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

[Tortoise]

State has retained Dr Michael Welner as expert witness, as confirmed in this document filed by Lori's attorneys, objecting to State's Motion Re. mental health https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case...o States Motion re Mental Health Evidence.pdf


For information about Michael Welner see - Michael Welner - Wikipedia

U.S. vs. Brian David Mitchell – Elizabeth Smart kidnappers – Sect Psychology and Brainwashing

Brian David Mitchell, a self-proclaimed prophet, was charged along with his wife in connection with the 2002 kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. In a case involving the complexities of determining religious zeal from psychosis, Mitchell had been found not competent to stand trial in 2005. Mitchell then began a consistent pattern of singing hymns in court and silence to forensic examiners.[27]

Subsequent evaluations in a state hospital, with which Mitchell did not cooperate, deemed Mitchell to be unchanged – and therefore incompetent. Three years passed, and the case was contemplated for dismissal in state court [28] when federal prosecutors asked Dr. Welner to study the matter to a definitive end.[27] He filed a 206-page report detailing extensive new information uncovered in his evaluation,[29] and testified to his conclusions that Mitchell was competent. At a 2010 hearing, Justice Dale Kimball ruled Mitchell was competent to proceed.[30][31]

The case proceeded to trial, where Dr. Welner testified that Mitchell was a pedophile, a sadist, personality disordered, and not legally insane.[27] His testimony drew particular attention to cognitive distortions as they differ from delusions,[29][32] and culture-specific beliefs of fundamentalist LDS adherents. Mitchell was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.[33]

 

[Tortoise]

Lori's defense filed response to State's request for discovery re.alibi

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/013023 Response to Request for Discovery.pdf

Doesn't seem to provide any further information about the time of the alibi, that I can see.

 

[Tortoise]

State says Lori's defense team already has all the doorbell video footage available

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

 

[Tortoise]

Stuff about Jury Selection filed re. Lori

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case...nts Motion for Pre-Selection Instructions.pdf

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case...fendants Request for Individual Voir Dire.pdf

 

[Tortoise]

Not sure what this all means - something about objecting to IRE 404b filed by Chad's defense - which is Idaho Rules of Evidence 404b - crimes, wrongs or other acts

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211623/020123 Objection to IRE 404b.pdf


Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts.

(a) Character Evidence.



(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person's character or trait of character is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.



(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:

(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;

(B) a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait of character, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;

(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.



(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608 and 609.



(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.



(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must:

(A) file and serve reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial; and

(B) do so reasonably in advance of trial – or during trial if the court, for good cause shown, excuses lack of pretrial notice.

I.R.E. 404. Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes. | Supreme Court

 

[887sMtreme]

That's the point. Nobody had a job, didn't consider getting one and they had a high burn rate.

Lori, Melani, Alex - three grown adults with no visible means of support living in nice apartments. Chad was essentially being supported by his wife's income as a librarian in an elementary school.

After her divorce was finalized, Melani remarried "some guy" right away and then got pregnant right away. Apparently marrying a stranger and having his baby is preferable to supporting oneself.

I can't think of any reason Tammy was murdered other than for the insurance payout to support Lori's dream of returning to Hawaii and hanging out on the beach. Hawaii is not a cheap place to live.

These yahoos were obviously not long term planners,but no problemo because their beliefs centered around an imminent end times scenario when the 144,000 would gather under white tents and Lori and Chad would be exalted elites and lead the 144,000. So -- win win.

This is from documents filed by Charles Vallow's attorney in Feb. 2020:


This is from an East Idaho New article that takes a deep dive into these beliefs. Worth a read as a refresher: A look at the religious circle surrounding Chad and Lori Daybell.

Excellent reminder. It’s also useful to remember that part of the whole zombie thing was the belief that if someone was a zombie, that meant a demon had occupied their body, forcing their true soul into a kind of purgatory from which it could not advance to the LDS Celestial Kingdom until the demon-infused body died. So in LVD’s mind, probably, she was not only ridding herself of obstacles to earthly pleasure by having all these people die around her (and leave her money), she was also securing eternal happiness for those who died; a very good deed, indeed. As Dana Carvey’s “church lady” character was wont to say, “How convenient!” Presumably in LVD’s monstrous life-and-death scenario, she’d be everybody’s fave goddess in the Hereafter, with all forgiven. Will any of this come out in the trial or will be all about things like burner-phone pings and storage facility videos?

 

[887sMtreme]

Not sure what this all means - something about objecting to IRE 404b filed by Chad's defense - which is Idaho Rules of Evidence 404b - crimes, wrongs or other acts

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211623/020123 Objection to IRE 404b.pdf

<snipped>

Do you think this means that CD is planning to mount a defense based in part on what a great guy everybody thinks he is?

 

[Kemug]

A couple of thoughts - I truly think that Kay may have become their next victim. Not because of any financial advantage, but out of pure hate and revenge from Lori.

Replying to myself - oops, I said "a couple of thoughts" didn't I? I forgot it then, and now I can't remember what the other point was anyway. Yes, I have a senior's brain.

 

[Kemug]

Do you think this means that CD is planning to mount a defense based in part on what a great guy everybody thinks he is?

Nowadays he can probably count these "everybodies" on the fingers of one hand.

 

[SteveS]

One idea that might explain part of what we are seeing so far from Lori's defense, and how they might have a plan for that strategy to work ---

They have gotten LE to see Lori as a wacko (too mentally unstable to go to trial) in the delays.

In so doing, the defense has enticed LE to think she might ride that "insanity" idea as an excuse, so we are seeing LE go out of their way to shut the door on "insanity" defense, going so far as getting a ruling that no mention of insanity (or craziness) can be used in the trial.

Interesting development in regard to this mentioned motion ^ of Jan 26, where State was asking for an order excluding evidence from a mental health expert when it comes to the penalty phase if found guilty. State asked for a ruling that the introduction of evidence of her beliefs is not a justification to open the door at trial to mental condition evidence as a defense to negate guilt, in light of the fact she is NOT claiming insanity as her defense. If she's not saying she's crazy as her defense, then you bring in evidence to say she was after all, they want the judge to rule.

The defense has filed a motion Feb 2 objecting to that state's motion of Jan 26.

They want the door left ajar, so they can claim she acted as a crazy person (mitigating or excusing her actions) at the penalty stage in the trial (which of course is all that matters, since that can be the difference between a death sentence and a slap on the wrist). They want to be able to have witnesses available to testify to her craziness - and/or prohibit the state from asserting her awareness of knowing she was doing wrong -- even though they aren't offering an insanity defense, and to be able to use those witnesses to testify to the same should they feel the need.

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/020223%20Objection%20to%20States%20Motion%20re%20Mental%20Health%20Evidence.pdf

OBSERVATION - To me it seems they are trying to straddle a line that most states don't let you straddle. Usually, in order to get off due to insanity, you have to first ADMIT you did the crime and then offer insanity as the excuse. In this case, they want to NOT admit the crime, forcing the state to prove it, but still being able to keep "but she was too crazy to know what she was doing, so she's really not guilty" in reserve in case it's needed later.

This is an interesting "have your cake and eat it too" approach (and not allowed in most jurisdictions, as I understand it). Stay tuned.

 

[Laughing]

<snipped>

Do you think this means that CD is planning to mount a defense based in part on what a great guy everybody thinks he is?

Maybe the defense wants to make sure the jury doesn't read that 'loin fire' novella??? jmho, hypothetically.

 

[watergirl62]

State has retained Dr Michael Welner as expert witness, as confirmed in this document filed by Lori's attorneys, objecting to State's Motion Re. mental health https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/020223 Objection to States Motion re Mental Health Evidence.pdf


For information about Michael Welner see - Michael Welner - Wikipedia

U.S. vs. Brian David Mitchell – Elizabeth Smart kidnappers – Sect Psychology and Brainwashing

Brian David Mitchell, a self-proclaimed prophet, was charged along with his wife in connection with the 2002 kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. In a case involving the complexities of determining religious zeal from psychosis, Mitchell had been found not competent to stand trial in 2005. Mitchell then began a consistent pattern of singing hymns in court and silence to forensic examiners.[27]

Subsequent evaluations in a state hospital, with which Mitchell did not cooperate, deemed Mitchell to be unchanged – and therefore incompetent. Three years passed, and the case was contemplated for dismissal in state court [28] when federal prosecutors asked Dr. Welner to study the matter to a definitive end.[27] He filed a 206-page report detailing extensive new information uncovered in his evaluation,[29] and testified to his conclusions that Mitchell was competent. At a 2010 hearing, Justice Dale Kimball ruled Mitchell was competent to proceed.[30][31]

The case proceeded to trial, where Dr. Welner testified that Mitchell was a pedophile, a sadist, personality disordered, and not legally insane.[27] His testimony drew particular attention to cognitive distortions as they differ from delusions,[29][32] and culture-specific beliefs of fundamentalist LDS adherents. Mitchell was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.[33]

Defendant believes that she will be acquitted of
all charges and that the penalty phase will not be necessary.

However, if Defendant is convicted by a jury, it would then be an appropriate time to present the mental illness evidence to the jury in consideration of the potential penalty.

She thinks she will walk, because of course she does, but the State knows that may not happen. My take.

 

[watergirl62]

Not sure what this all means - something about objecting to IRE 404b filed by Chad's defense - which is Idaho Rules of Evidence 404b - crimes, wrongs or other acts

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211623/020123 Objection to IRE 404b.pdf


Idaho Rules of Evidence Rule 404. Character Evidence; Crimes or Other Acts.

(a) Character Evidence.



(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a person's character or trait of character is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait.



(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:

(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;

(B) a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait of character, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;

(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.



(3) Exceptions for a Witness. Evidence of a witness’s character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608 and 609.



(b) Crimes, Wrongs, or Other Acts.



(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

(2) Permitted Uses; Notice in a Criminal Case. This evidence may be admissible for another purpose, such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must:

(A) file and serve reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence that the prosecutor intends to offer at trial; and

(B) do so reasonably in advance of trial – or during trial if the court, for good cause shown, excuses lack of pretrial notice.

I.R.E. 404. Character Evidence not Admissible to Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes. | Supreme Court

State wants to allow prior bad acts and/or character traits re:Chad but want to be sure Lori can use a mental health defense during penalty phase. Interesting!

So many possibilities... Would that include we were married in a former life pickup lines? Womanizing? Cheating on Tammy? Propheteering? Writing bad fiction plagiarized from others?

Will he be tried for murdering Tammy as part of the joint trial or separately? I think the murder of Tylee and JJ would be considered a prior bad act in terms of Tammy, tied by motive if all charges will be addressed in one trial.

 

[Kemug]

Defendant believes that she will be acquitted of
all charges and that the penalty phase will not be necessary.

However, if Defendant is convicted by a jury, it would then be an appropriate time to present the mental illness evidence to the jury in consideration of the potential penalty.

She thinks she will walk, because of course she does, but the State knows that may not happen. My take.

Well, maybe she has a point - after all, how many Goddesses do you know who are in prison?

 

[Tortoise]

State wants to allow prior bad acts and/or character traits re:Chad but want to be sure Lori can use a mental health defense during penalty phase. Interesting!

So many possibilities... Would that include we were married in a former life pickup lines? Womanizing? Cheating on Tammy? Propheteering? Writing bad fiction plagiarized from others?

Will he be tried for murdering Tammy as part of the joint trial or separately? I think the murder of Tylee and JJ would be considered a prior bad act in terms of Tammy, tied by motive if all charges will be addressed in one trial.

All charges against them both, and individually, are in the one trial. So that includes his insurance frauds, her benefits frauds, his murder of Tammy, their murders of JJ and Tylee, and their conspiracy to murder all three.

 

[Chelly]

All charges against them both, and individually, are in the one trial. So that includes his insurance frauds, her benefits frauds, his murder of Tammy, their murders of JJ and Tylee, and their conspiracy to murder all three.

Loved reading the new docs and information @Tortoise . Thanks for posting it.

Preparing for trial, I just need to remember that:
*Lori and Chad both responsible for insurance and benefits fraud.
*Chad was just overwhelmed by lust.
*Lori was never crazy, so no mentioning that at trial.
*Lori was in her apartment surrounded by witnesses when her children were *murdered.
*Alex had the children when they were murdered so he killed them.
*However, even though LV is totally innocent, if jury finds her guilty, we can then say, during penalty phase, that she is crazy.

.... waiting for a shoe to drop
whoops ETA....Chad killed Tammy.

 

[Ruminations]

<snipped>

Do you think this means that CD is planning to mount a defense based in part on what a great guy everybody thinks he is?

Or maybe discredit witnesses by showing how they are bad people. (Frankly it would be tough to find moral people that would hang closely enough to these serial killers to be witnesses!)

MOO

 

[indicolite22]

According to the defense motions Lori will claim that she was in her apartment with MG, DW and/or Chad when Tylee and JJ died in Alex's.

It is unclear who she was with when Tylee died (nobody apart from Alex that we know of so far), on which of the two occasions she was with Chad (none that we know of so far) and whether MG and DW were with her the entire evening and night when JJ died (not very likely).

 

[indicolite22]

Or maybe discredit witnesses by showing how they are bad people. (Frankly it would be tough to find moral people that would hang closely enough to these serial killers to be witnesses!)

MOO

Serial killers? You mean spiritual leaders who could guarantee followers a place among the 144k? People who were interfering with their mission had to die. I can't believe that Lori told Charles just that and then threatened to murder him. If her threats had been investigated properly by the authorities, the cult might have been dismantled, although there was a chance that she would deny it.

 

[mrjitty]

State has retained Dr Michael Welner as expert witness, as confirmed in this document filed by Lori's attorneys, objecting to State's Motion Re. mental health https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/020223 Objection to States Motion re Mental Health Evidence.pdf


For information about Michael Welner see - Michael Welner - Wikipedia

U.S. vs. Brian David Mitchell – Elizabeth Smart kidnappers – Sect Psychology and Brainwashing

Brian David Mitchell, a self-proclaimed prophet, was charged along with his wife in connection with the 2002 kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. In a case involving the complexities of determining religious zeal from psychosis, Mitchell had been found not competent to stand trial in 2005. Mitchell then began a consistent pattern of singing hymns in court and silence to forensic examiners.[27]

Subsequent evaluations in a state hospital, with which Mitchell did not cooperate, deemed Mitchell to be unchanged – and therefore incompetent. Three years passed, and the case was contemplated for dismissal in state court [28] when federal prosecutors asked Dr. Welner to study the matter to a definitive end.[27] He filed a 206-page report detailing extensive new information uncovered in his evaluation,[29] and testified to his conclusions that Mitchell was competent. At a 2010 hearing, Justice Dale Kimball ruled Mitchell was competent to proceed.[30][31]

The case proceeded to trial, where Dr. Welner testified that Mitchell was a pedophile, a sadist, personality disordered, and not legally insane.[27] His testimony drew particular attention to cognitive distortions as they differ from delusions,[29][32] and culture-specific beliefs of fundamentalist LDS adherents. Mitchell was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.[33]

Interesting!