Do you have a link for the fact that the kids witnessed the murder? I.e. they saw who pulled the trigger. Also why are you calling it a murder, LE stated it was self defence didn't they? If the kids witnessed a murder, did LE take statements?
(ETA just copied the section from the timeline relating to the death of CV. AC was hit on the head with a baseball bat according to this.
11 July 2019, abt 8:30 a.m. - Charles Vallow is fatally shot twice in the chest at his home in 5500 block of S. Four Peaks Place, Chandler, AZ, allegedly by Lori's brother Alex Cox during a family argument. Lori was separated from CV at the time but living in the home CV owned. CV came to the house to pick up JJ and take him to school. Lori, Tylee and JJ were all at the house when the shooting occurred. AC was hit in the head with a baseball bat during the incident. AC called 911 and performed CPR on CV until emergency crews arrived. Police initially ruled the death self-defense and no charges were filed; However, Chandler PD have since said the investigation remains open (Fox10, Daily Mail).)
Am I the only one having trouble buying the baseball bat story?
Person C is visiting person L and they begin to argue. Person A steps in to intervene, and even though C has no history of violence C bashed A over the head with a baseball bat. In self defense person A shoots Person C. <modsnip: edited to remove reference to "shotgun" as opposed to gun>
I have questions:
Where did C get the baseball bat? Did C enter the house holding it before the argument even started? Or did he leave mid-argument to get the bat? Where did he get it? Was it in his vehicle, somewhere in the house or just happen to be conveniently propped up next to where he was standing?
Was person A holding the <modsnip: edited to remove reference to "shotgun" as opposed to gun> when they first intervened? If so, why did C let A hit him over the head w/a bat instead of just shooting him? And was C really reckless enough to take on a guy w/a <modsnip: edited to remove reference to "shotgun" as opposed to gun> while armed only with a bat?
If A didn't have <modsnip: edited to remove reference to "shotgun" as opposed to gun> when he entered, that means C hit him over the head with the bat first, then A returned w/a <modsnip: edited to remove reference to "shotgun" as opposed to gun>. C must have bashed A over the head ever so lightly--lightly enough that A was left mobile, able to think straight and see well enough to leave the room, return w/a <modsnip: edited to remove reference to "shotgun" as opposed to gun> and shoot C twice in the chest. Meanwhile, C stood around just holding the bat. And C had to still be armed w/the bat for shooting to qualify as self-defense.
Where did A get the <modsnip: edited to remove reference to "shotgun" as opposed to gun>? If the kids were sent outside and didn't see anything but heard the gunshots the gun must already have been in the house. (Otherwise they would have seen A come in w/it when they were inside or bring it into the house). Did bloody A fetch the gun from the house or did Lori get it, wait till Charles stopped bashing Alex over the head then hand Alex the gun so he could shoot Charles (now that he'd stopped swinging)?
Why didn't Lori call 911 as soon as C started attacking w/the bat?
None of these scenarios are believable IMO. I'm darn confident that had examination of blood spatter, angle of bat injuries, bullet trajectory and fingerprints been done, LE would know Lori and Alex had lied. Instead I bet forensic evidence would prove Lori shot Charles then hit Alex over the head w/the bat herself. Since LE apparently didn't bother bothering,we may never know.
But LE should re-open the case anyway and do the best they can w/whatever evidence they kept. Plus interview people, examine financials and analyze electronic records. All stuff that should have been done in the first place. I can't understand why this hasn't been demanded of them by now, given everything else that's come to light.