GUILTY TRIAL OF CHAD DAYBELL CHARGED WITH MURDER OF JJ VALLOW, TYLEE RYAN AND TAMMY DAYBELL #8

[Kemug]

Seriously? How about Pryor had an "ineffective" client to work with...can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!

Well, Chad did turn himself from a sow's ear into a silk purse, didn't he, but it didn't last for long.

 

[aafromaa]

As you can see - the video says "private" - so do not know what that is about...



Thank you for this update. Any time for that hearing? TIA!

Sorry about that. I had posted the link while it was live from the judge’s channel and I guess it was unavailable after the live ended or something. I’m really not sure what happened but I apologize for whatever I might have done that caused that.

 

[aafromaa]

Ayo hold up a minute. Why was there a hearing today and how long have we known about it?

It was a status hearing regarding the post sentencing or post trial petition filed by the defense on July 17th - new defense atty is Ian Thomson (public defender - capital cases). I haven’t seen the petition but apparently asking for new trial based on ineffectiveness of counsel but may include more than that too - I’m not sure. I didn’t know the hearing was coming up but guess I’m still subscribed to Judge B’s channel because it appeared in my YouTube feed while i was looking for something else lol.

 

[Niner]

Here's one that should work, from Crime Talk

Thanks for that video - I can access this one! I do not believe they said what time the hearing is - so I shall put it at 10am as someone said above.

 

[lightofmine99]

While I acknowledge the intricacies of his profession and the obvious...difficulties surrounding his client, I am not really a fan of Prior. That said, I hope that Prior is successfully able to prove he did the best with what he had and therefore did not provide ineffective counsel. Sure he made several (IMO) idiotic choices but overall I do not believe he displayed ineffective counsel. MOO.

I'm sure the majority of people sentenced to death probably try to file ineffective counsel. MOO.

 

[mickey2942]

Pryor actually did a pretty good job, given what he had to work with. Sure, CD didn't get a "Harvard" level outcome, with six attorneys. But he did get what he could afford.

And, in the end, I did watch a trial recently that the defendant spent all of the money in the world on counsel, and was found guilty (Rebecca Grossman). She was found guilty, because she did the crime. Same as CD. Pryor couldn't magically make solid evidence against CD disappear.

 

[lightofmine99]

Attorneys also can't make long-extant Idaho law disappear. For example, Idaho law states that if the jury finds no "mitigating circumstances," then the defendant must receive the death penalty if charged with capital murder and death is sought.

While not impossible, it's kinda hard for a jury to find mitigating circumstances when the defendant openly chooses to present none via their defense. MOO.

 

[Tortoise]

I was just having a look back at the notice of appeal filed by John Prior before appeal counsel were appointed. (from here Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest )

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/isc.coi/CR22-21-1623/2024/060325-Notice-of-Appeal.pdf

3.b. states as follows: "Did the court err in ruling Dr. Davidson's report and testimony would be inadmissible in this case?"

This order dated 4th March 2024 seems to be applicable -

https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...der-to-Seal-States-Motion-in-Limine-Brief.pdf

"On March 4, 2024, the Court received a request to file under seal the STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE DEFENSE EXPERT JAMES DAVIDSON, PH.D. [...]"

This is a link to the site of Dr. James Davidson Ph.D., forensic and clinical psychologist. I wonder which defendant he evaluated. Probably Lori Vallow, without her co-operation or input, IMO.

Dr. James Davidson - James Davidson Ph.D.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1822008771432083499

Full picture:

 

[Cindizzi]

Oh no! KW is upset about someone buying the property and not consulting the families about their plan.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1822054330150813979

 

[indicolite22]

Oh no! KW is upset about someone buying the property and not consulting the families about their plan.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1822054330150813979

I don't understand the outrage. The property could have been bought by a developer and the families would have no say about its use. The new owner will consult with the victims' families. If the families wanted to have full control, they should have bought it themselves or do fundraising. (JMO)

 

[melissaleon]

I don't understand the outrage. The property could have been bought by a developer and the families would have no say about its use. The new owner will consult with the victims' families. If the families wanted to have full control, they should have bought it themselves or do fundraising. (JMO)

I can understand. It is a gruesome murder scene for three people. I doubt many murder victim's families would want to visit the place their loved one died or have other people visit it repeatedly. It would be more of a constant opening of a wound rather than a place of healing.

 

[indicolite22]

I can understand. It is a gruesome murder scene for three people. I doubt many murder victim's families would want to visit the place their loved one died or have other people visit it repeatedly. It would be more of a constant opening of a wound rather than a place of healing.

Tylee and JJ were likely murdered in Lori's (or Alex's) Rexburg apartment, yet nobody is demanding something be done (or not done) with it. Another family is probably living there. Before Chad's house was even put on the market, several people were suggesting online that the entire property should be turned into a park with a memorial to honor the victims. It didn't seem realistic to me at the time. For example, if Chad's children had the money to buy the property back, they wouldn't be asking others for their opinions.

 

[indicolite22]

Lori Hellis has been in contact with the buyers. Apparently there was more than one group interested in the property. One of the others planned to turn the place into a true crime destination. The buyers made a public declaration at this time because they were outed by another local.

LH: "These are people whose heart and money are in the right place and they wanted to do the right thing."

To the local critics LH says: "They (the buyers) are your neighbors." And also: "It is not anyone related to the Daybell family in any way."

They are business owners in the Eastern Idaho community.

It looks like the Daybell children moved out of the house a week ago.

 

[aafromaa]

Just throwing my 2 cents worth in regarding the property…

It’s a bit of a no win situation for everyone. Families of the victims don’t have a legal right to be consulted but if the buyers are going to try to find a way to honor the victims with some type of memorial then certainly the families should be consulted whether required by law or not. But if that isn’t going to be part of what they are doing then they have purchased the property and should do with it what they want without interference or judgement.

If they are going to set up a non-profit, I can think of a couple of ways that they might make good use of the property and honor the victims without actually turning it into some type of memorial. Perhaps as a recovery center for those who were involved in a cult. Perhaps as a teaching center to show others how to recognize false teachings or teachers or ministries or doomsday books or prophecies. Perhaps as a community garden for produce and/or flowers maybe with a little duck pond in the middle of it.

But the bottom line is that I didn’t buy it so I have no right to say what should or shouldn’t be done with it and neither do the families of the victims. If I understand correctly, the sale hasn’t closed yet and I’m guessing that the buyers would back out if the families wanted to buy it instead. But what would they do with it?

My grandfather always said that land was a precious thing because they aren’t making it anymore. There should be something done with the property because just letting it sit empty and unused seems wrong too.

 

[887sMtreme]

Don’t zoning laws preclude turning residential property into a business, even a non-profit one?

 

[Pruddennce]

I can understand. It is a gruesome murder scene for three people. I doubt many murder victim's families would want to visit the place their loved one died or have other people visit it repeatedly. It would be more of a constant opening of a wound rather than a place of healing.

I dont understand KW's opinion that the disposition of the property should have been a personal courtesy consult prior to the buyer's public response as to its proposed future. I would certainly share in outrage and angst if the property was turned into a 'murder house touring property'. heck, I think the community would be concerned as well. but thats not happening. if KW purchased it, she could pursue its future. but she did not. I find it odd she is lamenting considering IMO it is a positive, generous gesture for this buyer/owner to say they would 'consult' with the victims families, lay out their vision which to me sounds like a respectful endeavor.

if Emma and family continued to live there (purchased it), what then? nothing of course. just a family living in a house their mother was murdered in BY THEIR FATHER and two children were found murdered and buried/with one partially burned in the firepit. not a thing can be done about any family who decides to live in a notorious 'murder house/property'. it just becomes a grotesque topic of conversation but doesnt change anything.

ultimately, Tylee and JJ were recovered and laid to rest properly (Tammy was buried but only rested IN PEACE after her exhumation). whether its a community garden or park, or a memorial of some type, KW doesnt have to see that property ever again. nor does Colby. or any other family or friends. they have that choice.

 

[Teche]

Don’t zoning laws preclude turning residential property into a business, even a non-profit one?

The property looks more rural than in the city limits. Usually, rural areas are more relaxed.

 

[GRT]

I don't understand the outrage. The property could have been bought by a developer and the families would have no say about its use. The new owner will consult with the victims' families. If the families wanted to have full control, they should have bought it themselves or do fundraising. (JMO)

I agree with you.

I'm sorry that Kay feels bad about it, but that's just one of those things we don't have control over. A few years ago, we had a local disagreement about putting up crosses/memorials along the road where someone died in an accident. One family owned the stretch of road along a curve in the highway where two separate accidents had occurred. Both fatalities. One family put up a single white cross, while the other family put up a pretty garish memorial complete with framed photos and plastic flowers. The owners took the larger memorial down and left the little cross in place. The family that put up the large memorial was upset and petitioned the County to force the owners to allow it. They lost, and there were a lot of hurt feelings, but at the end of the day, the choice typically belongs to the owners of the property.

I hope Kay finds peace.

 

[GRT]

Don’t zoning laws preclude turning residential property into a business, even a non-profit one?

Madison County seems to encourage home-based businesses, which may have something to do with the prevailing religion in that area, but if the memorial/park isn't one of the listed businesses, the owners might need to apply for a special use permit, and that typically involves a hearing at local planning and zoning board. Those hearing take neighboring opinions into account and if the neighbors felt their neighborhood would have too much traffic, or an element that put their way/quality of life at risk, they could oppose the permit.

I don't really understand the business aspect anyway. Are they planning on charging admission? Or do they think they'll be taking in donations?