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.
Did we ever figure out what the status pending is?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210628-184320_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20210628-184320_Chrome.jpg
    56.1 KB · Views: 18
  • Screenshot_20210628-184812_Photos.jpg
    Screenshot_20210628-184812_Photos.jpg
    75.3 KB · Views: 21
Maybe only LIFETIME can clear this up, but I saw many comments elsewhere over the weekend about who, if any, of the real people behind the character portrayals in the movie had to have gave permission or else had a financial interest. I'm guessing that no one had to give permission or had a financial interest, as these peoples' names appear in public documents?

I watched it twice out of curiousity. Every thing in the story lines up with the high points in the timeline of the case, except of course the little "hey gotcha!" at the end. A combination of a "ha! ha!" and a portrayal of what Lori's "incompetency" might look like. It was meant to show incompetency, and the shock of that realization. Means, nor Prior, are named, or any other attorney or prosecutor.

The story was rushed. Hard to put all that has happened over the last couple of years into a movie that is under two hours. Just like your favorite book, the movie is never as good.

I think the writers went out of their way not to show anything that is not alleged in court documents: Such as Alex's phone alone pinging in the yard. No one is shown helping Alex, because so far, that has not been alleged.

Chad's text message to Tammy is instead shown, and the cops talking about it. Just like we do here, you draw the connection.

A dog statue is shown intermittently. It is not the cute puppy in Tammy's pet cemetery, but rather a more realistic dog statue. Little details like that might be off-putting to some of us who are very familiar with the details - but I will give them creative license there, as what was going on was way less than "cute". And there was no time to develop Tammy as a character.

A lot of younger people might not remember Linda Purl from her younger days, and Patrick Duffy. They are very good actors, but portrayed Kay and Larry as a little more frail than how they really are.

To be fair, you need to view the movie a couple of times to see the details. Chad is portrayed as the mastermind, just like RW said in the interview with SS, and MG alleged in her interview with NE. If you think RW and MG are wrong about who was in charge, you'll still realize where the idea comes from. They just needed to dumb Chad down a little IMO.

I don't think a jury will be swayed by this movie any more than it would be by all the other media coverage. The trial is dragging out to be so long in coming, that I'm sure there will be other dramatic portrayals. Its taking on JonBenet proportions.
 

From the article

"EastIdahoNews.com filed a public record request asking Boyce to unseal the order to seal, which was granted Friday. The motion to compel and 169 attached pages are still sealed and, at this time, EastIdahoNews.com is not publishing the information to protect the integrity of the case."

Curious when those 169 pages will be released if Boyce granted the request on Friday
 
From the article

"EastIdahoNews.com filed a public record request asking Boyce to unseal the order to seal, which was granted Friday. The motion to compel and 169 attached pages are still sealed and, at this time, EastIdahoNews.com is not publishing the information to protect the integrity of the case."

Curious when those 169 pages will be released if Boyce granted the request on Friday
No Judge Boyce has resealed it..maybe someone else can explain it better.
 
Last edited:
From the article

"EastIdahoNews.com filed a public record request asking Boyce to unseal the order to seal, which was granted Friday. The motion to compel and 169 attached pages are still sealed and, at this time, EastIdahoNews.com is not publishing the information to protect the integrity of the case."

Curious when those 169 pages will be released if Boyce granted the request on Friday
This is what we talked about at the end of the last thread. What was unsealed was an order sealing the motion made by MM. We (the public) are allowed to know that MM made a motion but we aren't allowed to know it's contents.
What EIN is telling us is that the motion contained a crapload of evidence (169 pgs worth). They got to see the motion and its contents before it got sealed.
 
This is what we talked about at the end of the last thread. What was unsealed was an order sealing the motion made by MM. We (the public) are allowed to know that MM made a motion but we aren't allowed to know it's contents.
What EIN is telling us is that the motion contained a crapload of evidence (169 pgs worth). They got to see the motion and its contents before it got sealed.

Thanks. I've been in and out of the thread lately so I guess I missed that.
 
Sorry better page 2 and 3..means..

If the State truly just copied over everything they had for the case onto the external drive(s) - as they told the Court they would do multiple times now - than what would the Defense have? I’d argue nothing, because they’d have the Discovery materials as they’re entitled to have…..no?

if the State truly did not answer emails, calls, or text messages in any timely manner - sorry, but that is just unfortunate if true. Defense will likely continue filing frivolous Motions, but that very likely will not stop if the State was able to turn around and say “we gave Defense everything we had, as we told the Court we would do and as filed in our responses with the Court”…..
 
From the article

"EastIdahoNews.com filed a public record request asking Boyce to unseal the order to seal, which was granted Friday. The motion to compel and 169 attached pages are still sealed and, at this time, EastIdahoNews.com is not publishing the information to protect the integrity of the case."

Curious when those 169 pages will be released if Boyce granted the request on Friday
Oh the one I saw (linked in the thread previously) I thought it said the sealed stuff was unsealed only for the new prosecutor to see it, not EIN. This is so confusing.

And another thing, I don't understand why MM thinks he's entitled to discovery on charges that haven't even been put to Ms Vallow Daybell yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
1,705
Total visitors
1,812

Forum statistics

Threads
601,813
Messages
18,130,212
Members
231,148
Latest member
ChriNBelusk0
Back
Top