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

[LinasK]

From Justin Lum

DENIED: Lori Vallow Daybell has another motion denied by Judge Beresky. He says she failed to establish relevance in her motion to produce discovery of extradition, nor that the disclosure would lead to any discoverable information linked to crimes she’s charged with.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1879218008117440971

You're doing a great job of representing yourself Lori! Keep going.

 

[Snoopster]

I don't understand how anyone can be there in support of her, mother or not JMO

Maybe they believe that she did what she did because she has mental health issues? I don't take their presence in court to mean that they condone what she did or that they presume she is innocent.
I'll be interested to see how the family dynamics play out during this trial.

 

[Knox]

You're doing a great job of representing yourself Lori! Keep going.

I listened to a recent hearing on a podcast yesterday on my drive home from work. She is utterly ridiculous. What a nightmare for everyone in the judicial system.

Curious, what are her options for appeal when she defends herself and F’s it up?

 

[SteveS]

I listened to a recent hearing on a podcast yesterday on my drive home from work. She is utterly ridiculous. What a nightmare for everyone in the judicial system.

Curious, what are her options for appeal when she defends herself and F’s it up?

Lets keep in mind that it's not as if LVD has any chance of messing up an otherwise-winning case. Nor does she have any chance of changing her AZ future for the worse, since she has to serve multiple life sentences without parole before AZ will be able to impose any punishment on her.

"what are her options for appeal when she defends herself and F’s it up?" -- Because she has chosen to represent herself, she has permanently waived any right to an appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel. She did this while having the help of counsel, in open court, and where it was explained to her and agreed by her multiple times. That waiver explicitly extends to any counsel that would replace her mid-trial for any reason, even if the court makes that decision (such as if she is deemed incompetent during the trial).

She absolutely has the right to speak for herself.

And while I am far from a fan of her and her toxic ways, when we look at it from her pov -- because she has no downside here, why not? I can postulate several logical reasons why this appeals to her that are really NOT about her wanting to put on a "show":
1 Who can better advocate for her own narcissistic need to paint herself as perfect, and misunderstood, and one who has done no wrong? She's not going to get any of that from a lawyer doing lawyerly things at trial. With every witness, she gets to ask questions that paint LVD in a "good light" and she certainly gets to confront each and every witness against her (which is her Constitutional right).
2 What else does she have to do with her time? This allows her to be active and working.
3 What better opportunity does she have to be engaged, inventive, and scheming while confined? She now has the endorsement of the court to research, argue, and try to invent angles and arguments that can persuade others.
4 It's a potential education for her, whether we like it or not. In the long run, if she gains some actual legal skills in the process, in writing and filing motions, it can potentially be useful in her prison life ahead to have (and be able to "sell") that sort of skill as needed.

 

[LinasK]

Lets keep in mind that it's not as if LVD has any chance of messing up an otherwise-winning case. Nor does she have any chance of changing her AZ future for the worse, since she has to serve multiple life sentences without parole before AZ will be able to impose any punishment on her.

"what are her options for appeal when she defends herself and F’s it up?" -- Because she has chosen to represent herself, she has permanently waived any right to an appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel. She did this while having the help of counsel, in open court, and where it was explained to her and agreed by her multiple times. That waiver explicitly extends to any counsel that would replace her mid-trial for any reason, even if the court makes that decision (such as if she is deemed incompetent during the trial).

She absolutely has the right to speak for herself.

And while I am far from a fan of her and her toxic ways, when we look at it from her pov -- because she has no downside here, why not? I can postulate several logical reasons why this appeals to her that are really NOT about her wanting to put on a "show":
1 Who can better advocate for her own narcissistic need to paint herself as perfect, and misunderstood, and one who has done no wrong? She's not going to get any of that from a lawyer doing lawyerly things at trial. With every witness, she gets to ask questions that paint LVD in a "good light" and she certainly gets to confront each and every witness against her (which is her Constitutional right).
2 What else does she have to do with her time? This allows her to be active and working.
3 What better opportunity does she have to be engaged, inventive, and scheming while confined? She now has the endorsement of the court to research, argue, and try to invent angles and arguments that can persuade others.
4 It's a potential education for her, whether we like it or not. In the long run, if she gains some actual legal skills in the process, in writing and filing motions, it can potentially be useful in her prison life ahead to have (and be able to "sell") that sort of skill as needed.

Ineffective counsel, that's hilarious! She has to have an actual lawyer on stand-by to consult.

 

[Kemug]

Maybe they believe that she did what she did because she has mental health issues? I don't take their presence in court to mean that they condone what she did or that they presume she is innocent.
I'll be interested to see how the family dynamics play out during this trial.

They likely don't believe for a second that she is innocent. But they certainly have a huge interest in the case, and being there is the best way to know all that is happening. I really have no opinion about Janis, Lori's mother, but with so much attention on Kay & Larry Woodcock (God bless their loving and generous souls), it seems to me to have been a little overlooked that Janis was also the grandmother of Tylee and JJ - and the still living Colby.

 

[Niner]

Hearing dates stay the same.

Docket updates:

Case Documents
Filing Date Description Docket Date/Filing Party
1/14/2025 023 - ME: Order Entered By Court - Party (001) 1/14/2025

1/13/2025 027 - ME: Pretrial Conference - Party (001) 1/13/2025

link: Criminal Court Case Information - Case History

 

[MySharoanah]

I’ve gotten to a point where listening to Lori talk is like nails on a chalkboard. Her tone, but mostly her cadence when she speaks, are so hard for me to listen to. I might have just read tweets for this trial. I really don’t think I can listen to it.

My mind also thinks about how incredibly insulting it must be for her lawyers to work with her. Lori thinks having experience in the court system is somehow equivalent to spending years learning and practicing law. Yes, I understand the points that SteveS brought up - she really has nothing to lose by being pro se, but it would be so hard being the lawyer assigned to support her when she thinks her experience is on par with theirs. SMH.

 

[LinasK]

I’ve gotten to a point where listening to Lori talk is like nails on a chalkboard. Her tone, but mostly her cadence when she speaks, are so hard for me to listen to. I might have just read tweets for this trial. I really don’t think I can listen to it.

My mind also thinks about how incredibly insulting it must be for her lawyers to work with her. Lori thinks having experience in the court system is somehow equivalent to spending years learning and practicing law. Yes, I understand the points that SteveS brought up - she really has nothing to lose by being pro se, but it would be so hard being the lawyer assigned to support her when she thinks her experience is on par with theirs. SMH.

You have to feel for those lawyers.

 

[mickey2942]

@MySharoanah thank you for the excellent LOL today. LVD no doubt considers herself an amazing faunt of knowledge of the law. Based on her proximity to the courtroom, attorney discussions. And she could probably discuss psychological evaluations, with DSM diagnoses on point.

Hairdresser turns attorney and psychologist. There is a word when people act like they know more about a subject, but actually have just limited information. It is "verbalism". Like reading a book about Mount Everest, rock climbing and mountaineering, makes you an "expert" on Mount Everest, and climbing to the summit.

 

[indicolite22]

VALLOW DAYBELL: A motion to dismiss case for lack of speedy trial was filed by the ‘Doomsday Mom’, making some bold statements. I’ll break down the motion seen below. LVD says speedy trial should happen within 150 days of arraignment which was 12/7/23.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882063855381340530

 

[indicolite22]

LVD cites former defense filing motion for trial continuance which she didn’t want. Then the Rule 11 motion that was granted to evaluated her mental competency, setting the current trial date of 3/31/25. “It has now been 314 days since the defendant was arraigned,” motion states.

Vallow Daybell says Judge Beresky did not want to set trial date for the Brandon Boudreaux case, only scheduling for the Charles Vallow murder case. “The State of Arizona has had plenty of time to figure this out!”

Motion also accused AZ of failing to arraign her on both charges separately, never planning to combine the two cases for one trial. LVD says it will be 394 days since her arraignment when trial begins and she never waived her right to a speedy trial.

LVD says her sixth amendment constitutional right has been violated. “The Government must follow its own rules,” she writes and now wants an evidentiary hearing (page 4).

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882063863086272899

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882063872229871710

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882063879511105833

 

[Deleted member 19575]

Oh total BS. She isn't going anywhere, she's probably going to die in prison and her scummy husband is on death row (I don't support the DP but either way he dies in prison). She killed her kids. She'll be lucky if she isn't murdered in prison, which is why I suspect she filed this continuance.

 

[mickey2942]

Fine. Dismiss the charges, send her back to Idaho. She isn't going anywhere.

 

[Deleted member 19575]

I listened to a recent hearing on a podcast yesterday on my drive home from work. She is utterly ridiculous. What a nightmare for everyone in the judicial system.

Curious, what are her options for appeal when she defends herself and F’s it up?

I don't know what the exact procedures are in the U.S but my guess: she runs out of appeals and dies in prison.

 

[sassyblue]

She is the nasty gift that keeps on giving...

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882063855381340530

 

[Cindizzi]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882063855381340530

 

[imstilla.grandma]

Lori Vallow: Defense atty weighs in on her AZ case

FOX 10 Investigator Justin Lum speaks to criminal defense attorney Russ Richelsoph about the latest in the Lori Vallow Daybell case. Richelsoph is not associated with the case but provides his insight and experience in the courtroom. Vallow Daybell recently filed a motion to dismiss her murder...

www.fox10phoenix.com