ID - Doomsday Cult Victims - Joshua Vallow, Tylee Ryan, Tammy Daybell, Charles Vallow *Arrests* #72

[KonaHonu]

No, that doesn't help. Wish it did. But death of CV is not what she is on trial for, and the motive for his death certainly doesn't apply in this case. She didn't stand to gain back that $1.000,000 if her kids died.

She stood to lose the kids' Social Security payments by killing them. I'm sure she expected no one to find out they were dead but her lawyers can still point out that it was thousands of reasons every month that cost her. That's dicey territory because it reminds jurors of the grand theft guilt.

 

[mickey2942]

I agree in theory -- it certainly can be, if it's the right evidence -- and
(a) I hope THIS circumstantial evidence is strong enough, but
(b) I think most of it is fairly weak sauce so far, with too many holes in the crucial parts, and doesn't get to the PROOF standard yet. I'm far from the only one who sees it like that.

Hopefully there's more, that's better. We'll see what the jury thinks, and hope for the best.

Actually, you may very well be correct. Juries are interesting, because 12 people sit around a large table and each one states what he or she thinks. The foreperson reads the law, the charges.

What I have found interesting about the process, is that some people can interpret the law differently. It is a grey area, with lots of room for interpretation. INMO, the state has provided enough evidence for me, personally to interpret and connect the dots that LVD was complicit in the conspiracy to murder her children.

It may not be enough for you. Which would mean, the jury would listen to both of us, and we would go around the table again. And again. And again. And if 11 people agreed with me, and you were the only hold out, how long would you last? Mistrial? Or would you concede that there was enough evidence for you to agree with the other 11 people?

 

[KonaHonu]

... Juries are interesting, because 12 people sit around a large table and each one states what he or she thinks. The foreperson reads the law, the charges.

What I have found interesting about the process, is that some people can interpret the law differently. It is a grey area, with lots of room for interpretation.

It's also interesting that the judge, who went to law school and has years of experience, has a staff attorney to advise him on the law during trial but the jury does not get an attorney to advise them on interpretting the law during deliberations.

 

[mickey2942]

It's also interesting that the judge, who went to law school and has years of experience, has a staff attorney to advise him on the law during trial but the jury does not get an attorney to advise them on interpretting the law during deliberations.

That is very true. Because the situation I participated in, the law was extremely vague, and really made no sense to any of us "regular folks", so we went with what we thought was right, and made sense to us. We went around the table several times.

In the end, we "split the baby", and found the defendant guilty, but of the lesser charge. Every one went home happy, done our civic duty and all that. The defendant, not so much.

 

[KonaHonu]

It may not be enough for you. Which would mean, the jury would listen to both of us, and we would go around the table again. And again. And again. And if 11 people agreed with me, and you were the only hold out, how long would you last? Mistrial? Or would you concede that there was enough evidence for you to agree with the other 11 people?

If I were a juror, not just on this case but on any, I don't think I would be easily swayed just because I was the only holdout. It might depend a little on what penalty the defendant is facing. I know it shouldn't but if I were on the fence and the defendat was facing 2 years, I might cave. But Lori is facing possibly a life sentence. I would not cave just to placate my fellow jurors.

Mickey, ask yourself, what if you wanted to convict and 11 wanted to acquit. Would you cave in on this case? You seem completely convinced of her guilt, and I don't blame you for that, we all interpret things differently. But would you really vote to acquit because 11 others just wanted to get it over with and go home?

Sure, I think all of us would listen to and respect our fellow jurors and might change our mind. But it should not be just because you are outnumbered.

 

[KonaHonu]

That is very true. Because the situation I participated in, the law was extremely vague, and really made no sense to any of us "regular folks", so we went with what we thought was right, and made sense to us. We went around the table several times.

In the end, we "split the baby", and found the defendant guilty, but of the lesser charge. Every one went home happy, done our civic duty and all that. The defendant, not so much.

Exactly, that's why I think unless we hear much more compelling evidence in this case, this jury may very well take the easy way out and convict her on the grand theft charges but none of the murder or conspiracy to murder changes.

 

[fred&edna]

1 From Lori's POV, Kay had stolen $1,000,000 from her, in a way where Lori would never get it. Because CV changed the beneficiary, Lori had no way to alter it - she was going to be the victim of Kay, and never get the money. So why should she let Kay in her family's life ever again, after Kay stole a fortune from her? That's the other way to see it. Families have fractured permanently for far less than $1,000,000.

2 Lori had fewer resources to work with as a widow, but was making do on what she had, and I certainly don't see how she has to provide some explanation for that. In fact, isn't that how life works, that when you have less, you gotta figure out the best way to avoid extra spending and make it work?

Yes, families can fracture and people can murder others for far less than $1,000,000. Jurors heard from Kay on the stand and her words couldn't be described as vilifying Lori. Jurors heard Larry sobbing. Jurors have heard about Charles' murder. Now, do you really think there's a juror who heard all this, came away with the opinion that Kay, Larry and Charles were spiteful people and wanted to punish Lori based on the fact Kay was the beneficiary? All the times Kay tried to reach Lori were NOT in an effort to further punish Lori and push JJ away.

I don't believe there's a juror in that courtroom who thinks Lori spent the months after Charles' death figuring out how best to care for her family and avoid extra spending. Jurors have seen/heard evidence that Lori spent that time traveling (without children) to AZ, MO, CA, HI to meet with her gal pals where they spent temple time trying to "pray dark people to death." (aka castings). The rest of Lori's time was spent planning an island wedding with her holy-loin-fire boyfriend.

More later (maybe)

 

[SteveS]

It may not be enough for you. Which would mean, the jury would listen to both of us, and we would go around the table again. And again. And again. And if 11 people agreed with me, and you were the only hold out, how long would you last? Mistrial? Or would you concede that there was enough evidence for you to agree with the other 11 people?

That's a good question! Glad it's only hypothetical -- I would hope not to be in a situation where I had to choose between "It seems like she probably did it, and she's a bad bad person, but I don't think it's really proven" and "Let's let her walk."

But I can't say I would give in, if I didn't think prosec had proved her guilty b-a-r-d and was by myself vs 11; but I would be unlikely to think about a mistrial. If I couldn't honestly see something that changed my thinking, if I felt the holes were too big, I would most likely try to convince the other 11 to see it my way. And even more so if it were still a DP case, or with serious penalties.

(As an aside, while it's the easiest wrong to prove, and is likely to be a failsafe to keep her behind bars, I do think the "grand theft" charge won't be a reliable way to get her locked up for the next 30 years. A few months of continued payments that should have stopped is typically resolved by paying back the SS people, and perhaps a short sentence, rather than prison.)

Overall, I think where she's most imperiled by provable crime is in AZ, not ID. I also think AZ would be way less likely to have appeals issues that get the sentence tossed later. AZ might not pursue a trial if she gets locked up in ID for life, but she could face the DP there, where the murder, her motive, and her personal involvement seem fairly obvious (with CV calling LE before he was killed and telling them Lori was working to that end).

 

[mickey2942]

@SteveS agreed. I think that LVD will be convicted in Idaho, but if not, she definitely has a ride and a bed waiting for her in Arizona. And they may go DP on her there.

Personally, if I was LVD, I would chose a prison in Idaho in a heartbeat over prison in Arizona. But either way, she isn't getting out of the mess she has made for herself.

 

[KonaHonu]

(As an aside, while it's the easiest wrong to prove, and is likely to be a failsafe to keep her behind bars, I do think the "grand theft" charge won't be a reliable way to get her locked up for the next 30 years. A few months of continued payments that should have stopped is typically resolved by paying back the SS people, and perhaps a short sentence, rather than prison.)

The penalty for grand theft in Idaho is up to 20 years in prison but your'e right. I don't see her doing hard time for what is probably under $10000 she unlawfully collected. She has already been in jail for almost 3.5 years. I suspected she would get less that 5 years and walk out within a month or two.

ETA: When I say "walk out" I mean being frog-walked by a Maricopa County sheriff deputy.

 

[TigerLou]

I don't want to insinuate or imply in any way that any of this mess has anything to do with the LDS religioin. But all the key players were LDS so I am hoping someone can explain something to me.

What is the significance of the temple visits? Would it be normal for a married man and married woman to visit together without their spouses? Would they have had privacy? Does anyone who is LDS find it unusual for Lori and Chad to visit the Rexburg temple together before Tammy died? Personally I would think Chad would be recognized. Surely he had gone there with Tammy.

I am not familiar specifically with the Rexburg Temple.

Rexburg is a very LDS community and has enough demand to be in construction of a second temple though. And the current one is not small. Also the people who staff temples are volunteers and generally switch off, some work once a week, some work once a month, depending on their personal availability, generally. So a lot of people come and go to staff a temple. Some will come from a great distance. In my area, I know several people who work one shift a month, and drive close to 3 hours one way to do so. I know others who go once a week at the same distance. I know others who live 5 minutes away and do the same one evening a week or whatever. But I also don’t live in such a densely LDS community. I am not sure how big the Rexburg temple district is but since there is soon to be a second, I am sure it’s not that large.

Also, you may go to the temple by yourself, or with whomever you like. But again generally speaking, if it would be inappropriate to go anywhere with someone and your spouse not know about it then it would be absolutely be inappropriate to go to the temple with that person.

But the temple does not regulate who you come and go with. We are all adults and all accountable for our own actions before God.

Regarding privacy in the temple, no, being in the temple is private. It’s quiet and peaceful but not private. The Rexburg temple is fairly large, I would think it would be easy to run into someone Chad knows there. However as it is a place of holiness, unless they are running into each other on the way in or out, they are probably not stopping to have a long conversation about where his wife is. And they very possibly would not realize he was with another woman.

It makes me incredibly sick that these twisted people took my place and Tammy’s place of refuge and peace and used it help to justify their disgustingness. Going to the temple is supposed to be sacred and uplifting and they used it to help justify murder. My heart hurts for those kids, but I am also so so sad that Tammy’s children have not stood up for her how they should. I just do not understand.

I am always amazed at the evilness in the world but these two are on a whole different level.

 

[KonaHonu]

I am not familiar specifically with the Rexburg Temple.

Rexburg is a very LDS community and has enough demand to be in construction of a second temple though. And the current one is not small. Also the people who staff temples are volunteers and generally switch off, some work once a week, some work once a month, depending on their personal availability, generally. So a lot of people come and go to staff a temple. Some will come from a great distance. In my area, I know several people who work one shift a month, and drive close to 3 hours one way to do so. I know others who go once a week at the same distance. I know others who live 5 minutes away and do the same one evening a week or whatever. But I also don’t live in such a densely LDS community. I am not sure how big the Rexburg temple district is but since there is soon to be a second, I am sure it’s not that large.

Also, you may go to the temple by yourself, or with whomever you like. But again generally speaking, if it would be inappropriate to go anywhere with someone and your spouse not know about it then it would be absolutely be inappropriate to go to the temple with that person.

But the temple does not regulate who you come and go with. We are all adults and all accountable for our own actions before God.

Regarding privacy in the temple, no, being in the temple is private. It’s quiet and peaceful but not private. The Rexburg temple is fairly large, I would think it would be easy to run into someone Chad knows there. However as it is a place of holiness, unless they are running into each other on the way in or out, they are probably not stopping to have a long conversation about where his wife is. And they very possibly would not realize he was with another woman.

It makes me incredibly sick that these twisted people took my place and Tammy’s place of refuge and peace and used it help to justify their disgustingness. Going to the temple is supposed to be sacred and uplifting and they used it to help justify murder. My heart hurts for those kids, but I am also so so sad that Tammy’s children have not stood up for her how they should. I just do not understand.

I am always amazed at the evilness in the world but these two are on a whole different level.

Thank you very much for the information.

According to my timeline, which for these two dates is sourced to the current trial, Chad and Lori first met on October 26, 2018 at a PAP conference in St. George Utah. On November 16, 2018 they made their first visit to a temple together, presumably in the Phoenix area. I think this might have been when she had the get together at her house. It was on a Friday.

I've lived in and around several Mormon communities in my life and where I live now there is a disproportionate LDS presence. I even went to primary a few times when I was about 5. But I just am not familiar with what goes on in the temple and why people visit. I wondered if they would have privacy, thinking there might be private rooms for people to worship privately, or in their case, "hookup" as disgusting as that probably is to most LDS folks. But I guess not.

So I guess as followup questions, why do people go to the temple? Would it be a place to go for atonement? Why would LV, MG, and ZP go there together? Would it be a place they might go to meet and discuss their "new theology?"

Part of my reason for asking is that the prosecution introduced the dates of their temple visits as evidence so they must consider it relevant. Idaho is a heavily Mormon state so I think it is reasonable to assume sevel of the jury are affiliated with the LDS church. Do you think this testimony about temple visits has meaning to them that it may not to those of us who are not LDS?

 

[cottonweaver]

I don't know whether you are playing semantics games, or just didn't read all of my post.

The point I made was that something can be important, even if it's technically not required. And when something THAT important -- the fact that there's no explicit evidence of a conspiracy, or of her doing part of a murder - is missing from the evidence, then I think it is going to naturally raise questions and doubts as to whether she was personally involved in the murders.

It may not matter to YOU that we are missing direct evidence of Lori conspiring or murdering. And that's okay that people see it different ways. But it might matter to a juror or three. They may look at all the evidence against Alex and Chad murdering, then see Lori missing, and say, "Wait, where's the beef when it comes to Lori?? Are we sure she wasn't just deceived, and unaware?" I think this case is straddling that line (and the expert on the video, the law professor, shares my concerns, so its not just me; in fact, the law prof says the case against Lori at this point has NOT met b-a-r-d criteria).

Asking a question about the logic = playing games?
Those were not minor, 'technical' issues or semantics, they're fundamental to the case

We have to remember that the basics of what is required for the charges is covered again by jury instructions ( right before the jury start deliberating)
So if, by the time of deliberations, the jury are under fundamental misapprehensions on what's needed for the charges, we could end up with a mistrial because one jury member is bound to talk to the press.

OTOH, we've been told regularly, that this jury are super conscientious so there's every chance that many of jury already made notes but equally they're ordinary members of public like us- not lawyers- so this is down to State, closing & instructions. Hopefully they can pull that off next week

I didn't reply to your next paras on JJ meds, LI policy & social security payments, because I didn't want to do a very long post but happy to address your points on those, if you wish

 

[cottonweaver]

I respectfully disagree. Circumstantial evidence can be every bit as powerful as direct evidence.

Heard one lawyer liken it to a bag of puzzle pieces, another to a construction project. ( there are more scholarly quotes on CE from eminent legal types but anyway....)

The puzzle analogy is a good one because it tries to symbolise the totality of evidence & how pieces of CE interlock to build the whole.

You sort all the puzzle pieces, sky, grass, the big building in the centre, or whatever....
You do the puzzle.
As you near completion you may have some pieces missing but you can determine the final the image nonetheless.

( If otoh you have a whacking number of missing pieces or ones in key areas which means you can't tell whether the key building is a church or a school, then you have a problem)

 

[cottonweaver]

It's also interesting that the judge, who went to law school and has years of experience, has a staff attorney to advise him on the law during trial but the jury does not get an attorney to advise them on interpretting the law during deliberations.

Wow, I didn't know that but have never been a fan of this judge. (Nor of the system of appointments per se) otoh Judge Eddins previously, he exuded confidence

Fingers crossed that the judge's instructions are useful & I hope that during deliberation, if required, the jury submit questions

 

[cottonweaver]

@SteveS agreed. I think that LVD will be convicted in Idaho, but if not, she definitely has a ride and a bed waiting for her in Arizona. And they may go DP on her there.

Personally, if I was LVD, I would chose a prison in Idaho in a heartbeat over prison in Arizona. But either way, she isn't getting out of the mess she has made for herself.

Also, considering the total number of counts she's been indicted on, I'd be surprised if the jury can only find for one- Grand Theft.

 

[Nikynoo]

I agree in theory -- it certainly can be, if it's the right evidence -- and
(a) I hope THIS circumstantial evidence is strong enough, but
(b) I think most of it is fairly weak sauce so far, with too many holes in the crucial parts, and doesn't get to the PROOF standard yet. I'm far from the only one who sees it like that.

Hopefully there's more, that's better. We'll see what the jury thinks, and hope for the best.

To some degree, I agree that some of the circumstantial evidence is ‘weak sauce’. However the defence has not poked holes big enough (IMO) to make the ‘sauce’ weaker. The defence could have gone to town in some areas eg Zulema and MG, but they did not. One has to question why this is the case. IMO the prosecution has not been particularly strong, but perhaps slow and sure wins the race. The defence, IMO, has not been as vigorous as I would have liked to have seen.

 

[Nikynoo]

Wow, I didn't know that but have never been a fan of this judge. (Nor of the system of appointments per se) otoh Judge Eddins previously, he exuded confidence

Fingers crossed that the judge's instructions are useful & I hope that during deliberation, if required, the jury submit questions

IIRC, both the prosecution and defence agree the jury instructions. That’s how it works in civil cases, so I’m making an assumption it works the same for criminal. Can anyone confirm?

 

[Nikynoo]

Also, considering the total number of counts she's been indicted on, I'd be surprised if the jury can only find for one- Grand Theft.

At the moment, I think LV will be found guilty of Grand Theft and Conspiracy for the murders of Tylee and JJ. I was hoping for evidence relating to the murders of the children but it seems that the prosecution has not provide much evidence (even circumstantial) that Lori was involved in the actual murders. At the moment, I think she will be found not guilty of Conspiracy in relation to Tammys murder.

 

[SteveS]

We have to remember that the basics of what is required for the charges is covered again by jury instructions ( right before the jury start deliberating)
So if, by the time of deliberations, the jury are under fundamental misapprehensions on what's needed for the charges, we could end up with a mistrial because one jury member is bound to talk to the press.

OTOH, we've been told regularly, that this jury are super conscientious so there's every chance that many of jury already made notes but equally they're ordinary members of public like us- not lawyers- so this is down to State, closing & instructions. Hopefully they can pull that off next week

I didn't reply to your next paras on JJ meds, LI policy & social security payments, because I didn't want to do a very long post but happy to address your points on those, if you wish

I gave my thoughts on what I see as weaknesses in the case and why, because I was asked. Those items (and others), I don't even need an attorney to tell me that there are plenty of innocent explanations for each of them, or they are being overplayed.

Reminder that the defense hasn't brought their case yet at all. Although it has seemed apathetic, and can't understand them refusing to challenge or point out the glaring weaknesses in what's being presented. Perhaps they intend to do that later? Or think it's all incredibly obvious? It's their case, I guess.

One reality that keeps getting ignored -- the jury is not bound to see any of the evidence in the way that is most favorable to the prosec. And I'm not convinced the pieces (as presented so far) can hold up to any sort of scrutiny. We'll see what happens and hope for the best.