Wasn't there also something in the "light and dark/multiple levels of advancement" belief system they were selling that said a traumatic event could cause an "opening in the veil" so that the person who suffered the trauma could either gain access to the secrets of the other side or alternatively, dark spirits could enter?Perhaps Chad had lied and told Lori and Alex that she had a bad heart...he seemed to be using that lie later on and they thought the noise of shooting a paintball gun with no paintballs at her would be enough to scare her into a heart attack.
It's possible he flinched. The shot at BB had that characteristic (high and to the right).Alex was pretty close to Tammy. I can't believe that he would miss her altogether with multiple shots. IMO he either chickened out or the gun jammed. If he shot at her and missed, wouldn't she see, not just hear something?
But Tammy said ‘he shot at me several times’. I find it odd too that he would miss at such close range. But if he was inexperienced, nervous, and it was nighttime, I guess it’s possible.Yes. Jammed IMO
But Tammy said ‘he shot at me several times’. I find it odd too that he would miss at such close range. But if he was inexperienced, nervous, and it was nighttime, I guess it’s possible.
It's possible he flinched. The shot at BB had that characteristic (high and to the right).
BBM. I doubt Lori (or Chad) told MM that the children were dead before they were found. Chad might have called him that morning to explain what LE were doing on his property. I'm sure he didn't reveal that bodies were buried there. Lori didn't need to be told what she already knew.
But Tammy said ‘he shot at me several times’. I find it odd too that he would miss at such close range. But if he was inexperienced, nervous, and it was nighttime, I guess it’s possible.
MM took on Lori's defense before the children's bodies were found. Should he have quit when the circumstances of the crime became known? Defending the accused is defense attorney's job, not their personal mission.
I get your meaning. However, when the children’s bodies were found on her husbands property in a pet cemetery...YES he should have quit her case. JMO and all that.MM took on Lori's defense before the children's bodies were found. Should he have quit when the circumstances of the crime became known? Defending the accused is defense attorney's job, not their personal mission.
IMO was implied there. I see no logical reason to confess to MM what Lori already knew.BBM
We have no idea what CD said to MM.
MOO
I get your meaning. However, when the children’s bodies were found on her husbands property in a pet cemetery...YES he should have quit her case. JMO and all that.
ETA: I realize no defense attorney is likely to walk out on his client, but I can dream.
I believe that the first attorney, LVD and CD had, walked away from this drama. He was a local guy, when they first went to Hawaii. Sean Bartholick, of Rigby, Andrus & Rigby
I don't think that he had the whole sordid story at that point.
And the female attorney Edwina Elcox standing in court with red lips LVD.I’d like to know why she quit along with attorney Webb right after the states disclosure . Her electric request for stated listed discovery was March 4...she filed to quit mid March
Justin Lum Fox 10 Phoenix
JMO
https://www.fox13now.com/news/local...rom-case-prosecutor-files-discovery-documents
(Letter written by Ian Powlawski )
She shared concerns that she's been told Brandon needed to die and that may indicate that Tylee and JJ needed to die as well," the letter states. "She told me she was worried that [Alex Cox] may have had to 'take care' of the kids. She explained that Al had great faith and never wavered in his trust in the Lord. No task would be too difficult or great for him."
I thought Chad was blaming victims' agency for changing the course of events. Chad and Lori likely weren't changing their minds about murdering their spouses.I am not at all up to date on this thread. Apologies for the dated and possibly repetitive observation. I think I found a glimmer of behavioral responsibility on the part of the accused --- I'm not up to date on the charges--- abandoners? Hiders or evidence? Or do we have murder charges yet?
I found this interview with Melani Gibbs amazing.
Part 2: Melanie Gibb describes zombies, JJ's disappearance and the 'fatal attraction' between Chad and Lori Daybell - East Idaho News
In this interview, M Gibbs is describing her friends' explanations of prophesy. Now I know. Fate is not determined.
"Lori predicted Charles would die in a crash traveling to Arizona from Texas. When that didn’t happen, she questioned why, and Chad responded it was because of 'people’s choices,' according to Gibb. When their prophecies were not fulfilled, Chad said it was due to the fact that people have agency and 'somebody changed their agency.'"
I knew the Chad's prophesies were uncannily convenient. I hadn't realized he believed prophesies can be derailed by humans with agency. That changes everything theologically.
Sadly, no one's agency prevented the fulfillment of the prophesies of Charles' and Tammy's death, at least not ultimately. If you believe humans have agency, you are very much aware that it can be used to murder. And that convenient stuff the special people can see behind the veil is not special. It is basically wishes.
Humans with agency have wishes. And Chad's wishes are what are behind his veil. Dude, don't tell me your wishes. And, as for you, Dudette Lori, I don't want to know your wishes, either, but don't cut yourself short. There is nothing Chad can do that you can't do too.
Dude and Dudette, thanks to the dreadful choices we know you made and the even more dreadful choices we believe you made, we need you both incarcerated. We will give you a fair trial. You have no business feeling sorry for yourself. You have always had agency and the ability to make choices.
I'm speculating it's grand jury indictments for the children's murders. OR..perhaps witness statements gathered by the prosecutor during grand jury proceedings that he wishes to exclude from discovery, while it is work product. Just speculation of course.While there's plenty to speculate about, I'm just going to throw out that I think it's fair to assume that there's something big on the horizon
I was wondering how Scott came to the conclusion he did, concerning who filed the ex parte protective order. One thing I took note of, though, was instead of "ex parte" he said "emergency".
I nearly posted yesterday that my former understanding of "ex parte" more or less meant "emergency". I knew of the term from a child custody case my brother was involved in. He filed ex parte, and it was both from one side, and an emergency.
In further reading yesterday about ex parte, I did come across a site that said lawyers use "ex parte" interchangably with "emergency", though I do not see that in the various state's definition of ex parte on their websites.
However, this is another thing that can be thrown into the mix - that the motion was filed as an emergency request.