ID - Doomsday Cult Victims - Joshua Vallow, Tylee Ryan, Tammy Daybell, Charles Vallow *Arrests* #72

[Gut_feeling]

IDK, this is the problem with a really complex case coupled with waiting almost 4 years to get to trial. ( Lots of stuff I never knew & lots I have forgotten)
Anyway, am just reading the timeline on page 1. It's good.

wonder if WSers think it's possible that they met much earlier than we've been told?

Quote:
'Approx 2016 or 2017 – Lori and Chad may have met for the first time as early as 2016 or 2017. Lori’s friend says in a Dec 2019 interview that Lori first became “obsessed” with Chad’s books about 4 years ago. JJ’s grandmother, KW says in a 30 Jan 2020 presser that she believes Lori & Chad may have met in 2016 or 2017. (Friend interview, Fox7 Austin, & KW’s Presser video).'

Link to timeline ID - Joshua Vallow & Tylee Ryan, Rexburg, Sept 2019 TIMELINE ONLY - *NO DISCUSSION*

I have suspected that also.

 

[cottonweaver]

I have suspected that also.

Lori must surely have had an account with AVOW ( as Chad did) but under a pseudonym, while she was in Hawaii and reading all the related 144K End Times books
I wonder if anybody ever looked into that while the site was still live

 

[indicolite22]

IDK, this is the problem with a really complex case coupled with waiting almost 4 years to get to trial. ( Lots of stuff I never knew & lots I have forgotten)
Anyway, am just reading the timeline on page 1. It's good.

wonder if WSers think it's possible that they met much earlier than we've been told?

Quote:
'Approx 2016 or 2017 – Lori and Chad may have met for the first time as early as 2016 or 2017. Lori’s friend says in a Dec 2019 interview that Lori first became “obsessed” with Chad’s books about 4 years ago. JJ’s grandmother, KW says in a 30 Jan 2020 presser that she believes Lori & Chad may have met in 2016 or 2017. (Friend interview, Fox7 Austin, & KW’s Presser video).'

Link to timeline ID - Joshua Vallow & Tylee Ryan, Rexburg, Sept 2019 TIMELINE ONLY - *NO DISCUSSION*

I don't think it's likely they met before. Lori was in Hawaii for a few years and she didn't attend earlier PAP conferences. IMO she did read his books years before their first meeting and admired him as an author and a visionary. There was a woman who claimed that Lori and Tylee were at a PAP event in Utah in mid-2017 that Chad and Tammy also attended. I doubt Lori was there.

 

[montanagriz1998]

So much information this week. I really think CD will be an easy case to prove , really hoping for a "smoking gun" for LVD to be convicted. I remember thinking this was all taking too long, but apparently a very good investigation was done (after the fact). Wondering were K9's / cadaver dogs ever taken to the storage unit?

I thought for sure she had pushed poor Tylee in a hot pot in Yellowstone.

 

[fred&edna]

I have seen speculation elsewhere that this may be the last week for the prosecution’s case.

I have one question: Do you think the prosecution will end with some explosive evidence they have saved for last?

I don't think so. What are your thoughts @BUF ?

 

[cottonweaver]

I don't think it's likely they met before. Lori was in Hawaii for a few years and she didn't attend earlier PAP conferences. IMO she did read his books years before their first meeting and admired him as an author and a visionary. There was a woman who claimed that Lori and Tylee were at a PAP event in Utah in mid-2017 that Chad and Tammy also attended. I doubt Lori was there.

okay, you're probably right & Mel G is likely telling the truth about this aspect but when you look at that timeline I linked to, business records has Lori back in Arizona by late 2016 or early 2017
( scroll down to part 2 of her timeline, entry 'Late 2016. So many prepare expos in 2016)

 

[SteveS]

Can you provide three logical reasons a juror might have which causes them to doubt Lori's involvement in the death of Tylee or JJ? I'm trying to exercise my brain with likely possibilities.

To take this to the courtroom issue (which is what matters) -- The defense doesn't have to "prove she didn't do it" (which is the angle you seem to be using). If the prosec doesn't provide convincing proof, then lack of proof requires a "not guilty" verdict. And jurors don't have to come up with reasons why they vote as they do -- if they think it's not guilty, and that there's a lack of proof, then that's what it is.

But to give you some specifics of what I see lacking, and where I see potential obstacles to a conviction, as you asked:

1 There has been NO evidence that Lori actually murdered anyone.

2 There has been NO audio or email or direct evidence in which she is conversing with AC, CD, or both and they are conspiring to murder anyone.

3 While I see evidence that can be spun to look bad if you want to assume it, there's much (if not all) of it that can just be irrelevancies being twisted to look nefarious. And if you are spinning easily explained parts of life, and that's your PROOF, then I would not be buying.

... For example, much ado is being made of JJ's meds being stopped -- but, we don't know that really happened, and we don't know it really would have mattered if it did. Did he have to have them, or were they optional? What were the meds supposed to do? Were they expensive in the US and cheaper in Mexico? And iirc, it wasn't like they failed to get a US refill one day and he was dead the next, so the cause-and-effect linkage is really weak.
... Another example is Lori changing accounts for Tylee's benefits. Tylee was a MINOR and the benefits were to help offer support for her care. There are many ways to explain why a new widow would decide she needed easier access to those funds as she raised her kids, and no longer allow Tylee to dip into them as she wanted. BEFORE Tylee was dead, it is my understanding that Lori had full legal right to spend that money, just so long as it helped provide for Tylee's support (such as her food, clothing, shelter, insurance, transportation, etc etc).
... The fact she was distressed when she felt robbed of the CV life insurance benefit -- is that nefarious, or is that normal, to be without money and see Kay as the one who somehow did something that took away from you and robbed you.

4 I see lots of talk about her weird beliefs. But there has been NO evidence their beliefs were stated as "so we are going to go out and murder all the dark souls." Murder her kids because they act up?
... The evidence shows her actions that we saw over and over were of numerous attempts to change dark ones back to light (the so-called castings), which hints that they did NOT see murder as a desired or necessary solution, even if they felt the dark ones were now inferior as long as they were dark.
... Some who were dark did die, and some did not.
... The evidence also shows that in some situations, they thought God was going to end the lives of dark ones (with them expressing confusion when that didn't happen). That infers they didn't see "we better kill people" as part of the landscape they were on.
... And while Lori bought into these dark/light beliefs and passed them along, it's hard to say she created them, and there's no proof that to HER they were a pretext to murder (even if we see that as a possibility, and even as an eventuality perhaps). Beliefs are a tricky, individual thing, so was she waiting for God to solve the issues somehow (with castings, for example), while others were choosing to take action?

5 I'm far from fully convinced the murders of TR/JJ happened when prosec says they did. Possible? Yes. But it's a lot of what-iffiness in saying the actions on those dates meant people were killed. Most of each date feels like prosec saying 'this is the last day we know of them being alive' and to me that's not proof.

6 I don't put any value in what she did months after the murders as PROOF that she knew those murders were going to happen and she participated.
... She could have been persuaded, AFTER THE FACT, that they (AC and CD) took some actions she might not like, but that they knew what they were doing and were carrying out God's best path for TR and JJ (and her). She could have just moved forward in what, to her, was the best alternative she saw possible from there. Her beliefs had gone way extreme, in the first place, and she was living in anticipation that the whole world was about to completely change (including her role in it), so ...

 

[Ruminations]

MG once believed that Lori was her mother in a previous life. She was also ZP's mother.

I agree that MG did a good job recording Lori. Lori was right, MG was likely heavily influenced by DW, but IIRC, she also talked to her bishop before going to police. It did look like she tried to make Lori give out JJ's location, but she also challenged Lori's beliefs, which made Lori more angry.

I think Melanie's most sincere moments in the infamous Nate interviews was her expression of grief on Lori's behalf that Lori was in jail.

She was in deep and loved Lori. That was after the recorded call.

So, Melanie really had to swallow her feelings for Lori- which Lori and Chad were trying to manipulate- to pull that conversation off. It had to be hard for her. She did a great job.

MOO

 

[indicolite22]

okay, you're probably right & Mel G is likely telling the truth about this aspect but when you look at that timeline I linked to, business records has Lori back in Arizona by late 2016 or early 2017
( scroll down to part 2 of her timeline, entry 'Late 2016. So many prepare expos in 2016)

Perhaps other PAP speakers would have remembered Lori from earlier events if she was present. The way the woman (another speaker's wife) who saw her in 2017 described her, it didn't sound like it was Lori.

 

[Ruminations]

LEO was tracking LVD and CD since December. They knew where LVD and CD were, based on the plane ticket purchases to Hawaii. Plane manifests have been available to LEO ever since 9/11.

So, why was there so much coverage, looking for CD and LVD? Was this just to put pressure on them? Hawaii is a nice place, but it is a rock in the middle of the ocean, not exactly a smart place to hide out. I think LVD and CD were just living out their fantasy life. Plenty of money, the beach. Perhaps they were waiting for the world to end?

LE got warrants for that information. They can't get it without probable cause. Then they have to know which airlines to check.

Still, it's pretty widely reported now that LE knew where Chad and Lori were longer than they met on. Chad's family knew. I think it's likely some inner circle people knew. Other LDS worshippers in HI knew. Many people coujd have could have told LE, even anonymously.

Cell phone pings were in HI attached to them- including the phones they were regularly in contact with family and cult friends with.

You are right that LE was playing with them to an extent "looking" for them. They didn't want to take pressure off. And they didn't want them to know they were being surveilled.

(Bad joke ahead: looks like LE had the thin veil- and could surveil.)

MOO

 

[fred&edna]

To take this to the courtroom issue (which is what matters) -- The defense doesn't have to "prove she didn't do it" (which is the angle you seem to be using). If the prosec doesn't provide convincing proof, then lack of proof requires a "not guilty" verdict. And jurors don't have to come up with reasons why they vote as they do -- if they think it's not guilty, and that there's a lack of proof, then that's what it is.

But to give you some specifics of what I see lacking, and where I see potential obstacles to a conviction, as you asked:

1 There has been NO evidence that Lori actually murdered anyone.

2 There has been NO audio or email or direct evidence in which she is conversing with AC, CD, or both and they are conspiring to murder anyone.

3 While I see evidence that can be spun to look bad if you want to assume it, there's much (if not all) of it that can just be irrelevancies being twisted to look nefarious. And if you are spinning easily explained parts of life, and that's your PROOF, then I would not be buying.

... For example, much ado is being made of JJ's meds being stopped -- but, we don't know that really happened, and we don't know it really would have mattered if it did. Did he have to have them, or were they optional? What were the meds supposed to do? Were they expensive in the US and cheaper in Mexico? And iirc, it wasn't like they failed to get a US refill one day and he was dead the next, so the cause-and-effect linkage is really weak.
... Another example is Lori changing accounts for Tylee's benefits. Tylee was a MINOR and the benefits were to help offer support for her care. There are many ways to explain why a new widow would decide she needed easier access to those funds as she raised her kids, and no longer allow Tylee to dip into them as she wanted. BEFORE Tylee was dead, it is my understanding that Lori had full legal right to spend that money, just so long as it helped provide for Tylee's support (such as her food, clothing, shelter, insurance, transportation, etc etc).
... The fact she was distressed when she felt robbed of the CV life insurance benefit -- is that nefarious, or is that normal, to be without money and see Kay as the one who somehow did something that took away from you and robbed you.

4 I see lots of talk about her weird beliefs. But there has been NO evidence their beliefs were stated as "so we are going to go out and murder all the dark souls." Murder her kids because they act up?
... The evidence shows her actions that we saw over and over were of numerous attempts to change dark ones back to light (the so-called castings), which hints that they did NOT see murder as a desired or necessary solution, even if they felt the dark ones were now inferior as long as they were dark.
... The evidence also shows that they thought God was going to end the lives of dark ones (with them expressing confusion when that didn't happen). That infers they didn't see "we better kill people" as part of the landscape.
... And while Lori bought into these beliefs and passed them along, it's hard to say she created them, and there's no proof they were a pretext to murder (even if we see that as a possibility). Was she waiting for God to solve the issues somehow (with castings, for example), while others were choosing to take action?

5 I'm far from fully convinced the murders of TR/JJ happened when prosec says they did. Possible? Yes. But it's a lot of what-iffiness in saying the actions on those dates meant people were killed. Most of each date feels like prosec saying 'this is the last day we know of them being alive' and to me that's not proof.

6 I don't put any value in what she did months after the murders as PROOF that she knew those murders were going to happen and she participated.
... She could have been persuaded, AFTER THE FACT, that they (AC and CD) took some actions she might not like, but that they knew what they were doing and were carrying out God's best path for TR and JJ (and her). She could have just moved forward in what, to her, was the best alternative she saw possible from there. Her beliefs had gone way extreme, in the first place, and she was living in anticipation that the whole world was about to completely change (including her role in it), so ...

Thanks for replying!

I realize the defense doesn't have to prove a negative (she didn't do it). The prosecution has the burden of proving the charges. You've provided some food for thought as to what jurors might be perceiving as possible doubt.

The prosecution doesn't have to prove she (herself) murdered anyone. And, I'm not sure they have to provide tangible (on paper, via email or text) evidence there was an "agreement to commit murder".

Tylee had been responsible for her money for some time and there was no misuse of her funds per testimony... so why would Lori need to change this... particularly, if one believes Tylee was going to be attending BYUi (this would have been the ideal time to encourage Tylee's financial responsibility).

It would have been very helpful to hear from JJ's pediatrician regarding his prescribed medication needs. ATM, I can't remember if Kay Woodcock offered testimony about the meds.

If Lori was distressed and felt robbed by not receiving CV's life insurance money then there are proper means to voice her concerns. It doesn't appear she sought legal counsel on this issue which would be the reasonable and logical thing to do.

I'm not discounting additional thoughts you provided in your post... I'm mulling them over. I've agreed and disagreed with fellow jurors in several cases... it's good to try to see another reasonable point of view.

 

[Gut_feeling]

I know this probably isnt relevant, but it was so creepy I had to share. I found a newspaper blurb/photo from 1980 where Chad was "Scout of the Month". Just look at his eyes.

Eta He was also Citizen of the Month on Highschool. He sure was an overachieving little future murderer/cult leader wannabe/underachiever.

 

[SteveS]

Thanks for replying!

I realize the defense doesn't have to prove a negative (she didn't do it). The prosecution has the burden of proving the charges. You've provided some food for thought as to what jurors might be perceiving as possible doubt.

The prosecution doesn't have to prove she (herself) murdered anyone. And, I'm not sure they have to provide tangible (on paper, via email or text) evidence there was an "agreement to commit murder".

Tylee had been responsible for her money for some time and there was no misuse of her funds per testimony... so why would Lori need to change this... particularly, if one believes Tylee was going to be attending BYUi (this would have been the ideal time to encourage Tylee's financial responsibility).

It would have been very helpful to hear from JJ's pediatrician regarding his prescribed medication needs. ATM, I can't remember if Kay Woodcock offered testimony about the meds.

If Lori was distressed and felt robbed by not receiving CV's life insurance money then there are proper means to voice her concerns. It doesn't appear she sought legal counsel on this issue which would be the reasonable and logical thing to do.

I'm not discounting additional thoughts you provided in your post... I'm mulling them over. I've agreed and disagreed with fellow jurors in several cases... it's good to try to see another reasonable point of view.

Thanks for the question and reply!

I want to respond to one point you made, and that others have made too. You said it this way: "The prosecution doesn't have to prove she (herself) murdered anyone. And, I'm not sure they have to provide tangible (on paper, via email or text) evidence there was an "agreement to commit murder."

I agree 100% that is true.

BUT - you asked me what are some of the things that are missing, and it's a fact they don't have either of those. That is important, and DOES matter, if I'm a juror and being told she is guilty of these crimes. "She was probably in the vicinity when her kids were killed, and may have known about it, so we assume she must have been involved" is not proof she conspired for them to be killed, much less that she did it.

Can it be proven without either of those? Sure. But the fact that we don't have any of that regarding her, while we do have others known to be personally involved, I think that's a good basis for doubts to form.

"Tylee had been responsible for her money for some time and there was no misuse of her funds per testimony... so why would Lori need to change this... particularly, if one believes Tylee was going to be attending BYUi (this would have been the ideal time to encourage Tylee's financial responsibility)."
... I think your response here highlights what I would object to as a juror. Why couldn't this be nefarious, you ask? But that ignores the situation, and ignores that change is not wrongdoing. People change accounts and deposits all the time for any number of innocent reasons. I closed an account just the other day. One reason might simply be convenience -- have all her funds going into a central place. A bigger one is what would any normal parent do, when funds are really tight -- are they going to leave money needed to pay bills in a minor's hands, under their control? When funds have gotten very tight, I wager none of us would do different than her in that

"It would have been very helpful to hear from JJ's pediatrician regarding his prescribed medication needs. ATM, I can't remember if Kay Woodcock offered testimony about the meds.".... But afaik we didn't have a doc, nor have we had any elaboration on the meds. Just testimony that the rx wasn't refilled, and they couldn't find where it was. There's no proof it was harmful, or that it's at all related. If prosec doesn't nail this down with plenty of specifics, and leaves it as just some innocuous fact where they want me to speculate the worst possible meaning to this factoid, I couldn't see it as proof of anything if I'm a juror.

"If Lori was distressed and felt robbed by not receiving CV's life insurance money then there are proper means to voice her concerns. It doesn't appear she sought legal counsel on this issue which would be the reasonable and logical thing to do." .... So it's "improper" for her to be upset and mention it to any friends? And the only "proper" response would be spend the money to sue, if she has frustration but no proof of contestable wrongdoing? Or otherwise she must have murdered people? Nope, not buying frustration as proof or actual evidence of anything (other than her disappointment at not getting the insurance money that a wife would normally receive when her husband dies).

 

[BUF]

I don't think so. What are your thoughts @BUF ?

Although I hope so, I doubt it.

 

[BUF]

LEO was tracking LVD and CD since December. They knew where LVD and CD were, based on the plane ticket purchases to Hawaii. Plane manifests have been available to LEO ever since 9/11.

So, why was there so much coverage, looking for CD and LVD? Was this just to put pressure on them? Hawaii is a nice place, but it is a rock in the middle of the ocean, not exactly a smart place to hide out. I think LVD and CD were just living out their fantasy life. Plenty of money, the beach. Perhaps they were waiting for the world to end?

JMO, but it’s almost like if they didn’t think about it, it would just go away/disappear. Just look at how these children were buried on Chad’s property as he/they looked out the windows of his house to their burial sites. Lori seemed to always love Hawaii, going back there … like no one would ever look there? LaLa land.

 

[k-mac]

deleted by me
missed part of post.

 

[k-mac]

And the only reason to conceal the whereabouts of JJ from police is because he's been murdered and she is guilty of murder. She has no reason to hide from police if she's not guilty of JJ and Tylee's murders.

rsbmff

Boom!!



Lori's intentions and actions are embarrassingly transparent.

 

[RickshawFan]

I thought for sure she had pushed poor Tylee in a hot pot in Yellowstone.

I thought the plan was to walk her up a trail, but they got there, and became terrified at the thought of grizzlies if they went any further than the parking lot.

 

[cottonweaver]

Thanks for the question and reply!

I want to respond to one point you made, and that others have made too. You said it this way: "The prosecution doesn't have to prove she (herself) murdered anyone. And, I'm not sure they have to provide tangible (on paper, via email or text) evidence there was an "agreement to commit murder."

I agree 100% that is true.

BUT - you asked me what are some of the things that are missing, and it's a fact they don't have either of those. That is important, and DOES matter, if I'm a juror and being told she is guilty of these crimes. "She was probably in the vicinity when her kids were killed, and may have known about it, so we assume she must have been involved" is not proof she conspired for them to be killed, much less that she did it.

Can it be proven without either of those? Sure. But the fact that we don't have any of that regarding her, while we do have others known to be personally involved, I think that's a good basis for doubts to form.

snipped

snipped for focus

How can something be ' missing' if it was never required? Consequently, how does it become important and then become the basis of a bonafide doubt re BRD?

and, secondly 'can it be proven' without her knowledge/ ' knowing about it' ?
No, not afaik

 

[RickshawFan]

Here's a Behavior Panel video about where they put together an analysis of a bunch of "missing" calls... They often mention 911 calls in murder situations, too. The ones I can think of right off are Sarah Boone and Patsy Ramsey. This might put more complexion on the 911 call in this case: I like it when several experts are discussing the features, because it's easier to get an overall picture and has other supporting observations, not just the 911 call.