ID - Doomsday Cult Victims - Joshua Vallow, Tylee Ryan, Tammy Daybell, Charles Vallow *Arrests* #73
- Thread starter Patch Tuesday
- Start date
- Status
Gardenista
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2016
- Messages
- 19,034
- Reaction score
- 157,436
I did a deep dive ages ago on the molestation claims and don't believe a word of it.
I have no problem with her not telling the GJ. She was terrified of CD and LVD
Even if true (and we have no real evidence it is), that would not be evidence for her participation in "the murders," because that death is not any of what she is being tried for. Nor is the attack on Brandon. Nor are the weird beliefs, in and of themselves.
This trial is for what happened to Tylee, JJ, and Tammy, and whether Lori was a part of those (either by direct action, or by being a proven part of a conspiracy to commit one or more of those murders). And the money grabs that went with them.
While I agree that what she testified to was ignorant, I think you are being too harsh. I too have ordered death certificates for a deceased relative and one DC per account is normal. In my case my grandmother had a CD ladder (a few certificates of deposit with different maturity dates) in the same bank and they wanted a separate DC for each one even though they were in the same bank. And as far as doing it quickly, I've had that discussion with my partner who is my beneficiary. I've told her to start the life insurance claim as quickly as possible so if I died on a Saturday I would hope she was in teh HR office of my employer first thing Monday morning.
She likely knew Tammy well so she is probably biased but that's not to say I think she lied. I think her opinions she testified about were more about ignorance and inexperience.
The Fifth Amendment protects you from being forced to testify if it would incriminate yourself. It does not confer a right not to testify because you are terrified of the accused. If people could choose for themselves whether to testify what would be the purpose of subpoenas?
Again, I don't think she is a bad person. I just don't give her much credibility. Lori's MO seems to be to label someone as dark then let Alex do his thing. Lori rarely made direct threats and even when she did they were always nonspecific.
I certainly disagree on whether it's excusable or not. She was being held out as some sort of expert on those topics, and claimed to be, when clearly she was not. Nor did she have the experience to qualify to say what is "usual." 15 cases? That is small sample size city, which is a no-no in defining a pattern.
Others may not share my concern, and just want to ignore it because of the defendant (who I don't like either), but I find that sort of deception egregious (by both witness and attorney), even more so in a trial with a person's future on the line.
I am going on Nate's summary as posted on EIN. Maybe I should listen to the full audio of her testimony. I took it at face value, a low level HR employee at a school in a small town in Idaho. No offense to Idaho, schools, small towns, or HR employees but none of that suggested to me she was presented as an expert but I could be wrong. If she was presented as an expert somehow I would agree with you.
cottonweaver
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2014
- Messages
- 8,837
- Reaction score
- 30,101
am still left with doubts
By the time of the GJ - early summer 2021 , LVD had been locked-up for over a year, Chad also and Alex was long dead. How could she have been terrified when she testified in front of the GJ? of whom?
but she wasn't terrified when she told the FBI officer about the threat a year earlier in 2020 - closer to the date of the threat- but was terrified a year later.
to feel confident that L made these very specific threats to AB, I'd need some extra corroboration I'm unlikely to get. ( More details because there were no witnesses, whether AB went on to tell anyone in confidence. The date of the threats ( from her plane ticket from Idaho), did she cut Chad off too after this date. Impact of living in fear for your life - maybe she's altered her daily patterns going forward or sought some other means of protection?
State could have elicited some of that from her yesterday. All very sketchy.
the threat could have happened exactly as AB says it did, but there might be other reasons she withheld from GJ, more plausible than fear
Last edited:
This is one of the things that makes me think there will be appeals if she is convicted. While I understand the prosecution is accusing her of being involved in a criminal conspiracy that spanned multiple states, I think ignoring Idaho Rules against testimony about crimes in other states is at least questionable.
I guess I think it is a real stretch to allow evidence that Alex shot at Brandon in Phoenix into Lori's trial. To me and at this point, every piece of hard evidence they introduce about Chad and Alex makes me even more convinced that Lori may not have been involved and was hoodwinked. To me the prosecution is proving a case that Chad was manipulating and using Alex to advanced his goals of getting in Lori's bed permanently and making her his sugar mama from SS and life insurance proceeds.
At this point it would take a heck of a lot of dot-connecting during closing arguments for me to convict Lori
Nikynoo
Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 4,706
- Reaction score
- 28,704
i think she fired both shots, I also think she killed both the children, not just JJ.
Nikynoo
Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 4,706
- Reaction score
- 28,704
I recall that we thoroughly investigated the allegations when the court papers were released and I came to the same conclusion as you.
Nikynoo
Verified Attorney - United Kingdom
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 4,706
- Reaction score
- 28,704
Gosh! You are entitled to your opinion. I have seen the same evidence as you and I have the exact opposite opinion. Isn't it strange how diferently the human brain processes information from person to peerson?
There is NO QUESTION there will be appeals in the event of a conviction. No doubt whatsoever.
There are so many issues the defense can raise, with the most significant imo so far being the speedy trial issue, discovery violations, the admission of AB testimony, possible religious rights persecution, possible mental health violations, and the MANY 404b issues (bringing testimony in about other alleged unproven crimes, for which she is NOT on trial, to create a jury bias against the defendant).
Every "objection overruled" or "motion denied" offers the potential for an appeal over whether rights were violated or the trial was fair. Many of those motions or objections have been offered with a knowledge that they would be rejected, but still were made, solely for the purpose of making and preserving a point to appeal.
That doesn't mean any of them will be successful. But the list is long, and there's broad validity to some of them, which is certainly concerning. "How much did it matter" and "did it set a wrong precedent" and "was the outcome unfair as a result" will typically be the criteria used.
There are so many issues the defense can raise, with the most significant imo so far being the speedy trial issue, discovery violations, the admission of AB testimony, possible religious rights persecution, possible mental health violations, and the MANY 404b issues (bringing testimony in about other alleged unproven crimes, for which she is NOT on trial, to create a jury bias against the defendant).
Every "objection overruled" or "motion denied" offers the potential for an appeal over whether rights were violated or the trial was fair. Many of those motions or objections have been offered with a knowledge that they would be rejected, but still were made, solely for the purpose of making and preserving a point to appeal.
That doesn't mean any of them will be successful. But the list is long, and there's broad validity to some of them, which is certainly concerning. "How much did it matter" and "did it set a wrong precedent" and "was the outcome unfair as a result" will typically be the criteria used.
Agree Nik!
The totality of Lori's actions, placements, statements, lies and arrogance in court will not be lost on the jury.
Too many to list. It is all good here.
Her phone chat with Summer acknowledging the kids were dead long before she married Chad (and everyone admits Chad knew the kids were dead) why would you marry him?
why would you dodge the police constantly about the whereabouts of your kids.
Why would you ask your friend to lie to police and say you had them.(him)
Think a lot of her lies, she has been cornered clearly and blatantly which equates to the death of her kids and Tammy which equates obviously to conspiracy.
Thats it.
Slam dunk da funk!
Gardenista
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2016
- Messages
- 19,034
- Reaction score
- 157,436
She didn't take the 5th.
I'm afraid I just can't get past Lori's complete lack of concern when her children were missing, the lies she told as to their whereabouts, and her complete lack of grief (and even interest) when their bodies were found buried in her new husband's back yard.
LostOldUserName
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2011
- Messages
- 914
- Reaction score
- 2,335
I forget who she was talking to but basically said she knew where they were. She wasn't concerned because she knew they were gone and IMO she was right there for their demise.
Shadow@light
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2018
- Messages
- 242
- Reaction score
- 2,350
Sometimes when we recall/witness a very emotional time/dark period of our life if something terrible and unexpected happened sometimes our mind blanks it out out of fear, under emotional /stressful period can trigger the recall of the memory when you are recounting out loud you just blurt it out. Lori suddenly lashing out at Audrey could be seen as showing her real nature or in my opinion,I think in three ways a)Lori was trying provoke a fight with Audrey ,declare her dark or an accident happened in line of self defence, b) what I mention above or she was threaten Aubrey to scare Audrey to keep her mouth shut, after all Lori has good standing in the temple she did not want to be found out.IMO
Shadow@light
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2018
- Messages
- 242
- Reaction score
- 2,350
"They think it was the Bio-Polar kid down the road" I am glad Tammy said "they" which it was their, more Chad's expression she was repeating. Because reading it for the first time, I admit my respect for Tammy faltered until I looked and studied it more
IMO
<modsnip: off topic>
IMO Poor JJ he did not stand a chance with Chad Daybell.
Last edited by a moderator:
Respectfully, I think you are misreading what was said (and left unsaid) by BOTH prosecution and defense about AB's testimony in the GJ.
You want to pick one and call them a liar. However I would be fairly certain, considering where each statement was made, that both are technically true statements as written.
What really happened? I bet AB testified to the GJ but asserted 5th amendment rights on some questions as she did so.
Afterwards, the defense wants to spotlight what she didn't do (and that they are missing some of her testimony as they plan) so they say she "pleaded the Fifth Amendment when summoned for the grand jury" (omitting the fact that she did answer some questions). Then the prosecution in reply spotlights the fact she gave testimony (to some degree) so they say she "...did testify and provide evidence to the Grand Jury" (omitting the fact she did indeed use the 5th to dodge some questions). Written that way, both are technically true, while at the same time both sides are being deceptive and trying to only tell part of the story (to try to make it fit their own agenda).
Last edited:
- Status