Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Tammy Daybell, 49, Sept & Oct 2019 *Arrests* #62

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
gitana1 said:
Ha ha! No problem. The internet allows us all to research a variety of things. I think you’re saying that because the police weren’t involved in obtaining the illegal recording, they may be able to use it?

That could be. I practice family law which is civil. And so in our cases it’s almost always the person who recorded who wants to admit the evidence, and can’t.

Let me see if I can find some authority. Do you know what state the person who recorded it was in?
Click to expand...
Don't hold me to it but I think it was Massachusetts because that's what's in my search history from when I tried to look up the law.
 
CuriousQuiet1 said:
It seems like 100 years ago but Lori was originally charged with desertion and non-support of dependent children. Lori was represented by Brian Webb and Edwina Elcox, criminal defense attorneys, and by MM who claimed to specialize in family law (now he claims a lot of specializations). Having an attorney with family law experience seemed to make sense back then. Brian Webb and Edwina Elcox both withdrew after only one appearance. We have had the MM Show since then.

Before Chad had any criminal charges he was represented by Sean Bartholick. Once charges were filed MM took his case. JP showed up when prosecutors pushed on conflict of interest with MM representing 2 clients in the same case. I don't understand how 2 attorneys with the same office is not still conflict of interest.

Diddian had a nice post earlier wondering if Attorneys Webb and Elcox withdrew because they saw issues with Lori's mental competency right away. My guess is they saw that and murdered children and couldn't get away fast enough. Then the fools rush in...
Found Deceased - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Tammy Daybell, 49, Sept & Oct 2019 *Arrests* #58
Click to expand...
great recap...thanks hugely.

Edit to add: MOO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Broad Impact of the Massachusetts Wiretapping Statute

Recording another individual’s words without the individual’s knowledge or consent is a felony in Massachusetts.
...
The civil and criminal penalties for violating the Massachusetts Wiretapping are serious: up to $10k fine or up to 5 years in prison.
...
The penalties for simply using or disclosing the contents of an illegally intercepted recording – regardless of who made the original recording – are serious too: misdemeanor, up to $5k fine or up to 2 years in prison
...
However, the Supreme Judicial Court has let police use illegally-obtained evidence in certain ways so long as law enforcement played no part in the eavesdropping. In Commonwealth v. Damiano (2005), a private citizen made a recording of a phone call that appeared to violate the Massachusetts Wiretapping Statute. The SJC did not allow the illegal recording directly into evidence, but the Court also did not apply the “fruit of the poison tree” doctrine to a subsequent confession the police obtained from the suspect.

Had the illegal recording in Damiano been made by police, it is likely that all of the subsequent evidence, including the confession, would have been suppressed under the doctrine.
 
Last edited:
indicolite22 said:
The Broad Impact of the Massachusetts Wiretapping Statute

Recording another individual’s words without the individual’s knowledge or consent is a felony in Massachusetts.
...
The civil and criminal penalties for violating the Massachusetts Wiretapping are serious: up to $10k fine or up to 5 years in prison.
...
The penalties for simply using or disclosing the contents of an illegally intercepted recording – regardless of who made the original recording – are serious too: misdemeanor, up to $5k fine or up to 2 years in prison
...
However, the Supreme Judicial Court has let police use illegally-obtained evidence in certain ways so long as law enforcement played no part in the eavesdropping. In Commonwealth v. Damiano (2005), a private citizen made a recording of a phone call that appeared to violate the Massachusetts Wiretapping Statute. The SJC did not allow the illegal recording directly into evidence, but the Court also did not apply the “fruit of the poison tree” doctrine to a subsequent confession the police obtained from the suspect.

Had the illegal recording in Damiano been made by police, it is likely that all of the subsequent evidence, including the confession, would have been suppressed under the doctrine.
Click to expand...

Thanks. From the same source, as to whether or not the person who pressed the button could be sued by MG:

In addition to the criminal penalties, the statute includes stiff civil penalties:

Any aggrieved person whose oral or wire communications were intercepted, disclosed or used except as permitted or authorized by this section or whose personal or property interests or privacy were violated by means of an interception except as permitted or authorized by this section shall have a civil cause of action against any person who so intercepts, discloses or uses such communications or who so violates his personal, property or privacy interest, and shall be entitled to recover from any such person—

1. actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 per day for each day of violation or $1000, whichever is higher; 2. punitive damages; and 3. a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation disbursements reasonably incurred. Good faith reliance on a warrant issued under this section shall constitute a complete defense to an action brought under this paragraph.
Click to expand...

It's very likely that neither aggrieved party (MG or the State of Idaho, if possible - I know we haven't yet touched upon them) wouldn't bother going anywhere near prosecuting the person who pressed "record" (or, in MG's case, would be advised by counsel that suing the recordee is pointless - Rob Wood can make his own informed decisions); but my reading of the statute has always been that the statute would allow it. Many a potential trier or party to a lawsuit that they "can" bring, has decided that in no wise "should" they bring it, for bad optics if for nothing else.
 
indicolite22 said:
The Broad Impact of the Massachusetts Wiretapping Statute

Recording another individual’s words without the individual’s knowledge or consent is a felony in Massachusetts.
...
The civil and criminal penalties for violating the Massachusetts Wiretapping are serious: up to $10k fine or up to 5 years in prison.
...
The penalties for simply using or disclosing the contents of an illegally intercepted recording – regardless of who made the original recording – are serious too: misdemeanor, up to $5k fine or up to 2 years in prison
...
However, the Supreme Judicial Court has let police use illegally-obtained evidence in certain ways so long as law enforcement played no part in the eavesdropping. In Commonwealth v. Damiano (2005), a private citizen made a recording of a phone call that appeared to violate the Massachusetts Wiretapping Statute. The SJC did not allow the illegal recording directly into evidence, but the Court also did not apply the “fruit of the poison tree” doctrine to a subsequent confession the police obtained from the suspect.

Had the illegal recording in Damiano been made by police, it is likely that all of the subsequent evidence, including the confession, would have been suppressed under the doctrine.
Click to expand...


Thanks.

So, continuing to practice law without a license:

It seems to me that only MA could press criminal charges for breaking MA law.
The person who pressed record could be charged for doing so in MA, but to do so would seem petty. Also, the person charged could try to argue fed laws apply here, not MA. The person charged could argue that she was frightened, and complied with the law as soon as she was aware of it. She has already suffered from her actions, and did not benefit or profit. Her intentions were not malicious. Her intentions were to help LE. It seems unlikely that MA is going to throw the book at her.
MA could possibly try to press criminal charges to those who shared the recording out of state. (Annie Cushing did her HW!) But those who did could deny it, and point to each other; those who did could claim federal law applies; those who did could claim their state law applies. So it would be a tough go. The most vulnerable is any you-tube person who released it, in my opinion. IMO and speculation, a you tube person was told this, and may have interpreted it as “blackmail.”

Anyone who claims to be injured can file civil charges. But that gets tricky.

Who was injured? What were the costs? Will the injured party injure themselves more by suing? Will they. try to sue in MA, where a judge might rule that they have to sue in the state in which they were injured? Or will they sue in the (one party consent) state in which they were injured and possibly get told there was no injury by our state standards, or could be told to bring the case to MA.

The person who made the recording may be more exposed than she would like, but she can hardly sue herself.
Melanie Gibb could sue, and maybe even win if stars align, but she would risk greatly compounding the damage to herself by making this tape more well-known. She could try to get it scrubbed from the public, but that isn’t easy to implement. And if the tape is admitted to a trial, the cat is out of the bag again.
I can’t think of a party as injured as Gibb. Maybe the prosecution or the defense? If the defense is injured, it had better be prepared to show how the tape was leaked if not by Means/you-tuber (MOO.) If the prosecution were injured, it seems like their injuries were in its being leaked, not recorded.


I think the tape is not of much value to the trial, although it did, by my speculation, help the defense prepare. I bet Prior was thinking about Gibb’s hostile words about a child she had presumed was dead when Prior tried to rattle Melanie on the stand. “You didn’t like Tylee, did you?” “You and Lori were very close,” “Alex and Lori were very close,” all info bolstered by the recording. While the tape damaged Melanie’s credibility and gave the defense insight into her, I don’t see how the tape added information about the three murders in ID. Melanie isn’t important in proving the murders. I think she was drawn heavily upon for the prelims so the big guns could stay under wraps longer. I think the prosecution put Melanie out to get beaten up early, because they knew they wouldn’t need her by jury time. Yet I think if the tape is needed to play a role in this ID trial, it would be admissible.

I think the tape could help very much in Charles’ trial. It is only Melanie’s assertion, but she said that Lori told “poor” Alex, who was only trying to help his sister and didn’t want Charles dead, to kill Charles “in self defense.”


MOO. IANAL. Please don’t compare me to BC, but I am giving a legal analysis without a license.
 
155etta said:
Log In or Sign Up to View
I’m told Chad Daybell has signed a document waiving his right to a speedy trial. That means his scheduled trial in November likely won’t happen. This will give his attorney more time to prepare a defense - and allow prosecutors additional time as well.
Click to expand...

That means he knows that his best case scenario for his defense does not get him freed any earlier, in MOO.

It also increases the time he spends in a penitentiary vs. a prison, usually a better location. (I don’t know the local jails, ID prisons.)

To me, this means he accepts that he will be convicted of crimes that would incarcerate him at least until his unspeedy trial. MOO.

I believe this especially in the light that Prior wanted separate trials, and waiving his right to a speedy trial makes it logistically less complicated to join them.
 
Ruminations said:
Thanks.

So, continuing to practice law without a license:

It seems to me that only MA could press criminal charges for breaking MA law.
The person who pressed record could be charged for doing so in MA, but to do so would seem petty. Also, the person charged could try to argue fed laws apply here, not MA. The person charged could argue that she was frightened, and complied with the law as soon as she was aware of it. She has already suffered from her actions, and did not benefit or profit. Her intentions were not malicious. Her intentions were to help LE. It seems unlikely that MA is going to throw the book at her.
MA could possibly try to press criminal charges to those who shared the recording out of state. (Annie Cushing did her HW!) But those who did could deny it, and point to each other; those who did could claim federal law applies; those who did could claim their state law applies. So it would be a tough go. The most vulnerable is any you-tube person who released it, in my opinion. IMO and speculation, a you tube person was told this, and may have interpreted it as “blackmail.”

Anyone who claims to be injured can file civil charges. But that gets tricky.

Who was injured? What were the costs? Will the injured party injure themselves more by suing? Will they. try to sue in MA, where a judge might rule that they have to sue in the state in which they were injured? Or will they sue in the (one party consent) state in which they were injured and possibly get told there was no injury by our state standards, or could be told to bring the case to MA.

The person who made the recording may be more exposed than she would like, but she can hardly sue herself.
Melanie Gibb could sue, and maybe even win if stars align, but she would risk greatly compounding the damage to herself by making this tape more well-known. She could try to get it scrubbed from the public, but that isn’t easy to implement. And if the tape is admitted to a trial, the cat is out of the bag again.
I can’t think of a party as injured as Gibb. Maybe the prosecution or the defense? If the defense is injured, it had better be prepared to show how the tape was leaked if not by Means/you-tuber (MOO.) If the prosecution were injured, it seems like their injuries were in its being leaked, not recorded.


I think the tape is not of much value to the trial, although it did, by my speculation, help the defense prepare. I bet Prior was thinking about Gibb’s hostile words about a child she had presumed was dead when Prior tried to rattle Melanie on the stand. “You didn’t like Tylee, did you?” “You and Lori were very close,” “Alex and Lori were very close,” all info bolstered by the recording. While the tape damaged Melanie’s credibility and gave the defense insight into her, I don’t see how the tape added information about the three murders in ID. Melanie isn’t important in proving the murders. I think she was drawn heavily upon for the prelims so the big guns could stay under wraps longer. I think the prosecution put Melanie out to get beaten up early, because they knew they wouldn’t need her by jury time. Yet I think if the tape is needed to play a role in this ID trial, it would be admissible.

I think the tape could help very much in Charles’ trial. It is only Melanie’s assertion, but she said that Lori told “poor” Alex, who was only trying to help his sister and didn’t want Charles dead, to kill Charles “in self defense.”


MOO. IANAL. Please don’t compare me to BC, but I am giving a legal analysis without a license.
Click to expand...

Aside: I would also like to point out that I think it is important for people to take away the possibility that they can, theoretically, be sued for almost anything, which is why we are told ‘consult an attorney’ ad nauseam for everything, just in case there are some people out there who still might think it’s a good idea to go about hither and yon recording anyone and everyone they desire with a ‘tra la la, this is just one of those things people do!’ idea, considering the simultaneous generic overarching doctrine ‘ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law’.
 
dcfi224 said:
Late onset - not impossible, but it would be VERY low on my list. Well below various personality disorders up for consideration. It’s so uncommon. She seems delusional alright, but I don’t think any medication would fix that. She seems more influenced by external factors, than having an organic psychiatric condition to me. JMO MOO
Click to expand...
Well, in my opinion. I think she's an evil monster and is using the system as she has all her life..conveniently going for the GOD theory. I still think she's faking and unfortunately the medical professionals have been duped (have personally seen it done). Means is using this as a way to delay things and Lori controls the narrative this way. Jmo moo moo..
Means seems to be obessive about her. This is the diagnosis that Awen said and was posted by Awen and not redacted out while speaking about Means giving her information..jmo moo moo..
 
Nosurprise said:
Well, in my opinion. I think she's an evil monster and is using the system as she has all her life..conveniently going for the GOD theory. I still think she's faking and unfortunately the medical professionals have been duped (have personally seen it done). Means is using this as a way to delay things and Lori controls the narrative this way. Jmo moo moo..
Means seems to be obessive about her. This is the diagnosis that Awen said and was posted by Awen and not redacted out while speaking about Means giving her information..jmo moo moo..
Click to expand...
How is MM allowed to reveal Lori's medical diagnosis to third parties without consequences?
 
indicolite22 said:
How is MM allowed to reveal Lori's medical diagnosis to third parties without consequences?
Click to expand...
I don't know..excellent question..did someone report him to the bar? Does the judge and prosecutors NOT CARE. is this false information from Awen ? So many questions and NO answers..it might not even be the correct diagnosis. ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 110 more.
Total: 353 (members: 111, guests: 242)

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
242
Total visitors
353
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,643
Messages
18,242,910
Members
234,402
Latest member
MandieMac
Back
Top