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

[Cindizzi]

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922763909666308312

 

[Tortoise]

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.

If Lori takes the stand however, the State is planning on impeaching her with her prior convictions under Rule 609. The judge said yesterday he will have a hearing on the issue when and if she decides to take the stand.

 

[Niner]

If Lori takes the stand however, the State is planning on impeaching her with her prior convictions under Rule 609. The judge said yesterday he will have a hearing on the issue when and if she decides to take the stand.

did he give any specific date for this hearing? TIA!

 

[Tortoise]

did he give any specific date for this hearing? TIA!

No, it'll be a spontaneous hearing if and when needed during trial.

 

[Izzylizzy]

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.

Your 2c as always is so insightful and appreciated.

Why do you think the state is not calling BB's ex-wife Melani?
Granted that Melanie Gibb and Zulma Pastenes are lesser characters in these cases and are also not being called by the state but LD/defense wanted to call them but Judge Beresky told LD so far she didn't have sufficient reasons about info they have in relation to the BB case and didn't sit down with the prosecutors.

As a caution Beresky is adding their 2 names to the jury form being sent out to potential jurors.

But no ex-wife Melani from either side. ???
imo

 

[arielilane]

@cathyrusson


"Are you done?" Lori still hasn't figured out that she doesn't know how to represent herself. She insisted that in no case EVER does a jury questionnaire list the defendant's name.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922769579945648382

"Every single one of my motions has been denied." #LoriVallowDaybell asks the judge to recuse himself. Judge: "Well, file motions that have a legal basis, and I might grant them."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922771433991668196

 

[MissTilly]

very confused why Melaniece has never been a witness for either side in any of the previous trials as she and LVD were so close and she was living in such close proximity, but it is incredible that she will not be a witness at this trial where the victim is her ex-husband
moo

 

[Nikynoo]

very confused why Melaniece has never been a witness for either side in any of the previous trials as she and LVD were so close and she was living in such close proximity, but it is incredible that she will not be a witness at this trial where the victim is her ex-husband
moo

She was a witness at Chads trial but not Loris. She somehow bailed out of being a witness at Loris trial last minute.

ETA I seem to recall that she got out of Loris trial because she had watched someone’s testimony. I think it may have been Brandon’s?

ETA again. It might have been her current husbands testimony at Loris trial in 2023 she watched. Memory is hazy with all these trials

 

[Megnut]

@cathyrusson


"Are you done?" Lori still hasn't figured out that she doesn't know how to represent herself. She insisted that in no case EVER does a jury questionnaire list the defendant's name.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922769579945648382

"Every single one of my motions has been denied." #LoriVallowDaybell asks the judge to recuse himself. Judge: "Well, file motions that have a legal basis, and I might grant them."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922771433991668196

Are you done?

Oh, she's done.

JMO

 

[tlcya]

@cathyrusson


"Are you done?" Lori still hasn't figured out that she doesn't know how to represent herself. She insisted that in no case EVER does a jury questionnaire list the defendant's name.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922769579945648382

"Every single one of my motions has been denied." #LoriVallowDaybell asks the judge to recuse himself. Judge: "Well, file motions that have a legal basis, and I might grant them."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922771433991668196

this was priceless. The guffaw I guffawed when I watched this exchange.

 

[Diddian]

this was priceless. The guffaw I guffawed when I watched this exchange.

Lori attempting to school a judge on the law emerges with a failing grade herself.

Lori: "They just don't do that." (i.e., use the name of the case, e.g. State vs. Lori Daybell" on the jury questionnaire.)

Judge Beresky: "They do it in every trial I've done."

Like the undercover FBI agent who will be testifying (Balance), that lawyer sitting next to her is going to want the camera to avoid his face as well.

 

[tlcya]

the poor judge, talking to her like his toddler that needs a nap, so very patient and yet over it all at once.

Him attempting to explain to her that her name must be on the juror questionnaire else how can they ask the jury if they've heard about her before will forever live rent free in my head.

 

[iamshadow21]

the poor judge, talking to her like his toddler that needs a nap, so very patient and yet over it all at once.

Him attempting to explain to her that her name must be on the juror questionnaire else how can they ask the jury if they've heard about her before will forever live rent free in my head.

Judges choose a job that entails playing referee between people who become professional arguers for a living. They'd have to cultivate some patience or they'd stroke out after a couple of years.

Although, admittedly I don't think you can really prepare for someone like Lori.

MOO

 

[iamshadow21]

Your 2c as always is so insightful and appreciated.

Why do you think the state is not calling BB's ex-wife Melani?
Granted that Melanie Gibb and Zulma Pastenes are lesser characters in these cases and are also not being called by the state but LD/defense wanted to call them but Judge Beresky told LD so far she didn't have sufficient reasons about info they have in relation to the BB case and didn't sit down with the prosecutors.

As a caution Beresky is adding their 2 names to the jury form being sent out to potential jurors.

But no ex-wife Melani from either side. ???
imo

I don't think it would help either side if she just got up and pled the fifth and refused to answer anything, which I suspect is a nonzero possibility were she called. I think she's very aware that she, of all the coven, is probably in the most danger of prosecution.

MOO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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.

I'm not so sure that's the reason, since they still have that conviction in their 609 request, which is for prior convictions in the event she testifies.

 

[SteveS]

Your 2c as always is so insightful and appreciated.

Why do you think the state is not calling BB's ex-wife Melani?
Granted that Melanie Gibb and Zulma Pastenes are lesser characters in these cases and are also not being called by the state but LD/defense wanted to call them but Judge Beresky told LD so far she didn't have sufficient reasons about info they have in relation to the BB case and didn't sit down with the prosecutors.

As a caution Beresky is adding their 2 names to the jury form being sent out to potential jurors.

But no ex-wife Melani from either side. ???
imo

Thank you for the kind words!

"Why do you think the state is not calling BB's ex-wife Melani?" -- What does MBP have to offer the case, factually, about the attempt to kill BB, that she would share? I am with the judge in thinking she portends to offer nothing that's actual evidence re this event, so there's no justification to have her testify.

The same applies to the others you mentioned.

In the bigger scheme of things, I agree with you that MBP had a huge vested interest in seeing BB dead -- which would imply that she could have been a co-conspirator with LVD to kill BB for insurance proceeds. But is she going to testify to ANYTHING that shows that? No way, nohow, no chance.

For there to be useful testimony, you need:
1 Someone who saw (or knew of) something happening --ie, they can't offer their personal guesses and speculation (beyond a very limited window),
2 That something has to be relevant to THIS accusation,
3 The prosec or def has to know what that is (ie, they can't just haul them to court in a fishing expedition, hoping to find some previously-undiscovered something on the stand out of the blue),
4 The witness to some degree must be willing to testify, AND
5 The something can't serve to put the witness in legal jeopardy in some way (otherwise, they just plead the 5th, and the end result is a big waste of time).

I just don't think there's anything that's both useful AND available to be derived from any of those side characters in the bigger CD-LVD saga.

Oh, and BTW, the idea that you'd offer MBP immunity to testify seems way backwards. They already have LVD locked up for life x 3, and this is just window dressing. So if you have knowledge that MBP is involved, then you want to try MBP and get her locked up too, rather than give her a free ride where she can never be tried, in a quest to get a conviction on something that will have no practical consequence to LVD.

Again just my 2c. (And I'm certainly open to an explanation of something I'm missing.)

 

[SteveS]

I'm not so sure that's the reason, since they still have that conviction in their 609 request, which is for prior convictions in the event she testifies.

My understanding is that the state formally dropped the 609 request, and my comments above were based on that understanding of events that the situation had changed. As I noted, if they did use her prior acts to get a conviction here, and then Karl's actions overturn her conviction for CV, the state also has to retry for BB (if they have gotten a conviction), so imo it makes sense NOT to potentially do the BB trial for nothing.

My understanding was based on what I saw mentioned in multiple places, but didn't spend any time to track down the details to double-check, and I don't have the time to invest (or desire) to chase it further.

For practical purposes, the 609 with an "if LVD testifies" contingency doesn't really help them, since there is ZERO chance she testifies regardless, so there would be no downside to the state to drop it.

But I have misread something, my apologies!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

My understanding is that the state formally dropped the 609 request, and my comments above were based on that understanding of events that the situation had changed. As I noted, if they did use her prior acts to get a conviction here, and then Karl's actions overturn her conviction for CV, the state also has to retry for BB (if they have gotten a conviction), so imo it makes sense NOT to potentially do the BB trial for nothing.

My understanding was based on what I saw mentioned in multiple places, but didn't spend any time to track down the details to double-check, and I don't have the time to invest (or desire) to chase it further.

For practical purposes, the 609 with an "if LVD testifies" contingency doesn't really help them, since there is ZERO chance she testifies regardless, so there would be no downside to the state to drop it.

But I have misread something, my apologies!

They dropped the 404b request, not the 609. Rule 609 only applies to when a witness testifies. 404b applies to the state using prior acts to prove their case. The state here withdrew the 404b but not the 609.

Judge said he won't address the 609 request until LVD does say she will testify.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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

I believe that was her investigator Jeffrey White.