Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #53

[dixiegirl1035]

RSBM To me one of the most damning things was to tell Chad's parents that Lori had no minor children. They weren't just in hiding, she gave them up. She could not reintroduce them later.

I missed this fact. Where was this published/stated? Does anyone have a link for that TIA. (assuming not the lie about giving to Kay and Larry etc.... so question is what was the story, and one which included they could not reintroduce them later.... I've got a brain lapse on this)

 

[dixiegirl1035]

This is so on topic for potential things to expect in this case for another one at WS. So putting out here...

I find it interesting that Crime Talk, in his discussion of the case with Leticia Stauch/Gannon Stauch he talks about mental disorder/defect exams and DA going for mental competency exams.

As to how this relates to this case with Lori/JJ.

In that case, they issued subpoenas for her medical records, and the subpoenas have been recently quashed by the court as was seen as a fishing expedition.. "You can only subpoena documents that you know exist"

Looking back, I do hope that those records that the docs office for JJ said... "hey, we have Tylee records to, don't you want those" (paraphrase) are allowed in.

Also quashed in Stauch case were the records from the school system . As compared to this one, will all of the records/information from JJ's school system info come in?

Also, can they come in on record of having to go to the Caring Bridge. Wonder what information from Caring Bridge will come in.

Crime Talk said they may if there were previous ones for the Stauch case... but did Lori ever appear for the required other ones during divorce? I wish I could recall straight off the top of my head.

I wonder which atty... Chad or Lori's.. will be the driver for hearings, and which will just be the coattail atty who merely plagiarizes anything the other atty does (ha! guess which one that will be.. the one that is delaying and making sure they go second?)

source for this MOO: Crime Talk - Kenosha Wisconsin Updates, Suzanne Morphew Updates, Golden State Killer Climbing Furniture And More!

 

[CSIDreamer]

I missed this fact. Where was this published/stated? Does anyone have a link for that TIA. (assuming not the lie about giving to Kay and Larry etc.... so question is what was the story, and one which included they could not reintroduce them later.... I've got a brain lapse on this)

It seems like he mentioned that in his application for a room for rent in Kauai? Jmo

Found it:

Email shows Lori Vallow's husband home hunting for 'clean couple with no pets or children'

 

[mrjitty]

It has to be about the concealment because those were the only charges applicable at the preliminary hearing.

I think he's angling that LV buried her children in CD's yard without CD's knowledge, perhaps not even on the dates when Alex's phone was there. I think he has to point the finger at LV because she said she was hiding her children. He'll have to paint Chad as being gullible and smitten by the very persuasive Miss Vallow.

I don't think he'd have to say LV acted alone, that would be speculative, and they'd say police never investigated anyone else. same old same old, smoke and mirrors. Yes, perhaps he'll say LV used Alex's phone to visit Chad?

I think the stories are going to have to be crazy but that's nothing new in murder trials.

moo

Nice spot!

I guess it might be difficult for anyone to believe that Chad didn't know, but I agree the strategy is likely to be about his active involvement with a fall back position - but it won't be an active version - just trying to create doubt.

1. Can the jury be sure CD was actively involved in the burials, even if he knew about them? Maybe he just kept quiet?

Fallback

2. He was was actively involved in the burials but not the murders

IMO the problem with 1 is it is hard to believe AC went out there twice to bury bodies, and CD just let that slide, then went on with the charade in Hawaii etc

So I tend to think the defence is sailing towards the idea of CD not being an accessory to the murders, which will be the real game in town?

 

[dixiegirl1035]

It seems like he mentioned that in his application for a room for rent in Kauai? Jmo

Found it:

Email shows Lori Vallow's husband home hunting for 'clean couple with no pets or children'

Yes, I recall that the children were not with them when checking into the place in HI, but I don't recall what the OP said "To me one of the most damning things was to tell Chad's parents that Lori had no minor children. They weren't just in hiding, she gave them up. She could not reintroduce them later."

 

[dixiegirl1035]

Nice spot!

I guess it might be difficult for anyone to believe that Chad didn't know, but I agree the strategy is likely to be about his active involvement with a fall back position - but it won't be an active version - just trying to create doubt.

1. Can the jury be sure CD was actively involved in the burials, even if he knew about them? Maybe he just kept quiet?

Fallback

2. He was was actively involved in the burials but not the murders

IMO the problem with 1 is it is hard to believe AC went out there twice to bury bodies, and CD just let that slide, then went on with the charade in Hawaii etc

So I tend to think the defence is sailing towards the idea of CD not being an accessory to the murders, which will be the real game in town?

and iirc, one of the burial sites had sod on top, not just turned dirt. Someone had to purchase such.

 

[lake daze]

If we go by the pings on Alex's phone, it would be nearly impossible for 1 person to bury the kids without help. There would not be enough time, IMO. I think Chad really thought that those kids wouldn't be reported missing so soon, because everyone would believe one of their stories about the children's new caregivers. He probably thought the grass would look filled in by the time anyone may suspect him. I think in his mind, not many people would tie those kids to him and search his property. It was Lori's problem, he was just the new man in her life.

 

[Forever Young]

Yes, I recall that the children were not with them when checking into the place in HI, but I don't recall what the OP said "To me one of the most damning things was to tell Chad's parents that Lori had no minor children. They weren't just in hiding, she gave them up. She could not reintroduce them later."

I do remember reading somewhere that when Chad introduced Lori to his parents, he said she was an "empty nester". To me, as an empty nester myself, it only means that my children are grown and no longer live with me. I don't see that that phrase precludes an introduction to them at a later time. In fact, had things gone right, she could have later introduced CR to her new in-laws. I notice that his parents on the witness list.

 

[indicolite22]

Yes, I recall that the children were not with them when checking into the place in HI, but I don't recall what the OP said "To me one of the most damning things was to tell Chad's parents that Lori had no minor children. They weren't just in hiding, she gave them up. She could not reintroduce them later."

The first sentence about Chad's parents takes facts from court documents. The last two are my commentary. If she denied the (minor) children's existence in the first place, she would not be able (or had no intention) to introduce/mention them to his parents after they came out of hiding.

 

[Forever Young]

and iirc, one of the burial sites had sod on top, not just turned dirt. Someone had to purchase such.

Couldn't sod have just been the original top layer of grass and dirt that was where the grave was dug, and not necessarily a purchase of new sod?

 

[indicolite22]

I do remember reading somewhere that when Chad introduced Lori to his parents, he said she was an "empty nester". To me, as an empty nester myself, it only means that my children are grown and no longer live with me. I don't see that that phrase precludes an introduction to them at a later time. In fact, had things gone right, she could have later introduced CR to her new in-laws. I notice that his parents on the witness list.

The only problem is that JJ was too young for her to be an empty nester. He was definitely not grown. I don't see Colby being introduced to Chad's children without asking about Tylee and JJ.

 

[indicolite22]

It seems like he mentioned that in his application for a room for rent in Kauai? Jmo

Found it:

Email shows Lori Vallow's husband home hunting for 'clean couple with no pets or children'

When they visited another potential landlady in Hawaii they told her that they both had children of their own who were back home and were getting along well. That person later looked Chad up and started asking questions.

 

[Forever Young]

The only problem is that JJ was too young for her to be an empty nester. He was definitely not grown.

LV was telling people that she was going to give him back to the Woodcocks. I'm sure that in Lori's mind he was not her child.

 

[Forever Young]

Are we talking about the murders here or just concealment of the bodies? Is JP's theory that Lori killed her children without anyone's knowedge and buried them in Chad's backyard, while carrying Alex's phone? Or did she kill them on her own and then enlisted Alex and Chad to bury the bodies? It's very difficult to believe that Alex wasn't involved in the murders. If he was, then Chad was too. Why would Lori and Alex only involve Chad in the concealment part? It's not like they couldn't find another place for burial. IMO the police will find signs of premeditation that will bring everyone down.

It would be difficult for Lori to do everything on her own.

I wouldn't be difficult for Alex to do everything on his own, but he wouldn't use Chad's backyard.

If Lori and Alex did it together, they wouldn't use Chad's backyard.

I guess I don't understand why they would not use Chad's backyard. I think it is the most likely place, seeing that Lori and Alex did not own property of their own. They needed somebody who would do anything for Lori.

 

[Forever Young]

In my opinion it's how they play the courtroom game of getting something in that wouldn't normally be allowed in, and it flopped in any event.

You want to establish that if LV wouldn't confide in the brother who followed her from State to State like a lamb and even gave up his job to be live in the house next door to her, she is unlikely to have told anyone at all. So because brother is dead you establish a sister who can give an opinion on how LV would treat people as close as her brother. That's why, imo, he tried twice to get MG to say they were as close as sisters, the second time showing his frustration with her when she still wouldn't give him the answer he wanted. "Is there a reason why you're not saying yes?" - asked with a snarl.

I imagine he would have replied to the objection with something along the lines of 'I think I should be allowed to ask the surrogate 'sister' her opinion since the equally close brother isn't available to the defense'. It was a long build up to trying to get her to qualify on the stand to give that opinion.

MOO

Yes, and also the fact that MG was persuaded to lie for Lori. MG can say what she will about Chad being the hand inside of Lori's puppet, but who was the hand inside MG's puppet?

 

[indicolite22]

LV was telling people that she was going to give him back to the Woodcocks. I'm sure that in Lori's mind he was not her child.

She was JJ's legal guardian at the time. He was her child in her custody until he was murdered by her. She even told police that Kay was trying to take him away without having the right to do so.

 

[indicolite22]

I guess I don't understand why they would not use Chad's backyard. I think it is the most likely place, seeing that Lori and Alex did not own property of their own. They needed somebody who would do anything for Lori.

So you murdered someone and you don't own any property. Instead of burying the body far away from public view (tons of possibilities around Rexburg) you pick someone's backyard where you could be seen and the grave discovered? Or you find someone willing to let you use their property and become an accomplice?

 

[Forever Young]

So you murdered someone and you don't own any property. Instead of burying the body far away from public view (tons of possibilities around Rexburg) you pick someone's backyard where you could be seen and the grave discovered? Or you find someone willing to let you use their property and become an accomplice?

Much more likely to get caught using someone else's property without express permission. I don't buy that there were tons of available places around Rexburg where a body could be buried undetected. If that were the case, and Chad did it, why didn't Chad just go pick a spot besides his backyard?

 

[indicolite22]

Much more likely to get caught using someone else's property without express permission. I don't buy that there were tons of available places around Rexburg where a body could be buried undetected. If that were the case, and Chad did it, why didn't Chad just go pick a spot besides his backyard?

Either because he's stupid or he's a control freak (IMO). Take you pick. There's plenty of space in the woods (or similar) where nobody would bother you.

 

[Forever Young]

Either because he's stupid or he's a control freak (IMO). Take you pick. There's plenty of space in the woods (or similar) where nobody would bother you.

Or, because it was not planned by 2 or 3 people, and it was the closest proximity to where the murders occurred. It was an emergency solution.