Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *Arrests* #57

[SleuthD-o-doubleg]

Hi Sleuth,
I’m guessing MM is at the detention center today with his client? Thank you for your daily updates.

We’ve had a slow go of things today. I’ll check when we get organized.

 

[SleuthD-o-doubleg]

Local update: MM is at the women’s detention center today.

*not sure how long he has been there today but definitely for the last hour.

 

[EstrellaEspectral]

Melanie Gibb Subpoenaed by MM.

“The latest filing from Mark Means in the Lori Vallow #Daybell case. There is a subpoena for Melanie Gibb for a lengthy list of items that range from texts, recordings and talks of "burner" phones. A certificate of service shows Gibb received the document last Wednesday.“

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericgrossarth/status/1396957977379176450

 

[SleuthD-o-doubleg]

Melanie Gibb Subpoenaed by MM.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericgrossarth/status/1396957977379176450

He’s asking for a lot. Does it seem like he may be trying to pin the whole thing on her? Is this for change of venue or for actual trial? Is it possible MM has most of this from RW but he doesn’t want to search or wade through the amount of data? Does this officially mean MM has been granted the ability to stay on as court appointed attorney?

All jmo moo imo

 

[MTW2011]

It appears the papers reportedly served to Melanie last week were for this case. Of note, IMO, is EastIdahoNews saying "In the declaration of service, it reads, "Melanie refused to take the subpoena from my hand so I advised her she had been served regardless and I left the subpoena anyway." ......unfortunately for her that's not how that works, they don't go away just because you refuse them, ha.
I am already seeing some say this subpoena is ridiculously long and that he is just "reaching"....IMHO I don't agree with that, just a quick comparison to other subpoenas in other Idaho cases and this is pretty normal in both length and content....

I combined the pages into a single PDF, not sure if this will work but I will try.

 

[SleuthD-o-doubleg]

Melanie Gibb Subpoenaed by MM.

“The latest filing from Mark Means in the Lori Vallow #Daybell case. There is a subpoena for Melanie Gibb for a lengthy list of items that range from texts, recordings and talks of "burner" phones. A certificate of service shows Gibb received the document last Wednesday.“

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericgrossarth/status/1396957977379176450

Also really curious why he needs to know what internet provider she uses?

 

[MsJosie]

Melanie Gibb Subpoenaed by MM.

“The latest filing from Mark Means in the Lori Vallow #Daybell case. There is a subpoena for Melanie Gibb for a lengthy list of items that range from texts, recordings and talks of "burner" phones. A certificate of service shows Gibb received the document last Wednesday.“

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericgrossarth/status/1396957977379176450

Yep, I said it earlier.

 

[MTW2011]

Also really curious why he needs to know what internet provider she uses?

I would guess likely to try and cross-verify anything that has to do with things like messages/emails/communications sent/received/viewed as well as the details associated with them, like when, from what machine, etc, etc.

 

[SleuthD-o-doubleg]

Melanie Gibb Subpoenaed by MM.

“The latest filing from Mark Means in the Lori Vallow #Daybell case. There is a subpoena for Melanie Gibb for a lengthy list of items that range from texts, recordings and talks of "burner" phones. A certificate of service shows Gibb received the document last Wednesday.“

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericgrossarth/status/1396957977379176450

Something else that’s curious is how come DW isn’t mentioned here in the people MG had contact with?

 

[MsJosie]

It appears the papers reportedly served to Melanie last week were for this case. Of note, IMO, is EastIdahoNews saying "In the declaration of service, it reads, "Melanie refused to take the subpoena from my hand so I advised her she had been served regardless and I left the subpoena anyway." ......unfortunately for her that's not how that works, they don't go away just because you refuse them, ha.
I am already seeing some say this subpoena is ridiculously long and that he is just "reaching"....IMHO I don't agree with that, just a quick comparison to other subpoenas in other Idaho cases and this is pretty normal in both length and content....

I combined the pages into a single PDF, not sure if this will work but I will try.

a special thank you..it came through just fine, all of the document

As I recall, Melanie Gibbs does not currently have a lawyer…..is that right?

MM may have opened Pandora’s Box and not helped his client….that’s my opinion only.

 

[SleuthD-o-doubleg]

I would guess likely to try and cross-verify anything that has to do with things like messages/emails/communications sent/received/viewed as well as the details associated with them, like when, from what machine, etc, etc.

That would seem like a reasonable thing to do. Thanks for clearing that up

 

[DI_Isokawa]

Melanie Gibb Subpoenaed by MM.

“The latest filing from Mark Means in the Lori Vallow #Daybell case. There is a subpoena for Melanie Gibb for a lengthy list of items that range from texts, recordings and talks of "burner" phones. A certificate of service shows Gibb received the document last Wednesday.“

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericgrossarth/status/1396957977379176450

Looks like we can add MM to the list of people who believe this affair involved a larger group. Perhaps they did indeed throw Lori under the bus when she wasn't able to deliver the $1 Million, and she's decided not to go quietly. A very interesting list of folks in that subpoena.

 

[MTW2011]

That would seem like a reasonable thing to do. Thanks for clearing that up

I would also add that it might be because of an expectation that she can't (or will try not to) produce all of this stuff, and trying to get it through another way is an option.
IMO it seems pretty standard in this type of stuff, subpoenas can be very broad in what is being asked for

 

[pizzaman12]

Melanie Gibb Subpoenaed by MM.

“The latest filing from Mark Means in the Lori Vallow #Daybell case. There is a subpoena for Melanie Gibb for a lengthy list of items that range from texts, recordings and talks of "burner" phones. A certificate of service shows Gibb received the document last Wednesday.“

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericgrossarth/status/1396957977379176450

Certainly makes you wonder the validity of the recording making its rounds. This seems to have come out of left field

 

[pizzaman12]

I would guess likely to try and cross-verify anything that has to do with things like messages/emails/communications sent/received/viewed as well as the details associated with them, like when, from what machine, etc, etc.

Much of this would be platform specific and not just ISP. If you're using burner phones, odds are you're using a VPN. Things like Facebook, AVOW, Twitter, etc...are going have more information as the the user's account.

How are they going to cross verify? It's not like they'll have access to the ISP's records because she tells them she has Spectrum, Cox, etc...I could say I made a post on Websleuths and I use Comcast...Ok? How are you going to verify that?

I'd without a doubt lawyer up if she hasn't already. I'm not saying she's innocent in all this, but this is a joke in my opinion. Do you know what law enforcement has to go through and provide to get warrants for even a fraction of what they're asking her to produce in 14 days? Good luck getting all 764 entities MM is requesting to even comply without probable cause showing the account contains evidence of a crime. As someone above stated, much of this he probably has already in the terabytes of data in his possession. What a clown

What are MG's legal options right now in regards to a response?

 

[MTW2011]

Much of this would be platform specific and not just ISP. If you're using burner phones, odds are you're using a VPN. Things like Facebook, AVOW, Twitter, etc...are going have more information as the the user's account.

How are they going to cross verify? It's not like they'll have access to the ISP's records because she tells them she has Spectrum, Cox, etc...I could say I made a post on Websleuths and I use Comcast...Ok? How are you going to verify that?

I'd without a doubt lawyer up if she hasn't already. I'm not saying she's innocent in all this, but this is a joke in my opinion. Do you know what law enforcement has to go through and provide to get warrants for even a fraction of what they're asking her to produce in 14 days? Good luck getting all 764 entities MM is requesting to even comply without probable cause showing the account contains evidence of a crime. As someone above stated, much of this he probably has already in the terabytes of data in his possession. What a clown

What are MG's legal options right now in regards to a response?

As one example, logging into Facbook, on a burner phone or not, generates records on Facebook's side of things. Regardless of how I access it. I can say I don't have or cannot produce any records of when I accessed Facebook, but Facebook can try to produce something if subpoenaed. An ISP provider can show some websites that were accessed, when they were accessed, etc.
I used the word "cross-verify" and you may have misinterpreted it, it doesn't mean solely, in my opinion, that Melanie produces something and ____ produces something else and you verify if they match. In my opinion it can also be, Melanie produces nothing and _____ produces electronic records....."verified" IMO. Sorry, I did not have a better term to describe what I was trying to.

She has numerous options to responding to a subpoena, like everyone else does, she can:
-try to comply and produce as many records in relation to what is written on the subpoena
-comply and produce some records while claiming some specific records are privileged or contain privileged information
-comply and produce some records while claiming some specific records are confidential and/or contain confidential information
-object to some or all specific records because they are (confidential, privileged, unable to access, etc, etc, etc)
-object to producing some or all of the records requested because there is not enough time, the burden to do so is too high and unreasonable, the subpoena is too vague or ambiguous, etc....
-completely ignore the subpoena and produce nothing

The options are not an infinite but there are many; you can combine/remove/change out some of terms (privileged info, confidential info, etc) with just some of the scenarios and you can start to see the multitude of options..... It will be interesting to see what she does in a little less than a week

 

[GoofyJen]

I object to MM in general. Is he serious with that thing? He, nor his client, have the right to 99% of what he is asking for. The whole thing is way to vague!

 

[Forever Young]

Is the subpoena in regard to the change of venue motion? Is it to show that MG on her own tainted the jury pool with her letter to AVOW and being in communication with that list of people, while she supposedly gave a true accounting of what happened?

I'm not getting it because its supposed to be in defense of Lori, and that's the only reason I can come up with on why MM is subpoenaing this information. Rob Wood has surely interviewed the pertinent ones which would be available on discovery. Any ideas anyone?

 

[MTW2011]

I object to MM in general. Is he serious with that thing? He, nor his client, have the right to 99% of what he is asking for. The whole thing is way to vague!

I don't like him either but this is standard stuff here.....heck, many subpoenas I have seen had even more overly-broad "any and all" language. He is absolutely allowed to ask for all of this stuff, it doesnt mean he is entitled to get it or that he will get any or all of it. But it is part of the process in the system we have....

Is the subpoena in regard to the change of venue motion? Is it to show that MG on her own tainted the jury pool with her letter to AVOW and being in communication with that list of people, while she supposedly gave a true accounting of what happened?

I'm not getting it because its supposed to be in defense of Lori, and that's the only reason I can come up with on why MM is subpoenaing this information. Rob Wood has surely interviewed the pertinent ones which would be available on discovery. Any ideas anyone?

Really great question, and I am not entirely sure. I dont think there is any extraordinary legal maneuver being planned by the Defense here, I think this is coming down to just proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It just takes one juror....try to convince them (or at least just one of them) that yeah, we can see surely something bad happened her and to Tammy. Tylee and JJ but is Lori responsible, have you been given proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Sadly I think back to Baez in Casey Anthony's case....just have to focus on getting someone to think that the State hasn't proved everything beyond a reasonable doubt, not enough to convict his client. I believe some of Melanie's own words have placed her very close to things that will be at question here like:

Melanie previously testified that she arrived in Rexburg on 9/19 and she stayed until 9/23...she said she stayed at Lori's townhome. She said night on 9/22 they recorded a podcast, that night she said she also recalls Alex bringing JJ into her house and he was "asleep"....
Just my 2cents and all that.

 

[Forever Young]

I have another opinion, too. Isn't this almost like a search warrant? I would think a judge would have to issue an order, not MM subpoena them. MOO