Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #33

[Spartygirl]

Yet, Lori had lied to various others and said Tylee was attending BYU-I.

And she also lied to LE when she said JJ was with the grandparents (who were actually the ones who asked for the welfare check).

And then she lied again and said JJ was staying with a friend, MG, and they were out seeing the movie, Frozen 2, so could not be reached. MG would not comply with Lori's request to falsely confirm that claim.

And the next day, Lori fled with CD, vacating the townhouse in which she had been living in Rexburg and abandoning the storage unit in which she had placed the children's bikes, various sports items, winter clothes, and memory books.

None of that sounds like a person who has herself been victimized by others around her hurting or hiding her children against her will.

Right... she knows what happened to them and it was NOT against her will, as she probably was the one that told whomever to do it.
She is as guilty as the rest of them...she lied also, she fled the home when LE was closing in.
I just meant that she, herself, did NOT physically kill them...someone else did, at her request and knowledge. That is why her family keeps saying "SHE" would NOT hurt them.
Kind of like AxC killed CV, like AxC tasered JR, like TD was shot at with a paintball gun, like BB was shot at by AxC etc, etc.
I know I am not expressing what I am trying to say here as accurately as I want to.
JMO

 

[Gigi3]

I will not watch any more interviews on the rubber chicken circuit with Lolo’s mouth pieces. As pointed out by many astute sleuther’s, these enablers are lying with contradictions and inconsistencies plainly visible. They endorse a bizarre narrative that’s likely to be Lolo’s defense. We already know this family snubs their nose at the law. They don’t believe in paying taxes. Straight up fraudsters and probably have been their entire lives. If anything besides finding the children comes from this its hopefully a huge microscope is put on these shysters and criminals. Those who milk the system and avoid the rules most of us live by. For the few assets these people have they seem to have unlimited resources for material goods and plastic surgery. Enough of these people, bring on the prelim.

Please keep your posts coming! I have enjoyed your commentary since Cupcake’s thread, and I’m enjoying your knowledgeable comments here, along with your humor! We need it sometimes MOO

 

[GoneGoldfishin']

Right... she knows what happened to them and it was NOT against her will, as she probably was the one that told whomever to do it.
She is as guilty as the rest of them...she lied also, she fled the home when LE was closing in.
I just meant that she, herself, did NOT physically kill them...someone else did, at her request and knowledge. That is why her family keeps saying "SHE" would NOT hurt them.
Kind of like AxC killed CV, like AxC tasered JR, like TD was shot at with a paintball gun, like BB was shot at by AxC etc, etc.
I know I am not expressing what I am trying to say here as accurately as I want to.
JMO

I totally get what you are saying.. They are playing semantics games. Well, let them keep it up..no one believes anything they have to say. Moo.

 

[SleuthD-o-doubleg]

Yet, Lori had lied to various others and said Tylee was attending BYU-I.

And she also lied to LE when she said JJ was with the grandparents (who were actually the ones who asked for the welfare check).

And then she lied again and said JJ was staying with a friend, MG, and they were out seeing the movie, Frozen 2, so could not be reached. MG would not comply with Lori's request to falsely confirm that claim.

And the next day, Lori fled with CD, vacating the townhouse in which she had been living in Rexburg and abandoning the storage unit in which she had placed the children's bikes, various sports items, winter clothes, and memory books.

None of that sounds like a person who has herself been victimized by others around her hurting or hiding her children against her will.

Exactly... Lori has proved she lies and has no problem telling lies. All the more reason to question everything that is said by her or about her. Jmo

 

[SleuthD-o-doubleg]

Justin Lum Fox 10 Phoenix

New request from the prosecution

 

[longtimereader]

I apologize if I am revisiting a previous topic. Circling back to possible locations of JJ or Tylee, I am wondering about the Mt. Nebo area. The name refers to the mountain in the Bible on which Moses died as he was not allowed to enter the promised land. If they felt that the children were not worthy/zombies of entering the tent city, then that would be symbolic of not getting to see the promised land. Mt. Nebo is very near to Springville where CD lived in the past and his extended family still lives. it is possible that he is familiar with that area.

 

[StrangerThanFiction]

DBM. Dup.

 

[squareandrabbet]

This is in a family where Lori's sister, Summer, said Alex was "the most easygoing, relaxed, hilarious type of person. There's nothing about him that was a hit man."

yeah, he certainly sounded hilarious and mild as milk when he was ‘joking’ about finding a felon to put a hurt on JR when AlC was in jail, right?

Yes! When her family says she would never hurt her children, they are somehow ignoring how much and how badly she is hurting her children right this very minute - even if the children are in a bunker somewhere.

that’s because their desired end result is to whitewash Lori. They don’t give a dang about the kids; therefore everything is retrofitted to ‘benefit’ the kids.

IMO some journalist should try to carve out a niche sleuthing Lori’s parents; because the Coxes need to be exposed. I didn’t watch 48 Hours, and I’m not sorry, because I knew we weren’t going to learn anything anyway. In fact, I hope its ratings were terrible.

 

[squareandrabbet]

Justin Lum Fox 10 Phoenix

New request from the prosecution

providing all that ought to keep Means busy. Ahahahahaha.

I know it’s probably standard, but I like the ‘hey, if you’re gonna use the insanity defense please tell us now, okay? Thanks, bye.’

 

[SleuthD-o-doubleg]

providing all that ought to keep Means busy. Ahahahahaha.

I know it’s probably standard, but I like the ‘hey, if you’re gonna use the insanity defense please tell us now, okay? Thanks, bye.’

Lol! Rob Woods seems confident and fiery. Can’t wait to see this preliminary hearing go down. Should be great entertainment provided we don’t get another 2 hr circle defense jmo

 

[Drc40]

Please keep your posts coming! I have enjoyed your commentary since Cupcake’s thread, and I’m enjoying your knowledgeable comments here, along with your humor! We need it sometimes MOO

Ha. I’ve never purposely tried to inject humor but sometimes sarcasm can seem that way. I appreciate it but it’s got to be hard when you inject substances into your face and not expect to look like you sucked on an extra sour lemon for the rest of your life. Nothing like a perma-pucker look. I think the entire family has spent more on body mods then they did on taxes. I wish...must be nice

 

[KonaHonu]

providing all that ought to keep Means busy. Ahahahahaha.

I know it’s probably standard, but I like the ‘hey, if you’re gonna use the insanity defense please tell us now, okay? Thanks, bye.’

I'm confused. The preliminary hearing is basically a hearing to see if the prosecutor can present sufficient evidence that a) a crime has been committed and b) the defendant committed the crime. It only applies to the sole felony, not the misdemeanor charges.

So, where we are right now is that the courts have NOT determined there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed and further that Lori likely committed any crime. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt the court will make that determination. But these things have to follow a strict process. As of today Lori is presumed innocent and no evidence has been presented against her by a prosecutor. The only evidence that a court has seen against her is the statements of a police officer. That is enough to get an arrest warrant but not nearly enough to charge a felony absent objective corroboration.

So it seems out of place to me for the prosecutor to be initiating discovery for the exact same reason that the prosecutor challenged Mean's subpoenas because they were effectively demanding discovery before there was a preliminary hearing to establish probably cause. Their own document describes itself as a discovery request.

There is a statement lawyers sometime use: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I personal think this is an unrecognized logical falacy in the modern scientific world. In science we rely heavily on testing for absence to draw conclusions. If you are tested for a disease and test negative, a lawyer could make that argument but would be fundamentally wrong. Yet this line of thinking is still taught in law schools.

If you read the police application for the arrest warrant it is based almost entirely on absense of evidence - there is no evidence the kids have been seen since September, no evidence Lori has provided support, no evidence anyone has them... A lazy police officer out to get Lori could have simply overlooked exculpatory evidence and went to court to make those sworn statements truthfully.

The bar is MUCH higher at a preliminary hearing. I'm sure she will be bound over for trial but it's far from a slam dunk if all the prosecutor has is absence of evidence. I think that his demand for discovery right now is because he wants to be able to cut off any possible defenses now. But that is beyond his right. If Means complies with that order I think it will constitute reversible error. Lori does not have to reveal her defense stratgy until the trial, except possibly under Idaho rules if she plans to claim mental illness.

 

[Sorelle19]

I'm confused. The preliminary hearing is basically a hearing to see if the prosecutor can present sufficient evidence that a) a crime has been committed and b) the defendant committed the crime. It only applies to the sole felony, not the misdemeanor charges.

So, where we are right now is that the courts have NOT determined there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed and further that Lori likely committed any crime. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt the court will make that determination. But these things have to follow a strict process. As of today Lori is presumed innocent and no evidence has been presented against her by a prosecutor. The only evidence that a court has seen against her is the statements of a police officer. That is enough to get an arrest warrant but not nearly enough to charge a felony absent objective corroboration.

So it seems out of place to me for the prosecutor to be initiating discovery for the exact same reason that the prosecutor challenged Mean's subpoenas because they were effectively demanding discovery before there was a preliminary hearing to establish probably cause. Their own document describes itself as a discovery request.

There is a statement lawyers sometime use: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I personal think this is an unrecognized logical falacy in the modern scientific world. In science we rely heavily on testing for absence to draw conclusions. If you are tested for a disease and test negative, a lawyer could make that argument but would be fundamentally wrong. Yet this line of thinking is still taught in law schools.

If you read the police application for the arrest warrant it is based almost entirely on absense of evidence - there is no evidence the kids have been seen since September, no evidence Lori has provided support, no evidence anyone has them... A lazy police officer out to get Lori could have simply overlooked exculpatory evidence and went to court to make those sworn statements truthfully.

The bar is MUCH higher at a preliminary hearing. I'm sure she will be bound over for trial but it's far from a slam dunk if all the prosecutor has is absence of evidence. I think that his demand for discovery right now is because he wants to be able to cut off any possible defenses now. But that is beyond his right. If Means complies with that order I think it will constitute reversible error. Lori does not have to reveal her defense stratgy until the trial, except possibly under Idaho rules if she plans to claim mental illness.

I'm confused, too. Why do you think Lori's lawyer refused the judge's request to move up the preliminary hearing? After all, if the charges can't stick, she could have moved through this phase much sooner than July 7.

Also, I'm wondering what your definition of "objective corroboration" is. Would you mind sharing?

 

[JLouiseB]

I'm confused. The preliminary hearing is basically a hearing to see if the prosecutor can present sufficient evidence that a) a crime has been committed and b) the defendant committed the crime. It only applies to the sole felony, not the misdemeanor charges.

So, where we are right now is that the courts have NOT determined there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed and further that Lori likely committed any crime. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt the court will make that determination. But these things have to follow a strict process. As of today Lori is presumed innocent and no evidence has been presented against her by a prosecutor. The only evidence that a court has seen against her is the statements of a police officer. That is enough to get an arrest warrant but not nearly enough to charge a felony absent objective corroboration.

So it seems out of place to me for the prosecutor to be initiating discovery for the exact same reason that the prosecutor challenged Mean's subpoenas because they were effectively demanding discovery before there was a preliminary hearing to establish probably cause. Their own document describes itself as a discovery request.

There is a statement lawyers sometime use: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I personal think this is an unrecognized logical falacy in the modern scientific world. In science we rely heavily on testing for absence to draw conclusions. If you are tested for a disease and test negative, a lawyer could make that argument but would be fundamentally wrong. Yet this line of thinking is still taught in law schools.

If you read the police application for the arrest warrant it is based almost entirely on absense of evidence - there is no evidence the kids have been seen since September, no evidence Lori has provided support, no evidence anyone has them... A lazy police officer out to get Lori could have simply overlooked exculpatory evidence and went to court to make those sworn statements truthfully.

The bar is MUCH higher at a preliminary hearing. I'm sure she will be bound over for trial but it's far from a slam dunk if all the prosecutor has is absence of evidence. I think that his demand for discovery right now is because he wants to be able to cut off any possible defenses now. But that is beyond his right. If Means complies with that order I think it will constitute reversible error. Lori does not have to reveal her defense stratgy until the trial, except possibly under Idaho rules if she plans to claim mental illness.

I am not certain why Woods is making this request, but I am not familiar with Idaho law. I feel pretty certain that if he is asking that it is a strategy, not lack of knowledge about his right to do so. Lori's arrest was a long time ago, in court time, and we, the public have been privy to some of the information that LE is aware of. I can't imagine what Woods knows that we do not, which is why I am not second guessing his move. Nothing wrong with that line of thinking, he just seemed to know what he was doing the last time we saw him in court.

 

[JLouiseB]

Also

I'm confused. The preliminary hearing is basically a hearing to see if the prosecutor can present sufficient evidence that a) a crime has been committed and b) the defendant committed the crime. It only applies to the sole felony, not the misdemeanor charges.

So, where we are right now is that the courts have NOT determined there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed and further that Lori likely committed any crime. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt the court will make that determination. But these things have to follow a strict process. As of today Lori is presumed innocent and no evidence has been presented against her by a prosecutor. The only evidence that a court has seen against her is the statements of a police officer. That is enough to get an arrest warrant but not nearly enough to charge a felony absent objective corroboration.

So it seems out of place to me for the prosecutor to be initiating discovery for the exact same reason that the prosecutor challenged Mean's subpoenas because they were effectively demanding discovery before there was a preliminary hearing to establish probably cause. Their own document describes itself as a discovery request.

There is a statement lawyers sometime use: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I personal think this is an unrecognized logical falacy in the modern scientific world. In science we rely heavily on testing for absence to draw conclusions. If you are tested for a disease and test negative, a lawyer could make that argument but would be fundamentally wrong. Yet this line of thinking is still taught in law schools.

If you read the police application for the arrest warrant it is based almost entirely on absense of evidence - there is no evidence the kids have been seen since September, no evidence Lori has provided support, no evidence anyone has them... A lazy police officer out to get Lori could have simply overlooked exculpatory evidence and went to court to make those sworn statements truthfully.

The bar is MUCH higher at a preliminary hearing. I'm sure she will be bound over for trial but it's far from a slam dunk if all the prosecutor has is absence of evidence. I think that his demand for discovery right now is because he wants to be able to cut off any possible defenses now. But that is beyond his right. If Means complies with that order I think it will constitute reversible error. Lori does not have to reveal her defense stratgy until the trial, except possibly under Idaho rules if she plans to claim mental illness.

Also, reversible error would hardly be a likely outcome given that he is her attorney. I don't see it happening because that would open the way for deliberate error to gain freedom for one's client.

 

[watergirl62]

Justin Lum Fox 10 Phoenix

New request from the prosecution

Hopefully, there has been a mental health evaluation that she was unable to avoid. That being said, I have no doubt she would do everything she could to manipulate the evaluator.

I would love to hear about the results of any evaluation, but also worry that the defense might pull a LaViolette (JA's DV expert). The only person interviewed about JA's DV claims was JA. Ummm.

 

[Teche]

What’s the status of Chaddy’s moveable home? Does he continue to live with his family?

 

[Teche]

ABC’s Good Morning America just showed a short clip of a LE video cam of Charles Vallow report Lolo’s strange behavior & threats.

 

[SleuthD-o-doubleg]

I'm confused. The preliminary hearing is basically a hearing to see if the prosecutor can present sufficient evidence that a) a crime has been committed and b) the defendant committed the crime. It only applies to the sole felony, not the misdemeanor charges.

So, where we are right now is that the courts have NOT determined there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed and further that Lori likely committed any crime. Don't get me wrong, I have no doubt the court will make that determination. But these things have to follow a strict process. As of today Lori is presumed innocent and no evidence has been presented against her by a prosecutor. The only evidence that a court has seen against her is the statements of a police officer. That is enough to get an arrest warrant but not nearly enough to charge a felony absent objective corroboration.

So it seems out of place to me for the prosecutor to be initiating discovery for the exact same reason that the prosecutor challenged Mean's subpoenas because they were effectively demanding discovery before there was a preliminary hearing to establish probably cause. Their own document describes itself as a discovery request.

There is a statement lawyers sometime use: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I personal think this is an unrecognized logical falacy in the modern scientific world. In science we rely heavily on testing for absence to draw conclusions. If you are tested for a disease and test negative, a lawyer could make that argument but would be fundamentally wrong. Yet this line of thinking is still taught in law schools.

If you read the police application for the arrest warrant it is based almost entirely on absense of evidence - there is no evidence the kids have been seen since September, no evidence Lori has provided support, no evidence anyone has them... A lazy police officer out to get Lori could have simply overlooked exculpatory evidence and went to court to make those sworn statements truthfully.

The bar is MUCH higher at a preliminary hearing. I'm sure she will be bound over for trial but it's far from a slam dunk if all the prosecutor has is absence of evidence. I think that his demand for discovery right now is because he wants to be able to cut off any possible defenses now. But that is beyond his right. If Means complies with that order I think it will constitute reversible error. Lori does not have to reveal her defense stratgy until the trial, except possibly under Idaho rules if she plans to claim mental illness.

Do you really believe the Rexburg Police are being lazy in their searches and reports? Do you believe they are out to get her? I’m not saying people are perfect, but she wasn’t in Rexburg long enough to be on their radar, especially with all the coming and going that was happening imo.

 

[SleuthD-o-doubleg]

Hopefully, there has been a mental health evaluation that she was unable to avoid. That being said, I have no doubt she would do everything she could to manipulate the evaluator.

I would love to hear about the results of any evaluation, but also worry that the defense might pull a LaViolette (JA's DV expert). The only person interviewed about JA's DV claims was JA. Ummm.

I’m not sure if there has been one. I don’t know much about what happens here once you’re arrested and placed at the women’s center. I would hope that’s part of the initial booking process but I truly don’t know.