Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #54

[Ohmeohmy]

https://twitter.com/jlumfox10/status/1305601845113446400
Justin Lum
@jlumfox10

LORI VALLOW TRIAL: Official notice filed lists the dates and times for Lori Vallow’s pre-trial and jury trial.

Pre-trial: 2/25/21 10AM

Jury trial: 3/22/21 - 4/2/21 10AM Vallow plead not guilty to 2 counts of conspiracy to conceal, destroy or alter evidence. #fox10phoenix







1:18 PM · Sep 14, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

 

[Forever Young]

So as a juror, you would acquit CD and LV, because of your distrust of MG?

Not addressed to me, but if I were a juror, no, I would not acquit CD and LV because of MG's testimony. I'm glad that her testimony is not needed to support the more serious felony charges, and I am even more glad that things have gone as well as they have so far.

Had things gone the way it was planned, LV and CD could be out of the country right now, and who knows how many years it could take to find them, if ever, and extradite them back to the U. S.

What could have been a disaster, thankfully, was not. I'm just glad they're in custody, but that is no thanks to MG. LE had the three of them right there, and they got away.

From what I am understanding, MG basically waited out the week of Thanksgiving through the first week of December before recontacting the police and changing her story. That is where the 10-12 days of delay estimation comes from.

Who knows if AC might still be alive if only MG would have picked up the phone the first time Rexburg police called, while LE had them in sight.

I think what she said supports the solicitation charge, I just don't put much credit in her character, and therefore no credit in any character evaluations she might offer. Her own character is weak and she shows that she herself is a poor judge of character.

There is another motive for her testimony, and that is to exonerate herself. Maybe that's what really bothers me, and as I said, I'm glad not much really hangs on her testimony. IMO

 

[scapa]

I knew those children were dead the minute Nate asked LVD, "The whole country is worried about your children.". And LVD, just kept walking and muttered, "Great".

She was angry that people cared about Tylee and JJ.

I wonder if she was angry or simply bemused, a la Patrick Frazee wondering why anyone would get so het up about the missing Kelsey Berreth. I mean, she was just a regular woman who disappeared, right? Well, [not] exactly...

IMO, since she no longer cared one whit about TR or JJ, whether alive or dead, human or zombified, why should anyone else? After all, even those beyond the veil would have to wish her well in her gaudy future as Goddess or Priestess or whatever. Because she wanted it, and so it was right.

I think trying to explain LVD beyond her own very narrow self-interest, whether that was framed in theological (end of days, Queen LVD!) or purely hedonistic (a cool million in Hawaii, Queen LVD!) terms is difficult, frustrating work. It was what it was, for all the cruelty of it.

Now CD, I suspect, is quite a different animal. His reasons will be ugly and disturbing and hollow as the man himself, but they will scan, they will follow; they will make some kind of awful sense. IMO.

 

[Forever Young]

Wasn't ZP from Columbia? Maybe Alex thought he would go to South America. Sounds like he'd been there before. MOO

 

[Laughing]

@Mrsbobdenby


OT:

Oh how I love your image!

A French Bulldog? Age, name, please?

Does the dog do any posting?

Thanks, Laughing

 

[nhmemorymaker]

Her death was from diabetic complications from what I read.

There really is much more to this story........... And the fact that the entire family--Lori, parents (and I think Melani) were in Hawaii, when the sister was home alone with Alex???
This will always be a curious situation to me. But we can't really discuss much anyway....

 

[Hatfield]

We can pretty much tell already why MG lying to LE is going to be an issue for the Prosecution.

Its because we have seen this sort of issue play out before and it usually goes something like this during the Defense' turn with her:

Hypothetical Defense Attorney:
"So you have admitted here today that you first lied directly to LE when they first were asking you very important questions about the missing children, and so why are we supposed to believe you now?"

I would not be surprised if the prosecution does not call her as a witness for those sorts of reasons. I think they could have enough other evidence to prosecute them without her.

A jury decides a case based on ALL the evidence presented and not just a single witness'es testimony. In fact, a jury is instructed to not begin any deliberations at all until the entire case and all the evidence is presented to the jury. I think the prosecution can be successful without her. But the Defense could call her to the stand themselves so the prosecution needs to be ready to deal with her.
All JMO

 

[Satchie]

We can pretty much tell already why MG lying to LE is going to be an issue for the Prosecution.

Its because we have seen this sort of issue play out before and it usually goes something like this during the Defense' turn with her:

Hypothetical Defense Attorney:
"So you have admitted here today that you first lied directly to LE when they first were asking you very important questions about the missing children, and so why are we supposed to believe you now?"

I would not be surprised if the prosecution does not call her as a witness for those sorts of reasons. I think they could have enough other evidence to prosecute them without her.

A jury decides a case based on ALL the evidence presented and not just a single witness'es testimony. In fact, a jury is instructed to not begin any deliberations at all until the entire case and all the evidence is presented to the jury. I think the prosecution can be successful without her. But the Defense could call her to the stand themselves so the prosecution needs to be ready to deal with her.
All JMO

I'm not sure I understand about the prosecution not calling her and needing to "deal" with her. Can you clarify that for me?

It is law enforcement/the prosecution that laid the charge of criminal solicitation back in February, because LV tried to use MG to obstruct the police investigation.

The prosecution didn't have to do that. If they thought MG would be a liability, IMO they wouldn't have laid the charge that states she is a victim of LV, who tried to incite her to commit a crime.

She didn't commit the crime, she answered the phone and stated clearly that JJ was not with her, but was with Lori. Police obtained the warrant against LV based on her statement that JJ was not with her.

Prosecution/police could have left her name out of the charging document if they'd wanted, just stating that LV told them JJ was with a friend, but on contacting the friend it was found to be untrue.

MG only went public because her name was in the charging document, and she'd agreed to the prosecution demand that she testify in detail against LV and CD.

I can't imagine the defense would call her as a witness if she weren't a prosecution witness.

Defense: "MG, why did you tell police that JJ had been with you previously, when he had not been."
MG: "Because my close friends CD and LV phoned me and asked me to lie to police and state that JJ was currently with me and to take photos of random kids and say one was JJ"

Right, very effective defense!

 

[Satchie]

Also, there are probably other people out there who LV asked to deceive/block the investigation, and not tell police the truth and to lie, and those others are staying silent. Neither the police or the defense are going to call them to testify.

 

[Forever Young]

I'm not sure I understand about the prosecution not calling her and needing to "deal" with her. Can you clarify that for me?

It is law enforcement/the prosecution that laid the charge of criminal solicitation back in February, because LV tried to use MG to obstruct the police investigation.

The prosecution didn't have to do that. If they thought MG would be a liability, IMO they wouldn't have laid the charge that states she is a victim of LV, who tried to incite her to commit a crime.

She didn't commit the crime, she answered the phone and stated clearly that JJ was not with her, but was with Lori. Police obtained the warrant against LV based on her statement that JJ was not with her.

Prosecution/police could have left her name out of the charging document if they'd wanted, just stating that LV told them JJ was with a friend, but on contacting the friend it was found to be untrue.

MG only went public because her name was in the charging document, and she'd agreed to the prosecution demand that she testify in detail against LV and CD.

I can't imagine the defense would call her as a witness if she weren't a prosecution witness.

Defense: "MG, why did you tell police that JJ had been with you previously, when he had not been."
MG: "Because my close friends CD and LV phoned me and asked me to lie to police and state that JJ was currently with me and to take photos of random kids and say one was JJ"

Right, very effective defense!

But this is a mess of MG's own making. She didn't need to actually lie to say that she'd been asked to lie.

The problem is is that MG also knew other things that LV told her about. She knew about the circumstances surrounding CV's death, and how Lori really was spouting that she had been married to the Angel Moroni. She knew Charles had asked for a mental evaluation, but she laughed with Lori about that. She knew about the zombie doctrine, and how Charles had been declared a zombie, then was shot dead, and the talk of the million dollar life insurance policy. She knew BB had been shot at. She knew Tylee had been called a zombie, just like Charles.

And still, she thought zombies died from prayer.

So why did she not say anything about it? Because she thought Lori or Alex or Chad incapable of actually killing another human being?

Did Alex think Lori was incapable of murder? Did Chad think Lori was incapable of murder? MG did! She did not believe Lori would actually kill someone. So why couldn't the other two have been hoodwinked as well, mesmerized by the ethereal goddess, but never imagining she would actually murder her own zombie children.

MG has too much baggage to be a good witness for the prosecution when the defense can use all this against her and apply it to the other two co-conspirators. Whose going to believe that? We are asked to believe that MG did. IMO

 

[mickey2942]

But this is a mess of MG's own making. She didn't need to actually lie to say that she'd been asked to lie.

The problem is is that MG also knew other things that LV told her about. She knew about the circumstances surrounding CV's death, and how Lori really was spouting that she had been married to the Angel Moroni. She knew Charles had asked for a mental evaluation, but she laughed with Lori about that. She knew about the zombie doctrine, and how Charles had been declared a zombie, then was shot dead, and the talk of the million dollar life insurance policy. She knew BB had been shot at. She knew Tylee had been called a zombie, just like Charles.

And still, she thought zombies died from prayer.

So why did she not say anything about it? Because she thought Lori or Alex or Chad incapable of actually killing another human being?

Did Alex think Lori was incapable of murder? Did Chad think Lori was incapable of murder? MG did! She did not believe Lori would actually kill someone. So why couldn't the other two have been hoodwinked as well, mesmerized by the ethereal goddess, but never imagining she would actually murder her own zombie children.

MG has too much baggage to be a good witness for the prosecution when the defense can use all this against her and apply it to the other two co-conspirators. Whose going to believe that? We are asked to believe that MG did. IMO

Being a juror is going to be difficult. I just can't imagine attorneys discussing "zombies" in a courtroom. The whole situation is beyond belief. Who can wrap their head around these bizarre beliefs?

But, it seems to be just a distraction. The real issue is the insurance money, and the benefit cash that Lori lived on. Conveniently, every one who was a "Zombie" and died benefitted LVD and CD financially.

Except for CV, who changed his insurance beneficiary, but LVD did not know that until after he was dead.

 

[indicolite22]

But this is a mess of MG's own making. She didn't need to actually lie to say that she'd been asked to lie.

As another poster stated earlier, I don't think MG saying that JJ wasn't with her without adding that she had him initially would have made much difference in the case. In either case the attention was turned back to Lori.

The problem is is that MG also knew other things that LV told her about. She knew about the circumstances surrounding CV's death, and how Lori really was spouting that she had been married to the Angel Moroni. She knew Charles had asked for a mental evaluation, but she laughed with Lori about that. She knew about the zombie doctrine, and how Charles had been declared a zombie, then was shot dead, and the talk of the million dollar life insurance policy. She knew BB had been shot at. She knew Tylee had been called a zombie, just like Charles.

And still, she thought zombies died from prayer.

The police knew about Lori's death threats to Charles and Lori's strange beliefs about being a deity and did nothing. What makes you think MG could change that? It's not a crime to have weird beliefs.
MG learned that BB was shot at two weeks after it happened. How did she have any proof as to who did it?
She went with Lori for a mental evaluation. According to Lori, she passed. What should have MG done about it?

So why did she not say anything about it? Because she thought Lori or Alex or Chad incapable of actually killing another human being?

They haven't killed anyone up to that point. Again, Charles (and others) went to police about the threats, but the police weren't interested.

Did Alex think Lori was incapable of murder? Did Chad think Lori was incapable of murder? MG did! She did not believe Lori would actually kill someone. So why couldn't the other two have been hoodwinked as well, mesmerized by the ethereal goddess, but never imagining she would actually murder her own zombie children.

That is not a valid comparison. MG was part of the cult, but wasn't in on the murders because she wasn't even part of the family. She would not have profited from the deaths, so she didn't have to know about the plot. Chad was the instigator anyway, IMO.

MG has too much baggage to be a good witness for the prosecution when the defense can use all this against her and apply it to the other two co-conspirators. Whose going to believe that? We are asked to believe that MG did. IMO

I doubt the defense would talk about CV's death in the children's trial when it would only implicate their client in more crimes. MG was a witness there as well, not an accomplice.

I think MG is an excellent witness. She went to police volutarily and she can provide a lot of insight into the cult, as well as Chad and Lori's dynamic. We need to keep in mind though that all the details might not be brought up in court. Her incriminating information that can be corroborated with other evidence will no doubt be used. I think Nate Eaton mentioned that more recordings were made.

 

[Clair Louise]

Her death was from diabetic complications from what I read.

In todays world, death from diabetic complications are rare.

 

[indicolite22]

In todays world, death from diabetic complications are rare.

Providing that you manage the illness properly. She had way more health problems than just diabetes and that was in 1998. The history was detailed in court documents. It's tragic, but not suspicious IMO.

 

[Clair Louise]

She had way more health problems than just diabetes and that was in 1998. The history was detailed in court documents. It's tragic, but not suspicious IMO.

Thanks for setting me straight. I was unaware of that.

 

[Satchie]

But this is a mess of MG's own making. She didn't need to actually lie to say that she'd been asked to lie.

The problem is is that MG also knew other things that LV told her about. She knew about the circumstances surrounding CV's death, and how Lori really was spouting that she had been married to the Angel Moroni. She knew Charles had asked for a mental evaluation, but she laughed with Lori about that. She knew about the zombie doctrine, and how Charles had been declared a zombie, then was shot dead, and the talk of the million dollar life insurance policy. She knew BB had been shot at. She knew Tylee had been called a zombie, just like Charles.

And still, she thought zombies died from prayer.

So why did she not say anything about it? Because she thought Lori or Alex or Chad incapable of actually killing another human being?

Did Alex think Lori was incapable of murder? Did Chad think Lori was incapable of murder? MG did! She did not believe Lori would actually kill someone. So why couldn't the other two have been hoodwinked as well, mesmerized by the ethereal goddess, but never imagining she would actually murder her own zombie children.

MG has too much baggage to be a good witness for the prosecution when the defense can use all this against her and apply it to the other two co-conspirators. Whose going to believe that? We are asked to believe that MG did. IMO

I really don't understand this reasoning. Perhaps you could give an example from another trial to explain how your anxieties about her as a witness could play out.

Re 'too much baggage'.

It is only when an insider turns state witness that many convictions are obtained. For example, Bernie Madoff's conviction came from the testimony of his former deputy. The key witness in the only US criminal trial to stem from the Bernie Madoff scandal has died

And Mark Sievers was sentenced to death, based on the testimony of his former best friend who he'd recruited to actually kill his wife. Mark Sievers trial: Wright implicates defendant in murder: Day 2

So there's two examples of convictions obtained because of the testimony of people who had a great deal more baggage than MG.

 

[Kemug]

Going slightly off-topic, I will never ever believe that Tammy Daybell died a natural death.

 

[GRT]

I admire anyone who can give MG the benefit of the doubt. As a juror I’d have an impossible time overlooking the fact that she lied to police during a missing children investigation. It’s a huge problem for the prosecution, along with her bizarre interviews... I’ve seen nothing so far that shows she is a trustworthy person. Maybe with more separation in time from the events, which weren’t that long ago, she might seem more genuine?

Had MG not almost immediately contacted police and told them she'd lied at Lori and Chad's request, I might feel the same way.

Keep in mind that it wasn't really a "missing children investigation" yet, it was just a simple child welfare check, and only about JJ. The investigation started after MG told them what she knew.

In my opinion, MG was blindsided by LV's request and thought her friend was trying to protect her children from Kay. Remember in the recorded phone call how LV told MG that if MG could protect her kids, Lori should be able to as well.

JMOO, but if I were a juror, I wouldn't have any trouble believing MG's sincerity now. I feel as though she's done all the right things, after she did the wrong thing. Her early lie would not be an issue for me.

 

[GRT]

Going slightly off-topic, I will never ever believe that Tammy Daybell died a natural death.

I don't think she did, either.

 

[Hatfield]

I'm not sure I understand about the prosecution not calling her and needing to "deal" with her. Can you clarify that for me?

It is law enforcement/the prosecution that laid the charge of criminal solicitation back in February, because LV tried to use MG to obstruct the police investigation.

The prosecution didn't have to do that. If they thought MG would be a liability, IMO they wouldn't have laid the charge that states she is a victim of LV, who tried to incite her to commit a crime.

She didn't commit the crime, she answered the phone and stated clearly that JJ was not with her, but was with Lori. Police obtained the warrant against LV based on her statement that JJ was not with her.

Prosecution/police could have left her name out of the charging document if they'd wanted, just stating that LV told them JJ was with a friend, but on contacting the friend it was found to be untrue.

MG only went public because her name was in the charging document, and she'd agreed to the prosecution demand that she testify in detail against LV and CD.

I can't imagine the defense would call her as a witness if she weren't a prosecution witness.

Defense: "MG, why did you tell police that JJ had been with you previously, when he had not been."
MG: "Because my close friends CD and LV phoned me and asked me to lie to police and state that JJ was currently with me and to take photos of random kids and say one was JJ"

Right, very effective defense!

Re BBM
When its their turn in a trial, either side (Prosecution or Defense) can call whatever witnesses they want to the stand. So if the Prosecution decides they do not want to call her to testify, then when its the Defense turn, the Defense could call her up to testify and then the Prosecution will likely want to question her during their "cross-examination" of that Defense witness to try to repair any damage from her testimony that the Defense pulled out of her.

Some trials are fascinating to watch and this one is setting up to be a doozy of a trial. There is so much strategy and tactics involved for both sides, it can get very interesting.

My understanding of the main trial proceedings is the Prosecution always goes first to present their case and they will call up all their witnesses one by one. During each witness testimony, the opposing side can elect to "cross examine" (question) that same witness right after the other side is done with their questioning. This continues until all the Prosecution witnesses are called up to testify.

Then its the Defense turn.
The defense begins calling all their witnesses. And the same holds true that the Prosecution can elect to "cross examine" each of them after the Defense is done with their questioning.

So if a certain witness is not used or called up by the Prosecution, then it doesn't necessarily mean that the witness will not eventually be called to the stand by the Defense. And so the Prosecution needs to be ready with how they will question her during their cross examination of her. They can elect not to call her and not to do any cross examination of her if the Defense calls her, but usually its to their benefit to at least cross examine a witness if a lot of damage was done to their case by the Defense turn with her.

The bottom line for either side is they will usually call a certain witness if the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

The strategies and tactics by both sides can get really interesting and dicey at times. Some of us have watched trials and others have seen enough from movies and documentaries to have seen some of the tactics that are employed. One of the things an attorney does is they try to bring out the testimony from the witness that they want the jury to hear and they try to limit the witness to just answering the question they have posed to them. A lot of times a witness will want to add more to the answer but they are promptly cut off by the attorney if they are fixing to say something the attorney doesn't want the jury to hear. That can happen and especially if a witness is considered "hostile" to the side. The attorney will tell the witness to just answer Yes or No and they will cut them off as the witness tries to add more if it hurts their case. That is where the other side can help themselves by cross examining that same witness and then they can bring out the extra information that the other side did not want the jury to hear.

It is all very interesting and quite a chess match in certain cases like this one is shaping up to be.
All JMO

Criminal Trial Overview - FindLaw