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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
D
iamshadow21 said:
It makes sense to me. I don't know if it's because I understand how LDS talk in these things, or because I've got a big vocabulary, or both. I think both.

To condescend is to do something that's beneath your status, that is 'dirty work' or demeaning, in some way.

Reading between the lines, in my honest opinion, he's being thanked for working as their hitman, despite his 'godly' status.

A patriarchal blessing is an interesting thing, by the way, one of the things that I feel is closest to the divination roots of the early church that still remains mainstream, and it makes sense that Chad would misuse it in this way to manipulate his loyal followers.

MOO
Click to expand...
Didn’t Alex specifically ask Chad for a blessing, after a phone convo with someone else? Perhaps not his first supplication.
 
887sMtreme said:
D

Didn’t Alex specifically ask Chad for a blessing, after a phone convo with someone else? Perhaps not his first supplication.
Click to expand...
Anyone can ask for a priesthood blessing at any time, for any reason. Mostly, people get one because they're sick, they're troubled by life experiences or grief, or they have something new, big or exciting happening in their life, like exam results, a new job, a new kid, a house move, etc. But you can also just get one because you want the reassurance of one when you're uncertain about your life.

A patriarchal blessing is different, it's basically a form of prognostication for your life. You also find out which 'tribe' you're in, based on the sons of Israel. Not everyone gets one, and as far as I know, you only get one, once. People generally get a typed up version to keep and read back later.

I will say, both of these are 'hands on'. You sit, and the priesthood holder anoints your head with oil, places his hands on your head, and gives you the blessing. You cannot be blessed by phone, email, or Zoom.

MOO
 
Jolynna said:
My notes from Dr. Welner's affidavit:
The available evidence demonstrates Ms. Vallow’s contrived use of religion to
control and direct others and to eliminate responsibilities impeding her transition to a new life.

Ms. Vallow’s actions and choices during the period preceding, during, and
following the homicides reflect intact capacity to form criminal intent, and an
appreciation of the wrong of the murders.

Ms. Vallow’s involvement in multiple homicides reflects the influence of criminal deviance and personality, such as callus behavior and attitudes, rather than religious directive, and the evidence informing that conclusion.

Ms. Vallow’s involvement in multiple homicides reflects the influence of criminal deviance and personality rather than the influence of major psychiatric illness, and the basis for that opinion.
(Bold, color, and underlining above are mine for emphasis)

Link:

I really, really, really agree with Dr. Welner. Almost 2000 legal papers in multiple courts in multiple states document LVD's history of creating chaos and drama throughout her entire adult life. Videos and correspondence from friends and family members document how LVD not only disposed of the dogs she had tired of, but also that she and Alex tried to get rid of her second husband.

MOO
Click to expand...
I would love to know his rationale for all these statements. Is that available anywhere? TIA
 
iamshadow21 said:
Anyone can ask for a priesthood blessing at any time, for any reason. Mostly, people get one because they're sick, they're troubled by life experiences or grief, or they have something new, big or exciting happening in their life, like exam results, a new job, a new kid, a house move, etc. But you can also just get one because you want the reassurance of one when you're uncertain about your life.

A patriarchal blessing is different, it's basically a form of prognostication for your life. You also find out which 'tribe' you're in, based on the sons of Israel. Not everyone gets one, and as far as I know, you only get one, once. People generally get a typed up version to keep and read back later.

I will say, both of these are 'hands on'. You sit, and the priesthood holder anoints your head with oil, places his hands on your head, and gives you the blessing. You cannot be blessed by phone, email, or Zoom.

MOO
Click to expand...
I’m finding your posts so interesting. Thank you for joining the conversation.
 
BUF said:
I believe so @Niner

Boyce said he would take the motions under advisement and issue decisions during a hearing in Fremont County on Wednesday, March 22.

www.eastidahonews.com

Judge to rule on death penalty, evidence motions as Lori Daybell murder trial inches closer - East Idaho News

ST. ANTHONY — A judge will issue a decision next week on three motions in the Lori Vallow Daybell case as the trial is set to begin in less than three weeks. District Judge Steven Boyce heard oral arguments Wednesday on motions filed by Jim Archibald and John Thomas, Daybell’s attorneys. She and...
www.eastidahonews.com www.eastidahonews.com

more info in this article on what happened today
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info & article! :)
 
887sMtreme said:
D

Didn’t Alex specifically ask Chad for a blessing, after a phone convo with someone else? Perhaps not his first supplication.
Click to expand...
I think Alex received another blessing from Chad (by phone) shortly before his death. The first one (patriarchal blessing) was sent in an email a few weeks earlier, before the group learned they were being investigated. Alex hasn't been married to Zulema at that point.
 
indicolite22 said:
I think Alex received another blessing from Chad (by phone) shortly before his death. The first one (patriarchal blessing) was sent in an email a few weeks earlier, before the group learned they were being investigated. Alex hasn't been married to Zulema at that point.
Click to expand...
That’s the event I was thinking of. And I do remember it was a second blessing. Now I understand about the different kinds.
 
If the defense just recently realized they didn't have some of the FBI recordings, it seems this could fuel later claims of "ineffective assistance of counsel"... despite the fact it was the prosecution's responsibility to provide them long ago. Why did the defense wait this long to listen to the recorded interviews?

Also, if the defense knew the FBI interviewed "Witness A" (as that info was provided), why didn't they go to "Witness A" to see how it compared to the report long before now?
 
fred&edna said:
If the defense just recently realized they didn't have some of the FBI recordings, it seems this could fuel later claims of "ineffective assistance of counsel"... despite the fact it was the prosecution's responsibility to provide them long ago. Why did the defense wait this long to listen to the recorded interviews?

Also, if the defense knew the FBI interviewed "Witness A" (as that info was provided), why didn't they go to "Witness A" to see how it compared to the report long before now?
Click to expand...


I'm not here to make excuses for some arrogance and what appears to be inexperience on the part of the prosecutors....

And I am hardly qualified to comment...

Yet my opinion is that the disclosure issues are greatly exaggerated by the good L., who in fairness is actually an attorney.

Further, it's my opinion that she is putting the prosecution on trial- when they are not accused of murderIng anyone.

My opinion based on minutes of googling is that the prosecution only is required to share the evidence that they have access to if it is to be used to make the case against the accused or could be used to exonerate the accused.

If the prosecution fails to do either, there are problems for the prosecution. Failing to disclose inculpating evidence means it can't be used in the trial. So it would be incompetent to fail to disclose that. Failing to disclose exculpatory evidence is always bad for the prosecution- from mistrial to dropped charges to counter-suit.

It seems smart to just give the defense every granular piece of evidence. But it is not required. It is required to let the defense see anything they want in the prosecution's possession - such as LE interviews- but it is not necessary to hand over irrelevant evidence.

I imagine that most of the recent disclosure is duplicate and the rest is irrelevant. I think Pryor is just really good at whining.

I guess if a defense attorney had information for years and didn't bother to look at it until it was repeated Feb 27th, that would be ineffective counsel. But I seriously doubt any of the defense attorneys are blowing off their homework. They all seem prepared.

MOO
 
Ruminations said:
I'm not here to make excuses for some arrogance and what appears to be inexperience on the part of the prosecutors....

And I am hardly qualified to comment...

Yet my opinion is that the disclosure issues are greatly exaggerated by the good L., who in fairness is actually an attorney.

Further, it's my opinion that she is putting the prosecution on trial- when they are not accused of murderIng anyone.

My opinion based on minutes of googling is that the prosecution only is required to share the evidence that they have access to if it is to be used to make the case against the accused or could be used to exonerate the accused.

If the prosecution fails to do either, there are problems for the prosecution. Failing to disclose inculpating evidence means it can't be used in the trial. So it would be incompetent to fail to disclose that. Failing to disclose exculpatory evidence is always bad for the prosecution- from mistrial to dropped charges to counter-suit.

It seems smart to just give the defense every granular piece of evidence. But it is not required. It is required to let the defense see anything they want in the prosecution's possession - such as LE interviews- but it is not necessary to hand over irrelevant evidence.

I imagine that most of the recent disclosure is duplicate and the rest is irrelevant. I think Pryor is just really good at whining.

I guess if a defense attorney had information for years and didn't bother to look at it until it was repeated Feb 27th, that would be ineffective counsel. But I seriously doubt any of the defense attorneys are blowing off their homework. They all seem prepared.

MOO
Click to expand...

I only became concerned about the importance/relevance (to either party) of the "recorded interviews" after seeing the witnesses listed within the document link previously posted by @Jolynna

It's very possible the recorded interviews are of no value to either the prosecution or the defense. ;)

It's very possible there are too many "public" talking heads related to this case. ;)

If I was a client requesting a speedy trial (Oh my, I'm putting myself in LVD's rubber shoes :eek:)... I would expect someone on my legal team to be up to speed on all evidence (or the lack thereof).

I'm not sure what qualifies any of us to comment on anything. Your opinion sounds fine to me. ;)
 
We have a clear indicator (from BOTH sides) that this late evidence they are wrangling about does matter.

The remedy being sought by the defense is to exclude the late evidence from being used by the state - and if it didn't have any importance either way, the prosecution would just say "okay" and wouldn't care. Instead, the prosecutors are fighting to keep the evidence in play, trying to tell the judge that (a) they already gave the evidence before, (b) the evidence isn't really important, and (c) his deadline wasn't really when he said it was.

The fact they are fighting tells us it definitely must meet the standard of materiality.

As for the responses offered, the idea that most of this was just "repeat" disclosure should be easy to resolve as to its truth or not. IF THAT'S THE TRUTH, it's all a moot issue. Just prove it. That's how they win the motion. HOWEVER, if the prosecution is blowing smoke on their claim this is just repeat stuff, imo they will (and should) get slammed hard (not only re the case, but personally).

If they have to go beyond the "already disclosed" idea, I'm thinking they could have problems.

The idea that the state could redefine the judge's deadline based on oral conversations in court, using any possible slip in terminology when speaking off the cuff, rather than sticking with the judge's written order to both sides, is going to be much harder imo. I don't think the judge will have much patience for the argument as a whole, but we will see what happens.

The claim that it's evidence that isn't important is an awful claim. The Solomonic response is "Okay, if you say it isn't important, I'll just toss it and no one should care." Oops.

They also argued that even if the judge does rule they missed the deadline, it's no biggie and it should be more or less ignored. I don't think that lack of respect for deadlines and orders by the judge is going to help them at all, especially with the dissed judge making the ruling.

All of this JMO. We will see in a few days how the judge sees it - that's the only opinion that matters.

Oh, and by the way -- Losing on this motion shouldn't be a game changer. That's assuming the prosecution has the layers and layers of evidence it claims it does, and that this stuff in question is just some extra. Overall, this looks like a fairly obvious result given the many blatant illegal actions of the defendants. IMO the biggest danger - the one thing to avoid - is screwing with the defendant rights, which I think the judge is working hard to avoid, as it can get cases tossed and convictions overturned.
 
Last edited:
Ruminations said:
I'm not here to make excuses for some arrogance and what appears to be inexperience on the part of the prosecutors....

And I am hardly qualified to comment...

Yet my opinion is that the disclosure issues are greatly exaggerated by the good L., who in fairness is actually an attorney.

Further, it's my opinion that she is putting the prosecution on trial- when they are not accused of murderIng anyone.

My opinion based on minutes of googling is that the prosecution only is required to share the evidence that they have access to if it is to be used to make the case against the accused or could be used to exonerate the accused.

If the prosecution fails to do either, there are problems for the prosecution. Failing to disclose inculpating evidence means it can't be used in the trial. So it would be incompetent to fail to disclose that. Failing to disclose exculpatory evidence is always bad for the prosecution- from mistrial to dropped charges to counter-suit.

It seems smart to just give the defense every granular piece of evidence. But it is not required. It is required to let the defense see anything they want in the prosecution's possession - such as LE interviews- but it is not necessary to hand over irrelevant evidence.

I imagine that most of the recent disclosure is duplicate and the rest is irrelevant. I think Pryor is just really good at whining.

I guess if a defense attorney had information for years and didn't bother to look at it until it was repeated Feb 27th, that would be ineffective counsel. But I seriously doubt any of the defense attorneys are blowing off their homework. They all seem prepared.

MOO
Click to expand...
That clears things up a lot for me.
I've been puzzled by this thread and now I see that some are reading and listening elsewhere, for example the "good L."
So outside interpretations have influence. Not that anything is wrong with listening to podcasts, newscasts, blogs, etc.
They can be really helpful. But when I do that I still have to sift and sort, accept and reject opinions and information, and use my own judgement and reasoning.
Trying to see what Banfield etc. on News Nation had to say about the Moscow Murders the other night; had to wade through a lot of exploitation, passive agression, sarcasm, etc. and after all that nothing much left of value. That's just an example and a different case. I haven't listened to any podcasts etc. about this case for quite a while. But I see now where some are coming from.
Also reminds me of all the defense attorneys on the news and elsewhere who insisted that the Murdaugh case would be a mistrial. Then some of them seemed mad afterward. "Well it should have been a mistrial!"

The LDS Church does not control the justice system in Idaho; the judge and the prosecution are not in a conspiracy to acquit Lori and Chad; the prosecution is not incompetent. Lori and Chad will be in prison for the rest of their lives. moo
 
Ruminations said:
My opinion based on minutes of googling is that the prosecution only is required to share the evidence that they have access to if it is to be used to make the case against the accused or could be used to exonerate the accused.
Click to expand...
SBM. Lori Hellis pointed out in her videos that it's up to the defense and not the prosecution to determine whether a piece of discovery is exculpatory or not, therefore all information should be provided. The second complaint was about the amount of discovery being turned over to the defense at the last minute, despite having been available to the prosecution for much longer. IMO if it can be established that truly new information couldn't be processed in the time remaining, it will likely be excluded.
I agree that inexperience might be to blame for some of the prosecution's failings. Both LH and Scott Reisch suggested that the prosecution should have hired a dedicated paralegal for managing the voluminous discovery.
 
sassyblue said:
I didn't know that might be an option! I hate mornings but thought I would have to arrive at 0 dark thirty to get a seat.

I am very relieved I have not received a jury summons this month. And am hoping they are not going out later than today.
Click to expand...

i hope you are better at following directions than I am!!! Don't mess up what they are telling seat-seekers to do, or else you'll ge t kicked out before 0-dark-thirty!
 
ReadySet said:
That clears things up a lot for me.
I've been puzzled by this thread and now I see that some are reading and listening elsewhere, for example the "good L."
So outside interpretations have influence. Not that anything is wrong with listening to podcasts, newscasts, blogs, etc.
They can be really helpful. But when I do that I still have to sift and sort, accept and reject opinions and information, and use my own judgement and reasoning.
Trying to see what Banfield etc. on News Nation had to say about the Moscow Murders the other night; had to wade through a lot of exploitation, passive agression, sarcasm, etc. and after all that nothing much left of value. That's just an example and a different case. I haven't listened to any podcasts etc. about this case for quite a while. But I see now where some are coming from.
Also reminds me of all the defense attorneys on the news and elsewhere who insisted that the Murdaugh case would be a mistrial. Then some of them seemed mad afterward. "Well it should have been a mistrial!"

The LDS Church does not control the justice system in Idaho; the judge and the prosecution are not in a conspiracy to acquit Lori and Chad; the prosecution is not incompetent. Lori and Chad will be in prison for the rest of their lives. moo
Click to expand...
Hi. Just a different perspective from what I see. I don’t watch the good L. Don’t watch anything else about this case on YouTube.

I believe the prosecution hasn’t shown us that they are “prepared”. Neither has the Judge. Only ones running the case so far are defense counselors.

I do see a lack of willingness to prosecute and bring them to justice by all involved.
And I am not convinced they will be in jail for the rest of their lives.

As for LDS control or involvement, that’s where Chad got his ideas. That can’t be ignored now.

I am hoping for a good jury with common sense,

But there are always reminders of Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson juries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 99 more.
Total: 269 (members: 100, guests: 169)

Online statistics

Members online
100
Guests online
169
Total visitors
269
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,713
Messages
18,244,477
Members
234,435
Latest member
ProfKim
Back
Top