ID - Doomsday Cult Victims - Joshua Vallow - Tylee Ryan - Tammy Daybell - Charles Vallow - *Arrests* #67

[TheLoadedGoat]

So if this moves forward to trial, do we think LV will make it all the way through, when things get tough and the world is against her and she has to hear about it everyday? What happens if she becomes incompetent during the trial? Or is that not an option - once competent, always competent? (Just preparing mentally for EVERYTHING!)

 

[Chelly]

So if this moves forward to trial, do we think LV will make it all the way through, when things get tough and the world is against her and she has to hear about it everyday? What happens if she becomes incompetent during the trial? Or is that not an option - once competent, always competent? (Just preparing mentally for EVERYTHING!)

I've been concerned LV would attempt to play the incompetency card again in her trial-delay-strategy. That ploy probably wouldn't suceed in the eyes of the court. I think she is stuck remaining competent... imo.

It appears LV's plan now is to blame Alex for the murders and claim she has witnesses to prove she was in her own apartment when each child died. But, who knows, I think she is capable of pulling every trick in the book, plus some tricks she's written herself. my opinion only

 

[Trebor5591]

I'm not sure how to copy those documents over here. That says they will be allowed to talk in the presence of their attorneys and prosecutors, but the content of their conversations won't be used as evidence. I've never heard anything like it before.

I read those document and I understood the requested talk would be in the presence of their attorneys...but not the prosecutors. I don't understand why they would want to speak to the prosecutors, even if it is off the record. Are you sure you are correct in saying this?

 

[CSIDreamer]

I read those document and I understood the requested talk would be in the presence of their attorneys...but not the prosecutors. I don't understand why they would want to speak to the prosecutors, even if it is off the record. Are you sure you are correct in saying this?

I don’t see prosecution mentioned. Docs (4) attached.

 

[Tortoise]

I read those document and I understood the requested talk would be in the presence of their attorneys...but not the prosecutors. I don't understand why they would want to speak to the prosecutors, even if it is off the record. Are you sure you are correct in saying this?

Reading it again, I think I was wrong about that. I mistook "the attorneys for the parties will attend" to include the prosecuting attorney, but I think you're right, I don't think the State is a party.

It makes more sense, I couldn't understand why the prosecutor would agree not to use it as evidence!

 

[Tortoise]

I'm not a lawyer but I think this request is highly problematic and I'm not sure the court will permit it. My understanding is that an attorney can't make representations of innocence during trial if they know that not to be true. If these discussions break down and don't result in a plea agreement, trial will be stuffed, to use a non-technical term.

As far as I can see the Rules relating to plea agreement discussions pertain to discussions between the prosecutor and the defendant's attorney, not off-the-record plotting between co-defendants.

Why does truth need to be discussed? Just for instance they could use these talks to discuss a 'version' that one of them has fabricated while rotting in their cell. I can already smell the writing on the wall.

 

[watergirl62]

Scott discusses this 21:00-25:30. Basically since they are forced to stay joined they want to touch base to communicate who is rolling on who, or not. Pretty sure he says this cannot happen?

My interpretation is LV wants to see if CD can deny his loin fire and her "million-dollar self" in real life face to face.

 

[TheLoadedGoat]

I'm not a lawyer but I think this request is highly problematic and I'm not sure the court will permit it. My understanding is that an attorney can't make representations of innocence during trial if they know that not to be true. If these discussions break down and don't result in a plea agreement, trial will be stuffed, to use a non-technical term.

As far as I can see the Rules relating to plea agreement discussions pertain to discussions between the prosecutor and the defendant's attorney, not off-the-record plotting between co-defendants.

Why does truth need to be discussed? Just for instance they could use these talks to discuss a 'version' that one of them has fabricated while rotting in their cell. I can already smell the writing on the wall.

BBM "Why does truth need to be discussed?" THIS! If the two MURDERERS (JMO but I am calling them what they are) sit and discuss the crimes, i.e., "you say Alex told you this and I'll say Alex told me that," and it is obvious either or both are changing their story to match the evidence (or plant doubt in light of the evidence) would either attoney be obligated one way or another to reveal that to prosecutors? If the attorneys hear something that incriminates them even more, do they have a legal obligation to reveal that?

 

[Pipersand]

Hello everyone! I do not know the Idaho rules, but it seems to me that if the lawyers are present during these discussions, they would be compellable witnesses to anything the other defendant said as solicitor client privilege would not extend to admissions/disclosures made by the other defendant. Our courts routinely put no contact provisions on between co-defendants - so I am not sure if the Idaho Court could somehow order such a four way discussion to be on a without prejudice basis. Just my thoughts - I'm a civil lawyer, so will wait to be corrected by others more knowledgable.

 

[Tortoise]

State has to file any opposing motions 7 days before the hearing, which would have been January 12th, for the hearing on 19th. Sometimes they don't show up on the Portal for a few days. I'll be looking out for State's response to this, I can't see them agreeing to these sessions, even though it looks on the surface to be a step in the right direction.

The way I'm looking at it, which could be wrong - just because it's a joint trial and they're charged with conspiracy and a common plan, doesn't mean as individuals they defend the charges as a team. Yes they both want to know what the other is going to say but if they're planning on telling the truth they wouldn't need "strategy" sessions.

That's aside from the legal ramifications of their lawyers participating.

Another thing that's interesting is Scott Reisch and Lori Hellis haven't really batted an eyelid between them at this. SR said it will be interesting to see what the court says. LH (youtube live on Wednesday Jan 11th) seems to think "they" want to make an offer to the State. I just can't see what's stopping them doing that individually with their lawyers representing them. Their acts weren't done by one body and one head, their verdicts will be taken separately and mitigation and sentencing will be individual. This looks exactly like scheming.

I think Lori doesn't want to plead guilty to some aspect, to have Chad say at trial, 'she's pled guilty, it proves my defense of Lori and Alex did it'. I'm not sure Chad is ready to admit guilt or has made any overtures of the sort. I don't even think Lori is ready to admit full guilt, she wouldn't be giving an "alibi" if she was. I think she might say she's guilty of not reporting the children's deaths, Alex confessed to her on the day he died. Her personality has always been to demonize others, right back to her early marriages.

I say bring on the trial!

 

[LinasK]

BBM "Why does truth need to be discussed?" THIS! If the two MURDERERS (JMO but I am calling them what they are) sit and discuss the crimes, i.e., "you say Alex told you this and I'll say Alex told me that," and it is obvious either or both are changing their story to match the evidence (or plant doubt in light of the evidence) would either attoney be obligated one way or another to reveal that to prosecutors? If the attorneys hear something that incriminates them even more, do they have a legal obligation to reveal that?

Not sure, but I think a lawyer does have to disclose guilt about his client... I had a friend who was a defense lawyer and she always told me that they never ask their clients if they are guilty for that reason.

 

[Chelly]

State has to file any opposing motions 7 days before the hearing, which would have been January 12th, for the hearing on 19th. Sometimes they don't show up on the Portal for a few days. I'll be looking out for State's response to this, I can't see them agreeing to these sessions, even though it looks on the surface to be a step in the right direction.

The way I'm looking at it, which could be wrong - just because it's a joint trial and they're charged with conspiracy and a common plan, doesn't mean as individuals they defend the charges as a team. Yes they both want to know what the other is going to say but if they're planning on telling the truth they wouldn't need "strategy" sessions.

That's aside from the legal ramifications of their lawyers participating.

Another thing that's interesting is Scott Reisch and Lori Hellis haven't really batted an eyelid between them at this. SR said it will be interesting to see what the court says. LH (youtube live on Wednesday Jan 11th) seems to think "they" want to make an offer to the State. I just can't see what's stopping them doing that individually with their lawyers representing them. Their acts weren't done by one body and one head, their verdicts will be taken separately and mitigation and sentencing will be individual. This looks exactly like scheming.

I think Lori doesn't want to plead guilty to some aspect, to have Chad say at trial, 'she's pled guilty, it proves my defense of Lori and Alex did it'. I'm not sure Chad is ready to admit guilt or has made any overtures of the sort. I don't even think Lori is ready to admit full guilt, she wouldn't be giving an "alibi" if she was. I think she might say she's guilty of not reporting the children's deaths, Alex confessed to her on the day he died. Her personality has always been to demonize others, right back to her early marriages.

I say bring on the trial!

Nicely stated. I agree. Lori and Chad are no longer a team. They are codefendants in murder. They should not be entitled to have pre-trial strategy sessions with each other, even in presence of defense lawyers. Whatever stunts Lori performs now is just Lori being Lori. The court has already bent over backwards for her. Yes, it is time to bring on the trial.
my opinion

 

[pizzaman12]

State has to file any opposing motions 7 days before the hearing, which would have been January 12th, for the hearing on 19th. Sometimes they don't show up on the Portal for a few days. I'll be looking out for State's response to this, I can't see them agreeing to these sessions, even though it looks on the surface to be a step in the right direction.

SBM- Looks like the state did file. See below. I don't see the documents anywhere yet though

 

[pizzaman12]

 

[Tortoise]

Docs just been put up on Justin Lum's Twitter.

https://twitter.com/jlumfox10
Prosecutors in the Vallow Daybell case have “serious reservations” about allowing Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell to meet face to face. Another concern is how a meeting would be facilitated.

 

[Gardenista]

Docs just been put up on Justin Lum's Twitter.

https://twitter.com/jlumfox10
Prosecutors in the Vallow Daybell case have “serious reservations” about allowing Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell to meet face to face. Another concern is how a meeting would be facilitated.


View attachment 395141

View attachment 395142

Awesome. One of the smart attorneys here on WS taught me/us about making an attorney a witness - I believe it was the Petito case. It also may have happened in this case when Lori was talking to that LDS attorney.

Hope the judge goes along with this.

 

[indicolite22]

Lori Hellis thinks that the only Lori's motion that has any chance of acceptance is actually the one we are objecting the most - the motion for a settlement conference. LH points out that it's not necessary for the prosecution to be present and acknowledges some of the prosecution's other reservations (the other attorney becoming a witness, security concerns), but also believes it's an opportunity to get the case settled at all. LH: "The judge might allow some limited or restricted guidelines."

New video:

 

[indicolite22]

Lori Hellis (paraphrased): If Lori admits to knowing that the children were killed in Alex's apartment, it opens her up to a conspiracy charge, which could also refer to the time after the murders - helping to cover up the crime.

 

[indicolite22]

According to LH, Chad's attorney filed a motion (a stipulated order) yesterday concerning consumptive testing on a newly discovered hair sample.

 

[Tortoise]

Lori Hellis (paraphrased): If Lori admits to knowing that the children were killed in Alex's apartment, it opens her up to a conspiracy charge, which could also refer to the time after the murders - helping to cover up the crime.

The first degree murder charges also don't require Lori or Chad to be present at the murders.

... "were concerned in the commission of a first degree murder, and did aid and abet in its commission, or, not being present, advised and encouraged its commission, or by command compelled another to commit the crime and did so with malice aforethought and did so willfully, deliberately and with premeditation, which resulted in the death of a human being, to wit: did either kill Tylee Ryan and/or assist in the killing of Tylee Ryan and/or did encourage the killing of Tylee Ryan and/or did command another to kill Tylee Ryan" ...

https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22211624/Indictment.pdf