Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #57

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kemug said:
I weep for Tammy. She apparently knew about Lori, and she must have known/suspected that Chad was at the very least involved in the "paintball" shooting incident. She must have been so unhappy and confused. Trying to keep being a good wife, wondering what she should do, if she should confide in anyone, or ask advice, if she should "have it out" with Chad perhaps. Maybe even wondering if she could have been a better wife. She probably never imagined that he might kill her. For what he did to her in her last weeks on earth, I find him doubly guilty.
Click to expand...

Thanks, your post stirred up a lot of emotion in me, like I could feel a little of what she may have felt. Well said, moo
 
In an off topic crime documentary, they briefly discussed how modern forensics can get info from duct tape. I think we all assume the duct tape from this crime scene will have evidence on it. But if you are bored, there is lots on informaton the forensics of adhesive tapes which include duct tape. They can even determine if the person used it for the crime or if it was contact from owning it/using it innocently before the crime. I only skimmed a few sites but found it reassuring that it will help make known those involved due to the processes that are in place now opposed to the past.
 
FullMinder said:
MM https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22-20-838/Declared Motion to Oppose use of DNA.pdf
Note: * DECLARED MOTION FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO PROSECUTOR REGARDING IMPROPER EX PARTE COMMUNICATION(S) WITH THE COURT *


JP https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22-20-755/Motion to Oppose Use of and Motion to Preserve DNA Samples.pdf
Click to expand...

Does this mean that no one (minus Fremont County) knows the outcome of the autopsy or that they simply haven't been provided with the actual report?
 
So RW doesn't have Tammy's autopsy results.

I wonder which DNA samples are they discussing. Apparently there's so little DNA that it would get all used up in the testing. Why is the process so slow? I'd expect testing to be done a long time ago.
 
indicolite22 said:
So RW doesn't have Tammy's autopsy results.

I wonder which DNA samples are they discussing. Apparently there's so little DNA that it would get all used up in the testing. Why is the process so slow? I'd expect testing to be done a long time ago.
Click to expand...

I'd have to go back and look but wasn't it the FBI that did the testing of the children? I'd think they'd be operating with full understanding of the law.

"processing procedures, policy procedures" You going up against the FBI processing procedures? That's the angle you're going to try to exploit???
 
IMO RW sending an email to all parties is not ex parte communication, here's some relevant info:

(B)An electronic communication sent simultaneously to the judge and all parties or their respective lawyers is not an ex parte communication, nor is a written communication that is served substantially simultaneously upon the judge and all parties or their respective counsel prior to any staffing*, hearing, trial, or other court proceeding at which the written communication may be relevant.

Rule 2.9 - Ex Parte Communications, Idaho Code. Judi. Cond. 2.9
Rule 2.9 - Ex Parte Communications, Idaho Code. Judi. Cond. 2.9 | Casetext Search + Citator
 
pizzaman12 said:
I'd have to go back and look but wasn't it the FBI that did the testing of the children? I'd think they'd be operating with full understanding of the law.

"processing procedures, policy procedures" You going up against the FBI processing procedures? That's the angle you're going to try to exploit???
Click to expand...

Respectfully, I don't think this is as egregious as some make it out to be. I know defense has filed countless seemingly frivolous Motions before, so I understand the current sentiments around these recent ones.

I wanted to also add, it's so hard to keep track considering the complexity of this case and the drawn out timeline thus far, but I think IMO RW and his office were not experienced enough in handling some of this magnitude before they brought in this other.prosecutor, I'm glad he has more help now because I think they could use it. I am NOT saying he's not experienced or even not experienced enough, just that I think his fairly shorter timeline of experience and the type of cases he handled before working for the State were pretty limited.

I remember in one of the more recent hearings, I'll have to circle back to my ongoing notes I've kept, but how the Judge pointed out the State failed to reply to the Defendant's motion within the written time frame and when they finally did it was well beyond the deadline. That seemed like some mistake to me, failing to reply at all and then when you do reply it is very late. I also recall when the Judge spoke about this ongoing Discovery battle, and how RW and his office had given Discovery to Prior but Means didn't have everything. Why is that? Was that some strategic move? I'm not sure, but they are required to turn over what they have. Why keep stalling on one attorney but not the other? Is it a lack of resources? That would seem odd considering Prior had the materials Means was asking for so I'm not sure how you could argue you're still compiling those materials. Was it a lack of experience, as in they didnt know their requirement to turn over what they have? That would seem hard to argue considering you complied with your requirements for one attorney but not the other.

I don't know. I'm just typing my thoughts aloud. Sorry.
 
Wanted to add this --- for whatever it may be worth ----

I've often tried to follow what some experienced minds in the legal world about this case (and many others), but especially in more recent months I've seen quite a divergence from, say, CourtTV attorneys vs Scott Reisch on his videos vs the experienced attorney who publishes the newsletter about this case. Their opinions IMO started to really differ when we got to the Motion to Disqualify, some seemed to say this convo with Summer, her sister, was not right and is taught in the first week of Law School 101 what to avoid to do, while others said the only bad about this was the Defense trying to remove a prosecutor. It was really interesting to me to see such a difference in opinion from experienced attorneys.

Now that more time has passed, I think we may see even more of that in the future which will be very interesting. I always found it interesting, and I'm not sure it's ever really been discussed here yet, that so many - including the State - claimed Means was not experienced enough and has never worked on a felony case. After doing some research I realized that's actually not entirely accurate.

Means was never working solely on criminal defense in his career this far, yes. But he actually has handled more than one felony case to verdict and sentencing...:and I never understood why so many including RW kept insisting otherwise. I finally think I may have realized why, Means doesn't appear to be the best in filing his stuff with the Courts, his formatting and header/Contact info has changed numerous times in the same case, I thought just sloppy work, but he'd used variations of his name when working sometimes including or excluding his middle name or initial. Because of that depending on how you search for court records you will very likely not see all his previous cases.

I realized that he had some felony cases, sometimes including his middle name or initial, sometimes not, but all tied to the same attorney with the same law license....maybe some searched too quickly or only one of his names and missed some. But for the State to say that, I thought was pretty sloppy and I've been wondering for a long time now if/when they say it again and Means starts to reference the more than one felony case he has defended people on. No, it's not groundbreaking info and he hasn't defended alleged murderers or even many felony cases at all - but if and when it ever comes up again, I think it will look sloppy that the State pushed this for so long, going back so far to telling his sister. Do they know otherwise? I would think they've missed something because they've said this on the record in Court but I guess we might see someday.

Thanks for letting me think aloud, just my 2cents and just IMHO.
 
indicolite22 said:
So RW doesn't have Tammy's autopsy results.

I wonder which DNA samples are they discussing. Apparently there's so little DNA that it would get all used up in the testing. Why is the process so slow? I'd expect testing to be done a long time ago.
Click to expand...

I've been under the impression, that defense (in every case) was permitted to do their own testing of DNA. But, I've never considered what happens if there is too small amount to test, nor an argument against testing that would result in full destruction of the DNA sample/s. I'm anxious to learn the answers.
 
Last edited:
MTW2011 said:
I remember in one of the more recent hearings, I'll have to circle back to my ongoing notes I've kept, but how the Judge pointed out the State failed to reply to the Defendant's motion within the written time frame and when they finally did it was well beyond the deadline. That seemed like some mistake to me, failing to reply at all and then when you do reply it is very late. I also recall when the Judge spoke about this ongoing Discovery battle, and how RW and his office had given Discovery to Prior but Means didn't have everything. Why is that? Was that some strategic move? I'm not sure, but they are required to turn over what they have. Why keep stalling on one attorney but not the other? Is it a lack of resources? That would seem odd considering Prior had the materials Means was asking for so I'm not sure how you could argue you're still compiling those materials. Was it a lack of experience, as in they didnt know their requirement to turn over what they have? That would seem hard to argue considering you complied with your requirements for one attorney but not the other.
Click to expand...
BBM, snipped for focus

The story about this is that the state had supplied the discovery to MM prior to the children's bodies being discovered and Chad being charged, so they realized after the fact that JP did not have the info. I thought it was interesting because that round of discovery included AC's cell phone data and it was supplied in early May, which means MM had the info they relied upon to find the bodies at the same time they did and might have been able to prepare his client. The fact that he didn't realize he had it that whole time was a red flag to me. MOO

ETA: KMBT_C364e-20210211173242 (idaho.gov)
 
DNA Evidence

Standard 3.4 Consumptive testing

(a) When possible, a portion of the DNA evidence tested and, when possible, a portion of any extract from the DNA evidence should be preserved for further testing.

(b) A laboratory should not undertake testing that entirely consumes DNA evidence or the extract from it without the prior approval of the prosecutor if a law enforcement officer is requesting the testing, or of defense counsel if the testing is requested by defense counsel or defense counsel’s agent.

(c) Before approving a test that entirely consumes DNA evidence or the extract from it, the prosecutor should provide any defendant against whom an accusatorial instrument has been filed, or any suspect who has requested prior notice, an opportunity to object and move for an appropriate court order.

(d) Before approving a test that entirely consumes DNA evidence or the extract from it, the attorney for any defendant against whom an accusatorial instrument has been filed, or for any other person who intends to conduct such a test, should provide the prosecutor an opportunity to object and move for an appropriate court order.

(e) If a motion objecting to consumptive testing is filed, the court should consider ordering procedures that would permit an independent evaluation of the analysis, including but not limited to the presence of an expert representing the moving party during evidence preparation and testing, and videotaping or photographing the preparation and testing.
 
montegrl said:
BBM, snipped for focus

The story about this is that the state had supplied the discovery to MM prior to the children's bodies being discovered and Chad being charged, so they realized after the fact that JP did not have the info. I thought it was interesting because that round of discovery included AC's cell phone data and it was supplied in early May, which means MM had the info they relied upon to find the bodies at the same time they did and might have been able to prepare his client. The fact that he didn't realize he had it that whole time was a red flag to me. MOO

ETA: KMBT_C364e-20210211173242 (idaho.gov)
Click to expand...

I was referring to another hearing, the disqualification attempt of RW. In that, after the testimony of witnesses was over and the submission of evidence was closed, the State came in last minute trying to submit new evidence and testimony, part of which was deemed hearsay by the Court. Their arguments seemed pretty weak IMO, they weren't following the Court rules in terms of process and trying to submit evidence after that time was closed, and they didn't follow the normal subpoena process. This was pointed out by the Defense and even the Judge. If I would attach an analogy to it id say the State wasn't dotting all their I's and crossing their T's. I don't know if it was not knowing the right process (that would seem unlikely), trying to get away with circumventing the normal process (that would seem bad IMO), I don't know but it didn't make me think they were really on their game and this was only a hearing regarding a Motion not even the trial yet. JMHO.
 
indicolite22 said:
In his latest motion JP suggests that half of the DNA sample be allocated to the defense for testing. I'm not sure if this is doable.
Click to expand...

I believe this is absolutely possible. Some reference material regarding compelled testing and defendant right to independent testing. I think this, though, like many things, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Not specifically DNA-exclusive (this portion talks about paternity testing, but the wonderful @indicolite22 posted relevant DNA pieces so I'll just leave this of anyone wants to start more digging of their own on the law and precedent case law ) but mentions right to testing and compelling independent testing Section 7-1116 – Idaho State Legislature

FindLaw's Supreme Court of Florida case and opinions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 202 more.
Total: 2,758 (members: 203, guests: 2,555)

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
2,555
Total visitors
2,758
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,701
Messages
18,098,328
Members
230,904
Latest member
jennilynn321
Back
Top