AZ - Lori Vallow Daybell charged w/ conspiring to kill ex-husband Charles Vallow and another relative, Brandon Boudreaux, Chandler, Maricopa County #3

[Cindizzi]

Look at AC's sandals.

View attachment 579790

Good eye.
So she borrowed Alex’s?

 

[Megnut]

Good eye.
So she borrowed Alex’s?

JJ probably had identical ones.

IMO she wore JJ's shoes into Walgreens, switched to the new ones right at the check out (out of view of the camera) and gave JJ's shoes back to him.

JMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Look at AC's sandals.

View attachment 579790

He was wearing those at the scene while she was at Walgreens though.

Somebody here suggested that she could have borrowed JJ's sandals to go inside Walgreens which could be what happened.

 

[indicolite22]

It's Lori and she lies and twists and distorts things to make herself look good and others look bad.

So, first I'd want a definition of what a "threat" is. For example, if Charles told Lori he was going to expose her lies, odd beliefs, and secrets contrary to LDS doctrine and her cheating with Chad to her family or to her bishop, that is not a threat that suggests he could be physically dangerous or menacing. I'd also argue that it is not coercive control as it is done to "correct the record" about things she is saying or doing that are harmful to CV, potentially the children, the church and some of its members, and to Lori herself.

I'd want independent verification that CV was sending Lori daily messages of devotion to her in the days/weeks immediately before they shot him as I expect she isn't being honest about whether that was still happening by the time he'd decided he was done with her and moving on.

I don't doubt that she saw being exposed to the church leaders as a threat. Taking away her temple recommend would have hit her hard, because she seemingly was getting some of her visions while there. Her family took her side.

 

[Diddian]

Another Lori lie (i.e., pretending ignorance about guns). Remember when asking a witness about the gun... she asked about revolvers, and then giggled, saying she doesn't know that much about guns.

However, when AlexC is being interviewed by Det Moffett at Chandler PD, he is asked to explain about what happened to make sure they have all the details, accurate and factual... because some of the information we got from patrol doesn't match with Lori, etc. Why did Alex stay there at Lori's the night before, did she ask him to stay? AlexC says no, he stayed there because he and Lori had a "fun day" planned for the next day. He was thinking maybe "I was going to take her to the range, maybe take JJ to the waterpark, movies, whatever."

You don't "take someone to the range" so they can sit around and watch YOU practice shooting.

Starting at 9:34 in the video:

ETA: Lori feigning ignorance about guns and shooting starting at 4:13 pm when questioning Detective Coons:

LIVE UPDATES: Graphic images shown in court on Day 2 of Lori Vallow Daybell's Arizona trial - East Idaho News

Lori Vallow Daybell is on trial in Maricopa County, Arizona, on one charge of conspiracy to commit the murder of Charles Vallow, her fourth husband. Nate Eaton is live in the courtroom with updates. Please excuse any typos. Times listed below are in Mountain Standard Time, so they are an hour...

www.eastidahonews.com

ETA: Video link, see 6:48:
"So for someone like me who really doesn't understand guns too well..." (as part of line of questioning about which way cartridges will fall from the particular gun used:

WATCH LIVE: Day 2 of Lori Vallow Daybell's Arizona trial - East Idaho News

PHOENIX — The second day of Lori Vallow Daybell’s trial in Arizona is scheduled for Tuesday. Daybell is charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree murder of Charles Vallow, her fourth husband, who was fatally shot at her Chandler, Arizona, home on July 11, 2019. She is representing herself...

www.eastidahonews.com

 

[Izzylizzy]

This is really bizarre.

It's the State's case. The State's case is that LVD conspired with AlexC to murder CV. And they did so by planning it, then executing it that morning.

LVD, who is charged with that crime, made up a different narrative that, at the time, LE "bought" but eventually abandoned in light of new information/evidence abd a fresh investigation. Because LVD's version did not happen. Geez, even AlexC was vague on the supposed precipitating event for which he responded in "self-defense".

But the jury instructions -- some of them go toward LVD's defunct narrative. For example, criminal trespass. How can CV trespass on a property HE leased (for LVD to live in)? He had every right to be there.

The jury gets to sorry this all out, I guess. But first, they have to decide if LVD's is believable because if they decide it's not, I mean honestly, are the jurors supposed to weigh whether... what? LVD was uninvolved and AlexC was acting in self-defense? And CV was kind enough, after tapping AlexC I'm the head with the bat, waiting politely for AlexC to return with a gun?

Maybe the State should have spent more time stressing how AlexC was not a victim acting in self-defense but rather a co-conspirator who participated in precipitating the violence, in which case the ONLY PERSON who could have acted in self-defense in this situation would have been CV.

Why did no one ever ask if AlexC had the right to use deadly force? Castle privilege? It wasn't even his home.

Even if we concede CV was threatening with the bat, AlexC retreated to safety (the room where he had a gun). What legal right did he have to confront CV at THAT point? None IMO. Fear for LVD's safety? JJ and T's safety? According to their version of events, they were outside. With a car. Were they afraid CV would throw a bat at the car? And it would hit them as they drove away?

I hope the jury doesnt get lost in the weeds.

JMO

Didn't AC live a few doors down from LVD in the same neighborhood.

He was wearing those at the scene while she was at Walgreens though.

Somebody here suggested that she could have borrowed JJ's sandals to go inside Walgreens which could be what happened.

View attachment 579822

Oops.
I am so far behind what's been posted.
JJ's sandals does make sense.
Thanks.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Do I have it correct that at the time of CV's death that AC lived close by to LVD?
Asking because I thought of something.

 

[Diddian]

Do I have it correct that at the time of CV's death that AC lived close by to LVD?
Asking because I thought of something.

AlexC lived on Shary St in San Tan. Lori at the time lived at 5541 S Four Peaks Pl in Chandler. So about 30-40 minutes apart.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Good eye.
So she borrowed Alex’s?

No.
I was wrong.
Not surprising though. lol

 

[indicolite22]

Do I have it correct that at the time of CV's death that AC lived close by to LVD?
Asking because I thought of something.

Not in Arizona. That was in Idaho where they moved to in September that year, so Lori could be closer to Chad and to plan and execute the rest of the crimes.

 

[Izzylizzy]

AlexC lived on Shary St in San Tan. Lori at the time lived at 5541 S Four Peaks Pl in Chandler. So about 30-40 minutes apart.

Thanks because he told LE he was doing a sleep-over so they could do something fun the next day.
Like going to the shooting range and if he lived close by that reason would be ridiculous, even though I still think it's a ridiculous reason to do a sleep-over.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Not in Arizona. That was in Idaho where they moved to in September that year.

My god,
AC followed LVD around like a puppy dog.
imo

 

[Megnut]

Thanks because he told LE he was doing a sleep-over so they could do something fun the next day.
Like going to the shooting range and if he lived close by that reason would be ridiculous, even though I still think it's a ridiculous reason to do a sleep-over.

Didn't LVD say that she wanted AlexC there because she was worried CV would do something? Project much?

 

[Cindizzi]

No.
I was wrong.
Not surprising though. lol

Hey I was wrong too lol

 

[Cindizzi]

Will Lori Vallow Daybell change her mind about testifying?​

The state resting was not a surprise. But Lori Vallow Daybell gave all indications she would put on a case.​

PHOENIX — On late Wednesday afternoon, the prosecutor rested her case against Lori Vallow Daybell. Moments later, Vallow Daybell said she intended to rest, too.
As of Thursday morning, she told the judge that remains her intent.

[…]

Technically, Vallow Daybell can still change her mind
The state resting was not a surprise. The prosecutor told the judge that it could happen this week.
But Lori Vallow Daybell, who had been fighting tooth and nail to get an expert and certain witnesses on her list, gave all indications she would put on a case.
After the state rested, the jury left the courtroom. The judge asked Vallow Daybell, who is representing herself, what she wanted to do. She took a few moments to confer with her advisory team.
She then put forth a motion to dismiss the case, claiming the state didn't present enough evidence to convict her of the crime. The judge denied that motion. Then she told the judge she wanted to rest her case without calling witnesses or taking the stand herself.
But because the jury wasn't in the room when she said it, she can technically change her mind before closing statements, which are currently scheduled for Monday.

[…]

Will Lori Vallow Daybell change her mind about testifying?

The state resting was not a surprise. But Lori Vallow Daybell gave all indications she would put on a case.

www.12news.com

 

[Tortoise]

Will Lori Vallow Daybell change her mind about testifying?​

The state resting was not a surprise. But Lori Vallow Daybell gave all indications she would put on a case.​

PHOENIX — On late Wednesday afternoon, the prosecutor rested her case against Lori Vallow Daybell. Moments later, Vallow Daybell said she intended to rest, too.
As of Thursday morning, she told the judge that remains her intent.

[…]

Technically, Vallow Daybell can still change her mind
The state resting was not a surprise. The prosecutor told the judge that it could happen this week.
But Lori Vallow Daybell, who had been fighting tooth and nail to get an expert and certain witnesses on her list, gave all indications she would put on a case.
After the state rested, the jury left the courtroom. The judge asked Vallow Daybell, who is representing herself, what she wanted to do. She took a few moments to confer with her advisory team.
She then put forth a motion to dismiss the case, claiming the state didn't present enough evidence to convict her of the crime. The judge denied that motion. Then she told the judge she wanted to rest her case without calling witnesses or taking the stand herself.
But because the jury wasn't in the room when she said it, she can technically change her mind before closing statements, which are currently scheduled for Monday.

[…]

Will Lori Vallow Daybell change her mind about testifying?

The state resting was not a surprise. But Lori Vallow Daybell gave all indications she would put on a case.

www.12news.com

She did release everyone from their subpoenas today though.

 

[Cindizzi]

She did release everyone from their subpoenas today though.

Thanks! I’m so far behind today!

 

[Tortoise]

Thanks! I’m so far behind today!

Seems the jury are being asked to come in at 11am on Monday. LVD will rest her case. Judge will then read jury instructions to the jury, then send them out for an early lunch. Then the closing arguments will start at 1pm.

 

[Izzylizzy]

This is really bizarre.

It's the State's case. The State's case is that LVD conspired with AlexC to murder CV. And they did so by planning it, then executing it that morning.

LVD, who is charged with that crime, made up a different narrative that, at the time, LE "bought" but eventually abandoned in light of new information/evidence abd a fresh investigation. Because LVD's version did not happen. Geez, even AlexC was vague on the supposed precipitating event for which he responded in "self-defense".

But the jury instructions -- some of them go toward LVD's defunct narrative. For example, criminal trespass. How can CV trespass on a property HE leased (for LVD to live in)? He had every right to be there.

The jury gets to sorry this all out, I guess. But first, they have to decide if LVD's is believable because if they decide it's not, I mean honestly, are the jurors supposed to weigh whether... what? LVD was uninvolved and AlexC was acting in self-defense? And CV was kind enough, after tapping AlexC I'm the head with the bat, waiting politely for AlexC to return with a gun?

Maybe the State should have spent more time stressing how AlexC was not a victim acting in self-defense but rather a co-conspirator who participated in precipitating the violence, in which case the ONLY PERSON who could have acted in self-defense in this situation would have been CV.

Why did no one ever ask if AlexC had the right to use deadly force? Castle privilege? It wasn't even his home.

Even if we concede CV was threatening with the bat, AlexC retreated to safety (the room where he had a gun). What legal right did he have to confront CV at THAT point? None IMO. Fear for LVD's safety? JJ and T's safety? According to their version of events, they were outside. With a car. Were they afraid CV would throw a bat at the car? And it would hit them as they drove away?

I hope the jury doesnt get lost in the weeds.

JMO

It's a tough one for sure.
I think LVD's 40+ minute discrepancy is vital for the jury to focus on plus all the texts between CD and her after CV was killed about the insurance beneficiary money and CD's "2 bullets were put in his chest" text.
I don't know which nauseating texts of their so-called spiritual sex etc. the jury got to see.
Oh, and Nephi for good luck.

 

[Tortoise]

Yesterday state said their argument will go over an hour. LVD said hers would be shorter than that.

What on earth has she got to say?

Oh I remember Tragedy!

With no one to love you, you're going nowhere
Tragedy
When you lose control, and you got no soul, it's tragedy...