Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #32

[tresir2012]

Deleted see later response.

 

[GoneGoldfishin']

N/m already addressed.

 

[Diddian]

certainly went through my mind too! Am sure the same with a lot of us. If in CA, i might have wondered more...but Arizona...don't think possible.

Remember, AxC was in Vegas November 29 and 30, 2019 for his marriage ceremony as well as Melani's. ZP reported to police that he first started complaining of shortness of breath on Dec 6.

 

[GoneGoldfishin']

It's in the last page of the report I just posted. Caffeine, alcohol and cannabinoids unless I am misunderstanding that page.

He only tested positive for caffeine and naloxone. The other substances (alcohol, cannabinoids, barbiturates, etc.) were below the benchmarks (reporting limits), therefore negative.

 

[DI_Isokawa]

Remember, AxC was in Vegas November 29 and 30, 2019 for his marriage ceremony as well as Melani's. ZP reported to police that he first started complaining of shortness of breath on Dec 6.

There's evidence of community transmission as early as December, and Las Vegas would sure be a candidate for an early hot spot.

 

[Anonymous91]

Alex Cox died of natural causes, according to medical examiner | East Idaho News

There is a remote possibility that black magic was used. I used to not believe in it, until I saw it with my own eyes. Once you see it, it's downright scary.

MOO

 

[tresir2012]

Did you actually see caffeine listed in the report??? As someone stated here, Alex did not drink, smoke, or take drugs, which is indicative of Mormon practices. Coffee is a no-no too. So I would not think that he would have no caffeine in his system at all.

Caffeine is listed but the other things I mentioned were tested but seem not to have been found above the levels mentioned.

 

[Anonymous91]

Maybe both Alex and Tammy died from application of pins to voodoo dolls. Oh brother - very coincidental. I am just kidding obviously.

Don't discount it. My Brother-in-law is Jamaican, and that stuff is very real. It wouldn't surprise me if black magic is involved. It would explain why Alex died so conveniently.

I've witnessed black magic first hand, I stay far away from it.

Side Note: I have a foolish friend that tried a Love potion on a girl, then he decided he didn't like her, and she wouldn't leave him alone. That was funny.

MOO

 

[CuriousQuiet1]

Did you practice in a community property state? In Arizona you have to get permission to list anyone other than your spouse as a beneficiary if you are married. Arizona, Texas, and Idaho are all community property states. Each spouse can have separate property but it takes a lot of effort to do so. Any shared bank account or other comingling of funds can trip you up. Since we know Lori and Charles shared a bank account it is very hard to believe his insurance policy was separate property, especially if it was a term policy. He would have no way to pay for it because he had no sepaarate income.

A spouse s right to life insurance money

ETA: added a link

Not to beat a dead horse, this has gotten plenty of conversation and I appreciate it isn't black and white, but I am seriously confused. The US Supreme Court case brought up in this very article, Hillman v. Maretta, says the beneficiary named on the form filed with the insurance company is the beneficiary regardless of state law. The named beneficiary, Maretta, was awarded the money not Hillman, the widow.

 

[FindingJoLee]

Did you actually see caffeine listed in the report??? As someone stated here, Alex did not drink, smoke, or take drugs, which is indicative of Mormon practices. Coffee is a no-no too. So I would not think that he would have no caffeine in his system at all.

Yes, caffeine was reported out as positive (0.20 mcg/ml)

Another possibility is that he could have had caffeinated soda -- but how much soda (or anything else) would it take to result in his particular blood level of caffeine at the time the lab specimen was collected? I dunno.

It's easy to find out how much caffeine is in a particular size soda, in a cup of coffee, or in caffeine supplements, etc. But we just have no way of knowing how much he ingested or when.

I really think it's a non-starter that he had caffeine in his system. The Narcan is also totally explainable.

 

[tresir2012]

Those are two separate pieces of information -- one about the lowest reporting level for barbiturates in the left column and another about the lowest reporting level for gabapentin. The two columns left and right aren't related to each other. (Gabapentin isn't a barbiturate.)

Yes I misunderstood and have deleted my post now. Sorry about that.

 

[Onsdag]

Just a statement about my posts:

A couple of people have essentially made personal attacks against me. They've said they are "on to me" and so forth.

Please understand that I am trying to stick with facts and logical supposition, and to correct posts where people state what they believe should be the law when it actually is not.

I see a lot of character assasination on here, smears, and offensive comments that the mods ignore. Why is it relevent to discuss people's appearance, Lori's need to improvise makeup in jail, and so forth? Why is commenting on any person's appearance not a violation of the TOS? Why do people think this is appropriate? Or even socially acceptable? If we were physically in the same room some of the comments I see here would be abhorant! People vilify Chad's daughter for sticking her tounge out at media then do the same thing here with attack posts on the various characters. Those kinds of thing might let off steam but they are not constructive in ferreting out details that might actuall help find Tylee and JJ!

I'm trying to post facts based on reliable information and laws not on my opinion of anyone's guilt. The fact that Kay ended up with Charles's life insurance proceeds might "feel" right to people here but shouldn't we look into whether it was legally right, and if not, who could have pulled the strings to avoid the law and how that might support threats against Lori?

I think Lori and Chad were involved in their spouses' deaths but I am not sure how. I do not defend them at all. But even if Lori shot Charles, which we know not to be the case, she would still have rights to his life insurance until there is a trial (criminal or civil under slayer law) so why does anyone here accept that paying out to Kay is reasonable? It seems like opinions are being formed based on likability rather than what the law actually states.

BBM

I agree with you in regards to unnecessary and offensive comments about people's looks, name calling, etc., they have no place in the discussion and are against the TOS. If you see something like that simply report the post and let the mods know about it and deal with it. I've personally reported on posts calling Chad and Lori names before and the mods have removed the offending posts. As much as I think they're guilty of some pretty serious stuff they still deserve to be treated with some measure of dignity.

In regards to your comment about "People vilify Chad's daughter for sticking her tounge out at media then do the same thing here with attack posts on the various characters." I can only presume you're talking about me since I am the only person (that I'm aware of) who recently made a comment about people sticking their tongues out. In my defense: 1) I didn't name names, or even specify the gender of the person. 2) It is a known fact that one of Chad's children did stick their tongue out at media reporters who were trying to cover the missing children case. Like you, "I am trying to stick with facts and logical supposition," and my "logical supposition" and reason for pointing out this fact was to highlight the differences between how regular everyday people treat missing children cases and how Chad, Lori, and those closely associated with them have been treating this case of the missing children and how it is not normal behavior. 3) Even though I pointed out this fact, as far as I know I haven't used it to "vilify" anyone with any kind of "attack posts on the various characters." Sure, what I posted might not have been flattering towards them, but their actions and behavior itself is what's not flattering and speaks for itself. Instead of "vilifying" and "attacking" anyone though I asked questions and my intent was to seek to understand why their behavior was what it is. Here is the post in question in case anyone wants to see for themselves and/or report it:

ID - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #31

In regards to your comments about sticking with the facts and reliable information, I think that's all that any of us are trying to do. However, everyone can look at the same "facts" and form completely different conclusions and opinions based on those "facts." That's perfectly fine. I think why you're facing so much pushback though is because your conclusions and opinions of the "facts" are quite different than what most everybody else is seeing and interpreting. That's also fine. Differing opinions and perspectives help everyone to see a bigger picture and consider things they might not have thought of otherwise. Which, hopefully, will help everyone find answers and resolution in this case. I have appreciated many of your contributions throughout this case. And I have also been frustrated and extremely baffled by some of the things you've said. You'll say things that make perfectly good sense and are reasonable to me, and then in the next breath leave me scratching my head wondering how in the world you've come to the conclusion or formed the opinion you have. Isn't it wonderful (and frustrating) that we can all form our own opinions and thoughts based upon the same "facts?"

Now, having said all that, here are some of the issues I have with the theories many people have come up with in trying to defend/justify Lori's actions.

1. Claim: Lori is hiding the children for their own protection.
   • First off it must be noted Lori has never made this claim. This theory has only ever been made by people in support of Lori or who are trying to defend/justify/explain why the children are missing. If Lori isn't making this claim then that's already a mark against it - we simply can't assume it's true because we wish it to be with nothing else supporting it. Furthermore, one must wonder why Lori isn't making these claims. I suspect Lori would get far more help and support in protecting her children and hiding them if there was an actual and legitimate concern and she had evidence of it. As we've seen time and again, whenever the safety of children are involved, whether that threat is real or perceived, everyone comes out to help protect the innocent and helpless.
     
   • Who/what would she be protecting them from? Was it from a physical threat or abuse? Sexual? Emotional? No one can claim it was from CV - he was dead. Same goes for JR. Who else could have been a threat? I have seen no evidence of anyone wishing harm upon the children. Lacking any real, tangible, or named threat against the children I must conclude that there isn't any.
     
   • If the children did need protection why would it necessitate going into hiding? By all accounts Alex was capable of defending Lori and the children from any perceived physical threat, and yet he was never with the children as a protector. Also, the police are readily available and much more (not to mention legally) qualified to help protect against any real threat or danger - Lori has gone to police for help before, and yet, strangely, in this case not only has she not gone to LE for help but she was/is actively obstructing/preventing them from helping.
     
   • Why isn't Lori with the children? As their mother she is morally and legally responsible for their protection. She should be the first and last one watching over them. How can she truly ensure their safety if she is nowhere near them? If she trusted someone else with their care and protection (what, not her brother or any other family members?) then she should be at the very least in constant contact and communication with them to monitor their safety and well-being. Such is not the case (per the police affidavit).
   • Why move to Idaho? Prior to this Lori and her children had only ever lived in warm climes - California, Texas, Arizona, Hawaii. It is reasonable to assume that she would want to stick with what was familiar, and therefore safer, for her and the children. When we put ourselves in strange and foreign environments we, by necessity, must rely much more heavily upon others and their knowledge and expertise for help, otherwise we're at a great disadvantage. The only advantage moving to Idaho would provide in helping to protect/hide the children is that it would be completely out of the norm and unexpected for Lori and therefore might make it that much harder for someone trying to track them down. However, it doesn't appear that Lori was too terribly concerned about letting people know she had moved to Idaho - she told KW and LW, CR, JJ's dog trainer, and likely many others that they were moving to Idaho. Alex and Melani would also move into the same area, and BB knew of this fact. JJ was also enrolled into public school in Idaho. All of this would defeat the purpose of moving into a completely random and unexpected area in order to protect oneself from someone trying to do you harm.
2. Claim: Lori is hiding the children because of a custody dispute.
   • Lori hasn't made this claim. See same response to claim #1 above.
     
   • Who could possibly have a custody dispute? Legally, nobody. CV was dead. JR was dead. Lori was the only person alive that could claim custody of the children. KW and LW had no rights as they relinquished those rights when they allowed JJ to be adopted. Furthermore, LE, KW and LW, and others have already disputed this claim saying there is no custody dispute over the children.
     
   • Why even hide the kids over a custody dispute? As pointed out earlier Lori had legal custody of the children. She had already spent many years in a custody battle over Tylee, why wouldn't she do the same for JJ if necessary? A custody battle over JJ would have been won before it even began. Surely Lori would have known this. Hiding the kids in a custody battle makes absolutely no sense for Lori, especially given her past experience, and could easily backfire on her. One might argue that Lori has shown a history of taking Tylee out of state in order to thwart a custody dispute. True. But she had never made Tylee "disappear" off the face of the earth when doing so. Why now? Since Lori had legal custody all's she had to do was fight it out in court. The full weight of the law would have been on her side and she could have probably even filed charges against anyone for attempting custodial interference.
     
   • Tylee is emancipated and/or will soon be an adult. Sure, I could entertain a custody dispute over JJ, but what would be the purpose of hiding Tylee away from some unnamed/perceived custody dispute or one involving JJ? There is none. And any supposed dispute over her - well, she's either emancipated or will soon be an adult (definitely would have been by the time anything proceeded through court) and has right over her own personage. Again, no purpose for hiding her.
   • Why isn't Lori with her children? Just as in claim #1 Lori is morally and legally responsible for the welfare of her children. Everyone who I've ever known to be involved in a custody dispute keeps their children as close to themselves as possible. At all times. They fear their children being kidnapped or taken away from them and desperately cling on to them as much as humanly possible. And if the kids are not directly in their care at the time they make every effort to reach out to them regularly via phone, text, video chat, welfare checks, etc., to make sure they're still alright. Lori has done none of this, per police discovery.
3. Claim: Lori is hiding them because there's large sums of money involved (generally insinuating in the process that 'evil' grandma KW is behind all of this and somehow wants JJ and Tylee in order to get ahold of the money that's at stake).
   • Again, Lori hasn't made this claim. Only those people wanting to defend or garner support for Lori have voiced it. Providing no evidence to even support it.
   • Grandma KW has already offered up money for the safe return of the kids, $20,000 to anyone who helps recover them. Even more, Charles' $1,000,000 life insurance payout, to Lori herself if all's she does is return the kids safely to them. Sounds like grandma is more interested in having JJ and Tylee returned safe than any supposed claim on money.
   • If there's some kind of dispute over money going on then why hasn't Lori lawyered up from the beginning, even before moving to Idaho? There's no need to hide the kids, just fight it out in court. KonaHonu and others have already pointed out that she would have a reasonable and legal support for claim on the life insurance money (assuming there was no foul play involved) not to mention half of Charles' assets. There's absolutely no reason to make the kids disappear over it.
   • If Lori is so concerned about the money then why was she out blowing whatever she did have by living it up in Hawaii? And if the money was supposed to be for the kids then why is there no evidence of her using any money to support the children, per police discovery? And why does it now appear that she's now being investigated for fraud by federal authorities?

I'm sure I could go on. I've tried to keep an open mind and see things from others' perspectives on how Lori and Chad could be innocent or the victim in all of this, and why the children must be hidden away for some greater good, but nothing, absolutely nothing anyone has come up with makes any kind of sense in light of known facts, established truths, and good common sense. If you or anyone else has anything to proffer in their defense I'm all ears. Nothing would make me happier than knowing with a certainty that the children are alive and safe. But you can also expect me to approach it with a critical eye and healthy dose of skepticism, because there's already a mountain of evidence painting a very different picture. JMO.

 

[FindingJoLee]

Yes I misunderstood and have deleted my post now. Sorry about that.

No problem, that report form is very inelegant!

 

[CSIDreamer]

BBM

I agree with you in regards to unnecessary and offensive comments about people's looks, name calling, etc., they have no place in the discussion and are against the TOS. If you see something like that simply report the post and let the mods know about it and deal with it. I've personally reported on posts calling Chad and Lori names before and the mods have removed the offending posts. As much as I think they're guilty of some pretty serious stuff they still deserve to be treated with some measure of dignity.

In regards to your comment about "People vilify Chad's daughter for sticking her tounge out at media then do the same thing here with attack posts on the various characters." I can only presume you're talking about me since I am the only person (that I'm aware of) who recently made a comment about people sticking their tongues out. In my defense: 1) I didn't name names, or even specify the gender of the person. 2) It is a known fact that one of Chad's children did stick their tongue out at media reporters who were trying to cover the missing children case. Like you, "I am trying to stick with facts and logical supposition," and my "logical supposition" and reason for pointing out this fact was to highlight the differences between how regular everyday people treat missing children cases and how Chad, Lori, and those closely associated with them have been treating this case of the missing children and how it is not normal behavior. 3) Even though I pointed out this fact, as far as I know I haven't used it to "vilify" anyone with any kind of "attack posts on the various characters." Sure, what I posted might not have been flattering towards them, but their actions and behavior itself is what's not flattering and speaks for itself. Instead of "vilifying" and "attacking" anyone though I asked questions and my intent was to seek to understand why their behavior was what it is. Here is the post in question in case anyone wants to see for themselves and/or report it:

ID - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #31

In regards to your comments about sticking with the facts and reliable information, I think that's all that any of us are trying to do. However, everyone can look at the same "facts" and form completely different conclusions and opinions based on those "facts." That's perfectly fine. I think why you're facing so much pushback though is because your conclusions and opinions of the "facts" are quite different than what most everybody else is seeing and interpreting. That's also fine. Differing opinions and perspectives help everyone to see a bigger picture and consider things they might not have thought of otherwise. Which, hopefully, will help everyone find answers and resolution in this case. I have appreciated many of your contributions throughout this case. And I have also been frustrated and extremely baffled by some of the things you've said. You'll say things that make perfectly good sense and are reasonable to me, and then in the next breath leave me scratching my head wondering how in the world you've come to the conclusion or formed the opinion you have. Isn't it wonderful (and frustrating) that we can all form our own opinions and thoughts based upon the same "facts?"

Now, having said all that, here are some of the issues I have with the theories many people have come up with in trying to defend/justify Lori's actions.

1. Claim: Lori is hiding the children for their own protection.
   • First off it must be noted Lori has never made this claim. This theory has only ever been made by people in support of Lori or who are trying to defend/justify/explain why the children are missing. If Lori isn't making this claim then that's already a mark against it - we simply can't assume it's true because we wish it to be with nothing else supporting it. Furthermore, one must wonder why Lori isn't making these claims. I suspect Lori would get far more help and support in protecting her children and hiding them if there was an actual and legitimate concern and she had evidence of it. As we've seen time and again, whenever the safety of children are involved, whether that threat is real or perceived, everyone comes out to help protect the innocent and helpless.
     
   • Who/what would she be protecting them from? Was it from a physical threat or abuse? Sexual? Emotional? No one can claim it was from CV - he was dead. Same goes for JR. Who else could have been a threat? I have seen no evidence of anyone wishing harm upon the children. Lacking any real, tangible, or named threat against the children I must conclude that there isn't any.
     
   • If the children did need protection why would it necessitate going into hiding? By all accounts Alex was capable of defending Lori and the children from any perceived physical threat, and yet he was never with the children as a protector. Also, the police are readily available and much more (not to mention legally) qualified to help protect against any real threat or danger - Lori has gone to police for help before, and yet, strangely, in this case not only has she not gone to LE for help but she was/is actively obstructing/preventing them from helping.
     
   • Why isn't Lori with the children? As their mother she is morally and legally responsible for their protection. She should be the first and last one watching over them. How can she truly ensure their safety if she is nowhere near them? If she trusted someone else with their care and protection (what, not her brother or any other family members?) then she should be at the very least in constant contact and communication with them to monitor their safety and well-being. Such is not the case (per the police affidavit).
   • Why move to Idaho? Prior to this Lori and her children had only ever lived in warm climes - California, Texas, Arizona, Hawaii. It is reasonable to assume that she would want to stick with what was familiar, and therefore safer, for her and the children. When we put ourselves in strange and foreign environments we, by necessity, must rely much more heavily upon others and their knowledge and expertise for help, otherwise we're at a great disadvantage. The only advantage moving to Idaho would provide in helping to protect/hide the children is that it would be completely out of the norm and unexpected for Lori and therefore might make it that much harder for someone trying to track them down. However, it doesn't appear that Lori was too terribly concerned about letting people know she had moved to Idaho - she told KW and LW, CR, JJ's dog trainer, and likely many others that they were moving to Idaho. Alex and Melani would also move into the same area, and BB knew of this fact. JJ was also enrolled into public school in Idaho. All of this would defeat the purpose of moving into a completely random and unexpected area in order to protect oneself from someone trying to do you harm.
2. Claim: Lori is hiding the children because of a custody dispute.
   • Lori hasn't made this claim. See same response to claim #1 above.
     
   • Who could possibly have a custody dispute? Legally, nobody. CV was dead. JR was dead. Lori was the only person alive that could claim custody of the children. KW and LW had no rights as they relinquished those rights when they allowed JJ to be adopted. Furthermore, LE, KW and LW, and others have already disputed this claim saying there is no custody dispute over the children.
     
   • Why even hide the kids over a custody dispute? As pointed out earlier Lori had legal custody of the children. She had already spent many years in a custody battle over Tylee, why wouldn't she do the same for JJ if necessary? A custody battle over JJ would have been won before it even began. Surely Lori would have known this. Hiding the kids in a custody battle makes absolutely no sense for Lori, especially given her past experience, and could easily backfire on her. One might argue that Lori has shown a history of taking Tylee out of state in order to thwart a custody dispute. True. But she had never made Tylee "disappear" off the face of the earth when doing so. Why now? Since Lori had legal custody all's she had to do was fight it out in court. The full weight of the law would have been on her side and she could have probably even filed charges against anyone for attempting custodial interference.
     
   • Tylee is emancipated and/or will soon be an adult. Sure, I could entertain a custody dispute over JJ, but what would be the purpose of hiding Tylee away from some unnamed/perceived custody dispute or one involving JJ? There is none. And any supposed dispute over her - well, she's either emancipated or will soon be an adult (definitely would have been by the time anything proceeded through court) and has right over her own personage. Again, no purpose for hiding her.
   • Why isn't Lori with her children? Just as in claim #1 Lori is morally and legally responsible for the welfare of her children. Everyone who I've ever known to be involved in a custody dispute keeps their children as close to themselves as possible. At all times. They fear their children being kidnapped or taken away from them and desperately cling on to them as much as humanly possible. And if the kids are not directly in their care at the time they make every effort to reach out to them regularly via phone, text, video chat, welfare checks, etc., to make sure they're still alright. Lori has done none of this, per police discovery.
3. Claim: Lori is hiding them because there's large sums of money involved (generally insinuating in the process that 'evil' grandma KW is behind all of this and somehow wants JJ and Tylee in order to get ahold of the money that's at stake).
   • Again, Lori hasn't made this claim. Only those people wanting to defend or garner support for Lori have voiced it. Providing no evidence to even support it.
   • Grandma KW has already offered up money for the safe return of the kids, $20,000 to anyone who helps recover them. Even more, Charles' $1,000,000 life insurance payout, to Lori herself if all's she does is return the kids safely to them. Sounds like grandma is more interested in having JJ and Tylee returned safe than any supposed claim on money.
   • If there's some kind of dispute over money going on then why hasn't Lori lawyered up from the beginning, even before moving to Idaho? There's no need to hide the kids, just fight it out in court. KonaHonu and others have already pointed out that she would have a reasonable and legal support for claim on the life insurance money (assuming there was no foul play involved) not to mention half of Charles' assets. There's absolutely no reason to make the kids disappear over it.
   • If Lori is so concerned about the money then why was she out blowing whatever she did have by living it up in Hawaii? And if the money was supposed to be for the kids then why is there no evidence of her using any money to support the children, per police discovery? And why does it now appear that she's now being investigated for fraud by federal authorities?

I'm sure I could go on. I've tried to keep an open mind and see things from others' perspectives on how Lori and Chad could be innocent or the victim in all of this, and why the children must be hidden away for some greater good, but nothing, absolutely nothing anyone has come up with makes any kind of sense in light of known facts, established truths, and good common sense. If you or anyone else has anything to proffer in their defense I'm all ears. Nothing would make me happier than knowing with a certainty that the children are alive and safe. But you can also expect me to approach it with a critical eye and healthy dose of skepticism, because there's already a mountain of evidence painting a very different picture. JMO.

Excellent post! Jmo

 

[squareandrabbet]

IMO, I would bet there are boots on the ground following any leads, and it's being kept close to the cuff because if they are being held somewhere LE doesn't want to tip them off. If they aren't being held, well, LE is going to keep that progress quiet too, for the sake of the investigation. I truly believe there is an intense search taking place. We just aren't going to know a lot of it.

FWIW, I believe we learned during the Jayme Closs ordeal, that after Waco, the FBI no longer waits to extricate children from super alarming situations for fear of tipping anyone off; they go in first and ask questions later.

I agree. It is likely they have vehicle and cellphone evidence relating to when AxC arrived the night before and what communications preceded his traveling there, when Lori actually left the home that morning, where Lori traveled in that rental car, what stops she made, and how long she stayed at each, when she stopped or started the engine, as well as whether any in-person conversations or utterances, cellphone calls, texts, or emails occurred between Lori, TR, CV, AxC and any other persons in the period before CV visited Lori's home on July 11 up to and beyond the police interviews of the various parties. If so, they may have spoken with any of those people (or observed what those people have said in MSM) and evaluated what those people are saying. They may also have gathered surveillance footage or stills from any relevant locations.

If JJ uttered anything that might be relevant at school (or summer camp) or while playing in the neighborhood that day or in the months following, they likely know that as well and have spoken with those outside the family who are familiar enough to know whether what he says or does is new and potentially relevant behavior.

They know JJ's utterances captured by the neighbor's doorbell video camera and may have asked the short-term nanny about anything he uttered or said or how he behaved in her presence.

We already know the various deceptions and evasions Lori engaged in when reporting the news of CV's death to his sons as well as her own son.

Colby has stated his own reaction upon learning later that afternoon what really happened that morning. This man who stated that he had characteristically felt protective toward his mother reported that he wanted to get away and put some distance between himself and Lori (and Tylee). He didn't want any part of what they were selling, even at the cost of leaving Tylee to cope with it without him, which is uncharacteristic.

Lori may have left after her interviews with police thinking the investigation was over, but in truth, it was just starting.

yes, I agree that this speaks volumes as to how creeped out/terrified Colby was by the situation he found. It might very well have seemed like the conversation out of a horror movie.

It was also a nice try not to deny what she said about her dream about her kids - rather read it in context - but then happily directed us to to focus on the bit where it says theres no there there

Am I reading her correctly, that Melani has now outed Brandon as an insurance broker? The Internet has been saying ‘sales’, which is pretty generic. I suppose it’s possible that as a financial consultant Charles qualified to broker insurance as well but, I am skeptical. If not, that’s almost worse, because I consider that more likely than a scenario than I do some scenario where Brandon and Charles randomly conspired together as civilians to take out dual policies against their wives. I think Melani is either full of it or extremely gullible, or both.

 

[Anonymous91]

Here’s Part 2 of the CBS 5 Morgan Loew interview with Melani and Ian that aired tonight. (8:49 minutes long)

EXCLUSIVE: 'It seems like the information I shared with them turned into this nationwide frenzy'

Updated 15 min ago

EXCLUSIVE: 'It seems like the information I shared with them turned into this nationwide frenzy'

I think that these guys have all been coached. This interview is so much different than the past interviews that Melani has been in.

The timing that these interviews are coming out are just so curious to me. It comes out just a few days after the judge quashes Lori's chances of reducing her bail. Coincidental? I think not.

Notice how they are manipulating the events. For example, CV was killed for the insurance money. Now they are implying that BB and CV were actually plotting to kill them (plot twist) for insurance.

Then she deflects by calling it a cult/zombie thing, implying that this is just made up. Never mind that there is actual documentation coming to light showing that this is legit.

I wonder if that is what CD has been up to this whole time, coming up with how to present this fictitious narrative to the world to buy into the narrative.


MOO

 

[TLobo]

Am I reading her correctly, that Melani has now outed Brandon as an insurance broker? The Internet has been saying ‘sales’, which is pretty generic. I suppose it’s possible that as a financial consultant Charles qualified to broker insurance as well but, I am skeptical. If not, that’s almost worse, because I consider that more likely than a scenario than I do some scenario where Brandon and Charles randomly conspired together as civilians to take out dual policies against their wives. I think Melani is either full of it or extremely gullible, or both.

I couldn't tell, due to her word salad and vague verbiage, if Melani was saying that Brandon and Charles worked together, somehow related to insurance, or if Charles was involved in advising or setting up a life insurance policy for Brandon.

 

[Owutatangledweb]

Justin Lum Fox 10 on Twitter
JUST IN: Medical Examiner Report for Alex Cox’s death just released. More details to come. #fox10phoenix



1:17 PM · May 8, 2020·Twitter for iPhone

Does anyone know how to actually download these twitter documents and read them when you don't have A twitter account? I can never read these.

 

[Diddian]

I think that these guys have all been coached. This interview is so much different than the past interviews that Melani has been in.

The timing that these interviews are coming out are just so curious to me. It comes out just a few days after the judge quashes Lori's chances of reducing her bail. Coincidental? I think not.

Notice how they are manipulating the events. For example, CV was killed for the insurance money. Now they are implying that BB and CV were actually plotting to kill them (plot twist) for insurance.

Then she deflects by calling it a cult/zombie thing, implying that this is just made up. Never mind that there is actual documentation coming to light showing that this is legit.

I wonder if that is what CD has been up to this whole time, coming up with how to present this fictitious narrative to the world to buy into the narrative.


MOO

IMO, probably the smoke-bellowers... er, attorneys who wrote that letter about Brandon they are now being sued about. They'd love it if the public attentive to this case were all in a house of mirrors like Lori's living room so the smoke would obscure in triple measure.

 

[Diddian]

Does anyone know how to actually download these twitter documents and read them when you don't have A twitter account? I can never read these.

I don't have a twitter account either and IIRC, I was able to open each page (one at a time) into a new tab, go to that tab, and read it there.

If you actually want to save a copy, from that new tab, select "File, Print" and then from the print menu "open the pdf." Go to that print preview of the document, click to "select" the document then "copy" to copy it for saving (I do it into a Word document for my own use). If someone knows an easier procedure, I'm all eyes/ears.

ETA: You can also read the ME's report about Alex if you click on a link in their story about it on East Idaho News. It's easily accessible there.
Medical examiner says Alex Cox had blood clots in his lungs and died of natural causes | East Idaho News