AZ - Lori Vallow Daybell charged w/ conspiring to kill ex-husband Charles Vallow and another relative, Brandon Boudreaux, Chandler, Maricopa County #5

[Diddian]

The attorney assisting her has his chair slightly turned away.

As would most anyone out of complete frustration that she acts as though everyone should enter "Lollyworld" in relation to her trials - the judge who she expects will modify courtroom procedures and rules of evidence, potential witnesses who do not receive timely subpoenas, the prosecutor who does not get adequate notice or reports regarding proposed defense witnesses, potential jury members who are supposed to somehow say they have never heard of her without being given her name.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Omg, the back and forth between LVD and the judge in this hearing is hilarious, when she's trying to argue that he should recuse for bias. She is so dim for a goddess.

 

[Diddian]

Omg, the back and forth in this hearing is hilarious, when she's trying to argue that he should recuse for bias. She is so dim for a goddess.

No kidding.

Lori Vallow Daybell: Your persecution complex is not evidence of anyone else's persecution!

 

[Tricia]

WOW. Lori was Loony Tunes today. No surprise. What does she have to loose?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

They clipped that part.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922713506186416639

I love the ending.

LVD: Are you not going to your recuse yourself?

Judge: No, I'm denying your motion.

 

[Cindizzi]

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

MG and ZP? That could get interesting. I'm not sure what they know about BB's case. Maybe Lori should call her niece as her witness.

They would probably know about Brandon being dark. But, going by the witness list, it doesn't look like the state is going to go into the religious aspect at all.

And today, the state said they're not going to even use her prior acts. This trial is looking to be very streamlined compared to the others. I would have thought they would want to include the life insurance angle of the other cases.

Though this one is a more straightforward conspiracy case because LVD is on video storing the jeep tire, so I suppose they don't need the other stuff.

It will be up to LVD to get Melanie and Zulema on the stand, but she couldn't give the judge a reason for their relevance. They are relevant for the prosecution, but not sure how they would help LVD. And it doesn't sound like she has even served them yet (like in last trial), so I'm not optimistic that they'll testify.

Melani P. would also be helpful for the state because she is likely the one who gave Brandon's new address to LVD. It is curious that LVD doesn't name her since she was probably the most loyal to her.

 

[Tricia]

Lauren Matthias from Hidden True Crime is our guest at 10:30 P.M. Eastern. Lauren was in court today and saw the hissy fit Lori threw. Can't wait to hear her description.
Click on the video below and join us tonight.

 

[Cindizzi]

I wasn’t online earlier during the hearing. Just going to post a few tweets for now.


Link to thread :

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922707472223027624

 

[Cindizzi]

 

[Cindizzi]

 

[Izzylizzy]

Hearing ended with some dissension.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922705633880445098

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922706401270329663

Watching that part as I write this.
I have a feeling she's going to lose it during this trial, she already is.
imo

 

[Izzylizzy]

MG and ZP? That could get interesting. I'm not sure what they know about BB's case. Maybe Lori should call her niece as her witness.

How this trial can take place w/o Melani is beyond me.
Granted, the state obviously knows what it's doing I just wish they'd tell us. lol
imo

 

[Izzylizzy]

9:15 PM

 

[Izzylizzy]

Does anyone know who the male lawyer who drew the short straw sitting next to LD is ?

 

[Izzylizzy]

Lauren was in court today.

 

[Izzylizzy]

Megan Conner

 

[Izzylizzy]

Nate & Erica are on vacation,
Except for LD today he has stayed away from news/reporting.
Good to hear.

 

[Niner]

Brandon's case - docket updates

Case Documents
Filing Date Description Docket Date/Filing Party
5/13/2025 PPM – Pro Per Motion/Notice/Mail - Party (001) 5/14/2025/Defendant(2)
NOTE: DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL RULE 15.2 NOTICE OF DEFENSES AND DISCLOSURE

5/13/2025 RMR - Response to Defendant's Motion - Party (001) 5/14/2025
NOTE: NON-PARTY MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF JERRY SHERIDAN'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR TIME TO CONSULT WITH ADVISORY COUNSEL AND TEAM DURING TRIAL

5/12/2025 PPM – Pro Per Motion/Notice/Mail - Party (001) 5/13/2025/Defendant(2)
NOTE: Motion for Time to Consult with Advisory Counsel and Team During Trial

5/12/2025 PPM – Pro Per Motion/Notice/Mail - Party (001) 5/14/2025/Defendant(2)
NOTE: Motion for No Restraint in Trial

5/12/2025 023 - ME: Order Entered By Court - Party (001) 5/12/2025

Case Calendar
Ddate Time Event
5/14/2025 10:00 Pre-Trial Conference

5/29/2025 13:00 Trial [Jury Questionnaires]

5/30/2025 10:00 Trial [Jury Selection]

6/2/2025 10:30 Trial

thru

6/25/2025 10:30 Trial

link: Criminal Court Case Information - Case History

 

[SteveS]

And today, the state said they're not going to even use her prior acts.

Though this one is a more straightforward conspiracy case because LVD is on video storing the jeep tire, so I suppose they don't need the other stuff.

This dropping of using prior acts as evidence in this trial should not be a surprise to anyone - in fact, it's more of a necessity - due to Karl.

The issue with Karl (the possibility of a biased juror in the prior trial) has not been resolved, and very much imperils the 1st verdict. If they use that verdict as evidence in THIS trial, then if that 1st trial does get tossed, the results of this one would have to be tossed also, and it would have to be retried too, due to using unallowable evidence of "prior acts" that had not already actually been proven in court by an unbiased jury.

This makes it clear that the state must NOT be as dismissive of those allegations as they made it sound in their reply to the motion to dismiss.

One workaround would have been to stop and resolve the Karl issue first, and then if the CV trial was tossed, retry her on CV before proceeding to the BB case. I had thought the CV murder to be crucial evidence that makes the BB attempted murder clearer to see.

But they chose otherwise, which is interesting to me, because I had thought the case re BB a bit weaker already. The CV murder had showed Alex being her Designated Killer prior to the attempts on BB, and I felt that was key. It does make me wonder if, having seen the ineptness of LVD in defending the CV case and dealing with evidence and objections, they felt a conviction is going to be easy vs her on BB no matter what, so why not just go ahead.

Just my 2c.