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

[fred&edna]

Claims that Lori was held without sufficient evidence against her:

Look at it from a unbiased perspective and have to agree. Prosecution has twisted and bent rules of law to wrongfully hold her and the Courts have allowed it knowingly and repeatedly. If this case ever made it’s way to an appeal the circus would finally be exposed.

RSBM There's something almost comical to Means' using the phrase "twisted and bent"

 

[Tortoise]

This response by the state seems reasonable to me. I don't feel as if they have been holding/hiding info from the defense. But, I could be missing something or not understanding correctly.

Yes I thought the same.

 

[fred&edna]

Yes I thought the same.

BTW I'm very glad you put that particular response in a separate post... really helpful!

 

[Cool Cats]

On Lori being shackled:

It’s a new unnecessary show of force by local police.

If you do not think the prosecution is playing the media visual game of looks like a guilty person by placing newly acquired leg irons on Lori your sorely mistaken.Optics for sure.Does tell you about how they feel about the strength of their case when they play appearance “games”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1623744497149480961

Lori's attorneys could quickly remedy this with a Motion for her to appear in court in civilian clothing without restraints. Without restraints involves a stun vest worn discreetly under a shirt.

Note that most defendants appear in civilian clothing without restraints during their trials because their attorneys file this common Motion.

Lori is wearing civilian clothes so I don't get why she is seen in restraints, must be a reason.

This keeps the defendant from looking guilty and, in Lori's case, would prevent the unnecessary show of force by local police.

 

[rsd1200]

I've very loosely followed this case, and a few others much more closely, and, as @Cool Cats said, the attorneys will, as far as I understand, have to have a motion filed for either couple to appear in street clothing, and another one to appear sans shackles. Being unshackled in front of the jury is usually taken into consideration, and wearing street clothing should be approved.

Alex Murdaugh's attorneys only just filed for him to be able to appear, in the remainder of his trial, sans shackles. I think it just got handed over to the Defense. However, he's been dressed in very nice street clothing, during the entire trial. https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article269464972.html

The problem I see with Daybell and Vallow, currently, is that they are not on trial yet, this was only a hearing. It was also the first time they had both been in the same courtroom since they'd been arrested if the news is stating it correctly. They both smiled at each other while they were shackled. LE may have been prepared for something unpredictable. They are both pretty extreme folks, and she claims to have heard voices for years. Who knows what one, or both, of them, may do?

Lori Vallow Daybell walked into a Fremont County courtroom Thursday with a smile on her face and shackles on her ankles.

Her husband, Chad Daybell, briefly grinned at her when he entered, also wearing ankle shackles.

It was the first time the couple had worn those restraints in court.


(Judge hears several motions as trial for Chad and Lori Daybell approaches - East Idaho News )

One thing that did give me pause in the article;

Jim Archibald, Lori Daybell’s defense attorney, argued that his client’s constitutional rights are being violated as she will have been in jail 1,169 days by the time the trial begins April 3. Idaho law requires a trial be held within six months from the date a defendant is arraigned if that person does not waive their right to a speedy trial, which she has not done.

“The state acknowledges they are 44 days over (by the time the trial), but any amount of time over is a violation of speedy trial,” Archibald said. ( Lori Daybell’s case was paused when she was declared incompetent for trial.) “The defense knows it’s outside the time of speedy trial, the state knows it’s outside the time of speedy trial, so what’s the remedy? The Idaho Legislature says the remedy from the indictment is for it to be dismissed.”

 

[SteveS]

One thing that did give me pause in the article;

"Jim Archibald, Lori Daybell’s defense attorney, argued that his client’s constitutional rights are being violated as she will have been in jail 1,169 days by the time the trial begins April 3. Idaho law requires a trial be held within six months from the date a defendant is arraigned if that person does not waive their right to a speedy trial, which she has not done.

“The state acknowledges they are 44 days over (by the time the trial), but any amount of time over is a violation of speedy trial,” Archibald said. ( Lori Daybell’s case was paused when she was declared incompetent for trial.) “The defense knows it’s outside the time of speedy trial, the state knows it’s outside the time of speedy trial, so what’s the remedy? The Idaho Legislature says the remedy from the indictment is for it to be dismissed.”

As noted previously, the "1169 days" is a number used to gather attention or alarm from the media, but meaningless. After an arrest, they still had to be charged, arraigned, and there were extended delays after that of the DEFENSE requesting, for incompetency and etc. The point being, the 1169 was oh so much blather from the get-go.

Of even more relevance, this article you cite was back on Feb 9. Since then, the court has ruled on the motion in question, essentially say "Pfffft, you're full of it" but putting it in legalese and treating it respectfully (because of the need to cross i's and dot t's for future appeals) and explaining all the reasons why rights haven't been violated at all. It's been posted here up-thread somewhere, but it's clear that the claim is fairly bogus and a case of a desperate defense grasping at straws.

 

[rsd1200]

"Jim Archibald, Lori Daybell’s defense attorney, argued that his client’s constitutional rights are being violated as she will have been in jail 1,169 days by the time the trial begins April 3. Idaho law requires a trial be held within six months from the date a defendant is arraigned if that person does not waive their right to a speedy trial, which she has not done.

“The state acknowledges they are 44 days over (by the time the trial), but any amount of time over is a violation of speedy trial,” Archibald said. ( Lori Daybell’s case was paused when she was declared incompetent for trial.) “The defense knows it’s outside the time of speedy trial, the state knows it’s outside the time of speedy trial, so what’s the remedy? The Idaho Legislature says the remedy from the indictment is for it to be dismissed.”

As noted previously, the "1169 days" is a number used to gather attention or alarm from the media, but meaningless. After an arrest, they still had to be charged, arraigned, and there were extended delays after that of the DEFENSE requesting, for incompetency and etc. The point being, the 1169 was oh so much blather from the get-go.

Of even more relevance, this article you cite was back on Feb 9. Since then, the court has ruled on the motion in question, essentially say "Pfffft, you're full of it" but putting it in legalese and treating it respectfully (because of the need to cross i's and dot t's for future appeals) and explaining all the reasons why rights haven't been violated at all. It's been posted here up-thread somewhere, but it's clear that the claim is fairly bogus and a case of a desperate defense grasping at straws.

I agree with the defense in bringing it to the attention of the court, though. It's the law. My apologies for posting such an overtly outdated article. Carry on.

 

[longtimereader]

I wonder if the restraints are due to the fact that both defendants are in the same room. I don't know if procedure changes when two people accused of several violent crimes are in the same room or if they are married/romantically involved? They could potentially hurt one another, fight together hurting others or attempt to hug or something like that. I know lots of jokes can be made along those lines but I do wonder if there is a real risk involved rather than a show of power.

 

[rsd1200]

I wonder if the restraints are due to the fact that both defendants are in the same room. I don't know if procedure changes when two people accused of several violent crimes are in the same room or if they are married/romantically involved? They could potentially hurt one another, fight together hurting others or attempt to hug or something like that. I know lots of jokes can be made along those lines but I do wonder if there is a real risk involved rather than a show of power.

Yes, I do believe so.

<snipped for focus/brevity>

The problem I see with Daybell and Vallow, currently, is that they are not on trial yet, this was only a hearing. It was also the first time they had both been in the same courtroom since they'd been arrested if the news is stating it correctly. They both smiled at each other while they were shackled. LE may have been prepared for something unpredictable. They are both pretty extreme folks, and she claims to have heard voices for years. Who knows what one, or both, of them, may do?

 

[scapa]

Honestly at this point, given the extremity of and evidence for the crimes they're accused of and the media attention they've garnered, I suspect that dressing LVD as the endtimes angel she aspired to be and attiring CD in prophetic robes appropriate to his ego wish would make zero difference to how a jury views them. So sure, street clothes and subtle shackles -- just get on with it.

If ever a defendant could be assessed as "dark" or "light" on the fly, correctly, it's these two.

This case is clearly proundly traumatizing to family, friends, communities. It needs to be resolved.

 

[fred&edna]

Aren't a number of the defense filings/motions (basically) done "for the record" (IF they plan to appeal later on)?? I'm certainly not wording this correctly but hopefully someone understands what I mean.

 

[Tortoise]

Aren't a number of the defense filings/motions (basically) done "for the record" (IF they plan to appeal later on)?? I'm certainly not wording this correctly but hopefully someone understands what I mean.

Yes, if they don't make a record they can't raise it later.

 

[Laughing]

I wonder if the restraints are due to the fact that both defendants are in the same room. I don't know if procedure changes when two people accused of several violent crimes are in the same room or if they are married/romantically involved? They could potentially hurt one another, fight together hurting others or attempt to hug or something like that. I know lots of jokes can be made along those lines but I do wonder if there is a real risk involved rather than a show of power.

Are these perhaps multi-dimensional shackles that prevent Lori Norene Vallow from departing using The Portal?

Asking for a friend, ya'know....

 

[Cool Cats]

Aren't a number of the defense filings/motions (basically) done "for the record" (IF they plan to appeal later on)?? I'm certainly not wording this correctly but hopefully someone understands what I mean.

Thanks. "For the record" is the wording I was trying to think of.

One reason to get certain Motions "on the record" is to protect the defense attorneys from an appellate attorney accusing them of "inadequate counsel."

There have been defendants getting a new trial from "inadequate counsel."

Also it is important for the defense to clearly state in Motions why they feel the defendant is not getting a fair trial. I have seen this done in Motions filed before the trial.

Various reasons why it isn't a fair jury.
Reasons why the co-defendant shouldn't testify against the defendant.
Unfair to be tried under the death penalty when it is going to be removed.
The shoe print evidence and ballistic evidence is "pseudoscience."
Crime scene photos prejudiced the jury.
Change of venue should have been granted.
Defense could say the Defendant should have gotten this Motion granted, that Motion granted.

Etc...

 

[887sMtreme]

Thanks. "For the record" is the wording I was trying to think of.

One reason to get certain Motions "on the record" is to protect the defense attorneys from an appellate attorney accusing them of "inadequate counsel."

There have been defendants getting a new trial from "inadequate counsel."

Also it is important for the defense to clearly state in Motions why they feel the defendant is not getting a fair trial. I have seen this done in Motions filed before the trial.

Various reasons why it isn't a fair jury.
Reasons why the co-defendant shouldn't testify against the defendant.
Unfair to be tried under the death penalty when it is going to be removed.
The shoe print evidence and ballistic evidence is "pseudoscience."
Crime scene photos prejudiced the jury.
Change of venue should have been granted.
Defense could say the Defendant should have gotten this Motion granted, that Motion granted.

Etc...

I half expected Means to get it on record that a jury could be prejudiced by being presented by the evidence. Not even kidding.

 

[fred&edna]

I half expected Means to get it on record that a jury could be prejudiced by being presented by the evidence. Not even kidding.

I have Arnie Levin cartoon images in my head

 

[LinasK]

Can a jury find 1 defendant guilty and the other not guilty?

Yes. It happened in the Kristin Smart case. They found Paul Flores Guilty, but not his father Ruben Flores.

 

[Ruminations]

Here is an additional thought on the arguably dead subject of the mental gymnastics of denial and/or deception that Gibb engaged in.

Weekend of Sept. 22 and 23rd with all that occurred and has been much discussed: (Unlikely Tylee story, unlikely zombie story, unlikely "forgetting" context of text from Lori to Melanie regarding putting JJ "back" down in the evening while in same apt. allegedly, unlikely that no one suggested school as a place JJ could be or should be, unlikely that Melanie does not have a clear memory of JJ being carried into the apt., unlikely that adults contact adults over nightmares or even "visions" or other meta-earth sourced communications that don't require immediate action in the middle of the night, unlikely that the subject of several phone conversations after that bizarre morning were forgotten. Yet, memory is clear that the neither Lori nor Chad explicitly indicated physically causing the deaths of the bodies allegedly taken over by zombies.)

That weekend in September, Melanie claims she believed that Tylee was at BYU. Maybe she was callously indifferent to the truth at the time. By January a few months later, she was to report that Lori's non-verbals indicated Tylee was dead.

Melanie claims a week or so later, Lori falsely told her that JJ was with Kay, giving a lot of detail as to how JJ was passed off, etc. Let's assume Melanie believed this, and still didn't concern herself with Tylee since Melanie was not concerned about her.

Then, 8 weeks farther along, Tammy's dead and Chad and Lori are married. Police from 2 dept. and Chad and Lori all contact her, and the welfare check attempt is in full swing and Melanie knows something horrible went down.

This is what I think. Melanie would be searching for an acceptable way to string together the known information. I would think at that point, her mind would return to Tylee, no matter how much distain she had for that smart and loving little girl. I would think that Melanie would theorize that the children are together if she believed Tylee to be alive.

I would think that either 1) Melanie would have indeed already known/strongly suspected that Tylee was dead somewhere and did not tell the police this when the welfare check on JJ was going south, or 2) Would have assumed that Tylee was hiding JJ somewhere and did not tell the police this.

Yuck, yuck and yuck. I sincerely have some sympathy for what Melanie has gone through. But I am underwhelmed by her self-awareness and deeply disturbed by her actions and words. She is going to be a dreadful prosecution witness.

MOO.

 

[fred&edna]

Here is an additional thought on the arguably dead subject of the mental gymnastics of denial and/or deception that Gibb engaged in.

Weekend of Sept. 22 and 23rd with all that occurred and has been much discussed: (Unlikely Tylee story, unlikely zombie story, unlikely "forgetting" context of text from Lori to Melanie regarding putting JJ "back" down in the evening while in same apt. allegedly, unlikely that no one suggested school as a place JJ could be or should be, unlikely that Melanie does not have a clear memory of JJ being carried into the apt., unlikely that adults contact adults over nightmares or even "visions" or other meta-earth sourced communications that don't require immediate action in the middle of the night, unlikely that the subject of several phone conversations after that bizarre morning were forgotten. Yet, memory is clear that the neither Lori nor Chad explicitly indicated physically causing the deaths of the bodies allegedly taken over by zombies.)

That weekend in September, Melanie claims she believed that Tylee was at BYU. Maybe she was callously indifferent to the truth at the time. By January a few months later, she was to report that Lori's non-verbals indicated Tylee was dead.

Melanie claims a week or so later, Lori falsely told her that JJ was with Kay, giving a lot of detail as to how JJ was passed off, etc. Let's assume Melanie believed this, and still didn't concern herself with Tylee since Melanie was not concerned about her.

Then, 8 weeks farther along, Tammy's dead and Chad and Lori are married. Police from 2 dept. and Chad and Lori all contact her, and the welfare check attempt is in full swing and Melanie knows something horrible went down.

This is what I think. Melanie would be searching for an acceptable way to string together the known information. I would think at that point, her mind would return to Tylee, no matter how much distain she had for that smart and loving little girl. I would think that Melanie would theorize that the children are together if she believed Tylee to be alive.

I would think that either 1) Melanie would have indeed already known/strongly suspected that Tylee was dead somewhere and did not tell the police this when the welfare check on JJ was going south, or 2) Would have assumed that Tylee was hiding JJ somewhere and did not tell the police this.

Yuck, yuck and yuck. I sincerely have some sympathy for what Melanie has gone through. But I am underwhelmed by her self-awareness and deeply disturbed by her actions and words. She is going to be a dreadful prosecution witness.

MOO.

Interesting, how it took the squeeze of LE before MG (and others) would admit the truth. The fog of being "one of the special, light, and chosen few" sure is dense.

jmo

 

[indicolite22]

Here is an additional thought on the arguably dead subject of the mental gymnastics of denial and/or deception that Gibb engaged in.

Weekend of Sept. 22 and 23rd with all that occurred and has been much discussed: (Unlikely Tylee story, unlikely zombie story, unlikely "forgetting" context of text from Lori to Melanie regarding putting JJ "back" down in the evening while in same apt. allegedly, unlikely that no one suggested school as a place JJ could be or should be, unlikely that Melanie does not have a clear memory of JJ being carried into the apt., unlikely that adults contact adults over nightmares or even "visions" or other meta-earth sourced communications that don't require immediate action in the middle of the night, unlikely that the subject of several phone conversations after that bizarre morning were forgotten. Yet, memory is clear that the neither Lori nor Chad explicitly indicated physically causing the deaths of the bodies allegedly taken over by zombies.)

That weekend in September, Melanie claims she believed that Tylee was at BYU. Maybe she was callously indifferent to the truth at the time. By January a few months later, she was to report that Lori's non-verbals indicated Tylee was dead.

Melanie claims a week or so later, Lori falsely told her that JJ was with Kay, giving a lot of detail as to how JJ was passed off, etc. Let's assume Melanie believed this, and still didn't concern herself with Tylee since Melanie was not concerned about her.

Then, 8 weeks farther along, Tammy's dead and Chad and Lori are married. Police from 2 dept. and Chad and Lori all contact her, and the welfare check attempt is in full swing and Melanie knows something horrible went down.

This is what I think. Melanie would be searching for an acceptable way to string together the known information. I would think at that point, her mind would return to Tylee, no matter how much distain she had for that smart and loving little girl. I would think that Melanie would theorize that the children are together if she believed Tylee to be alive.

I would think that either 1) Melanie would have indeed already known/strongly suspected that Tylee was dead somewhere and did not tell the police this when the welfare check on JJ was going south, or 2) Would have assumed that Tylee was hiding JJ somewhere and did not tell the police this.

Yuck, yuck and yuck. I sincerely have some sympathy for what Melanie has gone through. But I am underwhelmed by her self-awareness and deeply disturbed by her actions and words. She is going to be a dreadful prosecution witness.

MOO.

I don't get it. You seem to desperately want her to be guilty of something. I say, if she broke the law, charge her, but I'm not blaming her for not being clairvoyant or for not immediately doubting the two people she believed had special powers. Cult members are like that. On the subject of Tammy's death, it had been predicted for a long time and MG knew it. It was one of Chad's prophecies. Nowhere was it indicated that she would be murdered. So when Tammy died, I doubt MG questioned whether Tylee was still alive. Nobody expects their friend to kill her own children. (All IMO)