Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 #8

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
UnknownSleuth said:
No one would believe "we're moving and can't take the dog" about a registered/trained service animal, because they are allowed by law to go anywhere the owner can go (apartment that doesn't usually allow pets, etc.). It's sad that she then had to jump to "owner died" as an excuse. Which I guess is technically true, since Charles was the owner :-(.

I'm not sure it's in MSM, but the Woodcocks verified directly with the kennel/trainer that the dog ended up there after Lori tried to sell it. Maybe the trainer saw the ad and bought the dog back.

How terrible for JJ.

Also, I had to laugh/roll my eyes at "sweet spirit." Such a passive-aggressive Mormon term.
Click to expand...
I guess this can be an example of one of those things that needs a source. Otherwise, many are going to take this for truth, yet we don’t have a source and you’re not a verified insider. MOO.

Do you know where you heard that they verified the trainer has the dog? I see no mention of the dog in either of their social media’s other than when it completed training. I would think IF they bought it back they would be featuring it on their socials because they do many other dogs. (Noting.. they are trainers and not breeders- I’m not sure they sold it first)
 
Gardener1850 said:
The dog being taken back to the kennel was from MSM sources, but AFAIK how Kay knew that was not revealed in MSM:

"July/August (approximate): J.J.'s beloved service dog Bailey is returned to the kennel from which the dog was purchased, according to grandmother Kay Vallow Woodcock."

A timeline of the events surrounding the disappearance of J.J. Vallow and Tylee Ryan

But reading this again with the date that Kay had being vague and around July or August, it just occurred to me-- perhaps Bailey was BOTH taken to the kennel AND later sold? Perhaps the trainer agreed to board the dog at the kennel until Lori could sell him? My Speculation Only.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering whether the kennel repossessed the dog because Lori hadn't actually paid for it? And she just made up the sold story to cover it up?
 
Some breeders have a contract upon which they demand pet be returned to them if owner for whatever reason isn't going to keep it. In other words, you have to return the pet to them, you can't sell it or give it to someone else.
Not sure if that could be the same with a service dog and a kennel.
 
jjenny said:
Some breeders have a contract upon which they demand pet be returned to them if owner for whatever reason isn't going to keep it. In other words, you have to return the pet to them, you can't sell it or give it to someone else.
Not sure if that could be the same with a service dog and a kennel.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I think we are dragging this on. Maybe someone will run with the story, ask the Woodcocks about the for sale ad, talk with the kennel to verify. Not that it matters much.

IMHO, For now, what matters is that Lori WANTED to sell the dog for $2,500 on or about August 9. (If I’m remembering the date right)
 
diggndeeperstill said:
I guess this can be an example of one of those things that needs a source. Otherwise, many are going to take this for truth, yet we don’t have a source and you’re not a verified insider. MOO.

Do you know where you heard that they verified the trainer has the dog? I see no mention of the dog in either of their social media’s other than when it completed training. I would think IF they bought it back they would be featuring it on their socials because they do many other dogs. (Noting.. they are trainers and not breeders- I’m not sure they sold it first)
Click to expand...

I forgot this had also been attributed to Kay in MSM, and someone shared the link to the Post Register. There was a little more info in social media (and I'm talking about FB groups anyone is free to join), but the basics are there in MSM--the dog made its way back to the *kennel* from which it was purchased. I don't have an answer about why the dog isn't further featured in the trainer's social media. I don't know it the kennel and the trainer are one and the same. She referred to "trainer" in social media, but the MSM article says kennel.
 
Does anyone play Minecraft? There is a profile there I can see but not completely because I don’t have Minecraft. It shows what servers the players play on. I’m wondering if you can search and see who else played on those servers? I’m not sure it is our lolo ryan , but could someone check it out?
 
carbuff said:
I'm wondering whether the kennel repossessed the dog because Lori hadn't actually paid for it? And she just made up the sold story to cover it up?
Click to expand...

IDK. Maybe. But the dog was mentioned in the divorce documents that Charles filed in Feb 2019 so we know they had the dog at least as early as January 2019. Would it really still not be paid for by July when CV died? He reportedly made $20,000 per month. He should have been able to pay for a $7000 dog over the course of 7 months. Even with Lori's attempt to ruin CV financially by moving $35,000 from the business accounts in January, CV was not completely ruined. He was still able to rent Lori a very nice house in Chandler in June. He could somehow afford to live in a hotel for a few weeks and drive a rental car while Lori and Tylee drove his other vehicles. I tend to think the dog's training was paid for upfront. MOO.
 
UnknownSleuth said:
I forgot this had also been attributed to Kay in MSM, and someone shared the link to the Post Register. There was a little more info in social media (and I'm talking about FB groups anyone is free to join), but the basics are there in MSM--the dog made its way back to the *kennel* from which it was purchased. I don't have an answer about why the dog isn't further featured in the trainer's social media. I don't know it the kennel and the trainer are one and the same. She referred to "trainer" in social media, but the MSM article says kennel.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to drag this on. It doesn’t really matter, again. What does matter is that Lori WANTED $2,500 for the dog. Unless someone wanted to dispute that source, which I don’t at all, that is most important. IMHO.

I do hope that IF the trainer or kennel or breeder paid for the dog, that LE has spoken with them and tried to figure out more about the payment (cash/check/Venmo) and can follow the money trail......
 
Gardener1850 said:
IDK. Maybe. But the dog was mentioned in the divorce documents that Charles filed in Feb 2019 so we know they had the dog at least as early as January 2019. Would it really still not be paid for by July when CV died? He reportedly made $20,000 per month. He should have been able to pay for a $7000 dog over the course of 7 months. Even with Lori's attempt to ruin CV financially by moving $35,000 from the business accounts in January, CV was not completely ruined. He was still able to rent Lori a very nice house in Chandler in June. He could somehow afford to live in a hotel for a few weeks and drive a rental car while Lori and Tylee drove his other vehicles. I tend to think the dog's training was paid for upfront. MOO.
Click to expand...

Just because you can afford to pay your bills doesn't mean you necessarily DO pay.

It's probably not significant anyway. It's just one of those troubling details--everywhere we look, there's something that doesn't fit or seems wrong.
 
alter idem said:
I agree. A vision that comes from a person in authority would most likely be believed. But, Chad isn't a person of authority in the church and neither are his two authors, which is why they both got a lot of pushback, and her book got a warning from church leaders to Seminary (LDS kids often attend a religious class during High School years) teachers not to use her book in the teaching of Seminary classes, and not to recommend it to students. You're right, a few would believe Chad's claim, and as we've seen, they do, some even get fanatical about it. Many on the AVOW website believe him, and his authors' claims. But, they are a tiny group, compared to the rank and file members who don't spend time on message forums, or read books like these authors write. The mainstream members most likely don't have a clue who any of these people are and would be shocked by this. I know about them because I've read a lot of NDE books and happened to see a copy of the one that helped make Chad's business successful for a while, and have followed this saga for the last 5 years. I think that has changed though. I think Chad's publishing business was not doing great because of something his authoress said on her latest video podcast. Those who believe his claims of visions, are a small group, and the group isn't growing, IMO.
Click to expand...

Makng significant money as an author is tough to do for all but the upper tier of best sellers (Stephen King, et al). Chad and his stable of authors might be top in their niche, but I agree it is a small niche. At one time at least some of their books were available at Desert Book and Seagull Books if I remember what I read on one of the early threads, but when the big author got in trouble I think her books and maybe others were dropped by both those chains that specialize in Mormon literature. I looked at sales ranks of a random sampling of books on Amazon, and he's moving barely more than nothing there. I think you're right that the publishing business isn't doing great and all signs are it has taken a turn for the worse. Taking Tammy out of the equation can't have been good either.
 
diggndeeperstill said:
Check the comments to this post... then see if it EVER makes sense to sorta question an msm supposedly sourced article. It does to me. Again, it doesn’t matter. Just sayin...
Post Register
Click to expand...

I get that, and do double-check things. There's a lot more to that woman's comment on that article, though. This info did come from Kay, and anyone who cares to can find it, though it can't be linked to here. The point is, Lori wanted to sell the dog, placed the ad the day before JJ's last call with his grandparents, this all happened as she was preparing to move to Rexburg, and the dog ended up in the hands of an entity who had already had the dog before.

Yes, let's do let it drop :).
 
diggndeeperstill said:
I don’t want to drag this on. It doesn’t really matter, again. What does matter is that Lori WANTED $2,500 for the dog. Unless someone wanted to dispute that source, which I don’t at all, that is most important. IMHO.

I do hope that IF the trainer or kennel or breeder paid for the dog, that LE has spoken with them and tried to figure out more about the payment (cash/check/Venmo) and can follow the money trail......
Click to expand...
Personally, I think the most important question is why would she want to get rid of the service dog for the autistic child? I presume she decided the child isn't going to need, it, but why? Did she already made plans what to do with JJ back in August? Like has been pointed out, even if they were moving, that wouldn't prevent taking the dog with them, and even apartments that don't allow pets would have to allow a service dog.
 
carbuff said:
Just because you can afford to pay your bills doesn't mean you necessarily DO pay.

It's probably not significant anyway. It's just one of those troubling details--everywhere we look, there's something that doesn't fit or seems wrong.
Click to expand...

You're right. That's true. Even people making 6 figures might manage their money poorly and live paycheck to paycheck. Or they might have a spouse who frequently "borrows" money from the business payroll.

The main takeaways for me from the dog info:
1. JJ doesn't have his service dog.
2. Lori wanted money for the dog/wanted to get rid of the dog.
3. Lori's priorities are messed up.

The dog is just a small piece of this messed up case-- it reveals how little Lori cared about JJ, IMHO. Dogs are a little extra work. Even well trained service dogs. Dogs also cost extra money to feed and care for properly. I can't imagine Lori wanting to take care of the dog after CV died. And if she felt that way about a trained service dog that was supposed to make her son's life easier-- how did she feel about taking care of JJ and his special needs? Charles was dead less than a month and Lori was listing the dog for sale. I don't care what her reasoning was for getting rid of JJ's service dog. It's a small part of a bigger picture that reveals who she really is and her priorities, just like not reporting JJ and Tylee missing and not cooperating with the police. It's one more big blinking neon-colored red flag. MOO.
 
Gardener1850 said:
You're right. That's true. Even people making 6 figures might manage their money poorly and live paycheck to paycheck. Or they might have a spouse who frequently "borrows" money from the business payroll.

The main takeaways for me from the dog info:
1. JJ doesn't have his service dog.
2. Lori wanted money for the dog/wanted to get rid of the dog.
3. Lori's priorities are messed up.

The dog is just a small piece of this messed up case-- it reveals how little Lori cared about JJ, IMHO. Dogs are a little extra work. Even well trained service dogs. Dogs also cost extra money to feed and care for properly. I can't imagine Lori wanting to take care of the dog after CV died. And if she felt that way about a trained service dog that was supposed to make her son's life easier-- how did she feel about taking care of JJ and his special needs? Charles was dead less than a month and Lori was listing the dog for sale. I don't care what her reasoning was for getting rid of JJ's service dog. It's a small part of a bigger picture that reveals who she really is and her priorities, just like not reporting JJ and Tylee missing and not cooperating with the police. It's one more big blinking neon-colored red flag. MOO.
Click to expand...

Yeah. No argument here.
 
Since I sense everyone wants to move on from the service dog discussion, maybe we can refocus our efforts to figuring out what Lori might have done with JJ and Tylee or where Lori and Chad could be now. What does Lori do with people when she doesn't want them anymore? We know what happened to Charles but what about other people in her life? I feel like if we could get inside how her mind works, we could find the kids-- whether they are dead or alive, I don't know. It seems like she has a pattern of moving to new states when she doesn't get her way. She's lived in California, Texas, Arizona, Hawaii, and Idaho-- where would she move to next? And do we think Chad is with Lori or is he somewhere on his own?

MOO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 167 more.
Total: 1,297 (members: 168, guests: 1,129)

Online statistics

Members online
168
Guests online
1,129
Total visitors
1,297
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,124
Messages
18,135,131
Members
231,244
Latest member
HollyMcKee
Back
Top