Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Tammy Daybell, 49, Sept & Oct 2019 *Arrests* #60

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not normal for LE to be cleaning up blood in any crime scene. Usually that's left up to the victim's family to do so afterwards, and I've seen companies that specialize in blood removal from crime scenes and such.

My opinion is that EMT caused the blood pool and then LE needed to examine the floor underneath; so maybe it's not "normal", but in this case, I think wiping up the blood was understandable and possibly necessary. It's an aspect of the case I initially found questionable, but feel was clarified by the wording in the affidavit. JMO.
 
If the police weren't onto Chad and Lori, Alex would still be alive IMO (if he didn't die of natural causes). Another attempt on BB's life would likely be in the cards. With L&C being under investigation, I think their murderous activities were on pause, unless they planned to kill witnesses. But Chad thought that the case was going away if the kids were never found.
It blows my mind that either one of them thought that JJ and Tylee could just disappear and there would be no consequences. Lori likely though her goddess-ness would protect her from any investigation. Chad should have known there was a pretty good chance that someone would be looking for the children but he was obviously blinded by hormones and lust and his brain stopped working properly.
 
My opinion is that EMT caused the blood pool and then LE needed to examine the floor underneath; so maybe it's not "normal", but in this case, I think wiping up the blood was understandable and possibly necessary. It's an aspect of the case I initially found questionable, but feel was clarified by the wording in the affidavit. JMO.
Maybe I'm naive, but I have never, ever heard of a forensic team "wiping up blood".
 
It blows my mind that either one of them thought that JJ and Tylee could just disappear and there would be no consequences. Lori likely though her goddess-ness would protect her from any investigation. Chad should have known there was a pretty good chance that someone would be looking for the children but he was obviously blinded by hormones and lust and his brain stopped working properly.
She had an easier excuse with Tylee in that she'd just "gone off to college", but no college student goes incommunicado. They have cell phones that they use constantly to communicate. I know, I have a college student. And for how long could she use the excuse that JJ was just being passed around?
 
I’m not sure….from what I’ve researched this seems to be highly dependent on the insurer and even sometimes the specific contract (as well as the state where the death occurred due to varying local/state laws and regulations)
I’m not sure such a blanket statement does not accurately cover all life insurance providers.

sources - (some of these mention only autopsies but from everything I can find this language covers autopsies, toxicology reports, further investigative techniques employed to study cause of death…)
There is no law that states an autopsy must be performed when someone dies.
If an insurer denies a claim such as the one discussed here they’re acting in bad faith to the beneficiary. Insurer’s know that there is a burden of proof that falls on the person making the claim, and not on the insurer. The burden of proof means that the beneficiary must prove the death circumstances are not excluded under the policy’s Exclusions Clause. Exclusions include the use of prescribed medications, non-prescribed drugs and intoxication.

These exclusions cannot be determined if there was no autopsy, unless there was a toxicology exam. But there are issues with the accuracy of toxicology exams that are performed without a full autopsy and are the least reliable type. This can be proven.

Each state has a different definition of the burden of proof. Some are very restrictive and some are very lax. Insurers who deny claims on this basis alone subject themselves to severe penalties if it turns-out they never intended to pay the claim and simply put an undue burden on the beneficiary”
From https://cflid.com/life-insurance-claim-denied-because-no-autopsy/

this example is from a letter from the North Carolina Dept of Insurance, and it mentions how in certain scenarios regarding death, the medical examiner has jurisdiction over the investigation, and if they take jurisdiction over the death then they make the decision(s) regarding any further investigation and/or testing….which whatever results are from those the insurance company can choose to rely upon and make their decision for a claim based on all, some, or none of that. And IMOO since we know that medical examiners and autopsies being done can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, I think (while this source only applies to NC highlights the major differences that can vary from state to state as well as from insurance provider to provider
Link - https://www.ncdoi.gov/media/1511/open
I agree with so much of what is being said by MTW2011- and as a Canadian insurance lawyer (I also teach insurance law), I can absolutely confirm that the policy and the jurisdiction will ultimately drive what happens. Here in Canada though (and I think it is true in the States), all a beneficiary needs to prove is that the person is deceased - the onus then shifts to the insurer to establish that an exclusion applies. The insurer does have the right to compel an autopsy and require that information they need be disclosed. In Canada (and again I think this is true for the US), a bad faith claim will not be successful if the insurer denies the claim based on reasonable evidence - they can be wrong without acting in bad faith. Totally love the consideration you are all sharing - such a thoughtful community facing such an unimaginable horror.
 
Maybe I'm naive, but I have never, ever heard of a forensic team "wiping up blood".

If anyone is naive, it's probably me. I tend to look for context when I hear something that doesn't compute (in this case, LE "cleaning up"), and, for me, the Affidavit provided that. I understand others still find it inexcusable/unjustified; I wasn't challenging that POV, just adding my own.
 
If anyone is naive, it's probably me. I tend to look for context when I hear something that doesn't compute (in this case, LE "cleaning up"), and, for me, the Affidavit provided that. I understand others still find it inexcusable/unjustified; I wasn't challenging that POV, just adding my own.
Why wouldn't they have ripped out that section of the flooring if they were looking for bullet casings or something underneath the blood? Isn't that what they normally do?
 
Did you say ALLEGEDLY?


No matter our personal feelings, it's correct and important to use the word, "allegedly" when discussing any suspect who has yet to be convicted. It keeps us--as a society--from embracing the type of mob mentality that led to extrajudicial lynchings in the past.

"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is the cornerstone of our judicial system, and it's a vital part.
 
No matter our personal feelings, it's correct and important to use the word, "allegedly" when discussing any suspect who has yet to be convicted. It keeps us--as a society--from embracing the type of mob mentality that led to extrajudicial lynchings in the past.

"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is the cornerstone of our judicial system, and it's a vital part.

I understand and agree but we are not in a court of law. This is only a forum of opinions. Mark Means can defend Lori and express her innocence. I don’t intend to. I will stand up for JJ and Tylee and Charles and say she is a serial killer. She didn’t care about her children or how they died or were buried. And she laughed about Charles’ murder. So stringing her up in a public square is good enough for her. That’s my opinion.
 
Why wouldn't they have ripped out that section of the flooring if they were looking for bullet casings or something underneath the blood? Isn't that what they normally do?

So far, IMO, we have no way of knowing why, which is why we all land at different conclusions on the appropriateness of LE's actions that day, IMO.

To my thinking, it's possible that (1) the blood stain itself was not evidence since it was caused (at least in part) by EMT's manipulation of the body, so (2), after cleaning it up, LE was able to see the other physical evidence (dent in the floor). Maybe they didn't need the actual piece of flooring to properly document the indentation, or maybe it will turn out that they should have ripped it out. If/when that info comes out, it of course would sway opinions, mine included.

Sorry, I don't have any inside info on what CPD would "normally do" in shooting deaths. If ripping out floors is standard procedure, and this officer intentionally didn't do it because he was protecting LVD, then yes, of course, it'd be infuriating. For myself only, I don't know enough to make that judgment yet and, based on the Affidavit, it seems LE did collect the evidence they needed to support murder charges. JMO, of course!
 
If I'm remembering correctly, the blood that was cleaned up was by the kitchen sink. It was in the police reports from that day, I will look for it again. MOO

ETA: I'm having difficulty finding them so don't quote me LOL
 
Last edited:
If I'm remembering correctly, the blood that was cleaned up was by the kitchen sink. It was in the police reports from that day, I will look for it again. MOO

ETA: I'm having difficulty finding them so don't quote me LOL
IMO I agree with you, it was in a typed report first released after CV’s death and it referenced cleaning blood from a sink. MOO until I find the doc
 
If I'm remembering correctly, the blood that was cleaned up was by the kitchen sink. It was in the police reports from that day, I will look for it again. MOO

ETA: I'm having difficulty finding them so don't quote me LOL

IMO I agree with you, it was in a typed report first released after CV’s death and it referenced cleaning blood from a sink. MOO until I find the doc

He did not clean the sink. He cleaned up the blood on the floor. Bottom of full page, top of 2nd.

Log into Facebook | Facebook
 

Attachments

  • 20210706_111905.jpg
    20210706_111905.jpg
    130.8 KB · Views: 48
  • 20210706_111920.jpg
    20210706_111920.jpg
    72.9 KB · Views: 42
I wish I could find where I saw this, but, it was definitely in the morning.

As I remember it, no link so JMO:

DW got up and when he went to the kitchen he asked where JJ was because he wanted to say goodbye to him. LVD told DW that she had to call Alex because of the climbing and knocking the picture of Jesus off the fridge/freezer.

It was in DWs testimony during CDs preliminary hearing
 
Defense counsel had filed “Notice to Transfer Trial” arguing they are unable to have a fair and impartial jury trial within Fremont County.
For anyone following the public Idaho Court webpage, you can find the notice posted under the Case for Chad. At the moment it is only listed under “his” case/section even though the filing applies for both of them (in their case under joinder currently) Also, as a side note, this was filed before the weekend but likely due to the holiday & now the Court only updating this page once a week- we are only seeing the new filings appear now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
2,411
Total visitors
2,587

Forum statistics

Threads
602,940
Messages
18,149,323
Members
231,595
Latest member
Finch5800
Back
Top