AZ - Lori Vallow Daybell charged w/ conspiring to kill ex-husband Charles Vallow and another relative, Brandon Boudreaux, Chandler, Maricopa County #4

[Tricia]

Join us TONIGHT at 8:00 PM Eastern as death investigator Joseph Scott Morgan answers your questions. CLICK HERE TO WATCH JSM LIVE TONIGHT AT 8:00 PM EASTERN

 

[Cindizzi]

Here is the state's response to LVD's motion.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1920242952464708041

I took screenshots of the State’s response to LVD’s Motion for a new trial.
For @Niner in case she can’t access Twitter/X

 

[Cindizzi]

Here is the state's response to LVD's motion.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1920242952464708041

I took screenshots of the State’s response to LVD’s Motion for a new trial.
For @Niner in case she can’t access Twitter/X

View attachment 584380View attachment 584381View attachment 584382

 

[Cindizzi]

I took screenshots of the State’s response to LVD’s Motion for a new trial.
For @Niner in case she can’t access Twitter/X

View attachment 584380View attachment 584381View attachment 584382

 

[Cindizzi]

View attachment 584385View attachment 584386View attachment 584388

 

[Cindizzi]

View attachment 584389View attachment 584390
View attachment 584392

 

[Cindizzi]

View attachment 584393View attachment 584394View attachment 584395

 

[LinasK]

Question: How long was the juror supposed to wait before Googling Lori? Until he was out of the courtroom? The trial was already over. Once I was dismissed as a potential juror, I googled the suspect in my case as soon as I got home.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1920264870718550508

Tylee Ryan's aunt launches app containing information about Daybell case - East Idaho News

IDAHO FALLS — A new app containing comprehensive information about the Daybell murder cases is available to the public beginning this week. Annie Cushing, Tylee Ryan’s aunt, has spent years working on the project while finishing her master’s degree in data science. “I started pulling together...

www.eastidahonews.com

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1920302100053213313

 

[Niner]

Thank you @Cindizzi for all that info!

 

[Izzylizzy]

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Here's the Motion for New Trial and the Response in pdf format.

 

[MTW2011]

Question: How long was the juror supposed to wait before Googling Lori? Until he was out of the courtroom? The trial was already over. Once I was dismissed as a potential juror, I googled the suspect in my case as soon as I got home.

Treena cites a lot of timestamps from a Hidden True Crime interview but skips over when he claims he doesn’t remember both when or how he learned of her other convictions. “I can't really recall how I found that out. I can't really remember, but um I I don't it it's hard to it's it's hard to say. (Approx timestamp at 21 minutes in).

IMOO if Treena was confident in her claims about this juror, she could’ve done any number of things to support her arguments like having him file an Affidavit, telling the Court she’d welcome jurors to be questioned about when/how they learned of her prior convictions, but instead we only have her word. They’ve done this in other cases so doing that isn’t exactly new territory for them, but yet this reply is meant to be taken at just her word.

Like Karen Read’s defense attorneys have pressed on several witnesses on their own changing stories, I think his memory would’ve been clearer closer to when the actual events happened, not several days later.

Him being confused/misspeaking just doesn’t make sense to me. He associated thinking about her “3 life sentences” with “driving home”. If we are to believe he got confused and didn’t mean “yesterday”, then we would have to believe that he was thinking about her life sentences during an event (driving home) that hadn’t even happened yet that day. He had not drove home that day, so when would he have been thinking of her other life sentences? He said this right after the verdict. If he didn’t attach the comment to something he did, then I could see a higher possibility that he was confused on the days. I’m sorry to seem like I’m harping on this issue but it just doesn’t add up for me.

Much like Karen Read’s attorneys have asked witnesses with changing stories if their “memory gets better with time”, I would be curious if he thinks his memory gets better with time. (Though, seeing as once more time had passed he “couldn’t remember” how and when he learned of this info, I would say his memory is probably not getting better with time…) But knowing that the judge wasn’t all that upset over a juror on their phone during testimony, I think they’ve been phoning much of this trial in and it’s really disappointing for the victims. This could’ve been avoided lMOO.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Treena cites a lot of timestamps from a Hidden True Crime interview but skips over when he claims he doesn’t remember both when or how he learned of her other convictions. “I can't really recall how I found that out. I can't really remember, but um I I don't it it's hard to it's it's hard to say. (Approx timestamp at 21 minutes in).

IMOO if Treena was confident in her claims about this juror, she could’ve done any number of things to support her arguments like having him file an Affidavit, telling the Court she’d welcome jurors to be questioned about when/how they learned of her prior convictions, but instead we only have her word. They’ve done this in other cases so doing that isn’t exactly new territory for them, but yet this reply is meant to be taken at just her word.

Like Karen Read’s defense attorneys have pressed on several witnesses on their own changing stories, I think his memory would’ve been clearer closer to when the actual events happened, not several days later.

Him being confused/misspeaking just doesn’t make sense to me. He associated thinking about her “3 life sentences” with “driving home”. If we are to believe he got confused and didn’t mean “yesterday”, then we would have to believe that he was thinking about her life sentences during an event (driving home) that hadn’t even happened yet that day. He had not drove home that day, so when would he have been thinking of her other life sentences? He said this right after the verdict. If he didn’t attach the comment to something he did, then I could see a higher possibility that he was confused on the days. I’m sorry to seem like I’m harping on this issue but it just doesn’t add up for me.

Much like Karen Read’s attorneys have asked witnesses with changing stories if their “memory gets better with time”, I would be curious if he thinks his memory gets better with time. (Though, seeing as once more time had passed he “couldn’t remember” how and when he learned of this info, I would say his memory is probably not getting better with time…) But knowing that the judge wasn’t all that upset over a juror on their phone during testimony, I think they’ve been phoning much of this trial in and it’s really disappointing for the victims. This could’ve been avoided lMOO.

I'm right there with you and thanks for taking the time to express so articulately what I also believe but gave up posting about it.
I had posted that this will go nowhere unless the judge questions the other jurors and finds out something was up with Karl or anyone having info about LVD that they shouldn't have had while still deliberating.
I guess it's as simple as a juror saying they misspoke, were misinterpreted and knew nothing that they shouldn't have.
The judge should have dismissed Karl.
Karl was called out 3 x, texting during the trial, talking during the trial with another juror about his SS issues and was reported to the judge by Treena for being on his cell phone/scrolling right before sending the judge questions, he told Lauren during his interview that he asked the medical questions.
Hopefully Judge Beresky gets his act together for BB's trial about cell phones in his courtroom and jurors not being sequestered during court hours.
IMO

 

[MTW2011]

I'm right there with you and thanks for taking the time to express so articulately what I also believe but gave up posting about it.
I had posted that this will go nowhere unless the judge questions the other jurors and finds out something was up with Karl or anyone having info about LVD that they shouldn't have had while still deliberating.
I guess it's as simple as a juror saying they misspoke, were misinterpreted and knew nothing that they shouldn't have.
The judge should have dismissed Karl.
Karl was called out 3 x, texting during the trial, talking during the trial with another juror about his SS issues and was reported to the judge by Treena for being on his cell phone/scrolling right before sending the judge questions, he told Lauren during his interview that he asked the medical questions.
Hopefully Judge Beresky gets his act together for BB's trial about cell phones in his courtroom and jurors not being sequestered during court hours.
IMO

Yeah, this will be an unpopular opinion but I’ve been pretty disappointed with this Judge. Between him keeping (and filing as part of the official court record) notes say Alex Cox came to court and testified, to his VERY limited notes on what even happened with the juror caught on their phone, I do hope some things improve by the next trial.

Noting that Alex testified was much more than a simply typo IMO, appellate courts will *only* reference what’s in the official case record in the future….that “simple error” can easily snowball into “well if they got that wrong in official court records, what else might be wrong? Can we trust the full court record?” Beyond that, some of his notes have Alex testifying on days when Adam didn’t even testify, effectively (JMOO) undercutting any claim of “well he meant Adam Cox, see it’s the same day Adam testified”….

And I really still can’t get over the whole phone thing, even if no juror looked up anything, WHY on earth were they able to have their phones during testimony?! Seems like just a foolish idea - on all sides.

 

[SteveS]

While I am hoping that the issue with Karl was simply a case of "he misspoke," I am really dissatisfied with the state's motion, in several ways:

1 It simply glosses over what Karl said and we all saw, never even stating it (as if they hope the judge doesn't find out) where he said that "yesterday" he was pondering how the correctness of this verdict didn't matter since she already had 3 life sentences.
... In that or another impromptu post-trial interview in which he said the troubling statement, Karl did say he had not heard of Lori before he was a juror. But to be specific, after the trial-in-chief but before the jury reached a verdict, had he somehow found out that she was already convicted with 3 life sentences? Because that IS what he said. And the state in their reply doesn't even address it.

2 The state's reply gives great weight to the video with HTC - in which she is kinda trying to whitewash the issue for him, without actually saying it. She's far from a neutral party, and if it was a trial, we'd say she was leading the witness (or trying to). This would never work as evidence in a trial. IN FACT, the one time she asked him straight out, he really deflected from answering (and I wondered if he didn't want to admit what he truly did, having come to recognize it was wrong, but didn't want to lie).

The bottom line for me, is that HTC podcast is NOT an objective way to determine the TRUTH of what he said and meant. It was not an adversarial questioner. It was not under oath. And the state uses it as gospel? Not good.

3 I didn't see where the state even questioned him! Seems to me they just cherry-picked convenient comments, rather than looking for the facts.

My hope is that he simply misspoke, but I'm not at all convinced that's really what happened. IMO there's only 1 way to settle this properly -- there needs to be an actual hearing.

Karl should get on the witness stand in front of the judge, and be asked direct questions under oath, with the rksk of perjury part of the mix, and testify as to what happened.

Not HTC questions that let him side-step a bit, and where there's no oath and a sympathetic helpful questioner. Let a good attorney or judge ask specific targeted questions in a way that prevents any weasel answer from being said. Ask the hard questions about what he meant THAT DAY when he said THIS (not broad questions whose answer could be excused as "before the trial" questions). And if necessary, maybe even say, "BTW Karl, what would the court find if it examined your personal phone or computer for the search history at that day or before." Let him consider the need to be honest and fess up, to whatever he meant.

If they would do that, THEN it would feel like this got examined properly. But this reply they've written? It's not good at all.

While it's not convenient to Karl, or others, to have a hearing and perhaps end up with a redo of the trial, the truth and a FAIR trial really matters. Not that she'll win if they try her again, but if you want to try her, you MUST have an impartial jury. You don't want her getting off on appeal somewhere down the line, because a juror messed up and it was swept under the rug, imo.

Oh, and I don't think you can unring the bell if he did mean what he said. It very well may have impacted his vote, all votes were necessary, and NO WAY to rerun it and see what he would have thought otherwise. IF he did a lookup, that is.

 

[Diddian]

While I am hoping that the issue with Karl was simply a case of "he misspoke," I am really dissatisfied with the state's motion, in several ways:

1 It simply glosses over what Karl said and we all saw, never even stating it (as if they hope the judge doesn't find out) where he said that "yesterday" he was pondering how the correctness of this verdict didn't matter since she already had 3 life sentences.
... In that or another impromptu post-trial interview in which he said the troubling statement, Karl did say he had not heard of Lori before he was a juror. But to be specific, after the trial-in-chief but before the jury reached a verdict, had he somehow found out that she was already convicted with 3 life sentences? Because that IS what he said. And the state in their reply doesn't even address it.

2 The state's reply gives great weight to the video with HTC - in which she is kinda trying to whitewash the issue for him, without actually saying it. She's far from a neutral party, and if it was a trial, we'd say she was leading the witness (or trying to). This would never work as evidence in a trial. IN FACT, the one time she asked him straight out, he really deflected from answering (and I wondered if he didn't want to admit what he truly did, having come to recognize it was wrong, but didn't want to lie).

The bottom line for me, is that HTC podcast is NOT an objective way to determine the TRUTH of what he said and meant. It was not an adversarial questioner. It was not under oath. And the state uses it as gospel? Not good.

3 I didn't see where the state even questioned him! Seems to me they just cherry-picked convenient comments, rather than looking for the facts.

My hope is that he simply misspoke, but I'm not at all convinced that's really what happened. IMO there's only 1 way to settle this properly -- there needs to be an actual hearing.

Karl should get on the witness stand in front of the judge, and be asked direct questions under oath, with the rksk of perjury part of the mix, and testify as to what happened.

Not HTC questions that let him side-step a bit, and where there's no oath and a sympathetic helpful questioner. Let a good attorney or judge ask specific targeted questions in a way that prevents any weasel answer from being said. Ask the hard questions about what he meant THAT DAY when he said THIS (not broad questions whose answer could be excused as "before the trial" questions). And if necessary, maybe even say, "BTW Karl, what would the court find if it examined your personal phone or computer for the search history at that day or before." Let him consider the need to be honest and fess up, to whatever he meant.

If they would do that, THEN it would feel like this got examined properly. But this reply they've written? It's not good at all.

While it's not convenient to Karl, or others, to have a hearing and perhaps end up with a redo of the trial, the truth and a FAIR trial really matters. Not that she'll win if they try her again, but if you want to try her, you MUST have an impartial jury. You don't want her getting off on appeal somewhere down the line, because a juror messed up and it was swept under the rug, imo.

Oh, and I don't think you can unring the bell if he did mean what he said. It very well may have impacted his vote, all votes were necessary, and NO WAY to rerun it and see what he would have thought otherwise. IF he did a lookup, that is.

Well stated.

 

[Tricia]

The thread is now closed. Please continue the discussion HERE