Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #55

[indicolite22]

Scott Reisch’s Further Analysis Of The Vallow-Daybell Hearings

 

[Jankee]

My two cents. I feel Woods was totally out of line. He knew what he was doing during that 18 minute dissertation. Shame on him. I believe the judge should remove him now - no need to go through a trial with him, just to have a mis-trial called for later.

 

[indicolite22]

One of the revelations of the secret recording was that apparently ZP has an immunity agreement with the prosecution. I presume this is in regard to the children's case. Why does she need such an agreement and MG doesn't? ZP wasn't in Rexburg when the kids disappeared. I'm skeptical that she volunteered much info to the police, especially if it could harm Lori. She and SS share the same attorney and they accompanied MBP to court, so I'd expect all of them to be on the same page. Perhaps ZP's testimony will help Lori against Chad? Will she blame Alex? I wonder what he told her about the kids. According to IP, Alex and ZP stayed in Vegas after their wedding to "prepare earthquakes". Was it because a distraction was needed to stop the search for the missing children? I think ZP could spin a tale about her role in this case in a number of ways.

 

[sassyblue]

Friday, January 8th:
*Motions Hearing (re all charges) for both (@ 3pm MT) – ID

That should be 1 PM MT, @Niner.

 

[indicolite22]

My opinion on Lori and Chad's possible strategy to shift the blame on Alex when the murder charges drop: There wasn't a death or at least a murder attempt in this entire case that didn't involve Alex. Joseph Ryan, Charles, the children, BB, even Tammy. IMO, not in one of those cases Alex acted on his own. Each time a motive was provided to him by Lori and/or Chad. Charles, the kids, BB and Tammy were declared zombies. Alex would not have profited off any of those deaths unless other people, who stood to gain financially promised him payment. I wonder what his main motivation was: blind loyalty to Lori, loyalty to Chad's cult (surely in the children's case) or just money.

 

[Niner]

That should be 1 PM MT, @Niner.

Court has heard all the arguments and wants to give time to counsel to prepare final arguments, and would like to conclude the hearing this Friday at 3pm

This is where I got the time... so figured it was MT.

??

 

[pizzaman12]

Will they make a ruling today or just hear final arguments?

 

[MTW2011]

My two cents. I feel Woods was totally out of line. He knew what he was doing during that 18 minute dissertation. Shame on him. I believe the judge should remove him now - no need to go through a trial with him, just to have a mis-trial called for later.

agreed. He either thought having this type of discussion, borderline making himself a witness in the case, was fine to have; or he didn’t even think twice because he saw no issue with it. Both lead me to the same opinion, that a good and experienced prosecutor would have avoided this situation like the plague. It basically handed the Defense more to try and use against them before we even get to the jury trial.
The State tried to argue that Summer may not even be called as a witness, and that you don’t see many cases where this has happened before; I think that speaks more to prosecutors avoiding situations like this completely and not to the absence of this happening at all in cases across the country. It just seems very foolish to me, regardless if it is misconduct or not.

 

[MTW2011]

This is where I got the time... so figured it was MT.

??

3pm Eastern time zone // 1pm MT, sorry ‘bout that

 

[Niner]

3pm Eastern time zone // 1pm MT, sorry ‘bout that

who says?

too late to change it anyway... corrected my notes though! Thanks!

 

[MTW2011]

who says?

too late to change it anyway... corrected my notes though! Thanks!

Well, “who says” is the court hearing notice that says the hearing is at 1pm today. I wasn’t able to edit the original to add the time zone
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22-20-838/Notice of Remote Hearing 010721.pdf

 

[Niner]

Well, “who says” is the court hearing notice that says the hearing is at 1pm today. I wasn’t able to edit the original to add the time zone
https://coi.isc.idaho.gov/docs/case/CR22-20-838/Notice of Remote Hearing 010721.pdf

Okay - but as I said can't change it on my post. I can't access ID court sites.

 

[MTW2011]

Okay - but as I said can't change it on my post. I can't access ID court sites.

And I meant I couldn’t change it in my post to add the time zone. Lol, sorry we both misunderstood one another on. Back to your regularly scheduled programming now....

 

[Niner]

And I meant I couldn’t change it in my post to add the time zone. Lol, sorry we both misunderstood one another on. Back to your regularly scheduled programming now....

 

[Tricia]

We will go live on YouTube about 2:30 PM EASTERN and play the audio of the interview with Rob Wood and Lori Vallow's sister Summer.
Then at 3 pm EASTERN you'll hear the audio of the closing arguments to decide if Wood should be removed from the Vallow/Daybell case.
CLICK HERE AND JOIN WEBSLEUTHS AT 2:30 PM EASTERN TODAY

 

[Tortoise]

link for @Tricia

 

[MTW2011]

The State does really seem like they’re grasping here.

When given their chance, they didn’t bring in any witnesses. Now today right before closing arguments they want to bring in an affidavit from Summer and an affidavit from someone else which contains statements Summer apparently said. The State didn’t call Summer to testify for them. They also said multiple times “what if Summer doesn’t testify?” as a way to minimize the Defense witnesses’ arguments and now today they are trying to argue that her testimony is absolutely vital and crucial for the Court to hear. They’re grasping hard, IMH

.....and the Judge denied the Motion from the State, so we will not hear from Summer. He mentioned today was reserved for closings, not these last minute filings from either side.

 

[Campizi67]

My two cents. I feel Woods was totally out of line. He knew what he was doing during that 18 minute dissertation. Shame on him. I believe the judge should remove him now - no need to go through a trial with him, just to have a mis-trial called for later.

As I listened to the audio, I admit it was cringe worthy at moments. I like you, am concerned about the possibility of a mistrial. I am not a legal expert so I am unsure if there are in fact potential consequences to this type of questioning/leading by a prosecutor, but I wonder how different is this to LE questioning possible suspects? I have seen taped interrogations....some are pretty combative. I have also seen witnesses questioned quite aggressively at depositions by attorneys...

I wonder if any of the WS legal experts can tell me: what makes one type of questioning acceptable and another unacceptable? Is it mere common sense? Or is it matters of law and order?

 

[MTW2011]

Mr Prior did just bring up a point in his closing, how can the Court assure him that Wood hasn’t done this with multiple other witnesses? I would guess if he felt comfortable with this “meet and greet” with one person then he would have done it with others.

 

[MTW2011]

As I listened to the audio, I admit it was cringe worthy at moments. I like you, am concerned about the possibility of a mistrial. I am not a legal expert so I am unsure if there are in fact potential consequences to this type of questioning/leading by a prosecutor, but I wonder how different is this to LE questioning possible suspects? I have seen taped interrogations....some are pretty combative. I have also seen witnesses questioned quite aggressively at depositions by attorneys...

I wonder if any of the WS legal experts can tell me: what makes one type of questioning acceptable and another unacceptable? Is it mere common sense? Or is it matters of law and order?

not a legal expert here but from hearing multiple attorney’s perspectives on this, I think a few things would’ve made this significantly better, including but not limited to making it clear this was not introductory and instead an investigative interview, with some third party present (so that you don’t encounter he said-she said issues later on between the prosecutor and a witness), if the State’s theory of the case was not revealed in such explicit detail. im sure others will chime in with more reasons though, and I’ll defer to them