Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #30

[Tortoise]

Great analysis, Tortoise. I found the BYU- Idaho academic calendar for 2019 is still up on their website: Master Calendar - Calendar
You may have to select the calendar dates you want to see. I'm not seeing when classes started but Sept 13th was New Student Orientation. That's usually held for freshmen the weekend before classes start at most colleges.

BYU- Hawaii started classes Sept 4th: https://academics.byuh.edu/sites/academics/files/2019-2020 Academic Calendar 10-3-19.pdf

Thank you Gardener.

If Tylee was going to BYU-Idaho I can't think of any reason she couldn't continue to live at home, from other people's perspectives, like neighbors and the nanny. Even Melani referred to it as student accommodation I think.

I think Lori started to find telling that lie more difficult after her move, and that's why it was never clear to SB exactly who was going to college (Lori or Tylee) and where. She probably made sure to be deliberately vague in case he ever said anything to Tylee about it. Lori was living on thin ice with her lies, never knowing who might speak to who and uncover the deception. The nanny would have had contact with at least one neighbor.

moo

 

[CSIDreamer]

BBM. What crimes could they charge them for at this point, based on publicly known evidence? I don't see enough for murder charges.

IMO there's enough circumstantial evidence to charge Lori with conspiracy to commit murder in the case of CV.

But since she's got her rear end chilling in a jail cell, there's no rush.

There may be enough to charge her with social security fraud as well. But I don't personally think that's a serious charge as far as the punishment.

Jmo

 

[indicolite22]

IMO there's enough circumstantial evidence to charge Lori with conspiracy to commit murder in the case of CV.

Her threats were mentioned in the divorce petition and additionally reported to police (according to Lori's family member), but nothing was done about them. IMO, to prove conspiracy, direct evidence must be present that Lori planned to have Charles killed on that particular day (e.g. messages to Alex). It seems that Chandler PD might have such evidence (judging by the latest email leak), but we don't know yet what it is.

 

[Tortoise]

Her threats were mentioned in the divorce petition and additionally reported to police (according to Lori's family member), but nothing was done about them. IMO, to prove conspiracy, direct evidence must be present that Lori planned to have Charles killed on that particular day (e.g. messages to Alex). It seems that Chandler PD might have such evidence (judging by the latest email leak), but we don't know yet what it is.

I think it can be proved in other ways too. For instance accounts not matching up and showing at least one person was lying, bullet trajectories, times of where everyone was and what Tylee would have seen when she went to get the purse, and the possible staging and delay before calling 911, that kind of thing.

moo

 

[Monroe2]

Does anyone know, or maybe az lawyer, the 2 attorney's.that removed tbemselves from this case are they still bound by the confidentiality between client and attorney, evem though they are no longer representing her?

 

[MsJosie]

Does anyone know, or maybe az lawyer, the 2 attorney's.that removed tbemselves from this case are they still bound by the confidentiality between client and attorney, evem though they are no longer representing her?

That is a great question!

Also, if a lawyer knows for a fact their client has murdered several times is there any way legally to report it? (Because of client confidentiality it may be a mute point). Does it matter if the lawyer is actively representing the client or withdraws from the case if it can be reported?

thanks

 

[Tortoise]

I believe I've read before that attorneys are bound by client confidentiality forever, even after the client's death.

moo

 

[tresir2012]

I think it can be proved in other ways too. For instance accounts not matching up and showing at least one person was lying, bullet trajectories, times of where everyone was and what Tylee would have seen when she went to get the purse, and the possible staging and delay before calling 911, that kind of thing.

moo

Very difficult though now the other 3 witnesses are dead or disappeared. She could maintain they were lying in their statements or were outside when it went down - no one left to challenge her. She would say the pool party was for JJ's benefit and she never told him that his father was dead as we already know he thought his Dad was just travelling.

 

[Sorelle19]

About Lori’s statements to LE in November when they first showed up asking about the kids: She told them they were with the actual person who called in the complaint – KW – and someone who she had avoided talking to for months. It takes a lot of arrogance to think they would just accept that and not follow up – but then again, history might have emboldened her. The investigation into CV’s death was a joke but LE pretty much took Lori at her word. So, maybe she really thought she could bluff her way out. When it didn’t work, she (and Chad) tried to get MG to cover for her.

Here’s my question: why not just say the kids were with HER parents? Surely she’d have a better chance of them lying for her than MG.

There’s something off here. I understand that LE have likely checked all of Lori’s relatives’ homes by now – but what if they couldn’t find some of them? What if they are MIA due to their own legal problems?

 

[April_Dawn99]

30 Aug 2019 – Lori, Tylee & JJ drive up to Colby’s workplace in Tylee’s Jeep. He comes out to talk to them briefly and they tell him they are moving the next day. CR says when he hugged them goodbye he did not know they were leaving AZ nor where they were moving to, but he thought it was good that Lori was getting the kids out of the house where CV died. Lori also told CR she got a new job but did not mention where the job was or what she was doing.

When I've listened to CR's interview, this struck me indeed - wouldn't the first question to your siblings and mother who came by to say farewell before moving be "Where are you going?" At least town..? He said he did not talk much to his mother in the past few months, but I can't imagine not asking her when she is standing right in front of him and he knows they are moving from the town. JMO

 

[CSIDreamer]

About Lori’s statements to LE in November when they first showed up asking about the kids: She told them they were with the actual person who called in the complaint – KW – and someone who she had avoided talking to for months. It takes a lot of arrogance to think they would just accept that and not follow up – but then again, history might have emboldened her. The investigation into CV’s death was a joke but LE pretty much took Lori at her word. So, maybe she really thought she could bluff her way out. When it didn’t work, she (and Chad) tried to get MG to cover for her.

Here’s my question: why not just say the kids were with HER parents? Surely she’d have a better chance of them lying for her than MG.

There’s something off here. I understand that LE have likely checked all of Lori’s relatives’ homes by now – but what if they couldn’t find some of them? What if they are MIA due to their own legal problems?

I thought Lori said JJ was with MG. I thought Alex said JJ was with KW. I could be wrong as I generally have no idea what day of the week it is lately. Jmo

 

[indicolite22]

I think it can be proved in other ways too. For instance accounts not matching up and showing at least one person was lying, bullet trajectories, times of where everyone was and what Tylee would have seen when she went to get the purse, and the possible staging and delay before calling 911, that kind of thing.

moo

Stories not matching up isn't proof enough IMO. Unless LE can prove that only a certain sequence of events was possible. Someone can be a liar and not be a murderer.

 

[Tortoise]

Very difficult though now the other 3 witnesses are dead or disappeared. She could maintain they were lying in their statements or were outside when it went down - no one left to challenge her. She would say the pool party was for JJ's benefit and she never told him that his father was dead as we already know he thought his Dad was just travelling.

She could maintain that and it would be up to the jury to decide what happened based on the totality of the evidence the state puts on. The state can challenge her, using ballistics experts and timings and diagrams, and using all the statements made at the time. So if she tries to change something in her story (commonly referred to as tailoring) it will not be credible unless she has a very convincing argument as to why she changed her story for example. The video of her laughing when she returned to the scene is another damning piece of the puzzle. What did she do as regards the mcdonalds breakfast she told Charles to get for JJ for example? Is that another errand she ran increasing the time Alex did not calll 911? Is that why she wanted her purse, seconds after she saw Charles shot to death, and if so that is quite the cool and quick calculation. Where was Bailey?

So many questions. MOO

 

[AZlawyer]

Does anyone know, or maybe az lawyer, the 2 attorney's.that removed tbemselves from this case are they still bound by the confidentiality between client and attorney, evem though they are no longer representing her?

Yes, they are still bound by their confidentiality obligations.

That is a great question!

Also, if a lawyer knows for a fact their client has murdered several times is there any way legally to report it? (Because of client confidentiality it may be a mute point). Does it matter if the lawyer is actively representing the client or withdraws from the case if it can be reported?

thanks

It doesn’t matter whether the lawyer is still representing the client or not—if the information was learned as part of the representation, the lawyer can’t reveal it.

I believe I've read before that attorneys are bound by client confidentiality forever, even after the client's death.

moo

Yes, although I think that’s not true in all states. In AZ the privilege remains in place after the client's death, but can be waived by a court-appointed personal representative or by the person’s heirs.

 

[Monroe2]

Yes, they are still bound by their confidentiality obligations.



It doesn’t matter whether the lawyer is still representing the client or not—if the information was learned as part of the representation, the lawyer can’t reveal it.



Yes, although I think that’s not true in all states. In AZ the privilege remains in place after the client's death, but can be waived by a court-appointed personal representative or by the person’s heirs.

Thanks AZ.lawyer

 

[Sorelle19]

I thought Lori said JJ was with MG. I thought Alex said JJ was with KW. I could be wrong as I generally have no idea what day of the week it is lately. Jmo

You are correct, CSI. From Gardener's Timeline, AC first told LE that JJ was with "KW." And then Lori told them he was with MG.

Yet, here is my point. From the Timeline, Lori told several people that JJ went to live with/stay with his "grandma."

24 Sept 2019 - The nanny contacts Lori, and Lori tells her that JJ has gone to stay with his grandma for several weeks and that her services are no longer needed "...

Late Sept 2019 – The son of one of Lori’s Rexburg neighbors asks if JJ can come play with him; Lori tells the child JJ went to live with his grandma “ …

Why wouldn't she stick with the story and say he went to live with Grandma? Also, LE interviewed CD's parents but there's no mention of an interview with Lori's parents.

 

[fred&edna]

Anyone remember this news report from Feb 4 2020 ?

" Chandler police say the evidence points to self-defense, but acknowledge the situation remains under investigation. "We have various pieces of evidence we still have to go through," said Sgt. Jason McClimans."

"In our police report and in our investigation at this point, we are not aware of any motive or any financial thing with Lori Vallow, with regard to our case," said McClimans.

CBS 5 Investigates Exclusive: Charles Vallow had 'substantial' life insurance policy

So, it appears (sometime between Feb 4 and few days ago) they discovered evidence to indict Lori soon? I'm glad but it sure is strange. (IMO)

 

[CSIDreamer]

You are correct, CSI. From Gardener's Timeline, AC first told LE that JJ was with "KW." And then Lori told them he was with MG.

Yet, here is my point. From the Timeline, Lori told several people that JJ went to live with/stay with his "grandma."

24 Sept 2019 - The nanny contacts Lori, and Lori tells her that JJ has gone to stay with his grandma for several weeks and that her services are no longer needed "...

Late Sept 2019 – The son of one of Lori’s Rexburg neighbors asks if JJ can come play with him; Lori tells the child JJ went to live with his grandma “ …

Why wouldn't she stick with the story and say he went to live with Grandma? Also, LE interviewed CD's parents but there's no mention of an interview with Lori's parents.

They may not have agreed to an interview with LE. Jmo

 

[jjenny]

I don't know how they could have not been aware of potential financial motive. Lori believed she was a beneficiary of a a million $ life insurance. She didn't know Charles changed the beneficiary and believed the money would be coming to her. She called life insurance company, I believe 3 or 4 days after Charles died, and only then figured out beneficiary was changed.

 

[Sorelle19]

Random thought: I'm just so glad Lori and CD aren't able to enjoy each other's company.