Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #46

[sunshine4040]

I guess it breaks her jaw to say "Yes your Honor". She probably should be. She is going to be throwing herself at the mercy of the court. Hopefully sooner than later.

 

[cds0902]

Asking a dumb question, do they take your wedding ring off when you go to jail? Earrings?

Yes, you have nothing to call your own in jail.

 

[gumchew]

I’m going to ask a question that I can’t find the answer to and it’s probably right in front of my eyes on the help thread lol... my pup did eat 3 pairs of my glasses so I am down to an old pair. Lol! Yes, I learn things the hard way. Or maybe I just trusted her dang it, lol!

Anyway, is “snipping” just deleting a part of what you’re responding to or quoting? And then adding in the reason so it’s clarified one has changed the content? I haven’t tried it yet but sometimes I quote or reply to longer posts than the info I’m referring to in the post.

You got it in one! Snipping is the time-honored term for cutting down what you're quoting to just the bit you want to respond or refer to.

 

[Michael0808]

You got it in one! Snipping is the time-honored term for cutting down what you're quoting to just the bit you want to respond or refer to.

Thank you so much! I thought so but I didn’t want to delete things in case I was wrong.

 

[vislaw]

I didn't even know how to respond when I heard that...In my opinion, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the court would recommend MM step aside

In this case MM represented Chad only tangentially and not with respect to the criminal charges he now faces. In a situation like this the usual outcome is to have both clients made aware of the potential of a conflict and have them agree on the record to have no objection for MM continuing to represent LVD. If neither CD or LVD object then MM will be free to continue representing Lori. Understand that there have been instances where an attorney has attempted to represent two co-defendants in the same case. Every authority agrees that to be a bad idea, but it technically can be done if both defendants acknowledge the potential conflict and specifically waive any objection. In this case, however, MM is not claiming to represent both defendants currently and the only issue is whether his brief representation of Chad's interests before charges were filed may create a potential conflict. I don't believe it does and expect him to continue representing Lori until she is charged with capital murder. At that time I believe it will be inevitable that someone experienced in capital cases will take over her representation.

 

[fuzzybutter]

I think she requested it because the document had her name as LV. I don’t the the Ms/Mrs mattered. She didn’t want to be addressed as Vallow. MOO

There is a podcast that shall remain nameless, since it is just the podcaster pontificating on the situation, who argues that she doesn’t deserve the name Vallow, since the Vallows are good people. She does deserve to be a Daybell with Chad since he set all this in motion.

 

[BeachSky]

RE: Mrs. Daybell

She’s probably all princess upset because they they called her ”Vallow” in the charging docs. So sad, too bad. The Judge, no doubt was more concerned with saying how Tylee & JJ were found so ” Ms Daybell “ could clearly hear what she(allegedly) DID.
READ: Probable cause documents related to Lori Vallow Daybell's new charges | East Idaho News
In the charging documents SHE is always ”Vallow” ...and they did not use first names sometimes.
Firstly, she was a Vallow when her kids were murdered.
Secondly, to keep her separate from Chad by saying Daybell & Vallow...otherwise they would have to say Daybell & Daybell
Thirdly, who cares..you murdered your children!

MOO

 

[Onsdag]

I’m going to ask a question that I can’t find the answer to and it’s probably right in front of my eyes on the help thread lol... my pup did eat 3 pairs of my glasses so I am down to an old pair. Lol! Yes, I learn things the hard way. Or maybe I just trusted her dang it, lol!

Anyway, is “snipping” just deleting a part of what you’re responding to or quoting? And then adding in the reason so it’s clarified one has changed the content? I haven’t tried it yet but sometimes I quote or reply to longer posts than the info I’m referring to in the post.

Yes. Snipping allows a person to remove extraneous content for focus and/or to reply only to the quoted portion of the post.

 

[Michael0808]

In this case MM represented Chad only tangentially and not with respect to the criminal charges he now faces. In a situation like this the usual outcome is to have both clients made aware of the potential of a conflict and have them agree on the record to have no objection for MM continuing to represent LVD. If neither CD or LVD object then MM will be free to continue representing Lori. Understand that there have been instances where an attorney has attempted to represent two co-defendants in the same case. Every authority agrees that to be a bad idea, but it technically can be done if both defendants acknowledge the potential conflict and specifically waive any objection. In this case, however, MM is not claiming to represent both defendants currently and the only issue is whether his brief representation of Chad's interests before charges were filed may create a potential conflict. I don't believe it does and expect him to continue representing Lori until she is charged with capital murder. At that time I believe it will be inevitable that someone experienced in capital cases will take over her representation.

Great info as always, thank you! I love the capital murder speculation because I am so, so waiting for that charge.
Do you think it was a mistake or lack of experience that caused him to allow the prosecutor this opportunity to raise the issue rather than raise it himself? Or do you think he just reasonably saw it as a non-issue? Or none of the above lol .

 

[gumchew]

In this case MM represented Chad only tangentially and not with respect to the criminal charges he now faces. In a situation like this the usual outcome is to have both clients made aware of the potential of a conflict and have them agree on the record to have no objection for MM continuing to represent LVD. If neither CD or LVD object then MM will be free to continue representing Lori. Understand that there have been instances where an attorney has attempted to represent two co-defendants in the same case. Every authority agrees that to be a bad idea, but it technically can be done if both defendants acknowledge the potential conflict and specifically waive any objection. In this case, however, MM is not claiming to represent both defendants currently and the only issue is whether his brief representation of Chad's interests before charges were filed may create a potential conflict. I don't believe it does and expect him to continue representing Lori until she is charged with capital murder. At that time I believe it will be inevitable that someone experienced in capital cases will take over her representation.

Really? So the prosecutor wouldn't get a say in this? I am a little surprised but I understand. Thank you for the explanation!

 

[Deerrun]

Dbm

 

[Michael0808]

I want to visit what was raised in the last thread during the hearing: how is she paying for this attorney? Early on I thought that perhaps he was not charging a fee in order to profit in the future from the representing her. But now I’m not so sure that someone would risk so much work without pay so early in a case like this.Especially since if it does become capital murder, he is clearly not the guy for the job.
ETA: Chad’s attorney is private as well, correct?

 

[BeachSky]

And so is

CD also right?

Not sure

 

[Onsdag]

There is a podcast that shall remain nameless, since it is just the podcaster pontificating who argues that she doesn’t deserve the name Vallow, since the Vallows are good people. She does deserve to be a Daybell with Chad since he set all this in motion.

I'd be careful with that line of thinking though. By all accounts Chad's parents, who incontrovertibly had the surname of Daybell long before he did, are good honorable people. They hold the Daybell name in honor; it is Chad who has shamefully brought disgrace to their family name and dishonored his parents and other family members with his evil actions.

 

[tripleC]

I think she requested it because the document had her name as LV. I don’t the the Ms/Mrs mattered. She didn’t want to be addressed as Vallow. MOO

The judge says "the person in charge of the camera there with Ms. Daybell will have to unmute that" just before MM says "she would like to be referred to as Mrs. Daybell"

ETA at 1:10 in the video, the second time he calls her Miss, she looks agitated

 

[Michael0808]

The judge says "the person in charge of the camera there with Ms. Daybell will have to unmute that" just before MM says "she would like to be referred to as Mrs. Daybell"

When I was watching live, I missed this part on the feed for some reason. Mine started after this. But when I went back and watched it was a very striking moment for me.

 

[Deerrun]

I think she requested it because the document had her name as LV. I don’t the the Ms/Mrs mattered. She didn’t want to be addressed as Vallow. MOO

Idk, I think the Mrs does matter. I didn't think it mattered either until near the very end of the hearing you can clearly hear MM refer to Lori as MRS Daybell and he seemed to emphasize that. All I have to say is that this is the least of her problems and if that's what she wants to focus on instead of how her dead mutilated children ended up buried in her married lovers yard then she is her biggest problem.

 

[Michael0808]

Idk, I think the Mrs does matter. I didn't think it mattered either until near the very end of the hearing you can clearly hear MM refer to Lori as MRS Daybell and he seemed to emphasize that. All I have to say is that this is the least of her problems and if that's what she wants to focus on instead of how her dead mutilated children ended buried in her married lovers yard then she is her biggest problem.

Agreed. If you watch from the very beginning of the hearing as well, it seems to matter to her and her attorney very much.

 

[vislaw]

Great info as always, thank you! I love the capital murder speculation because I am so, so waiting for that charge.
Do you think it was a mistake or lack of experience that caused him to allow the prosecutor this opportunity to raise the issue rather than raise it himself? Or do you think he just reasonably saw it as a non-issue? Or none of the above lol .

Really? So the prosecutor wouldn't get a say in this? I am a little surprised but I understand. Thank you for the explanation!

I believe MM was focused on the criminal charges and probably didn't feel his actions on behalf of CD constituted representation in the context of the proceedings. Of course, that was wrong and representation is representation and he showed himself to be less than fully prepared in that moment. With regard to the prosecutor raising the issue, it is common for one side or the other to bring an apparent conflict to the attention of the court even though the only persons who have standing on the matter are the client(s) and attorneys directly involved. Putting the matter on the record forces the court to deal with it as you saw today. Otherwise, it would be possible for a defendant to try and raise the matter of conflict as part of an appeal and/or claim of inadequate representation. So, the court will want to get this handled soon and get both LVD and CD on the record as being in agreement that MM can continue to represent LVD without regard to his prior represetnation.

With regard to this question of conflict of interest on the part of defense counsel, the prosecutor does not have standing to insist on anything other than raising the issue for the court. MM has an ethical obligation to avoid conflicts of interest but in a case like this he can easily claim that whether or not he represented CD in the past does not matter as long as he is solely working for LVD now. Interestingly, either Chad or Lori could raise the issue if they wished and claim that the prior conflict prejudices them by virtue of his having received confidential information that might be prejudicial to them at some point. In that instance, either of them could ask the court to remove MM from the proceeding and the court very well might agree. That likely won't happen because Chad and Lori seem to have a common interest for now.

At the point where capital murder charges are finally filed, there should be a number of experienced attorneys willing to take on the case for the publicity and prestige of handling such a high profile case. Most likely MM will try to hang on as local counsel (read errand boy) but will likely get squeezed out IMHO.

 

[Michael0808]

I don’t know about you guys, but whew! What a whirlwind this case has been for me today. Haven’t even delved into the autopsy references yet. Although I am anxiously awaiting the final results like everyone else. For me, it was it was kind of a real heartbreaker reading what was there about JJ and Tylee. And I’m thinking of BB and Colby tonight as well. And Kay and Larry. Thank heavens for them. These monsters sure have cast a very wide net of pain and anguish.
Reading all about this case, all of the things going on here in the U.S., this place sure feels like a safe landing spot in the midst of it all. A place of reason, disagreement with civility, kindness, and humor.
Whether you know it or not you guys give me company and hope. Thank you for that.