GUILTY TRIAL OF CHAD DAYBELL CHARGED WITH MURDER OF JJ VALLOW, TYLEE RYAN AND TAMMY DAYBELL #7

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
wnk said:
Knowing the rest of the circumstances, we know the reasons why DP was taken off the table, but the jury wouldn't.

I guess my musing was more along the lines of: Would Prior be legally allowed to bring up the fact that LVD was not sentenced to death as a reason not to impose that punishment on CD? Or would references to the sentencing of co-conspirators be disallowed?
Click to expand...
Excellent question! I don’t know the answer to that.
 
indicolite22 said:
I think Zulema no longer believes. Lori is probably the only person at this point thinking she'll be helped by a godsent natural disaster. IMO Chad knows he's a fraud. Loyalty of his children is important to him, so he won't admit it.
Click to expand...
I have gone back and forth in my mind trying to decide if I think either of CD or LVD still believe or ever did. Part of me says neither ever believed it but part of me thinks of my own sister. She literally convinces herself of something totally off the wall and then to her it is forever fact after that. I’m not sure if she lies to herself in the beginning or has believed something someone else told her or what but once she settles on it she believes it despite evidence to the contrary.
 
SteveS said:
I watched the entire hearing in real time, and Nikynoo is right on track.

There was a sequence of events, and taking one of them out of context doesn't tell the story.
1 CD/JP filed a motion to be removed from the case, and have a state-appointed DP counsel appointed.
2 Boyce had a hearing to let them explain what they wanted, and then make a decision.
3 In the hearing, JP somewhat was double-talking about being removed, but also needing help. In real time, there was some confusion.
4 In the hearing, it was determined that what CD/JP was seeking was state payment and perhaps some help. "I'm/He's working for free, and that's not fair."
5 Boyce noted they could have help, but needed to find someone DP-qualified for the state to pay for them.
6 At the end, Boyce said to CD and to JP, "You can have a different state-appointed DP attorney or 2" and "You don't have to work for free, but the state can't pay YOU" and let them decide what they wanted.
7 CD said "I choose JP." A defendant has the right to HIS choice of counsel, assuming the lawyer is willing.
8 Boyce then asked JP if he wanted to continue, because he wouldn't force him to continue for free, and JP said he wanted to continue.
9 Boiling it down, I think JP was looking for money from the state, and CD felt it was only fair, but when it was going to lead to JP being taken off the case, they chose otherwise.
10 Both JP and CD stated bluntly, on the record, in relation to the motion, that they did NOT want a change after all. So THAT was their motion, ultimately, and Boyce said yes.

So that ended it. They were the ones who had the choice, and chose otherwise. I don't see any legit grounds for appeal.
Click to expand...
This is a good breakdown of those events, but missing the first event (before your #1) doesn’t tell the whole story but that’s just IMOO.

The “first” event took place before the Motion to withdraw, almost a full year before that. January 2023 is when the Court was made aware of the defense’s situation and the Motion to appoint co counsel was filed.

Does that make a difference in all of this? Probably not, you may be right. I just wanted to include that piece because I think the sequence of events starts much before the “eve of trial” as some (even the Judge) characterized the defense attempt to withdraw/get additional attorneys. JMOO
 
I found myself drawn into Prior's closing statement. He's a compelling speaker when he gets going. I thought he scored three hits. From least to most persuasive: 1) his insinuation of impropriety in the pre-trial interactions of Rob Wood and Melanie Gibb and in particular the interest they professed in protecting the LDS Church (an explanation for the prosecution's focus on the weirdness of Chad's beliefs); 2) his suggestion that confirmation bias narrowed the scope of the investigation prematurely and meant that other possible suspects were never properly investigated; and 3) his argument that the lack of physical or GPS evidence tying Chad to any of the murders should constitute "reasonable doubt."

Having said that, I think Prior erred in leaning so heavily into his preposterous alternative theory of the case, namely that Chad himself was the next target of the villainous Lori and Alex, and MG and DW were co-conspirators who not only knew about Lori's evil plan but actually helped Alex transport, bury, and maybe even kill JJ. Believing that theory had merit seemed like a much greater reach than believing the prosecution cut enough corners to leave room for reasonable doubt.

In the end, I just think Prior was dealt a losing hand. He had to defend a deeply unsympathetic and clearly guilty client. There was just no getting around the discovery of the children's remains in Chad's back yard or the fact that, for months while those children were missing, he and Lori said absolutely nothing and steadfastly refused to help find them.

MOO
 
I'm not going but I'm looking forward to seeing what Nate does at Crime Con. Maybe I'll go one day. I'm interested in the Summer Shiflett interview. I know some people feel weird about her (and I mean I'm not saying I'm her fan or whatever) but that jail phone call was especially heartbreaking and I feel horrible for her.
Snoopster said:
Well I appreciate your comments and insights here very much. I was going to say that you are wise beyond your years, but in fact many people your age are very wise and we often don't give them enough credit. Thank you for your contributions here.

Love,
Ol' Granny Snoop.
Click to expand...
You're welcome, I try my best. It can be hard to reign in my silliness and sarcasm at times, though. But that's what DMs are for I guess, lol. MOO.
 
wnk said:
Knowing the rest of the circumstances, we know the reasons why DP was taken off the table, but the jury wouldn't.

I guess my musing was more along the lines of: Would Prior be legally allowed to bring up the fact that LVD was not sentenced to death as a reason not to impose that punishment on CD? Or would references to the sentencing of co-conspirators be disallowed?
Click to expand...
Good question, Wnk. I seem to recall something addressed in a hearing either just before or at the beginning of this trial that neither side should bring up the trials/outcomes of the co-conspirator(s). I think - does anyone remember what I’m referring to or have a link to that video if it exists? :)

Of course, even if it was addressed that the attorneys not bring up that LVD didn’t get the death penalty, it does not mean that none of those giving victim impact statements won’t mention it so it is possible this jury could hear that info. They would be instructed to disregard it but as someone else said here our minds know what our minds know and it’s hard to un-ring that bell.
 
Nikynoo said:
Excellent question! I don’t know the answer to that.
Click to expand...
I don't know myself, of course.

But there is a possibility Prior could slip that into a question or a monologue. ("And you know that Lori Vallow didn't get the death penalty because Alex was the real murderer...") He will get reamed out in private, but if he does it with enough simple-country-lawyer act to cover up intent, he will get away with it.

MOO
 
Reference article for my notes

www.eastidahonews.com

WATCH LIVE: Day 1 of Chad Daybell sentencing phase - East Idaho News

BOISE — Day 1 of Chad Daybell’s sentencing phase after being found guilty of murdering Tylee Ryan, JJ Vallow and Tammy Daybell is underway Friday in Ada County. We expect to hear victim impact statements before the jury deliberates over whether or not Chad will face life in prison or the death...
www.eastidahonews.com www.eastidahonews.com
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1796558994750034417


Jury to hear victim impact statements as Chad Daybell’s sentencing starts​

by: Scott Lewis
Posted: May 31, 2024 / 08:48 AM MDT
Updated: May 31, 2024 / 08:55 AM MDT
This is a developing story. Check back as we will update this article as more information becomes available.
BOISE, Idaho (ABC4) — The jury in the Chad Daybell triple-murder trial returns to court this morning to hear victim impact statements in the sentencing phase after finding him guilty on all eight counts Thursday afternoon.

[…]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 92 more.
Total: 885 (members: 93, guests: 792)

Online statistics

Members online
93
Guests online
792
Total visitors
885
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
598,344
Messages
18,079,786
Members
230,614
Latest member
JSlice
Back
Top