Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #52

[dixiegirl1035]

I took a little flack for advancing this same notion, I think it was day before yesterday? This is not the first time I've wondered if other media outlets peruse this forum for ideas to discuss, but glad to see not everyone thought it was totally off the wall.

Consider the possibility that folks here see something, yet we are not allowed to discuss. And further that with folks here will send that information to MSM folks/YouTube folks that are allowed links in the hopes that they will publish so that we can then talk about. (especially those like Nate and a few others who have direct pm without having to splash to the web)

Voila, done on many many cases here. All are happy and within TOS then... iykwim. (NOT talking about info that should be directed to LE)

MOO

 

[DI_Isokawa]

Thanks for the link. I don't think the policy is as ambiguous as you say, as I argued above. But I agree that it's important to go to the policy itself.

I respectfully submit that if the policy was indeed unambiguous we wouldn't be having this discussion and Means wouldn't have written his letter. Again, with respect for your interpretation.

 

[Diddian]

BBM
IIRC when LVD first walked into the interview room she said something about 'thanks for letting me use the bathroom first' - did anyone else catch that? When I heard it I first thought "well there went all the gun powder residue".

True, but it could have been washed off before then, at her rented home before she left (we don't know how long she really spent there after CV was shot; we only know what she, AxC, and Tylee said).

Also, since she took CV's rental car, phone, and wallet, Lori likely had the cardkey to CV's hotel room. If Lori knew where he was staying (and since she had his phone, she could likely easily get that info from his email messaged confirmation), Lori may have entered the hotel from a side entrance and taken herself and Tylee (and possibly JJ too) to CV's room and showered or otherwise washed up there. Of course, if she did go there, she could easily have accessed anything CV had left there (e.g CV's electronics, any notes or documents he may have left lying around).

ETA: I remember seeing, on LE's bodycams, a man who I presume to be a neighbor walking in front of LV(D)'s rented home after LE had taken AxC aside and the fire engine was parked in front, but before the street in front of the scene was taped off. That man offered some kind of help to LE, but was urged aside (at least for that moment). I hope LE did interview that man that morning to ask what he knew about the goings-on at the house that day. Did that man or any other neighbors or passersby hear any arguments (or to the contrary, friendly conversation)? Did they hear the shots? Did they see any vehicle arrivals/departures (AxC's pickup, CV's rental car, and any vehicles of other potentially involved parties) and do they know the timing of such in relation to the shots? Did they see when various individuals got into CV's car and if they had heard arguments or shots, when did those occur relative to each other? Did they see Tylee go back into the house after Lori had come out? Did they see anything else of interest?

Also, did LE check to see whether Lori had taken JJ to Burger King for breakfast, as she told LE she had urged CV to do before he was shot?

 

[salberg7]

I know that not everyone will agree with what I say here, but:

I am fairly certain that speculation that the letter issued by the LDS church applies to all members is misguided. Instead, the letter very clearly applies only to church leaders and then only to leaders whose possible testimony in legal matters stems from situations that arise through carrying out their leadership activities (or at least involve people who are directly under their pastoral care). The key phrase in the letter is "... leaders should not involve themselves in civil or criminal cases regarding members in their units, quorums, or organizations without first ..."

This letter is NOT a general statement about how church members should respond to requests for legal testimony. If it was, legal activity would be impossible (and would have been impossible for many years) in Utah and other Mormon-dominant areas (a situation that is clearly not the case).

So if a bishop (or member of the ward council that the bishop leads), for example, learns legally important information about a member of his ward (a geographically defined ecclesiastical unit) through his leadership activities within the ward, the church is asking that he contact church lawyers. But if another bishop learned of legally important information that had nothing to do with the exercising of leadership within his own ward (something that applied to a member of a different ward, for example), the request to contact church lawyers would not apply.

I can understand why others might interpret the letter differently (the phrase "members" was used in the preface to the reminder of the policy). But the policy itself applies quite clearly, MOO, to only leaders who are who are about to become involved with legal issues involving someone from within their own "flock."

Within this context, I think some of the questions raised here about whether the church is prioritizing its own reputation above the discovery of truth, or whether a church should be allowed to possibly curtail testimony in this manner, are valid. But the instructions of the letter apply to a relatively small group of people with clearly defined (and mostly geographically limited) pastoral duties. They would certainly not apply to most of the LDS people who could provide evidence in the CD/LVD trials.

Thank you so much for this explanation. It makes perfect sense to me that it’s addressed to bishops and leadership on a second review. Nor did this letter suggest to me that the Church of Latter Day Saints’ was asking its’ members to *ever* *not* tell the truth. I had stated in a prior post that this wouldn’t and couldn’t happen because such a statement would be quite an affront to many solid, faithful practicing Mormon folk.

 

[Leader6518]

I listened to bits and pieces of that and it reinforces the niggling thought in the back of my mind that DW is more into this than we may think.

I mentioned yesterday how I was slightly concerned when CD seemed to nod in approval after DW gave his testimony at the prelim and Prior thanked him.

CD was showing DW land to buy, so (JMOO) CD wanted to keep DW close.

My other question is that, while we can't see DW talking with the group on Youtube, he seems to be able to hear them very well. Did his hearing decline that much in four years? It's possible, of course, but DW also placed LV at the vacant land and MG specifically said she did not go with them.

Just remembering the wrong thing? I'm getting a weird vibe here.

I don’t think DW is anything more than a nervous person drawn into a highly visible crime. His hearing issues made it worse. I know if it were me and I was being crossed by someone like Prior, I would be nervous and probably not as articulate. I’m sure MG and DW were told not to say certain things for the preliminary hearing.

The nod by Chad was his acknowledgment that Prior said thank you for testing. That is called court room decorum.

I just don’t see any involvement other than being at the wrong place at the right time. MG is a mousy woman who was easily manipulated by LVD and Chad. The sweet Melanie comment by Chad is part of the manipulation. He acknowledged her as the person she tries to be. Sweet and trusting.

DW barely knew them. I believe he is the person who helped MG get her head on straight regarding CD and LVD. She was a believer in visions and was involved with the doomsday prepares. It stands to reason that group would be curious about the end of the world.

In addition, MG didn’t have as much contact with LVD after she moved to Rexburg. MG and DW were on the outside of the murdering circle of family.

AMOO

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Apologies, I still cannot see the correlation between prebooking a Uhaul and the filing of the warrant. Thank you for your reply though. Your posts are much appreciated.

Not the OP (and the OP doesn't have to link anything per TOS to MSM as they are a "verified insider at Websleuths" MOO They are allowed to state their info, and we can agree/disagree MOO)...

My thoughts..

Remember how LE arrived at Lori's condo etc the day before they left?

Perhaps LE had more info surreptitiously on their "potential movements" to leave Rexberg and knew they were readying to leave, which they ALLLLLLL did. (Alex gone, Lori gone, MP gone, Chad gone, next door neighbor of Alex who marries soon after to marry gone... ) LE, if on top of such must have been going wth is going on? All these folks move here and then poof.. they all are packing up after just being here for their "purpose"?

And then again, perhaps, months later, LE surreptitiously found that Chad was about to leave.

Bam... both time warrants.

MOO and conjecture from information we have.

 

[pizzaman12]

Nonprofits, including churches, are not prohibited from making money. Rules apply and it can get very complicated. The Vatican used to own the Watergate apartment complex in Washington DC! IRS.gov has some of the basic regulations if you want to dig deeper, but I warn you it’s VERY complicated when you start trying to puzzle out nonprofits with assets worth billions.

BBM- I'd say BILLIONS with a Capital "B"!!!

 

[dixiegirl1035]

BBM
IIRC when LVD first walked into the interview room she said something about 'thanks for letting me use the bathroom first' - did anyone else catch that? When I heard it I first thought "well there went all the gun powder residue".

I haven't know that they existed (interviews of such after the murder in the police station in which she wanted to go to the bathroom etc.. or anything at all). How did I miss, thanks!

Can someone share the post murder of Charles interviews with Lori, T, and A as I have never seen such.

Thanks!

 

[pizzaman12]

None of the witnesses should have cooperated or testified by this directions of this letter.

That would mean BB didn't identify the kids. MG didn't testify. DW didn't testify. DP didn't offer to let LE/FBI look into everything they had. The neighbour wouldn't have called if they are LDS and there is an excellent chance he is. The family wouldn't have identified the pet cemetery.

There is a good chance those children would still be in CD's backyard with this. Everyone who continues to help is directly contravening directives given. That puts them in a bad position of choosing to cooperate or maintain their position in the group and so far this whole group itself and all the people around them look like they'd rather eat their arm off than that happen.

I gotta disagree with you. Plus they put it out as soon as CD was put over to trail. I don't believe in coinkidinks.

BBM- who is DP? Is this supposed to be CP?

 

[Forever Young]

I respectfully submit that if the policy was indeed unambiguous we wouldn't be having this discussion and Means wouldn't have written his letter. Again, with respect for your interpretation.

I've seen plenty of speculation as to Means' ability as a lawyer; his misspelled tweets, his qualification to represent LV.

Sadly, his interpretation of that letter might add to his image.

You have to read the letter carefully, but that goes without saying, supposedly, for a lawyer. I knew what it meant, and I am not a lawyer.

Or, as dixiegirl1035 surmised, his response to it was nothing but PR.

 

[lake daze]

Very interesting conversation about the church. If I may change the subject a minute; Lori's appearance in Hawaii. She was extremely bloated, she looked ill. Does anyone think that Chad was drugging her? She looked SO different, according to witnesses, and I thought so too, in her pictures. What could cause such a change?

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Very interesting conversation about the church. If I may change the subject a minute; Lori's appearance in Hawaii. She was extremely bloated, she looked ill. Does anyone think that Chad was drugging her? She looked SO different, according to witnesses, and I thought so too, in her pictures. What could cause such a change?

Maybe perimenopause? Guilty conscience? Or as you said, drugs?

 

[Diddian]

Very interesting conversation about the church. If I may change the subject a minute; Lori's appearance in Hawaii. She was extremely bloated, she looked ill. Does anyone think that Chad was drugging her? She looked SO different, according to witnesses, and I thought so too, in her pictures. What could cause such a change?

It would help if you were more specific.

Are you referring to Lori's mug shot? To her court appearance for which she is dressed in jail clothing? Or, to her court appearance for which she is dressed in black clothing?

For the mug shot, I'm noticing lack of makeup and her hair hasn't been done. But, I'm not seeing bloating or ill-appearance in the mugshot or in the photographs of either of the court appearances.

ETA: I would imagine 3x/day (as she told MG she was looking forward to) is dehydrating. Maybe that accounts for what you are noticing.

 

[SleuthD-o-doubleg]

Very interesting conversation about the church. If I may change the subject a minute; Lori's appearance in Hawaii. She was extremely bloated, she looked ill. Does anyone think that Chad was drugging her? She looked SO different, according to witnesses, and I thought so too, in her pictures. What could cause such a change?

It’s possible. Would be interesting to know if that was true and it matched with anything found in Tammy’s autopsy. But imo I’ve seen people change based on their lifestyle. LV wasn’t exactly living an easy lifestyle sneaking around, lying, running from law enforcement and the media. It has to be exhausting and draining. All jmo

 

[Forever Young]

Very interesting conversation about the church. If I may change the subject a minute; Lori's appearance in Hawaii. She was extremely bloated, she looked ill. Does anyone think that Chad was drugging her? She looked SO different, according to witnesses, and I thought so too, in her pictures. What could cause such a change?

The change in climate can make a huge difference, if you are not used to dealing with the humidity. Sun exposure and heat, again you have to build up. Drinking alcohol?

I personally thought she looked dehydrated and thin, as did Chad. They had to be nervous as h*ll once the media began approaching them.

 

[887sMtreme]

I am fairly certain that speculation that the letter issued by the LDS church applies to all members is misguided. Instead, the letter very clearly applies only to church leaders and then only to leaders whose possible testimony in legal matters stems from situations that arise through carrying out their leadership activities (or at least involve people who are directly under their pastoral care).
<snipped for focus>

That is how I remembered it, actually. The bee in the honey pot was the letter's referral to D&C, which applies more generally to Church members.

 

[lake daze]

It would help if you were more specific.

Are you referring to Lori's mug shot? To her court appearance for which she is dressed in jail clothing? Or, to her court appearance for which she is dressed in black clothing?

For the mug shot, I'm noticing lack of makeup and her hair hasn't been done. But, I'm not seeing bloating or ill-appearance in the mugshot or in the photographs of either of the court appearances.

ETA: I would imagine 3x/day (as she told MG she was looking forward to) is dehydrating. Maybe that accounts for what you are noticing.

I thought Lori had visible changes in her face. She was very bloated. Her eyes looked sunken to me. One witness said Lori had bags under her eyes and just didn't look the same as she had looked before. Maybe it's just me, I saw someone that didn't look healthy, and she did look healthy in other pictures.

 

[887sMtreme]

The sweet Melanie comment by Chad is part of the manipulation. He acknowledged her as the person she tries to be. Sweet and trusting.

<snipped for focus>

In some circles, even a reminder of the "stay sweet" doctrine can be perceived as a threat.

 

[Forever Young]

Does anyone know what a Bishop might be able to do for an incarcerated person? I noticed particularly the part in the Church's letter regarding communication with court personnel on the behalf of someone criminally charged, including email. That just really stuck out to me.

How could a Bishop influence court personnel on behalf of a prisoner? Would it regard privileges or conditions, or something more?

 

[pizzaman12]

I don't see how they inserted themselves in the case? This information is in the general handbook. It's pretty basic info. I don't see where you're picking up the fear, intimidation, and embarrassment? I've been involved in some legal cases and worked with the church, and none of that was going on in any way. MOO

I think MM's 6-page direct response indicates that @Love Never Fails is not the only person that feels this isn't a random friendly refresher