knows the evidence is too strong, doesn't want to "deal," and instead waives her right to a speedy trial to keep the trials together.

MOO

*PS: Little surprise that Chad would utilize spiritual abuse on his new wife, given years of the same to his loyal wife who supported the family and raised the children. The spiritual abuse ended for Tammy when the defendants murdered her, IMO.

 

[Tortoise]

Some interesting filings.

State filed its discovery disclosure regarding DNA reports, on 25th Jan 2023.

identical filings for Lori and Chad: https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case...e Re Stipulations for Consumptive Testing.pdf
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case...e Re Stipulations for Consumptive Testing.pdf

Defense on behalf of Lori filed on 23rd January a request for doorbell video for the apartments for the whole of September 2019. They are already in possession of such for October to December 2019.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/012323 Supplemental Discovery Request.pdf

State filed a motion on 25th Jan 2023 to compel Lori to provide the time of her alleged alibi, names of her expert witnesses for trial, and any evidence connected to her penalty phase.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/012523 Motion to Compel.pdf


The items recently discovered by the Idaho State Lab were hair samples, which the parties agreed on 9th Jan 2023 may be consumed by the lab to determine if sufficient DNA is present to create a DNA profile. I believe the results of this testing are included in the State's discovery disclosure (linked above) filed 25th Jan 2023.
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case... Consumptive Testing of Forensic Evidence.pdf



It seems to me that while Lori is requesting her case be dismissed based on her speedy trial rights, she isn't ready for trial with defense disclosure obligations still outstanding at the time of filing her motion.

 

[fred&edna]

Some interesting filings.

State filed its discovery disclosure regarding DNA reports, on 25th Jan 2023.

identical filings for Lori and Chad: https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/012523 Discovery Disclosure Re Stipulations for Consumptive Testing.pdf
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211623/012523 Discovery Disclosure Re Stipulations for Consumptive Testing.pdf

Defense on behalf of Lori filed on 23rd January a request for doorbell video for the apartments for the whole of September 2019. They are already in possession of such for October to December 2019.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/012323 Supplemental Discovery Request.pdf

State filed a motion on 25th Jan 2023 to compel Lori to provide the time of her alleged alibi, names of her expert witnesses for trial, and any evidence connected to her penalty phase.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/012523 Motion to Compel.pdf


The items recently discovered by the Idaho State Lab were hair samples, which the parties agreed on 9th Jan 2023 may be consumed by the lab to determine if sufficient DNA is present to create a DNA profile. I believe the results of this testing are included in the State's discovery disclosure (linked above) filed 25th Jan 2023.
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/011223 Second Stipulation for Consumptive Testing of Forensic Evidence.pdf



It seems to me that while Lori is requesting her case be dismissed based on her speedy trial rights, she isn't ready for trial with defense disclosure obligations still outstanding at the time of filing her motion.

Well then... like @Ruminations said... Call her bluff!!

 

[Howl]

As husband and wife, Lori and Chad can't be compelled to testify against each other, BUT can they be compelled to testify against each other about events BEFORE they were married?

Can unmarried defendants in a joint trial be called to testify against each other?

Would the case sever If either Lori or Chad decided to spill the beans and rat the other out?

For fun: spill the beans

 

[indicolite22]

As husband and wife, Lori and Chad can't be compelled to testify against each other, BUT can they be compelled to testify against each other about events BEFORE they were married?

Can unmarried defendants in a joint trial be called to testify against each other?

Would the case sever If either Lori or Chad decided to spill the beans and rat the other out?

For fun: spill the beans

Exceptions. Marital privilege does not apply if 1) the private communication is revealed to third parties, 2) one spouse is suing the other (e.g., divorce), or 3) when one spouse is charged with a crime against the other or their children (e.g., domestic violence or abuse).

marital privilege

www.law.cornell.edu

Communication before marriage isn't privileged.

 

[Chelly]

Co defendants don't typically testify against each other, do they?

 

[fred&edna]

Co defendants don't typically testify against each other, do they?

Good question. It sure doesn't seem typical. With two defendants testifying against the other in a joint trial I think it would be more likely that one of them would make a plea deal before going to court. jmo/guess

 

[fred&edna]

If either CD or LVD decides to testify on their own behalf, wouldn't they open themselves up to cross-examination by the other defense attorney (as well as prosecution)?? That would be mighty interesting to see!

 

[CSIDreamer]

Good question. It sure doesn't seem typical. With two defendants testifying against the other in a joint trial I think it would be more likely that one of them would make a plea deal before going to court. jmo/guess

If either CD or LVD decides to testify on their own behalf, wouldn't they open themselves up to cross-examination by the other defense attorney?? That would be mighty interesting to see!

Wouldn't this end up being disclosed all around? Wouldn't he or she be put on a witness list? JMHO

 

[fred&edna]

Wouldn't this end up being disclosed all around? Wouldn't he or she be put on a witness list? JMHO

It would seem so. But, sometimes defendants don't decide until late in the trial to take the stand. (Again, all just me guessing, lol)

This document (which is North Carolina not Idaho) regarding "antagonistic defense" etc looks interesting.

https://defendermanuals.sog.unc.edu/sites/default/files/pdf/6.2%20Joinder%20and%20Severance%20of%20Defendants.pdf

 

[Ruminations]

Are tweets from Hidden True Crime allowed here? If yes, does anyone more adept at social media know how to link the newest?

I think I.just saw a tweet that suggests Chad, too, is aware he is fighting for his life.

Apparently his attorney just filed something that had something to do with a local innocence project- I always loose the thread with twitter. But it looked hot at a glance!

-MOO Ruminations

 

[Onsdag]

Looks like team Lori is continuing to put the pressure on the court:

Lori Daybell says her constitutional rights have been ignored and wants case dismissed

Lori Vallow Daybell is asking a judge to dismiss her case because she has yet to have a jury trial.

www.ksl.com

"It is undisputed that Lori Vallow Daybell has demanded her speedy trial and has never waived her constitutional rights," Archibald wrote. "She is prejudiced every day since she's in jail and unable to post a bond. The court has repeatedly reminded the government that it will respect her constitutional right to a speedy trial."