ID - Doomsday Cult Victims - Joshua Vallow - Tylee Ryan - Tammy Daybell - Charles Vallow - *Arrests* #68

[Tortoise]

Well, did Lori's Mom help raise Tylee? Physically take care of her? Become concerned when she was missing? Help search for her? Feel distressed as an immediate family member would when she was missing? Or when she learned that she was deceived into believing Tylee was fine? Was her grief similar to the grief an immediate family member would experience when the children were found?

I think the answers are closer to yes for Summer. I've seen a little more evidence of time Summer and Tylee we're together than Janis, but I don't know their whole history.

I think the point of the Idaho victim right laws is "direct" victims "directly" harmed have certain rights, including witnessing legal proceedings. And the statute says that persons who were immediate family of homicide victims are presumed to have been directly harmed.

So if any Cox's were involved in a victim's life to the same degree and with the same intensity as a parent or sibling, for instance, they were directly harmed. If the involvement was more analogous to an aunt/uncle/cousin perhaps not.

That is the way I see it. I think it is obvious that Kay and Larry were not in a relationship with JJ just as grandparents or sibs of a parent. They were in a parental role- the very first in a parental role in his life- and it never ended. When it was clear that his adoptive parents could not care for JJ, they were ready to resume primary parenting.

MOO

and quite significant too, I feel, that Charles changed the beneficiary of his life policy to Kay, for JJ's upbringing, because he assumed Lori wouldn't care for JJ.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

That attempt to become guardians didn't mean anything unless they were GRANTED guardianship - and they weren't (afaik).

One other thing here about the family issue -- while it's being treated dismissively in this forum, the fact that JJ had been legally adopted does matter. A lot. It did indeed create a legal change in the standing of the W's. When that happened, legally they were no longer grandparents of JJ at all. That was over.

And in general, the various states regard all the rights of "biological grandparents" as being given up when their grandchild is legally adopted. So even if it seems cruel to say they aren't really grandparents, it's one of the legal facts of the situation, and was very pertinent to the courtroom discussion.

It means everything. Remember, the statute does not say you must be immediate family to be a direct victim. It just says immediate family of homicide victims are presumed to be direct victims. It does not say if you are not immediate family of a homicide victim you are not a direct victim.

The defense attorneys are trying to get people to misread this. Some people are considered direct victims. These include but are not limited to immediate family members of homicide victims. There is no place written that I have seen where it says something like, "An aunt or uncle of a homicide victim can NEVER be considered a direct victim." Have you seen anything like that? It does say that immediate family can be presumed to be direct victims.

Given the immediate family presumption, it stands to reason that a person in a relationship LIKE immediate family would be directly victimized.

It's about whether or not a person is a direct victim. The legal status of guardianship, foster parenting, biology, adoption are all irrelevant. It is appropriate to dismiss those legal statuses. They have nothing to do with whether or not a person is a direct victim.

I refuse to be pulled into the defenses game of "terminated parental rights," blah, blah, blah. It is a distraction.

You might disagree with me on whether or not KW and LW were as directly harmed by these murders as, say, Colby, or not. That is fine. But to get into BS like whether or not guardianship was granted is to change the subject.

So here is my question for all to decide whether or not each of you thinks KW and LW were direct victims or not:

Were they harmed directly and to the same degree as immediate family by these murders or not?

If yes, you think they were direct victims.

If no, you think they were not.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

SG may be right, but it's not as clear cut as he opines. The W's are family, but in most contexts you can't class them as "immediate" family (parent, brother-sister, child), nor are they directly "victims" of the murder except in the fact that some extended family they love has been killed. The judge has to balance their desires against the prejudicial nature of testimony from them, if they are given an opportunity to hear what others say and then tailor their own testimony to fit.

If they weren't testifying, there would be no issue.

Or, once they have finished, the barriers could be dropped. I'm guessing the judge uses that possibility (throwing it onto the prosecution to call them first) as his way to thread the needle, because what's worse than them excluded would be for the trial choices to create valid issues that get a conviction tossed on appeal. Lori walking free is a way worse outcome than the W's missing some days in the courtroom for everyone, including the W's.

Maybe Boyce can find (or has) case law or prior appellate justification in a similar circumstance, that will then be LIKELY to stand up on appeal. I would wager he is looking for that, but he will want it to be strong. We'll see.

Steve S, are you saying that you have seen it written in Idaho victim rights' statutes that extended family can NOT be direct victims?

Remember, just because they are not automatically presumed to be direct victims is not the same thing as they are never considered direct victims.

I think you are gravely misunderstanding this- as are a lot of people influenced by the defense attorneys.

It's a classic logical fallacy. If all immediate family are direct victims, it does not follow that ONLY immediate family are direct victims. Am I explaining that well?

MOO

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I have not been following this case as closely as most of y’all have so I’m a little confused with the discussion.
Is the discussion about whether the Woodcocks can sit in the courtroom while others testify since they will probably testify also? Or…is the question about whether they are allowed in the courtroom at all because of some weird Idaho law?
I know in some trials witnesses can’t hear other testimony, but at the Murdaugh trial it was allowed.

 

[indicolite22]

Well, did Lori's Mom help raise Tylee? Physically take care of her? Become concerned when she was missing? Help search for her? Feel distressed as an immediate family member would when she was missing? Or when she learned that she was deceived into believing Tylee was fine? Was her grief similar to the grief an immediate family member would experience when the children were found?

I think the answers are closer to yes for Summer. I've seen a little more evidence of time Summer and Tylee we're together than Janis, but I don't know their whole history.

I think the point of the Idaho victim right laws is "direct" victims "directly" harmed have certain rights, including witnessing legal proceedings. And the statute says that persons who were immediate family of homicide victims are presumed to have been directly harmed.

So if any Cox's were involved in a victim's life to the same degree and with the same intensity as a parent or sibling, for instance, they were directly harmed. If the involvement was more analogous to an aunt/uncle/cousin perhaps not.

That is the way I see it. I think it is obvious that Kay and Larry were not in a relationship with JJ just as grandparents or sibs of a parent. They were in a parental role- the very first in a parental role in his life- and it never ended. When it was clear that his adoptive parents could not care for JJ, they were ready to resume primary parenting.

MOO


Edit: oops. Quoted the wrong post. I meant to respond to the "are the Cox's direct victims, then?" post. I make so many errors and typos because this is so raw. It's bad enough when there are legitimate legal issues brought up that could have a disappointing end. It is not an unreasonable idea to make sure the trial can be conducted fairly with a witness attending. And the answer could be sadly, no- it would not be fair to the defendant. But I don't foresee harm in the KW or LW case because I think their story is locked in- it only evolved with hindsight understanding. I could be wrong: there could be a problem with their being present in the courtroom. But nobody is bothering to discuss what that could possibly be. It is really disturbing to me that the discussion is all about irrelevant legal statuses. MOO

Lori's mother and sister lived in the same city as Lori, while the Woodcocks lived in another state. I believe Janis and Summer maintained relationships with all Lori's children as long as Lori kept in touch. After Charles' death Janis was seen consoling Tylee in Janis' home. Summer claimed that she exchanged messages with Tylee in September (it was likely Lori replying). IMO the Coxes could be also classified as victims. Just because they didn't believe that Lori was capable of harming her children it doesn't mean that they weren't affected by their deaths. There's also Lori's nephew Zac, who lived with Lori and Charles for a while and was close to Tylee and JJ.

 

[indicolite22]

I have not been following this case as closely as most of y’all have so I’m a little confused with the discussion.
Is the discussion about whether the Woodcocks can sit in the courtroom while others testify since they will probably testify also? Or…is the question about whether they are allowed in the courtroom at all because of some weird Idaho law?
I know in some trials witnesses can’t hear other testimony, but at the Murdaugh trial it was allowed.

We are speculating which non-immediate family members who are also on the witness list will be determined to be direct victims by the judge and as such will be allowed to sit in the courtroom throughout the trial.

 

[Ruminations]

I have not been following this case as closely as most of y’all have so I’m a little confused with the discussion.
Is the discussion about whether the Woodcocks can sit in the courtroom while others testify since they will probably testify also? Or…is the question about whether they are allowed in the courtroom at all because of some weird Idaho law?
I know in some trials witnesses can’t hear other testimony, but at the Murdaugh trial it was allowed.

You have it exactly right.

The trial in question will not be televised, and there is limited seating. There is not seating set aside even for press. (However, press people and even you tubers seem confident about seating?) There is seating set aside for victims in this case, because in Idaho, victims may witness the whole trial even if they are also witnesses. If KW and LW are determined to not be victims, maybe they cannot get seating even when released as witnesses. That is my fear, but I do not know.

If KW and LW are direct victims, they can watch the whole trial even if they might be called as witnesses. This is not true in every state.

The prosecution side was supposed to be on top of filing official statements identifying victims. They did not. It could be that this step was routinely blown off; maybe it was never in question in recent years who was a victim- who was to be present at trial- etc. I'm sad they missed this.

Then the defense started an irrelevant debate of grandparents vs. aunt and uncle- when neither is automatically a direct victim anyway. And they did it in the rudest manner- saying Grandparents were just what they dubbed themselves.

Now some you tubers and journalists are tripping over each other trying to debate exactly what the defense wants them to debate- what relative title should we give K&L and what family titles are automatically "direct" victims.

The debate should be: Are K&L direct victims? Not Are K&L immediate family? Because while all immediate family members of murder victims are direct victims, it does not follow that all direct victims are immediate family.

Geez.

MOO

Edited to add stuff because my thumbs are on fire!

The way the defense attorneys brought up the grandparent or not debate was not only rude to Kay and Larry. It also denigrated the victim JJ.

It focused on a parent terminating parental rights and the first parent figures "dubbing themselves" with a title. It turns JJ's origin story into that- born of a parent that gave him up and chased by and aunt and uncle weren't "real" grandparents. This is a step up from "my nieces drug baby," but it is a step down from the reality.

AFAIK, JJ's bio parents (RIP Mandy) were concerned enough with their son's needs NOT to interfere with other adults - who were not dealing with an illness at the time - to work out appropriate parenting for JJ. That is tempting and easy to do, and can leave a child in guardianship limbo for much longer than JJ's lifetime. I have seen it: one parent then the other sober enough to muck up court proceedings. By all appearances, during improvements in their use/addiction, JJ's parents did not take the legal actions they could have taken to destabilize and delay adoption. All information suggests that JJ's bio parents and grandparents focused 100% on what seemed would be best for JJ. He was a very loved baby and child, and it shows in all the love he gave back to the world.

JJ was far more than the product of released parental rights and people dubbing themselves grandparents.

MOO

 

[CSIDreamer]

You have it exactly right.

The trial in question will not be televised, and there is limited seating. There is not seating set aside even for press. (However, press people and even you tubers seem confident about seating?) There is seating set aside for victims in this case, because in Idaho, victims may witness the whole trial even if they are also witnesses. If KW and LW are determined to not be victims, maybe they cannot get seating even when released as witnesses. That is my fear, but I do not know.

If KW and LW are direct victims, they can watch the whole trial even if they might be called as witnesses. This is not true in every state.

The prosecution side was supposed to be on top of filing official statements identifying victims. They did not. It could be that this step was routinely blown off; maybe it was never in question in recent years who was a victim- who was to be present at trial- etc. I'm sad they missed this.

Then the defense started an irrelevant debate of grandparents vs. aunt and uncle- when neither is automatically a direct victim anyway. And they did it in the rudest manner- saying Grandparents were just what they dubbed themselves.

Now some you tubers and journalists are tripping over each other trying to debate exactly what the defense wants them to debate- what relative title should we give K&L and what family titles are automatically "direct" victims.

The debate should be: Are K&L direct victims? Not Are K&L immediate family? Because while all immediate family members of murder victims are direct victims, it does not follow that all direct victims are immediate family.

Geez.

MOO

Can you help me with a tiny point? The last few days of us all chiming in on this matter have made things a bit fuzzy. Which law/statute are you citing for "direct victims"? I need new glasses (lol) but I can't even find that in my own provided links.

This second point not directed at you, just a general comment.

I have no idea how Tylee felt about Kay and Larry. I do know that JJ was quite confident and comfortable with them being his grandparents. As a minor, the prosecution needs to advocate for him and his right to have his grandparents present and advocating for HIS justice.


JMO

 

[Ruminations]

Can you help me with a tiny point? The last few days of us all chiming in on this matter have made things a bit fuzzy. Which law/statute are you citing for "direct victims"? I need new glasses (lol) but I can't even find that in my own provided links.

This second point not directed at you, just a general comment.

I have no idea how Tylee felt about Kay and Larry. I do know that JJ was quite confident and comfortable with them being his grandparents. As a minor, the prosecution needs to advocate for him and his right to have his grandparents present and advocating for HIS justice.


JMO

I am trying to step away from the phone and touch grass, lol. But tonight I will see.

I believe Annie, Tylee's Aunt pulled out all the statutes in her recent presentation, and that's where I saw the more comprehensive collection of references.

(I don't agree with all of her conclusions, although I agree with some and I think she is thinking harder about this than some attorney presenters, IMO. I think Annie almost gets caught in the same fallacy that if all immiate family are victims then those who are not immediate family must not be. I agree with her analysis of K&L lawyers argument- hurried and circular. But I think that biggest flaw in it is that it did not state what seems obvious to me. If an immediate family member of a homicide victim is considered automatically to be a direct victim, it follows that a person in the same kind of relationship with a homicide victim as immediate family must, too, be considered a direct victim. And K&L are in the same kind of relationship as immediate family.)

Annie did what I'm too lazy to do right now. And I thank her for it.

MOO

 

[fred&edna]

I am trying to step away from the phone and touch grass, lol. But tonight I will see.

I believe Annie, Tylee's Aunt pulled out all the statutes in her recent presentation, and that's where I saw the more comprehensive collection of references.

(I don't agree with all of her conclusions, although I agree with some and I think she is thinking harder about this than some attorney presenters, IMO. I think Annie almost gets caught in the same fallacy that if all immiate family are victims then those who are not immediate family must not be. I agree with her analysis of K&L lawyers argument- hurried and circular. But I think that biggest flaw in it is that it did not state what seems obvious to me. If an immediate family member of a homicide victim is considered automatically to be a direct victim, it follows that a person in the same kind of relationship with a homicide victim as immediate family must, too, be considered a direct victim. And K&L are in the same kind of relationship as immediate family.)

Annie did what I'm too lazy to do right now. And I thank her for it.

MOO

Here's a link to AC's YT video related to this matter:

<Admin Note: AC's videos have been approved>


The Vallow-Daybell Timeline of Death (Video 15)

 

[fred&edna]

Also, here is a link to the "Idaho Manual on the Rights of Victim's of Crime" if anyone is interested.

https://www.idaholegalaid.org/files/Idaho_Manual_on_Rights_of Victims_of_Crime.pdf



ETA: I noted this on page 6 of the manual. Does "subpoena" as used here relate to being a witness??

Question No. 8: Are victims allowed to attend court proceedings?
Answer: Yes. Victims can be present at all justice proceedings or juvenile proceedings unless there is a conflict with a subpoena which has been issued.

 

[SteveS]

Steve S, are you saying that you have seen it written in Idaho victim rights' statutes that extended family can NOT be direct victims?

Rum, I am not arguing for any particular outcome, or saying that the law demands this or that.

I have observed the W's factual legal standing of "biological grandparents" (or lack of same). Since that is who the W's are, that's how they are most likely to be treated imo.

My opinion is that even a member of "immediate family" (and I'm not convinced the W's could pass this threshold) who will testify does not have an inalienable right to attend the trial, because issues of justice and fairness supersede any such right. Much less non-IF. Some of that is just legal common sense, but I also am swayed by the fact that Boyce himself sees a "gray area" re the rules for IFM's.

It seems to me that IF their presence watching other testimony will impede defendants rights (and thereby imperil any conviction) in allowing them an opportunity to tailor testimony to fit testimony of others, then their presence impedes both the cause of fairness and justice, and also opens the door to an avenue for a conviction to be tossed. Maybe no one else agrees, but IMO the main thing we should all want is a squeaky clean trial where LVD will be locked away and won't get out later. Don't risk that.

From his actions to date, I believe that is Boyce's highest priority, and that's why I figure he'll probably exclude the W's from watching testimony of others.

The argument that their testimony isn't that important anyhow? That is a non-starter of an argument, because the rebuttal is easy - "okay, then take them off the witness list."

Most importantly, my observations don't matter. It's just observations and opinion. We have no reason to be agitated or wrangle over what is allowed and what the rules are and so on. If you see things differently, that's ok. Because no matter what any of us think, in 24 hours Boyce will have already ruled. A couple of sleeps, and the answer will be handed to us on a silver platter.

 

[Ruminations]

Rum, I am not arguing for any particular outcome, or saying that the law demands this or that.

I have observed the W's factual legal standing of "biological grandparents" (or lack of same). Since that is who the W's are, that's how they are most likely to be treated imo.

My opinion is that even a member of "immediate family" (and I'm not convinced the W's could pass this threshold) who will testify does not have an inalienable right to attend the trial, because issues of justice and fairness supersede any such right. Much less non-IF. Some of that is just legal common sense, but I also am swayed by the fact that Boyce himself sees a "gray area" re the rules for IFM's.

It seems to me that IF their presence watching other testimony will impede defendants rights (and thereby imperil any conviction) in allowing them an opportunity to tailor testimony to fit testimony of others, then their presence impedes both the cause of fairness and justice, and also opens the door to an avenue for a conviction to be tossed. Maybe no one else agrees, but IMO the main thing we should all want is a squeaky clean trial where LVD will be locked away and won't get out later. Don't risk that.

From his actions to date, I believe that is Boyce's highest priority, and that's why I figure he'll probably exclude the W's from watching testimony of others.

The argument that their testimony isn't that important anyhow? That is a non-starter of an argument, because the rebuttal is easy - "okay, then take them off the witness list."

Most importantly, my observations don't matter. It's just observations and opinion. We have no reason to be agitated or wrangle over what is allowed and what the rules are and so on. If you see things differently, that's ok. Because no matter what any of us think, in 24 hours Boyce will have already ruled. A couple of sleeps, and the answer will be handed to us on a silver platter.

I am obviously failing to express myself clearly.

It does not matter if it is not clear who is and who is not immediate family.

Immediate family members of a homicide victim are automatically considered direct victims.

Other individuals who were directly harmed by the crimes are considered direct victims.

Let's step away from "gray area" immediate family and consider clear immediate family. Like parents or siblings. De facto, they are considered direct victims of the crime of the homicide of their child or sibling, right?

Now ask yourself why that person is considered a direct victim. It is because their immediate family was murdered.

There can be other direct victims that are not immediate family.

Who would they be?

One example would be people hurt in the same way and with the same severity as immediate family members.

IMO, K&L are hurt in the same way and with the same severity as immediate family members.

Therefore, if immediate family members (not the gray area ones) are considered direct victims, K&L must be, too.

Is that better?

Direct victims who are to be called as witnesses (or who are subpoenaed) have the right to attend all parts of the trial in Idaho. That is not true is all states, but it is true in Idaho.

MOO

 

[whatsupp]

It sounds like the media have guaranteed reservations for this trial.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1642611651643072512

 

[CSIDreamer]

I am obviously failing to express myself clearly.

It does not matter if it is not clear who is and who is not immediate family.

Immediate family members of a homicide victim are automatically considered direct victims.

Other individuals who were directly harmed by the crimes are considered direct victims.

Let's step away from "gray area" immediate family and consider clear immediate family. Like parents if siblings. De facto, they are considered direct victims of the crime of the homicide of their child or sibling, right?

Now ask yourself why that person is considered a direct victim. It is because their immediate family was murdered.

There can be other direct victims that are not immediate family.

Who would they be?

One example would be people hurt in the same way and with the same severity as immediate family members.

IMO, K&L are hurt in the same way and with the same severity as immediate family members.

Therefore, if immediate family members (not the gray area ones) are considered direct victims, K&L must be, too.

Is that better?

Direct victims who are to be called as witnesses (or who are subpoenaed) have the right to attend all parts of the trial in Idaho. That is not true is all states, but it is true in Idaho.

MOO

According to Idaho law, victims of a crime have rights. I am still asking for the link to the wording "direct victim". I have yet to find it. I'm asking simply because using potentially made up terms is capable of really muddying the water.

I am 100% on the side of Kay and Larry in that they are victims of this crime and Idaho victim's rights should apply to them. So, in complete agreement with you on this.

JMO

 

[CSIDreamer]

It sounds like the media have guaranteed reservations for this trial.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1642611651643072512

*relief*

 

[Chelly]

Lori Vallow trial: Jury selection set to begin for doomsday cult mom | What you need to know

The Idaho woman is accused of killing her two youngest children and her husband's ex-wife in a sensational case that's had many twists and turns.

abc7chicago.com

"What we can expect to see, at least from the defense, is some sort of effort to make Lori Vallow Daybell look like she's insane -- that she's suffering from delusions, she suffering from mental illness, and that she didn't know what she was doing," said attorney David Glass.

 

[ReadySet]

*relief*

I am very glad to hear the media have guaranteed seats. It is confusing based on what it says here:

Individuals wishing to attend any of the locations must reserve a seat in advance. There will be no priority or designated seating for the public or media. All attendees must comply with all courtroom and courthouse decorum orders.

Also, sometime Friday or Saturday, this was posted:

UPDATE – Timeframe for Reservation Requests has Been Extended​

The timeframe to request reservations for the Ada County Public Hearing Room has just been extended. You may continue to submit reservation requests until 4:00 p.m. MT for April 3, 2023.

The timeframe to request reservations for the Madison County Courthouse has also been extended. You may continue to submit reservation requests until 12:00 p.m. MT for April 3, 2023.

Vallow Daybell Trial

Information and answers to commonly asked questions about the Vallow Daybell Trial scheduled to take place in Ada County.

adacounty.id.gov

 

[Trebor5591]

They were discussing on NewsNation last night how it was unfair that women inmates don't have access to makeup, hair dye, etc., which makes them look rougher in court, leading to them being judged more harshly than men, who don't need makeup and look like they normally would.

Pu-lease!

 

[CSIDreamer]

I want to clarify why I'm dinging on this "direct victim" phrase. The only designation I'm seeing in any Idaho laws/statutes/what have you is "victim". It sounds to me like there is a higher designation beyond victim, which is "direct victim", which I'm not finding anywhere. I'm getting touchy (anxious) about this case with the trial looming and want to make sure there isn't some hidden designation.

I'm sure I'm not the only one getting a little wound up over justice.