Found Deceased ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Tammy Daybell, 49, Sept & Oct 2019 *Arrests* #62

[Teche]

Do you think LV remains in jail because the evaluation and treatment is complete? I can't imagine that she’s being transported daily to the facility or receiving therapy virtually. Well, maybe she exciting/rendering via the portal.

 

[CuriousQuiet1]

Do you think LV remains in jail because the evaluation and treatment is complete? I can't imagine that she’s being transported daily to the facility or receiving therapy virtually. Well, maybe she exciting/rendering via the portal.

Before Covid the doctors in my spouses psychiatric practice would go to jails, prisons, and court appearances frequently. Since about April of 2020 not one doctor in her office has physically gone to a jail, prison, or court room. Not everything has gone virtual but anything related to incarcerated people has gone 100% virtual. I would be surprised if LV is seeing therapists in person. Maybe things are different in Idaho. MOO

 

[CuriousQuiet1]

woah. smart minds think alike, or something like that I think, ha. I was in the middle of writing something just like this, mentioning the other attorneys who were involved very briefly, very early on. You got it all laid out very clearly, so I only have one thing to add …

one small detail is that Bartholick was actually one of the principal attorneys who hired Rob Wood out of law school. He worked with their firm for a few years, Bartholick was initially his boss and then later on his colleague after Wood worked his way up their chain. I thought it was interesting, knowing that, when Bartholick got himself off the case pretty quickly too. I’ve always wondered if he was attempting to avoid any potential issues that could possibly be brought up considering their close work-history (and if that wasn’t a factor then maybe it was Chad having little funds to pay for an attorney, who knows).

Wood practiced much more “water law, estate planning, and personal injury” [this is and was some of their services listed on their practice website] among other areas which has always intrigued me considering he’s a prosecutor now and almost all his previous work was so different.

I missed the connection between Bartholick and Rob Wood. Interesting, thank you.

Back to the meat of kshultz06082's question that I feel like we deflected with some history, I have also always wondered how MM became part of this case. He is far away. He is inexperienced. His website a year ago would scare away anyone who could spell. How did he show up at Lori's first hearing in Idaho? Random attorney who happened to answer the phone that day? Or is he connected to Chad and/or Lori by family, friends, religious beliefs, AVOW, or in some other way?

And JP... one day the judge talks about conflict of interest and magically a second attorney at the same address as MM, 429 S.W. 5th Avenue Meridian, ID shows up? What is JPs connection to MM? Or his connection to Chad?

 

[watergirl62]

So could the current conflict of interest be the same as the previous conflict of interest but refiled relative to the murder cases? The judge found no conflict on lesser charges,but now that it is a capital case the DA is bringing it back up? Hopefully my question makes sense.

ETA: I'm referring to the conflict of interest where MM was claiming to represent both Chad and Lori. Is that a conflict again due to new cases/murder charges and the dropping of the concealment charges?

If it was the one that I posted about in previous thread, order dated 7/28/2020, I emailed Lori about it when I posted it but she said she didn't think so.

Found Deceased - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Tammy Daybell, 49, Sept & Oct 2019 *Arrests* #61

 

[montegrl]

New in LV's Case:

• 08/18/2021 Notice of Remote Hearing
  
  
• 08/30/2021 Status Conference
  
  Judicial Officer
  Boyce (District), Steven
  
  Hearing Time
  3:00 PM
  

New in CD's Case:

• 08/18/2021 Notice of Remote Hearing
  
  
• 08/18/2021 Notice of Remote Hearing
  
  
• 08/18/2021 Notice of Hearing
  
  
• 08/30/2021 Motion Hearing
  
  Judicial Officer
  Boyce (District), Steven
  
  Hearing Time
  03:30 PM
  
  
• 09/20/2021 Motion Hearing
  
  Judicial Officer
  Boyce (District), Steven
  
  Hearing Time
  1:30 PM
  

 

[watergirl62]

Plus the change of venue motion hearing

October 5, 2021 9:00 AM

 

[kshultz06082]

Local update: MM and JA were not at the women’s detention center today.

*sorry for a late update, lots happening today in real life.

I find it interesting that now that JA has come on board, MM is at the detention center less. Hopefully JA has him doing actual work instead of him just hanging out with the incompetent LVD.

 

[kshultz06082]

If it was the one that I posted about in previous thread, order dated 7/28/2020, I emailed Lori about it when I posted it but she said she didn't think so.

Found Deceased - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Tammy Daybell, 49, Sept & Oct 2019 *Arrests* #61

Thank you!

 

[Niner]

snipped by me
New in CD's Case:

• 08/18/2021 Notice of Remote Hearing
  
  
• 08/18/2021 Notice of Remote Hearing
  
  
• 08/18/2021 Notice of Hearing
  
  
• 08/30/2021 Motion Hearing
  
  Judicial Officer
  Boyce (District), Steven
  
  Hearing Time
  03:30 PM
  
  
• 09/20/2021 Motion Hearing
  
  Judicial Officer
  Boyce (District), Steven
  
  Hearing Time
  1:30 PM

Plus the change of venue motion hearing

October 5, 2021 9:00 AM

Plus the pretrial hearing on 9/30/21 @ 9:30am.

 

[SleuthD-o-doubleg]

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

 

[gitana1]

@gitana1 , @Nikynoo , @LaLaw2000 , @AZlawyer , @Midwestmom2019

Certainly Louisiana & Great Britain may be different.

Can anyone straighten this out?

Could you give me some background and context? (I don’t have time to scroll back).

 

[Dorothy Jane]

Local update: MM and JA were not at the women’s detention center today.

*sorry for a late update, lots happening today in real life.

You are the best.

 

[Ruminations]

I am not a lawyer, but I would love to hear from one about this.

I do not see how this recording (as if it had much legal significance to either side- which I question) could be inadmissible.

Why couldn’t either side depose the person who recorded it and/or Melanie Gibb about the tape, and use it?

If it were recorded by LE without a warrant or consent, that is a different situation.

Maybe, but I doubt it, the municipality the recording was made in could press criminal charges if it is a crime there. Maybe Melanie Gibb could sue the recorder civilly, if that is an option based on the laws of whatever municipalities apply.

But I do not see how this evidence, of little value, IMO, is not admissible.

Any lawyers?

Could you give me some background and context? (I don’t have time to scroll back).

I don’t know if Laughing was asking for me—- there was also some IANAL talk about conflicts of interest.

If they were asking for me, thanks, Laughing! If not, I will ask.

There is a recording of Melanie Gibb talking to a fan of hers on the phone about all that Melanie was going through in her friendship with Lori and Chad.

Personally, but once again IANAL, I don’t see how this conversation is relevant at all to the prosecution or defense. But some people think it has some value. People who think it has value can chime in here if I am missing a point. But I guess some people think it means Melanie knew about the murders earlier than she says? And that is relevant because??? I don’t follow.

Even though I do not think the recording is useful to either side, I have been arguing the point that the recording could be admissible along with the sworn statements of the person who recorded them or Melanie Gibb.

Others have said that the recording could not be admissible because the Gibb fan started to record the conversation after she began to realize how weird and tragic it was. And indeed, Melanie was all about herself and had no empathy for the victims. It was creepy- and the fan, Melanie’s new friend, started to record the conversation without telling Melanie in a 2 party consent state.

My thought is that there may be consequences legally or civilly for making the recording, but this would not make it inadmissible. I think that the fact that it was illegal could make the jury dislike the recorder, but under these circumstances, I don’t think that it is likely. The contents of the recording makes recording it understandable. The recording started after the conversation was well underway, and clearly about missing children who were likely dead. In addition, I am not sure that the recorder had anything to do with the recording going beyond herself and LE, so it may not even be illegal. It could be like her private notes.

But, assuming the recording is illegal, it seems to me that since she was not LE, and LE had not asked her to make this recording, it would be admissible. What do you think?

 

[gitana1]

I don’t know if Laughing was asking for me—- there was also some IANAL talk about conflicts of interest.

If they were asking for me, thanks, Laughing! If not, I will ask.

There is a recording of Melanie Gibb talking to a fan of hers on the phone about all that Melanie was going through in her friendship with Lori and Chad.

Personally, but once again IANAL, I don’t see how this conversation is relevant at all to the prosecution or defense. But some people think it has some value. People who think it has value can chime in here if I am missing a point. But I guess some people think it means Melanie knew about the murders earlier than she says? And that is relevant because??? I don’t follow.

Even though I do not think the recording is useful to either side, I have been arguing the point that the recording could be admissible along with the sworn statements of the person who recorded them or Melanie Gibb.

Others have said that the recording could not be admissible because the Gibb fan started to record the conversation after she began to realize how weird and tragic it was. And indeed, Melanie was all about herself and had no empathy for the victims. It was creepy- and the fan, Melanie’s new friend, started to record the conversation without telling Melanie in a 2 party consent state.

My thought is that there may be consequences legally or civilly for making the recording, but this would not make it inadmissible. I think that the fact that it was illegal could make the jury dislike the recorder, but under these circumstances, I don’t think that it is likely. The contents of the recording makes recording it understandable. The recording started after the conversation was well underway, and clearly about missing children who were likely dead. In addition, I am not sure that the recorder had anything to do with the recording going beyond herself and LE, so it may not even be illegal. It could be like her private notes.

But, assuming the recording is illegal, it seems to me that since she was not LE, and LE had not asked her to make this recording, it would be admissible. What do you think?

In CA, illegally recorded evidence is not admissible.

But ID is apparently a one party state which renders a private conversation that’s recorded, admissible if the person recording is part of the conversation.

In any event, was this ruled inadmissible? And if so, as part of what procedure?

Finally, it can be ruled inadmissible for other reasons, like relevance.

 

[Nosurprise]

Judge explains appointment of co-counsel for Lori Vallow
Enjoy this read!
This filing finally published to the State of Idaho’s cases of interest page. It was filed on 8/6/21, in regards to prosecutors’ objection to the appearance of Mark Means as counsel to Vallow and other proceedings.
This order for appointment of counsel appears to set up the assignment of James Archibald who is a death penalty certified public defender, and now co-counsel to Vallow.
At some point after Means requested the Court to order an evaluation of Vallow’s competency to stand trial, the State raised an issue, saying there was no indigency finding. Vallow had explained she lacked the means to pay for the evaluation so the Court determined she was indigent on 5/21/21.
Then just a few days later, the grand jury indictment charged Vallow with several charges including murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the deaths of her kids JJ Vallow and Tylee Ryan, but also Tammy Daybell (murder conspiracy). As we know, the crimes carry potential punishment of life in prison or the death penalty.
Vallow’s cases ended up being “stayed” or placed on pause after she was deemed incompetent to stand trial. She was committed to the custody of the Dept. of Health and Welfare for treatment. Documents say the court had to find her a “qualified” trial attorney due to Vallow being indigent while facing charges carrying a potential death sentence. Defendants have the right to waive death penalty qualified counsel and hire private representation according to sixth amendment, but Vallow is determined to be not competent and her case is stayed.
It was hereby ordered that a death penalty certified public defender would appear in the case as co-counsel with Mark Means, Vallow’s privately retained attorney. The Court said there was no need to appoint a second death penalty qualified counsel. From Justin lum.. I don't get why it makes out that Means is a privately hired attorney at this point? Isn't he considered a court appointed one at this stage? If she's indignant? So confused..thanks

 

[Ruminations]

In CA, illegally recorded evidence is not admissible.

But ID is apparently a one party state which renders a private conversation that’s recorded, admissible if the person recording is part of the conversation.

In any event, was this ruled inadmissible? And if so, as part of what procedure?

Finally, it can be ruled inadmissible for other reasons, like relevance.

Thanks.

I frankly don’t get the relevance. So I could see it tossed aside for that.

But the story is it was illegally recorded, then given to LE in case it would be useful, then allegedly made its way into MM’s package of discovery. And from there was allegedly leaked to a you-tuber. Now the recording is in the public sphere. But some people sound almost mournful that it will never be admissible, in their view.

The contents are Melanie Gibb telling about her trials such as having to deal with Lori being so stupid to actually tell Charles that she might have to kill him, or having to deal with Lori telling her that Tylee was in college in a creepy tone of voice that seemed to mean to Tylee was actually dead. (The recording was before the children’s bodies were found.)

I don’t know what state it was recorded in, although it is probably known to others who have done social media research, etc. I assume it is indeed in one of the 11 or so states that require all parties to consent to recording. I also imagine that Melanie Gibb was is in a one party state, but not the one who pushed record. Civilly, I think the state where a party was hurt would more likely be the state whose rules apply. Criminally, it would be charged by the state where a person illegally pushed record.

Federally, the rule is one party; I am not sure when federal rules would apply rather than state rules.

Not to argue, especially without a law degree, but these are the reasons I think it could be admissible, or, if not admissible, the fact that it was recorded in an all-party consent state would not be the reason.

1) Recorder of the conversation made the decision impulsively when she was shocked and rattled by the contents of the conversation.

2) Recorder of the conversation, by all appearances, did not bring up the whole Lori Vallow situation. She only contacted Melanie to talk about Melanie’s book, which the recorder liked. Melanie, by appearances, initiated the phone talk with this fan of hers. Melanie took off talking about herself, without feeling for the bodies in her rear view mirror.

3) The recorder, by appearances, did not share it with anyone but LE.

4) By all appearances, LE did not ask for this person to record the conversation.

5) Assertions such as this:

Recording Conversations with Your Cellphone | The Potential Legal Liability | Varnum LLP




(I was looking for something better than a lawyers web site, but it is written with references.)

 

[gitana1]

Thanks.

I frankly don’t get the relevance. So I could see it tossed aside for that.

But the story is it was illegally recorded, then given to LE in case it would be useful, then allegedly made its way into MM’s package of discovery. And from there was allegedly leaked to a you-tuber. Now the recording is in the public sphere. But some people sound almost mournful that it will never be admissible, in their view.

The contents are Melanie Gibb telling about her trials such as having to deal with Lori being so stupid to actually tell Charles that she might have to kill him, or having to deal with Lori telling her that Tylee was in college in a creepy tone of voice that seemed to mean to Tylee was actually dead. (The recording was before the children’s bodies were found.)

I don’t know what state it was recorded in, although it is probably known to others who have done social media research, etc. I assume it is indeed in one of the 11 or so states that require all parties to consent to recording. I also imagine that Melanie Gibb was is in a one party state, but not the one who pushed record. Civilly, I think the state where a party was hurt would more likely be the state whose rules apply. Criminally, it would be charged by the state where a person illegally pushed record.

Federally, the rule is one party; I am not sure when federal rules would apply rather than state rules.

Not to argue, especially without a law degree, but these are the reasons I think it could be admissible, or, if not admissible, the fact that it was recorded in an all-party consent state would not be the reason.

1) Recorder of the conversation made the decision impulsively when she was shocked and rattled by the contents of the conversation.

2) Recorder of the conversation, by all appearances, did not bring up the whole Lori Vallow situation. She only contacted Melanie to talk about Melanie’s book, which the recorder liked. Melanie, by appearances, initiated the phone talk with this fan of hers. Melanie took off talking about herself, without feeling for the bodies in her rear view mirror.

3) The recorder, by appearances, did not share it with anyone but LE.

4) By all appearances, LE did not ask for this person to record the conversation.

5) Assertions such as this:

Recording Conversations with Your Cellphone | The Potential Legal Liability | Varnum LLP


(I was looking for something better than a lawyers web site, but it is written with references.)

So nothing has been determined about this possible piece of evidence and people are just debating its possible admissibility, it appears? That makes sense.

But I’m not following everything you’ve stated here, I think (I’m a bit tired). Are you stating that the numbered items could be exceptions that allow it to be admissible?

None of those would be exceptions to inadmissibility and none would make evidence admissible, as far as I know.

Federal rules apply to federal charges. So yes, we have to know what state the recording was made and apply that law. I guess I just assumed it was Idaho.

But yeah. I don’t know about relevance. It sounds like it was a third party talking about Lori. Does she state anything about what Lori told her? Because that could be relevant.

 

[Ruminations]

So nothing has been determined about this possible piece of evidence and people are just debating its possible admissibility, it appears? That makes sense.

But I’m not following everything you’ve stated here, I think (I’m a bit tired). Are you stating that the numbered items could be exceptions that allow it to be admissible?

None of those would be exceptions to inadmissibility and none would make evidence admissible, as far as I know.

Federal rules apply to federal charges. So yes, we have to know what state the recording was made and apply that law. I guess I just assumed it was Idaho.

But yeah. I don’t know about relevance. It sounds like it was a third party talking about Lori. Does she state anything about what Lori told her? Because that could be relevant.

Relevance?
Well, yes. There was talk of what Lori said- and I guess it could bolster Melanie’s accounts of her conversations. If Melanie is an important witness, than I guess this could be relevant?


Admissibility?
I have the hubris to argue with a real lawyer. (The internet can bring out the gall in people like me!) I think that the fact that the recording was made in a state where pushing record without Melanie’s knowledge will not impact admissibility. This is because the illegal recording was not done directly or in anyway encouraged indirectly by LE.

 

[gitana1]

Relevance?
Well, yes. There was talk of what Lori said- and I guess it could bolster Melanie’s accounts of her conversations. If Melanie is an important witness, than I guess this could be relevant?


Admissibility?
I have the hubris to argue with a real lawyer. (The internet can bring out the gall in people like me!) I think that the fact that the recording was made in a state where pushing record without Melanie’s knowledge will not impact admissibility. This is because the illegal recording was not done directly or in anyway encouraged indirectly by LE.

Ha ha! No problem. The internet allows us all to research a variety of things. I think you’re saying that because the police weren’t involved in obtaining the illegal recording, they may be able to use it?

That could be. I practice family law which is civil. And so in our cases it’s almost always the person who recorded who wants to admit the evidence, and can’t.

Let me see if I can find some authority. Do you know what state the person who recorded it was in?

 

[StrangerThanFiction]

It seems like 100 years ago but Lori was originally charged with desertion and non-support of dependent children. Lori was represented by Brian Webb and Edwina Elcox, criminal defense attorneys, and by MM who claimed to specialize in family law (now he claims a lot of specializations). Having an attorney with family law experience seemed to make sense back then. Brian Webb and Edwina Elcox both withdrew after only one appearance. We have had the MM Show since then.

Before Chad had any criminal charges he was represented by Sean Bartholick. Once charges were filed MM took his case. JP showed up when prosecutors pushed on conflict of interest with MM representing 2 clients in the same case. I don't understand how 2 attorneys with the same office is not still conflict of interest.

Diddian had a nice post earlier wondering if Attorneys Webb and Elcox withdrew because they saw issues with Lori's mental competency right away. My guess is they saw that and murdered children and couldn't get away fast enough. Then the fools rush in...
Found Deceased - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 16, Tammy Daybell, 49, Sept & Oct 2019 *Arrests* #58

Edit to add: MOO

I remember the comments when we first laid eyes on Edwina. Ahhhh, how would things be going right now if we’d only given her a chance...? MOO