ID - Doomsday Cult Victims - Joshua Vallow, Tylee Ryan, Tammy Daybell, Charles Vallow *Arrests* #71

[cottonweaver]

@ 2:10 mark - Am I hearing this right?!?

Lori: (cool, calm, collected, and calculating) And you think I let that happen?
Summer: (emotionally distraught) Yes! I do!
Lori: (dismissively) That's nice.

 The same exact response as when Nate Eaton cornered her in Hawaii and informed her that people were praying for her children. "That's great."

I'm speechless.

Edited to add the Nate Eaton video, @ 1:10 mark:

Just awful! and the way Lori bats back ' Yeah, ask him' when Summer complains that Lori hasn't told anyone what happened, and that only Lori & the Lord know.

Did you also notice the point where Lori replies ' that's correct.' ( 3:25 mark)
I hope this call didn't happen at the point that she'd been 'diagnosed' as mentally incompetent because it shows how carefully she's following the conversation to avoid self-incrimination

 

[cottonweaver]

Does anybody recall who arranged the cremation of Alex Cox or who attended his funeral service? Just his ex wife & the Pastenes? Not even Melanie Gibb & those who'd spent a lot of time around him 2018-2019?

( Am just listening to the Summer-Lori call and being reminded of the fact that Lori didn't even tell her family that their brother had died on December 12, 2019)

 

[KonaHonu]

( Anyway, back to original point - I don't think what Summer says can be trusted, period. JJ was dead & couldn't take the phone to speak to her but she ventured that on national TV. BTW I don't think Summer knew that JJ was already dead but she took a risk there which could have frustrated a police search to save a living child, by claiming she'd spoken to him Oct 1st. Misguided loyalty to her sister Lori, who is obviously the dominant personality. )

I am perplexed why the prosecutors did not jump on this. Since Summer is known to be a defense witness and Janis is likely to be, I would think they would want to get testimony on record that could be used to impeach them. Why not ask them, "when is the last time you spoke with JJ and Tylee?"

Maybe there is a lawyering tactic at play here that I am unaware of.

 

[MissTilly]

if AC had a previous brain injury and scarring to the back of his head, i would expect that being hit in the head with a baseball bat by a fit ex baseball player (CV) to result in a devastating injury not a minor wound
i think one or both of these things are not true…
moo

 

[Kavya01]

I see tons of incriminating evidence against Alex and Chad. I am not swayed much by Lori texting her boyfriend/husband and her brother. I think it is possible that Alex and Chad acted alone to help her out and told her the kids were safe. She may have only learned the truth sometime in January around the time she was arrested. Even the detective testified that there was nothing incriminating in all of her texts that implicates her in killing her kids. I am also not swayed by her not reacting the way we expect a normal person to react. Lying to police after the fact is also not very convincing. It may be a crime but if she truly believed they were safe then it does not really bother me.

I don't actually believe that she was not involved. I'm just saying that if I were a juror I would be ready to convict both Chad and Alex for murder and conspiracy based on the evidence presented so far but I think there is still plenty of reasonable doubt about Lori.

Part of the reason I feel this way is based on the same kind of logic you used. You say that her not reacting and grieving the way society expects is evidence of guilt. I would argue that a woman killing her own kids is (thankfully) extremely rare so I need strong evidence to believe the normal societal norms were violated.

Show me phone pings that place her at the scene of a burial at the right time or a text saying "now's the time" on the day of a murder. Show me something other than she texted her boyfriend 3 times on the day of the burial. I am surprised the defense did not ask the detecting to list how many times she and Chad and Alex texted every day over a, say 3 month period. She is not smart enough not to have left breadcrumbs if she was involved.

IMO the prosecution is doing an efficient enough job laying out the detailed portrait of a woman without any qualms to have the people she's tired of, or are in the way, or reduced to "ballast", eradicated from her life. Other defendants have in the past been convicted for their manipulation of co-conspirators into doing the actual physical murder deed-- e.g. under the Common Purpose law although I am not clear if that law is in effect in Idaho, in the US I just find it in Texas and Mass?

"The doctrine of common purpose, common design, joint enterprise, joint criminal enterprise or parasitic accessory liability is a common law legal doctrine that imputes criminal liability to the participants in a criminal enterprise for all reasonable results from that enterprise."

Common purpose - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mrjitty]

What a phone call.

Oh my.

On the one hand it is hard not to wonder how on earth her supporters went through those first months believing her.

But on the other hand, you are listening to a psychopath there. The total lack of reaction.

Bonkers.

 

[KonaHonu]

IMO the prosecution is doing an efficient enough job laying out the detailed portrait of a woman without any qualms to have the people she's tired of, or are in the way, or reduced to "ballast", eradicated from her life.

I completely agree. But my understanding of Idaho law is that they have to prove there was an agreement to commit murder. The prosecution is doing a great job of presenting evidence against Chad and Alex. They have presented a a few things against Lori like her comment that "2manykids" was a funny wifi password, searching for life insurance on kids, etc. But were I a juror, it would fall FAR shorth at this point. Boring me with the how many times she texted her boyfriend and brother is counterproductive because it just tells me they have nothing against her, especially after the lead detective testifies they have nothing against her.

 

[cottonweaver]

I am perplexed why the prosecutors did not jump on this. Since Summer is known to be a defense witness and Janis is likely to be, I would think they would want to get testimony on record that could be used to impeach them. Why not ask them, "when is the last time you spoke with JJ and Tylee?"

Maybe there is a lawyering tactic at play here that I am unaware of.

Gigi tweeted that Summer isn't now going to be a defense witness ( no idea if it's accurate & no explanation was given)
IDK if Janis will be or who the Defence have got?

To your other question though, I guess it serves no advantage for the Prosecution to show that their witness - Summer - made some misleading claims on TV ( And maybe, in later conversations with LEO, Summer recanted that claim in any case)

However, re Pros not pouncing on stuff to their advantage, I see that Nate Eaton picked-up on the point I mentioned yesterday aftrernoon. Lori says in the call wtte of ..... I was dancing on beach because I needed to be able to continue my life after that trauma & find personal happiness & anyway my wedding was months after the kids were gone.

maybe the Pros will refer to this Lori slip-up later at trial? It seemed to me that it would have been useful to emphasise it as an indirect admission from lori that she was aware at the time. ( otoh Pros case already seems so strong to me)

am just watching it now - it's c 30 mins

 

[mrjitty]

I see tons of incriminating evidence against Alex and Chad. I am not swayed much by Lori texting her boyfriend/husband and her brother. I think it is possible that Alex and Chad acted alone to help her out and told her the kids were safe. She may have only learned the truth sometime in January around the time she was arrested. Even the detective testified that there was nothing incriminating in all of her texts that implicates her in killing her kids. I am also not swayed by her not reacting the way we expect a normal person to react. Lying to police after the fact is also not very convincing. It may be a crime but if she truly believed they were safe then it does not really bother me.

I don't actually believe that she was not involved. I'm just saying that if I were a juror I would be ready to convict both Chad and Alex for murder and conspiracy based on the evidence presented so far but I think there is still plenty of reasonable doubt about Lori.

Part of the reason I feel this way is based on the same kind of logic you used. You say that her not reacting and grieving the way society expects is evidence of guilt. I would argue that a woman killing her own kids is (thankfully) extremely rare so I need strong evidence to believe the normal societal norms were violated.

Show me phone pings that place her at the scene of a burial at the right time or a text saying "now's the time" on the day of a murder. Show me something other than she texted her boyfriend 3 times on the day of the burial. I am surprised the defense did not ask the detecting to list how many times she and Chad and Alex texted every day over a, say 3 month period. She is not smart enough not to have left breadcrumbs if she was involved.

BIB

Just a point on circumstantial evidence here.

You can nearly always always come up with some convoluted explanation of events that minimises the legal jeopardy of the accused. But is there actually any evidence presented at trial upon which to base that explanation? Did the accused actually claim any of these things?

Wild speculation by defence counsel is not evidence, and is not reasonable doubt.

I would suggest you have come up with something that is hypothetically possible, but not suggested by evidence. The prosecution does not have to disprove things that are speculative.

 

[mrjitty]

However, re Pros not pouncing on stuff to their advantage, I see that Nate Eaton picked-up on the point I mentioned yesterday aftrernoon. Lori says in the call wtte of ..... I was dancing on beach because I needed to be able to continue my life after that trauma & find personal happiness & anyway my wedding was months after the kids were gone.

maybe the Pros will refer to this Lori slip-up later at trial? It seemed to me that it would have been useful to emphasise it as an indirect admission from lori that she was aware at the time. ( otoh Pros case already seems so strong to me)

RSBM / BIB

I am sure they will jump on this at closing, as it reveals knowledge of their deaths.

I am not sure what else you were expecting prosecution to do during EIC?

 

[cottonweaver]

RSBM / BIB

I am sure they will jump on this at closing, as it reveals knowledge of their deaths.

I am not sure what else you were expecting prosecution to do during EIC?

Simply read out the quote after the Pros played the call. That tape audio was not very audible and some of the jury may not have heard it . I heard it & posted about its significance at the time but even Nate says he didn't pick-up on it during yesterday's hearing.Not very audible.

this is the sequence-
Pros play the call and then says ' no further questions' & next Thomas is up for cross. Then as per the Nate show, Rammell follows up with redirect and says ' so she lied to you Summer about them being safe?... judge that's all I have.'

 

[mrjitty]

I completely agree. But my understanding of Idaho law is that they have to prove there was an agreement to commit murder. The prosecution is doing a great job of presenting evidence against Chad and Alex. They have presented a a few things against Lori like her comment that "2manykids" was a funny wifi password, searching for life insurance on kids, etc. But were I a juror, it would fall FAR shorth at this point. Boring me with the how many times she texted her boyfriend and brother is counterproductive because it just tells me they have nothing against her, especially after the lead detective testifies they have nothing against her.

"nothing against her"???

The mental elements like the agreement and intention are inferred from circumstantial evidence.

A jury asks what has been proven, then must make natural and obvious inferences.

So what inference to make?

Chad and Alex kept killing Lori's kids all the time, and when Chad told her, she thought it was sad but married him and went dancing on the beach because she needed to move on?

OR

She was part of the conspiracy to murder the kids...

 

[mrjitty]

Simply read out the quote after the Pros played the call. That tape audio was not very audible and some of the jury may not have heard it . I heard it & posted about its significance at the time but even Nate says he didn't pick-up on it during yesterday's hearing.Not very audible.

this is the sequence-
Pros play the call and then says ' no further questions' & next Thomas is up for cross. Then as per the Nate show, Rammell follows up with redirect and says ' so she lied to you Summer about them being safe?... judge that's all I have.'

Are they allowed to do that? I don't know. The witness is the Summer so I am not sure what they can do

I am sure they will highlight in closing as it shows knowledge of death

 

[KonaHonu]

BIB

Just a point on circumstantial evidence here.

You can nearly always always come up with some convoluted explanation of events that minimises the legal jeopardy of the accused. But is there actually any evidence presented at trial upon which to base that explanation? Did the accused actually claim any of these things?

Wild speculation by defence counsel is not evidence, and is not reasonable doubt.

I would suggest you have come up with something that is hypothetically possible, but not suggested by evidence. The prosecution does not have to disprove things that are speculative.

Mr Jitty, while I have no reason to disrepect you and I understand from previous interactions that you are a New Zealand lawyer. But I think there may be a fundamental difference between our legal systems. Early in this case I had an adversarial disagreement with a British police officer who said Lori had to state her defense to police or something to that effect. You have made similar statements that defendants cannot rely on defenses not initially made to police.

This is incorrect in the United States. Defendants do not have to testify or state their defense. Lori's defense can be made without her testimony and the prosecution needs to answer that befor it is presented in practice.

I have no problem accepting circumstantial evidence but it has to be presented withouth question.

 

[cottonweaver]

I thought the "quint" part might be a reference to him being one of five children. That seems rather silly but (he seems a rather silly man).

I also wonder when he obtained the license plate (and other times he might have used the name).

ETA: Another silly idea. Quint (The Lion King) aka Captain Quint.

I don't think that's silly at all, didn't he also use a Simpson's character for one email? He'd probably seen the Disney movie & then later got the car plate.
Another possible option is Captain Quint from the Jaws movie or is that movie too old for Alex to have seen? ( Deluded, arrogant shark-hunter who claims he can destroy the shark. Gets eaten)

 

[cottonweaver]

Are they allowed to do that? I don't know. The witness is the Summer so I am not sure what they can do

I am sure they will highlight in closing as it shows knowledge of death

Yes, they surely will. ( They have a lot of attorneys, maybe somebody on their team watches Nate Eaton's show?)

Another alt would have been ' So Summer, what did you take by Lori's statement when she said.... etc etc ( they can read it out)
Hopefully when they raise this the state will also make a big deal of inferences which can be made from L's replies during the Colby call ( Lori's endless repetition of ' You weren't there, so you don't know.' )

 

[mrjitty]

Since there is no audio or video that they are plotting a murder, then if they don't prove her participation in the actual killing, they MUST show her participation somewhere else in actions that can't possibly be explained any other way. I see plenty of things that can be spun into being that sort of action, but that can also have been done for non-murderous reasons.

I certainly think she did it. But still looking for something that proves she wasn't involved with people who deceived her as to their intent. She talked and texted with people who were close to her? Please, that's no evidence of there being a "conspiracy to commit murder."

Before it happened, did she really know her kids were going to be killed? And with Tammy, CD would talk about Tammy was going to die, after which she would be able to marry CD of course, but there seemed to be a lot of expectation that it would just happen (accompanied by some degree of confusion when it didn't happen as expected), rather than something they were trying to do.

The problem with this defence is as follows

Whoops whereas Tylee gone? Well I certainly won't report her missing or ask anyone where she is! At least I still have one kid left. Let's just cover up her disappearance ... Whoops where's JJ gone?

Even if you can believe the idea that Alex killed Tylee 'without permission', it is clear Lori joined the conspiracy from that point forward.

 

[cottonweaver]

Since neither LVD nor Alex was quickly charged with the murder of Charles Vallow, I think it made this murderous group feel even more "empowered" to continue with other killings. jmo

Also what struck me - across so many testimonies from witnesses - was that CV's death as self-defence- but also as an example of Domestic Violence - didn't really count. It wasn't a major transgression

Over the trial & during the interviews with LEO, Zulema & Mel G attach so little value to his death, even after they realised he too was likely killed unlawfully.
Their line which cannot be crossed & crime they cannot imagine is infanticide.
Nobody in LV's circle asked questions, nobody cared whether it was legit self defense. LV had spent years making comments about killing husbands - Joe & Charles - & nobody batted an eyelid at any point)

Wonder if they'd have felt same if it was a case of a wife having been killed ' in self defense' by a husband ?

 

[mrjitty]

Mr Jitty, while I have no reason to disrepect you and I understand from previous interactions that you are a New Zealand lawyer. But I think there may be a fundamental difference between our legal systems. Early in this case I had an adversarial disagreement with a British police officer who said Lori had to state her defense to police or something to that effect. You have made similar statements that defendants cannot rely on defenses not initially made to police.

This is incorrect in the United States. Defendants do not have to testify or state their defense. Lori's defense can be made without her testimony and the prosecution needs to answer that befor it is presented in practice.

I have no problem accepting circumstantial evidence but it has to be presented withouth question.

You are missing my point

Counsel can wildly speculate but that is not evidence. Inferences are drawn from evidence presented and accepted by the jury.

The prosecution does not have to disprove every wildly speculative theory the defence can come up with. Reasonable doubt means an explanation that is reasonably possible.

For instance, if the defence had evidence that Lori was hysterical when she found out Tylee was gone, but Alex and Chad controlled her with abusive influence, you would at least have something to support this wild speculation.

Absent that, its just an unbelievable explanation

ETA
As an aside - i don't believe I have ever said this.

You have made similar statements that defendants cannot rely on defenses not initially made to police.

There is a difference in the UK, that certain kinds of defences (e.g Alibi) will draw adverse comment from the judge if you do not disclose them during interview. I am saying something quite different. If you do not have any evidence of your defence, counsel cannot sock puppet it into existence for you.

 

[mrjitty]

Also what struck me - across so many testimonies from witnesses - was that CV's death as self-defence- but also as an example of Domestic Violence - didn't really count. It wasn't a major transgression

Over the trial & during the interviews with LEO, Zulema & Mel G attach so little value to his death, even after they realised he too was likely killed unlawfully.
Their line which cannot be crossed & crime they cannot imagine is infanticide.
Nobody in LV's circle asked questions, nobody cared whether it was legit self defense. LV had spent years making comments about killing husbands - Joe & Charles - & nobody batted an eyelid at any point)

Wonder if they'd have felt same if it was a case of a wife having been killed ' in self defense' by a husband ?

This is what I felt as well. CVs death seemed to be brushed aside. Surely there should have been a question of the well being of the kids at that stage.