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

[KonaHonu]

That actually would have been quite shocking in the LDS religion. Cremation is not the norm.

I don't want to insinuate or imply in any way that any of this mess has anything to do with the LDS religioin. But all the key players were LDS so I am hoping someone can explain something to me.

What is the significance of the temple visits? Would it be normal for a married man and married woman to visit together without their spouses? Would they have had privacy? Does anyone who is LDS find it unusual for Lori and Chad to visit the Rexburg temple together before Tammy died? Personally I would think Chad would be recognized. Surely he had gone there with Tammy.

 

[KonaHonu]

She had to have read it as it was later found to be the only email address she ever blocked on her work email.

Didn't Charles tell Chad or Lori he was going to email Tammy. I personally think Chad hacked into her email, deleted it, and blocked it before she even saw it. He likely knew her password but may not have even needed it if it was stored in a browser or Outlook.

 

[887sMtreme]

I don't want to insinuate or imply in any way that any of this mess has anything to do with the LDS religioin. But all the key players were LDS so I am hoping someone can explain something to me.

What is the significance of the temple visits? Would it be normal for a married man and married woman to visit together without their spouses? Would they have had privacy? Does anyone who is LDS find it unusual for Lori and Chad to visit the Rexburg temple together before Tammy died? Personally I would think Chad would be recognized. Surely he had gone there with Tammy.

I’d love to know the answers to your questions myself. BTY, it was observed that at some point before her death, Tammy and Chad were not together when at temple. I am not LDS, so I assume this is not the norm.

 

[iamshadow21]

I’d love to know the answers to your questions myself. BTY, it was observed that Chad and Tammy did not sit together when at temple.

FYI, the temple and church are not the same thing.

They didn't sit together at a church, or what can also be called a chapel. That is where Sunday services are held. They are open to members and visitors of all ages.

The temple is a building with the specific purpose of rites and rituals. It is not a meeting house for regular Sunday worship. Most Temple sessions are only open to adult members in good standing who have to go through a vetting process regularly and get a 'recommend' to prove this good standing to Temple staff.

MOO, based on being born in church myself and still having many immediate family who are active members.

 

[KonaHonu]

Hawaii is a nice place, but it is a rock in the middle of the ocean, not exactly a smart place to hide out.

Oh you would be very surprised. Lots of people successfully hide from the police for years here. You can't go living in a condo in Princeville but it is very easy to hide. We even have interisland flights with no ID, not TSA.

 

[fred&edna]

"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).

I will quickly address this one thing you mentioned (I may respond to more later but I don't want to post a novel, lol).

Lori didn't reply to Kay except to express anger regarding CV's life insurance payout. If Lori was so very concerned as to how she would care for JJ with these new (supposed) financial restrictions, she should (and could) have attempted to work with Kay. Lori wouldn't even answer Kay's pleas for info about JJ. Communication with Kay would not have involved Lori spending a single dime. Instead, Lori moved money and closed accounts, and she basically "ghosted" Kay... the one person who could have helped. Any mothers on the jury will be questioning who Lori really loved. (Maybe dad jurors, too. I'm just speaking as a mom here) And, these jurors know the only people searching for the children were Kay and Larry. If Lori was afraid of Kay why didn't she contact law enforcement (this wouldn't cost anything either)? The only people who contacted the police were Kay and Larry. And, of course, Lori could have asked her niece for financial assistance with any legal help. (I believe Zulema testified about Lori telling her how much money MP had (or would soon have))

Will the defense provide evidence or witnesses proving Lori was too busy trying to find a job and caring for the children to call Kay or police? I'd bet my last dollar that won't happen

I believe reasonable jurors have seen evidence of who and what Lori actually cared about.

jmo

 

[fred&edna]

dbm

 

[Snoopster]

You have articulated my take on the trial to date. But we’re not done yet. Typically, prosecutors end their arguments with a bang, not a whimper (apologies to T. S. Eliot), so there may be something damning coming up. I certainly hope so.

I'm not sure that's necessary. Just like the Murdaugh trial, the judgement will be based on the TOTALITY of the evidence, even if it's circumstantial. There is lots of circumstantial evidence in the case. It's almost overwhelming. The jury in the Murdaugh case took less than 3 hours to convict when many observers kept saying evidence was only circumstantial and it wasn't "proven".

To those that are saying there isn't "proof" that Lori conspired, I respectfully disagree.
@k-mac posted a very powerful list in post #272. (I'm sorry I didn't do the multi-quote properly here.)
But here are the points that k-mac made:
Lori cutting JJ slowly out of his own life shows her callous intent.

-Killed his father (was giddy with delight at LE interview hours later)
-Stopped him from seeing his grandparents.
-killed his sister (who IMO was his main care giver)
-Gave away his care dog-
-Stopped his meds that keep him happy.
-Removed him from his only stability (special school for his needs)
-shipped him from house to house with little of his belongings.
- verbalised to others him a zombie the day before he was murdered.
-told anyone who asked JJ was safe and she knew exactly where he was.
- Asked MEL G to lie to police about having him.
-married the man who pulled all the strings weeks later.
-Told nate eaton in hawaii people were praying for her children and she replied...
thats greeeeeeeeeeeaaaaat.
-admitted to sister in jail call that she knew the kids were dead before she married chad.


I'm not sure the jury needs more at this point. The rest of the testimony will be icing on the cake. JMO.

 

[montanagriz1998]

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.

I guess im glad she wasn't a smart criminal. The hot pots would have left no body.

 

[pizzaman12]

They have messages between Chad and Lori from the time she learned that she missed out on Charles' life insurance money. Her reaction after the initial shock: "I’ll still get the 4,000 a month from SS." Not "I'll give JJ to Kay and be left with nothing."

I could have missed this but the call to the insurance company when Lori finds out she's not the beneficiary has NOT been played to the jurors, correct? I asked this awhile back but I don't think anyone chimed in. Will the prosecution address this? Is the call off limits? Seems like it would have fit with prior testimony.

 

[SteveS]

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?

I don't know whether you are playing semantics games, or just didn't read all of my post.

The point I made was that something can be important, even if it's technically not required. And when something THAT important -- the fact that there's no explicit evidence of a conspiracy, or of her doing part of a murder - is missing from the evidence, then I think it is going to naturally raise questions and doubts as to whether she was personally involved in the murders.

It may not matter to YOU that we are missing direct evidence of Lori conspiring or murdering. And that's okay that people see it different ways. But it might matter to a juror or three. They may look at all the evidence against Alex and Chad murdering, then see Lori missing, and say, "Wait, where's the beef when it comes to Lori?? Are we sure she wasn't just deceived, and unaware?" I think this case is straddling that line (and the expert on the video, the law professor, shares my concerns, so its not just me; in fact, the law prof says the case against Lori at this point has NOT met b-a-r-d criteria).

 

[LinasK]

I don't know whether you are playing semantics games, or just didn't read all of my post.

The point I made was that something can be important, even if it's technically not required. And when something THAT important -- the fact that there's no explicit evidence of a conspiracy, or of her doing part of a murder - is missing from the evidence, then I think it is going to naturally raise questions and doubts as to whether she was personally involved in the murders.

It may not matter to YOU that we are missing direct evidence of Lori conspiring or murdering. And that's okay that people see it different ways. But it might matter to a juror or three. They may look at all the evidence against Alex and Chad murdering, then see Lori missing, and say, "Wait, where's the beef when it comes to Lori?? Are we sure she wasn't just deceived, and unaware?" I think this case is straddling that line (and the expert on the video, the law professor, shares my concerns, so its not just me; in fact, the law prof says the case against Lori at this point has NOT met b-a-r-d criteria).

I respectfully disagree. Circumstantial evidence can be every bit as powerful as direct evidence.

 

[k-mac]

I'm not sure that's necessary. Just like the Murdaugh trial, the judgement will be based on the TOTALITY of the evidence, even if it's circumstantial. There is lots of circumstantial evidence in the case. It's almost overwhelming. The jury in the Murdaugh case took less than 3 hours to convict when many observers kept saying evidence was only circumstantial and it wasn't "proven".

To those that are saying there isn't "proof" that Lori conspired, I respectfully disagree.
@k-mac posted a very powerful list in post #272. (I'm sorry I didn't do the multi-quote properly here.)
But here are the points that k-mac made:
Lori cutting JJ slowly out of his own life shows her callous intent.

-Killed his father (was giddy with delight at LE interview hours later)
-Stopped him from seeing his grandparents.
-killed his sister (who IMO was his main care giver)
-Gave away his care dog-
-Stopped his meds that keep him happy.
-Removed him from his only stability (special school for his needs)
-shipped him from house to house with little of his belongings.
- verbalised to others him a zombie the day before he was murdered.
-told anyone who asked JJ was safe and she knew exactly where he was.
- Asked MEL G to lie to police about having him.
-married the man who pulled all the strings weeks later.
-Told nate eaton in hawaii people were praying for her children and she replied...
thats greeeeeeeeeeeaaaaat.
-admitted to sister in jail call that she knew the kids were dead before she married chad.


I'm not sure the jury needs more at this point. The rest of the testimony will be icing on the cake. JMO.

thank you @Snoopster ...I appreciate your kind post.

yes it is very compelling. IMO

Add to that probably the most important element.

CHEMISTRY and proven diabolical fantasy between them.

Chad and Alex were both obsessed with Lori...and she is the filling in the sandwich that ties these two men together....

 

[fred&edna]

I don't think the recording of the call (made July 15) was played for jurors @pizzaman12

Here's the actual link on EIN

9:22 a.m. Duncan reads more messages from July 18, 2019. Chad says, “I love you. This is terrible but it is probably another step in bringing down the Gadiantons, especially Brandon.” Lori responds later that she spoke to the insurance company and the beneficiary was changed in March. “It was probably Ned before we got rid of him. They can’t tell me to who of course but it’s done. I’ll still get the 4,000 a month from SS.”

DAY 10 | LIVE UPDATES: Alex Cox's widow says Chad and Lori Daybell taught demons needed to be bound or burned - East Idaho News

LIVE UPDATES FROM THE LORI VALLOW DAYBELL TRIAL Here are the sketches from today. 3:23 p.m. Thomas has more cross-examination, but questioning is done for the day. The jury is being dismissed. No court on Monday, but we will resume Tuesday at 8:30 a.m. I’ll post the sketches and audio when we...

www.eastidahonews.com

 

[SteveS]

1 Lori didn't reply to Kay except to express anger regarding CV's life insurance payout. If Lori was so very concerned as to how she would care for JJ with these new (supposed) financial restrictions, she should (and could) have attempted to work with Kay. Lori wouldn't even answer Kay's pleas for info about JJ. Communication with Kay would not have involved Lori spending a single dime. Instead, Lori moved money and closed accounts, and she basically "ghosted" Kay... the one person who could have helped.

2 Will the defense provide evidence or witnesses proving Lori was too busy trying to find a job and caring for the children to call Kay or police?

1 From Lori's POV, Kay had stolen $1,000,000 from her, in a way where Lori would never get it. Because CV changed the beneficiary, Lori had no way to alter it - she was going to be the victim of Kay, and never get the money. So why should she let Kay in her family's life ever again, after Kay stole a fortune from her? That's the other way to see it. Families have fractured permanently for far less than $1,000,000.

2 Lori had fewer resources to work with as a widow, but was making do on what she had, and I certainly don't see how she has to provide some explanation for that. In fact, isn't that how life works, that when you have less, you gotta figure out the best way to avoid extra spending and make it work?

 

[k-mac]

1 From Lori's POV, Kay had stolen $1,000,000 from her, in a way where Lori would never get it. Because CV changed the beneficiary, Lori had no way to alter it - she was going to be the victim of Kay, and never get the money. So why should she let Kay in her family's life ever again, after Kay stole a fortune from her? That's the other way to see it. Families have fractured permanently for far less than $1,000,000.

2 Lori had fewer resources to work with as a widow, but was making do on what she had, and I certainly don't see how she has to provide some explanation for that. In fact, isn't that how life works, that when you have less, you gotta figure out the best way to avoid extra spending and make it work?

You keep wanting the evidence. You got it.

There lies motive. #1.

Lori wanted and needed that money.

She was the one looking for a payout. Not alex.

And bitter....was she what.

And what did Kay want....JJ.

motive #2. revenge. All belongs to Lori.

 

[SteveS]

I respectfully disagree. Circumstantial evidence can be every bit as powerful as direct evidence.

I agree in theory -- it certainly can be, if it's the right evidence -- and
(a) I hope THIS circumstantial evidence is strong enough, but
(b) I think most of it is fairly weak sauce so far, with too many holes in the crucial parts, and doesn't get to the PROOF standard yet. I'm far from the only one who sees it like that.

Hopefully there's more, that's better. We'll see what the jury thinks, and hope for the best.

 

[SteveS]

You keep wanting the evidence. You got it.

There lies motive. #1.

Lori wanted and needed that money.

She was the one looking for a payout. Not alex.

No, that doesn't help. Wish it did. But death of CV is not what she is on trial for, and the motive for his death certainly doesn't apply in this case. She didn't stand to gain back that $1.000,000 if her kids died.

 

[k-mac]

No, that doesn't help. Wish it did. But death of CV is not what she is on trial for, and the motive for his death certainly doesn't apply in this case. She didn't stand to gain back that $1.000,000 if her kids died.

i added to that post.
sorry you replied too quick for me!

It does indeed tie in as my extended post suggests.

To tie together the reasonings and meanings for their actions is why these things occurred.

If you don't think Lori was raged at Kay for getting that money when all Kay wanted was JJ.

Guess what? Kay didn't get JJ.

Of course its all related and important.

 

[KonaHonu]

I agree in theory -- it certainly can be, if it's the right evidence -- and
(a) I hope THIS circumstantial evidence is strong enough, but
(b) I think most of it is fairly weak sauce so far, with too many holes in the crucial parts, and doesn't get to the PROOF standard yet. I'm far from the only one who sees it like that.

Hopefully there's more, that's better. We'll see what the jury thinks, and hope for the best.

Steve, you are expressing my viewpoint better than I have been able to. I think the key here is that there is a lot of evidence, both circumstantial and direct for a plan between Alex and Chad but very little, at least in my opinion of evidence of a plan that Lori was involved with. Do I think she was involved in planning the murders? Of course I do. But she seems to have been more careful than the others about leaving evidence behind.

I know her lawyer can't testify for her but I don't know how much leeway he has in presenting an alternative theory for the crime during closing arguments using the proecution's own evidence. He could describe how there is evidence of Alex and Chad coordinating on key days but not Lori, point out that fingerprints were found on JJs body but not Lori's, and so forth. I would not be surprised to see recross of MG and ZP asking if Lori ever suggested killing anyone. He's already got testimony from FBI/detectives that there in no evidence of Lori planning or talking about killing her kids in the texts, emails, and other communications.

I think she will be convicted of grand theft and that might actually get her off on the murders. If there is any disagreement during jury deliberations they might compromise by convicting her on that and acquitting for murder. That may have been a strategic mistake by the prosecution.

People have mentioned that taking him off meds was a horrible thing but I don't think any of us know that. There were 3 Arizona pediatricians on an early prosecution witness list but we have not heard from them. I think we would have if it was such an awful thing.

And the bank account stuff also does not seem so suspicious when you consider they were getting ready to move to another state and Lori recently widowed herself became a widow. Seeing big changes to financial accounts in August 2019 just is not surprising or suspicious to me.