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

[indicolite22]

Since the trial will probably not establish if Lori is/was a true believer in the zombie stuff, will it be taken into account in the sentencing phase? Could she get a more lenient punishment (i.e. not the LWOP) if it is thought that she had been brainwashed by Chad? Lori Hellis said that the judge could take months for deliberation and that the sentencing will likely take place back in Fremont county.

 

[fred&edna]

I agree with the opinion that Lori thinks she did nothing wrong because her attorney said that she believes the jury will acquit her.

I haven't heard that Lori "believes this trial is a religious-test put upon her by her God, and her God will deliver her from all this wrath."
So I don't agree with this part.

Court order on judge's decision on grandparent's attending trial:

Memorandum Decision and Order ... pdf

order

Judge rules victim's grandmother can attend Lori Vallow Daybell trial

A judge has ruled JJ Vallow’s biological grandmother, Kay Woodcock, will be permitted to attend the trial for Lori Vallow Daybell, among other family members.

www.kivitv.com

I wasn't quoting LH directly... it's my interpretation of her thoughts about Lori's beliefs after watching her last few lives. I should have stated such in my original post.

 

[fred&edna]

dbm - duplicate

 

[SteveS]

I'm not too sure but what LVD may believe at least part of that. I believe she is 100% guilty, but I have some convoluted feelings on how she got there. Even Larry W said she really changed in 2017. That was back when Charles tried to get help and NO ONE would listen to him.

The problem is that to get that belief system that Lori Hellis opines LVD has, LVD is going to have to take the stand and own her own words and beliefs. I'm not so sure that's going to happen.

JMO

Whether LVD will testify is a big question, but I would strongly suspect her attorneys will advise her not to. (But it's always a question of 'Will she listen?' Who knows.)

Nevertheless, a good prosecutor often can find ways to work around that issue if her thoughts are important to them. How? By getting other ways to show what she said/believed, by introducing written evidence, recordings, and people she talked to.

HOWEVER - isn't the important thing to prove convincingly what she did, rather than what she believed? I think they get into murkier waters if they go down the rabbit trail of trying to prove thoughts (which then can be justified as 'her sincere religious beliefs') rather than actions. JMO (And an opinion based on the assumption they do have TONS of evidence to show her acting as a killer. If they don't??? That would be bad in many ways.)

 

[CSIDreamer]

Whether LVD will testify is a big question, but I would strongly suspect her attorneys will advise her not to. (But it's always a question of 'Will she listen?' Who knows.)

Nevertheless, a good prosecutor often can find ways to work around that issue if her thoughts are important to them. How? By getting other ways to show what she said/believed, by introducing written evidence, recordings, and people she talked to.

HOWEVER - isn't the important thing to prove convincingly what she did, rather than what she believed? I think they get into murkier waters if they go down the rabbit trail of trying to prove thoughts (which then can be justified as 'her sincere religious beliefs') rather than actions. JMO (And an opinion based on the assumption they do have TONS of evidence to show her acting as a killer. If they don't??? That would be bad in many ways.)

Belief would speak to motive, which isn't necessary to prove guilt. So, yes. JMO

 

[Ruminations]

Lori Hellis is of the opinion that Lori Vallow truly believes she did nothing wrong (as LVD believed her children were zombies, etc), and LVD believes this trial is a religious-test put upon her by her God, and her God will deliver her from all this wrath. I don't share this opinion. Am I in the minority? I'm not looking for support for my views but I am curious if most people agree with Hellis on this topic.

I don't think you are at all in the minority.

I think most people are more in the "black widow" camp- and tend to blame Lori more than Chad.

For me, I'm really tired of the "good" Lori putting the prosecution on trial to the point of changing the subject. I'm kinda done with her on that point, in spite of it being fair enough to point out some bone-headed moves or failures to complete tasks.

However, I'm in agreement with her that Lori believes or at least believed she was acting in righteousness- I'm inclined to think she is or was delusional and under a spell of Chad.

Does my belief make me feel she's less guilty? No. Because it also appears to me that in 2019, even if she was delusional, she knew she was breaking mortal law and took actions to cover it up.

She believes or believed she did right by god IMO. But she knew all along she was breaking mortal laws. Now she is at the mercy of a jury of her mortal peers.

MOO.

 

[Ruminations]

Since the trial will probably not establish if Lori is/was a true believer in the zombie stuff, will it be taken into account in the sentencing phase? Could she get a more lenient punishment (i.e. not the LWOP) if it is thought that she had been brainwashed by Chad? Lori Hellis said that the judge could take months for deliberation and that the sentencing will likely take place back in Fremont county.

If Lori does not take the stand and her only defense is belief she was doing right (a confession, really), then the most impactful part of the whole trial will be the sentencing phase. That's where she can really throw Chad into traffic.

If she tries the tactic of testifying or having witnesses testify that she was just manipulated by Chad and Alex and is not at fault herself- she was just as clueless as the others in the casting off with prayer groups as her friends- well- that will be interesting. She will be throwing Chad under the bus at trial and Chad will crawl to the curb to do the same to her, if she's acquitted. If she's convicted he may try to plead out.

I wonder what she will do. I'm guessing since her attorneys say she needs few witnesses she is planning on getting off light in the penalty phase. But- it seems to me to be bigger risk bigger payoff to claim a role no bigger than Melanie G or Zulema.

MOO

 

[indicolite22]

If Lori does not take the stand and her only defense is belief she was doing right (a confession, really), then the most impactful part of the whole trial will be the sentencing phase. That's where she can really throw Chad into traffic.

If she tries the tactic of testifying or having witnesses testify that she was just manipulated by Chad and Alex and is not at fault herself- she was just as clueless as the others in the casting off with prayer groups as her friends- well- that will be interesting. She will be throwing Chad under the bus at trial and Chad will crawl to the curb to do the same to her, if she's acquitted. If she's convicted he may try to plead out.

I wonder what she will do. I'm guessing since her attorneys say she needs few witnesses she is planning on getting off light in the penalty phase. But- it seems to me to be bigger risk bigger payoff to claim a role no bigger than Melanie G or Zulema.

MOO

It's uncertain if Lori will blame Chad for anything in regard to the murders. IMO she will not admit to any guilt either. Maybe she thinks she and Chad can both get off by blaming Alex and ride into the sunset together. If Alex acted alone then there's no three-way conspiracy. Maybe zombies won't come into play but another motive will be suggested. I wonder if her lawyers will put forward a time when she learned that the children weren't alive any more. Her lack of action afterwards can't be explained, so I don't think this defense would work.

 

[CSIDreamer]

If Lori does not take the stand and her only defense is belief she was doing right (a confession, really), then the most impactful part of the whole trial will be the sentencing phase. That's where she can really throw Chad into traffic.

If she tries the tactic of testifying or having witnesses testify that she was just manipulated by Chad and Alex and is not at fault herself- she was just as clueless as the others in the casting off with prayer groups as her friends- well- that will be interesting. She will be throwing Chad under the bus at trial and Chad will crawl to the curb to do the same to her, if she's acquitted. If she's convicted he may try to plead out.

I wonder what she will do. I'm guessing since her attorneys say she needs few witnesses she is planning on getting off light in the penalty phase. But- it seems to me to be bigger risk bigger payoff to claim a role no bigger than Melanie G or Zulema.

MOO

"She needs few witnesses" probably translates to "no one with a brain has anything good or helpful to say". Sad for anyone to make choices that leave them in such a state. JMO

 

[Cool Cats]

If Lori does not take the stand and her only defense is belief she was doing right (a confession, really), then the most impactful part of the whole trial will be the sentencing phase. That's where she can really throw Chad into traffic.

If she tries the tactic of testifying or having witnesses testify that she was just manipulated by Chad and Alex and is not at fault herself- she was just as clueless as the others in the casting off with prayer groups as her friends- well- that will be interesting. She will be throwing Chad under the bus at trial and Chad will crawl to the curb to do the same to her, if she's acquitted. If she's convicted he may try to plead out.

I wonder what she will do. I'm guessing since her attorneys say she needs few witnesses she is planning on getting off light in the penalty phase. But- it seems to me to be bigger risk bigger payoff to claim a role no bigger than Melanie G or Zulema.

MOO

There won't be a sentencing phase trial. In Idaho a sentencing phase trial is for death penalty defendants.

It will just be normal sentencing.

A sentencing hearing is scheduled and this is where victim impact statements are given. The defense will argue reasons for a more minimal sentence and the prosecution argues reasons for a more severe sentence.

In Idaho, for first degree murder, the judge has to impose a life sentence with a minimum of 10 years before possibility of parole.

If Lori is convicted of first degree murder I believe the prosecution will argue for LWOP and the defense will argue for life with the possibility of parole after a certain number of years.

After victim impact statements and arguments from the defense and prosecutors, the judge renders sentence.

Idaho first-degree murder laws state that every person guilty of murder of the first degree must be punished by death or by imprisonment for life, provided that the prosecuting attorney files written notice of intent to seek the death penalty.

If the death penalty is not sought, the court will impose a life sentence with a minimum period of confinement of at least 10 years. During this the offender will not be eligible for parole or discharge or credit or reduction of sentence for good conduct.

Idaho First-Degree Murder - FindLaw.com

While this still classifies as first-degree murder in most jurisdiction, Idaho first degree murder also provides several other ways that a killing can become murder in the first degree. This is a quick summary of first-degree murder in Idaho.

www.findlaw.com

 

[Caylee Advocate]

I will be counting on lots of tweets to be posted. Unfortunatly I won't be able to play catch up until tomorrow evening. TIA to the posters who will be doing just that... uhm, hello @fred&edna . LOL. Nite all!

 

[squareandrabbet]

Lori Hellis is of the opinion that Lori Vallow truly believes she did nothing wrong (as LVD believed her children were zombies, etc), and LVD believes this trial is a religious-test put upon her by her God, and her God will deliver her from all this wrath. I don't share this opinion. Am I in the minority? I'm not looking for support for my views but I am curious if most people agree with Hellis on this topic.

I agree with Lori Hellis.

 

[Kemug]

I believe Lori’s attorney was wrong when his paperwork indicated that Kay and Larry are divorced. He neglected to state that the couple is currently married.

I seem to remember that way back in the early days I read here that Larry is Kay's 2nd husband, and not the father of JJ's biological father. However, I can't find that now, of course. Does anyone else remember that? So assuming this is so, Larry is not JJ's biological grandparent, although Kay is. Which may explain why the Judge has allowed Kay more court rights than Larry.

 

[Niner]

Monday, April 10th:
*Trial set to begin (@ 8:30am MT) – ID – Joshua Jaxon (JJ) Vallow (7) & Tylee Ashlyn Ryan (16) (JJ last seen Sept. 23, 2019 & Tylee on Sept. 9, 2019, Rexburg; found June 9, 2020 buried in Daybell’s yard in Salem, ID) – *Lori Norene Vallow aka Lori Norene Daybell (46/now 49) arrested (in Kauai, Hawaii on 2/20/20) & indicted & charged (5/25/21) & re-arraigned (4/19/22) with Count 1 (for Tylee): Conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder & grand theft by deception (for Daybell, Vallow & Alex Cox) & other co-conspirators. Count 2 (for Tylee): 1st degree murder. Count 3 (for JJ): Conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder & grand theft by deception. Count 4(for JJ): 1st degree murder. Count 5 (for Tammy): Conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder. Count 6: Lori only: Grand theft (related to social security survivor benefits allocated for the care of minors Tylee & JJ). Plead not guilty. DA will seek DP. Was transferred to Ada County jail on 3/22/23. Fremont County
Conspiracy to commit destruction, alteration or concealment of evidence charges dismissed without prejudice on 7/29/21. Fremont County
Resisting or obstructing LE, solicitation of a crime & contempt of court. All charges were dismissed on 1/3/22. Madison County
Trial began on 4/3/23 with jury selection & ended 4/7/23. 12 jurors & 6 alternates-10 men & 8 women.
Trial set to begin on 4/10/23 (thru 6/9/23) @ 8:30am to 3:30pm Trial will be held in Ada County. (will last about 10 weeks) Trials have been severed.
Arrest & Grand Jury & Competency & Court info from 3/5/20 thru 3/30/23 & Jury Selection Day 1-4 (4/3-4/6/23) reference post #455 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...bell-charles-vallow-arrests-68.671199/page-23
4/7/23 Friday, Jury Selection Day 5: Final 45 potential jurors. Each side gets 12 strikes until they have 18 jurors (12 jurors & 6 alternates).
Defense & prosecution striking the jurors. Being done quietly-both side are writing down the names of those jurors they want excluded. Judge Boyce announced the numbers of those jurors who are excused from serving on the jury.
Jury has been selected. Judge Boyce read the jury instructions. Members will be sworn in on Monday morning & they cannot discuss the case with anyone, they cannot email, text, blog, tweet or communicate with anyone about. 10 men & 8 women will serve on the jury.
for more info see posts #465 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...bell-charles-vallow-arrests-68.671199/page-24
Opening statements will on Monday, 4/10/23 @ 8:30am & end every day at 3:30pm.
*Chad Guy Daybell (53/now 54) – Pretrial motions hearing on 3/2/23. Trial was set to begin on 4/3/23 was vacated.
[I shall leave this off for the rest of the trial]:
*AZ – *Charge Vallow (62) shot on July 11, 2019. Lori Norene Vallow indicted (6/24/21) & served (6/29/21) with 1 count of conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder in the death of former husband Charles Vallow . Maricopa County
Case info reference post #970:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...bell-charles-vallow-arrests-67.655419/page-49

 

[SteveS]

"Biological grandparents" (ie, people who used to be grandparents, but aren't anymore) have no legal standing for these purposes. Wood's "anyone who has emotional harm gets an exclusion" argument was legal BS-ery but not much more than that.

Boyce made Kay the designated "immediate family representative" of the "immediate family victim" (Charles), as she is his sister.

Charles wouldn't get 2 immediate family representatives designated, so the divorced-or-not distinction has no real effect.

FWIW I thought Boyce's ruling on Kay was a creative yet perhaps shaky stretch of the statute - to extend the exclusion from "immediate family" to "immediate family of immediate family" - in appointing a representative. Doesn't JJ actually have immediate family (brother/sister) who could have been an actual immediate family representative, yet Boyce ignored them, right? And at least 1 prior murder case in UT got the verdict overturned on appeal because of a stretching of the victim-representative limits that have been used for so long in ID case law, which leads me to wonder why Boyce pushed the envelope like this. But what do I know?

 

[indicolite22]

Appointing SS as Tylee's representative was the same stretch as designating KW as JJ's. They are both legally victims' aunts.

 

[indicolite22]

 

[Tricia]

WE ARE SO VERY CLOSE. WE NEED 350 DOLLARS IN DONATIONS TO REACH OUR GOAL TO KEEP WEBSLEUTHS GOING.
Every month for about 228 months (that is 19 years) I have gladly paid the bills. Rarely over the 19 years have I asked for your help. THANK YOU to all who have donated. I will post an announcement and stop accepting donations when we reach our goal!
Please use PayPal Pay Websleuths.com, LLC using PayPal.Me
If the PayPal link does not work for you go to www.paypal.com and put in the email websleuths.com@gmail.com and you can send a donation that way.
Venmo name is Tricia-Griffith-14
OR
Cash App $tgrif14

(PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS DONATIONS ON THIS THREAD. CLICK HERE FOR DISCUSSION AND MORE INFORMATION)
THANK YOU SO MUCH!
Tricia

 

[Ruminations]

"Biological grandparents" (ie, people who used to be grandparents, but aren't anymore) have no legal standing for these purposes. Wood's "anyone who has emotional harm gets an exclusion" argument was legal BS-ery but not much more than that.

Boyce made Kay the designated "immediate family representative" of the "immediate family victim" (Charles), as she is his sister.

Charles wouldn't get 2 immediate family representatives designated, so the divorced-or-not distinction has no real effect.

FWIW I thought Boyce's ruling on Kay was a creative yet perhaps shaky stretch of the statute - to extend the exclusion from "immediate family" to "immediate family of immediate family" - in appointing a representative. Doesn't JJ actually have immediate family (brother/sister) who could have been an actual immediate family representative, yet Boyce ignored them, right? And at least 1 prior murder case in UT got the verdict overturned on appeal because of a stretching of the victim-representative limits that have been used for so long in ID case law, which leads me to wonder why Boyce pushed the envelope like this. But what do I know?

I still think that a victim/witness statutes that I read do not limit victims to being immediate family of homicide victims. They are just automatically included. So a person with an equivalent relationship should "count." There are so many permutations of relationships it woukd be a book in itself to explicitly spell out every person who woukd be similarly situated to immediate family.

If I were made the judge by magic wand, I would have included Kay and Karry as similarly related as immediate family. But I also would have side barred a convo to ask the defense if it could be a ruling that would have material impact on the client.

The interesting thing is while I would never want Lori's rights unprotected- and that is out of principle- not just to prevent appeal loss- I want conviction.

The way the judge ruled- getting Summer in as Ty's rep- may be harder on the defense than having Larry in the courtroom. Summer has had to evolve from cult brain or at least severely imeshed family brain to grappling with the death of Tylee and others from a realistic prospective. She's been sucked in IMO, and appears to be climbing out. She would be more plastic and influenced by other testimony IMO. I don't know her previous statements to the grand jury, and it would be harder to deviate away from the truth than towards the truth credibly on the stand. If she is further along now than she was at grand jury time, she really could be influenced.

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

It's uncertain if Lori will blame Chad for anything in regard to the murders. IMO she will not admit to any guilt either. Maybe she thinks she and Chad can both get off by blaming Alex and ride into the sunset together. If Alex acted alone then there's no three-way conspiracy. Maybe zombies won't come into play but another motive will be suggested. I wonder if her lawyers will put forward a time when she learned that the children weren't alive any more. Her lack of action afterwards can't be explained, so I don't think this defense would work.

Agreed that testifying against Chad is unlikely.

I think she still believes. It would be like expecting a 3 year kid who celebrates Easter to testify that the Easter bunny is a myth.

But we shall see! A lot of time has gone by and we "saw" a lot of 2019 Lori. I don't know what she's like now. It's been a long time.

She should be the mom of a 21 year old and an 11 year old in addition to Colby. I don't know what, if anything, that loss means to her.

MOO