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

[Cindizzi]

J. Lum’s 5:00 pm report tonight

 

[Megnut]

I had expected the state to also address the reasonable and proportionate aspect of self-defense and to my knowledge they didn’t. Admittedly, I’ve missed a lot of this trial and of the state’s closing today. But since one of their goals was to dispel the notion of self-defense why not bring up that CV went to pick up his son that morning completely unarmed and someone in the house introduced weapons to the situation - whether you believe that Tylee brought in the bat or not it is a weapon that CV did not bring and he certainly didn’t bring the gun. He was picking up his son - not picking a fight. If CV had killed AC that day, that would have been self-defense but bringing weapons into the verbal argument supposedly going on between CV & LVD is not reasonable and proportionate and was not self-defense. Did the state bring that up and I missed it?

She did, briefly. Highlighting the 2nd shot. Victim was down.

She could have made a stronger point IMO.

Then again, the facts come from liars. There's no evidence the bat was used.

It comes down to this: what's a more credible interpretation? -- some kind of protective sekf-defense or..... an execution?

If CV swung the bat, somebody would be DEAD of blunt force trauma.

State is likely right -- he was never armed.

JMO

 

[Cindizzi]

Here is Maricopa County Prosecuting Attorney Treena Kay's rebuttal argument in the Lori Vallow Daybell conspiracy to commit murder trial. This was given on 21 April 2025 in Maricopa County, Arizona.

 

[Cindizzi]

I had expected the state to also address the reasonable and proportionate aspect of self-defense and to my knowledge they didn’t. Admittedly, I’ve missed a lot of this trial and of the state’s closing today. But since one of their goals was to dispel the notion of self-defense why not bring up that CV went to pick up his son that morning completely unarmed and someone in the house introduced weapons to the situation - whether you believe that Tylee brought in the bat or not it is a weapon that CV did not bring and he certainly didn’t bring the gun. He was picking up his son - not picking a fight. If CV had killed AC that day, that would have been self-defense but bringing weapons into the verbal argument supposedly going on between CV & LVD is not reasonable and proportionate and was not self-defense. Did the state bring that up and I missed it?

In her Rebuttal she talks about self defense under Arizona law.
Around 5:18

 

[Seni]

Repetitions from State were a bad move IMO.

Rather condescending, as if the Jury didnt get it the first time..


We agree, she went over time. Could have made everyrhing more succinct

But Treena will prevail.

Will she be prosecutor in Brandon's case?

 

[Izzylizzy]

IMO she didn't need to mention Tylee. She's was a child.

It implied she was part of the conspiracy but again, she was a child. She's not a major character.

JMO

Yet if her mother,Chad and Alex didn't kill her she would have been a very major character in the trial.

imo

 

[Izzylizzy]

She did, briefly. Highlighting the 2nd shot. Victim was down.

She could have made a stronger point IMO.

Then again, the facts come from liars. There's no evidence the bat was used.

It comes down to this: what's a more credible interpretation? -- some kind of protective sekf-defense or..... an execution?

If CV swung the bat, somebody would be DEAD of blunt force trauma.

State is likely right -- he was never armed.

JMO

dbm

 

[Izzylizzy]

Could the jury have asked questions to LVD and the state during the closing?

 

[Izzylizzy]

Colby on closing arguments.

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1914386865446179300

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1914476629658943675

 

[Niner]

Tuesday, April 22nd:
*Trial continues (Day 10)-VERDICT WATCH! (Charles) (@ 10:30am MST) - AZ – Charles Vallow (62) shot & killed on July 11, 2019 in Chandler, AZ. *Lori Norene Daybell aka Lori Norene Vallow (46 @ time of crime/48/now 51) indicted (6/24/21), charged & arraigned (12/8/23) with 1 count of conspiracy to commit 1st degree murder. Plead not guilty. Held without bond. Maricopa County
AZ – Brandon Boudreaux (34/now 40) attempted murder on Oct. 2, 2019 in Gilbert, AZ. *Lori Norene Vallow (46 @ time of crime/49/now 51) indicted (2/24/22), charged & arraigned (12/7/23) with 1 count of 1st degree premeditated attempted murder. Plead not guilty. Held without bond. Maricopa County
Jury selection [for Charles] began on 3/31/25 & went thru 4/16/25.
Jury consisted of 12 jurors & 4 alternates. [13 men & 3 women]. As of 4/9/25: 12 jurors & 2 alternates. [12 men & 2 women].
Trial [for Brandon Boudreaux]: Pretrial management conference on 5/14/25 @ 10am. Jury questionnaire & 404(b) hearing on 5/29/25 @ 1pm. Jury selection for voir dire on 5/30/25 @ 10am. Judge sets 6/2/25 for start of Boudreux trial. Trial will be Monday thru Friday, the following week [6/9-13/25-Judge might cancel 6/13/25 date] will be Monday thru Friday & the Judge may be gone for training the following week [6/16-20//25]. Then from 6/23-25/25.
Trial began on 4/7/25. Prosecutors rested their case on 4/16/25 & defense rested their case on 4/21/25. @10:30am to 4:30pm [State wants 4/24/25 as half day]. NO Court on Fridays or 4/28 or 4/29/25.
Jury deliberations [10 men & 2 women]: 4/21/25: 3:15pm to 4:30pm [1 hour 15 minutes].
Judge Justin Beresky presiding. State’s attorney Ryan Green. DA Treena Jeanelle Kay. Vallow-Daybell Pro Se with advisory Defense attorneys Gerald Bradley & Denae Suchy.
Case info from 2/24/22 thru 3/27/25 & Jury selection Days 1-2 (3/31 & 4/1/25) & 4/4/25 & Trial Day 1-8 (4/7-4/17/25) reference post #53 here:
https://websleuths.com/threads/az-l...eaux-chandler-maricopa-county-4.741528/page-3
4/21/25 Monday, Trial Day 9: *Morning hearing: Both the defense & prosecution have gone over the jury instructions & have no issues. Vallow had to 2 issues [see posts 78 & 79, page 4 & post #82, page 5, thread #4 for info].
*Vallow-Daybell rested her case in front of the jury.
*Judge Beresky read the jury instructions.
*Closing arguments by DA Treena Kay [closing 1 hour 45 minutes] & by Lori Vallow-Daybell [closing about 15 minutes]. Rebuttal by DA Treena Kay [about 7 minutes]. Jury left for deliberations [about 3:15pm to 4:30pm].
Trial continues with jury continuing their deliberations on Tuesday, 4/22/25.
ID – Vallow found guilty of all charges & sentenced to 3 consecutive life sentences without parole on 7/31/23.

 

[Diddian]

Live now.

Both Peter (LawyerYouKnow) here and Megan Conner appearing as guest with Tricia (Websleuths YouTube) Monday night mentioned the PowerPoint slides and clips that Treena Kay played throughout her closing statement. I expect that those helped jurors reinforce the various points in their minds (supplementing verbal presentation with visuals makes what is presented easier to quickly comprehend and remember) and may have made the lengthy closing statement not seem as long as it did to those of us hearing but not seeing what was presented.

I assume that the PowerPoint slides and clips do NOT go with the jury into the deliberation room, correct?

 

[iamshadow21]

Both Peter (LawyerYouKnow) here and Megan Conner appearing as guest with Tricia (Websleuths YouTube) Monday night mentioned the PowerPoint slides and clips that Treena Kay played throughout her closing statement. I expect that those helped jurors reinforce the various points in their minds (supplementing verbal presentation with visuals makes what is presented easier to quickly comprehend and remember) and may have made the lengthy closing statement not seem as long as it did to those of us hearing but not seeing what was presented.

I assume that the PowerPoint slides and clips do NOT go with the jury into the deliberation room, correct?

Closing statements aren't evidence. The exhibits that were sampled to create the PowerPoints would be available in the form they were accepted in during the trial.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

I thought Treena did an excellent job. Yes she went on a bit, but I do wonder if she had a close eye on the jury during trial and maybe perceived a juror or two with short attention span. There are lots of wacky aspects to this case which if you're not that familiar with Lori would be easy to think were not deadly serious, and I'd rather an extra hour spent going over everything a few times than a jury not fully in possession of the story Lori never told, and having to do trial all over again.

 

[Love Never Fails]

From East Idaho News Live Updates on Day Four of LVD’s trial at 4:02 pm: “Lori had Charles cremated and his cremains were sent via FedEx to Kay’s office. Some high school jackets and trinkets were also sent. ‘Charles had a watch collection and she just sent some crap.’ “

LIVE UPDATES: Kay Woodcock cries while testifying on day 4 of Lori Vallow Daybell's 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

And at 6:32:51 in this video of Kay’s testimony:

WATCH LIVE: Day 4 of Lori Vallow Daybell's Arizona trial - East Idaho News

PHOENIX — The fourth day of Lori Vallow Daybell’s trial in Arizona is scheduled for Thursday. 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

I saw that. But imo it was glossed over! There was no mention that Kay was shocked to get his remains in a box or that Lori sent the remains to his young sons. Nor the fact that both sons asked for a nice watch from their dad’s collection. She sold those and sent them crap. This could haven brought out and if it was I never heard it.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Megan uploaded this yesterday.
"My deep dive into family psychology"


"15,807 views Apr 21, 2025 ✪ Members first on April 20, 2025 #LoriVallow #CarlJung #TrueCrime
What makes a mother turn deadly? In this chilling deep dive, we explore the Devouring Mother archetype through Lori Vallow Daybell’s toxic mothering. Drawing on Carl Jung’s warning of a mother who “devours, seduces, and poisons,” we uncover how Vallow’s controlling, delusional, and destructive behaviors led to unimaginable tragedy. From her doomsday cult prophecies to the loss of her children, we’ll break down the psychological traits of this dark archetype and why it’s more real than you think. Perfect for true crime fans and psychology buffs alike! "

 

[Nikynoo]

I saw that. But imo it was glossed over! There was no mention that Kay was shocked to get his remains in a box or that Lori sent the remains to his young sons. Nor the fact that both sons asked for a nice watch from their dad’s collection. She sold those and sent them crap. This could haven brought out and if it was I never heard it.

I would imagine that the closing statement from the prosecution would want to focus on the elements of conspiracy and the events of that day, so that the jury can focus on the elements of the crime and find the defendant guilty.

 

[Tortoise]

I would imagine that the closing statement from the prosecution would want to focus on the elements of conspiracy and the events of that day, so that the jury can focus on the elements of the crime and find the defendant guilty.

I agree. Otherwise it looks as if they are asking the jury to convict based on Lori being a despicable heartless person, which Lori could say prejudiced them against her. They did right - focusing on her lies, her expressed beliefs, her planning and manipulation of Alex and wider family, her love affair, her money motive, and above all the murder/setting Charles up/staging/and disproving self-defence. I'm sure the jury won't forget Kay distressed about being sent the ashes and Lori denying her JJ at the service to help him over the death of his dad.

The state does not want to give her any grounds for appeal.

 

[iamshadow21]

I saw that. But imo it was glossed over! There was no mention that Kay was shocked to get his remains in a box or that Lori sent the remains to his young sons. Nor the fact that both sons asked for a nice watch from their dad’s collection. She sold those and sent them crap. This could haven brought out and if it was I never heard it.

But Lori could have done those things and not been a murderer. They're signs of being an awful, insensitive person, but they're not evidence.

Not in the way that some of her words and actions are.

MOO