- Joined
- Jan 12, 2016
- Messages
- 16,078
- Reaction score
- 154,788
I hope she is not saying Lori is very deceived so have sympathy for her.
Noooo! Not the "Hedda Nussbaum" defense! Dependent Personality Disorder, so give her a pass. LVD is a psychopath.
I hope she is not saying Lori is very deceived so have sympathy for her.
Lori Vallow received threats and is protecting her children, according to mom, sister
"Kay (Woodcock) was threatening her. And her brothers. They're very upset about Charles's death. There was (sic) a lot of threats made to Lori," said Shiflet.
What's up with the giggling and sidelong glances at Nate? Did MG literally mean she has been living in a cave recently?I hope she is not saying Lori is very deceived so have sympathy for her.
Imo she may have misinterpreted what Kay said and took it as a threat or read what she wanted to instead of reading what Kay actually said. I think Kay showed some emails in a news story (not sure on the link maybe some Kim Powell reported on?) and I don’t exactly remember what was shown there. Maybe someone else remembers?Why threaten Lori? The guy who actually murdered Charles was still alive -- they could have just threatened him. And then when he died and couldn't be threatened, Lori was on the run/missing/couldn't be contacted.
Makes no sense. Unless the threat took the form of "Let us see JJ!"
Quoting myself because I reread the emails from Kay in the video. If all emails were like that then I personally don’t see a real threat. But my mind doesn’t operate like LorisImo she may have misinterpreted what Kay said and took it as a threat or read what she wanted to instead of reading what Kay actually said. But idk what exactly was said because I haven’t seen those come out yet. I think Kay showed some emails in a news story (not sure on the link maybe some Kim Powell reported on?) and I don’t exactly remember what was shown there. Maybe someone else remembers?
All jmo
Edit to add link from Kim Powell’s Twitter that includes the video with said emails
I hope she is not saying Lori is very deceived so have sympathy for her.
RSBM.“Be kind, and don’t be too judgmental”??!! ... This begins and ends with those kids. This is a serious matter, and it is about the welfare of the children.
I’ll confess, this is probably my favorite interview with Kay and Larry. You can finally HEAR their annoyance and aggravation in “dealing with” (or more accurately, “being IGNORED by”) the Cox Family Train Wreck. We know it’s been there all along, and as time continues to pass, of course it is only deepening for them. To hear Kay say, “C’mon!” And to hear Larry just plead with passion, “You wanna do something? Call us! Let’s have a meeting to figure out where those kids are!”, and then Kay’s gracious, “Let’s be adults,” and Larry’s flummoxed, “Yeah, pleeeaaasse!” It’s the first time I’ve really seen and heard the passion and desperation and absolute agitation they must live with day and night right now.Imo she may have misinterpreted what Kay said and took it as a threat or read what she wanted to instead of reading what Kay actually said. I think Kay showed some emails in a news story (not sure on the link maybe some Kim Powell reported on?) and I don’t exactly remember what was shown there. Maybe someone else remembers?
All jmo
Edit to add link from Kim Powell’s Twitter that includes the video with said emails
Question: Is it known if the shared/joint bank account LV was removing funds from was a personal or business account? If this was a business account, and LV removed funds from it for personal use, would this be embezzlement? MOO
Thanks for any insight.
If it was an account for PFS Marketing Inc., it had shareholders. All corporations have shareholders. We just don't know who they were/are. But it is authorized officers of a corporation that have access to corporate funds. One scenario is that they had an LLC, which they did, PFS Marketing LLC, and the account was in that name. For an LLC managed by its members all members have equal authority unless they had an operating agreement stating otherwise, which would be a civil situation. That explanation is most consistent with CV's statements in the divorce paperwork that the bank said Lori was authorized.It depends on how they set it all up. If her name was on the account and didn't require double signatures to withdraw, I'm sure it was legal. I dont think they had shareholders.
I would like to publicly come out in support of people who have different ideas than I do. This isn't supposed to be an echo chamber. This is supposed to be a place where many minds look at the facts and do their best to find leads. Imagine a detective who took everything at face value and just nodded his head. We wouldn't want anyone doing that for what Lori says, we shouldn't do it for anyone else. That doesn't mean we antagonize victims, but it should mean carefully listening to both sides of a narrative. And checking out theories and talking things out. If you get tired of hearing the same things repeated, well, I don't know what to tell you because new people show up all the time and go over the same things we've all already rehashed a dozen times. It's the nature of this beast. Yes, sometimes it's frustrating, but the more eyes and minds the better, IMO. I also reserve the right to disagree or scroll and roll--and I'm not so fragile that you can't disagree with me, too!![]()
So you think these shady people have the kids or killed the kids? I just don't follow your theories.100% agree. I've been taking a deep dive into a lot of people associated with this situation and it has given me new perspective. There are some truly strange connections in this case that should not be ignored. They are out there to be found by anyone who looks. People have called me out for seeming to defend various parties. I'm just trying to stick with facts. I think Lori needs to explain what happened to her kids. But there is so much going on here and so much to be found that I am willing to accept at this point that there may be a rational explanation why she cannot.
And I think going on and on about Lori's gray roots showing and Chad sporting a near-beer belly are far less productive than advancing hypotheses to explore that might be unpopular with the members here who have already made up their mind. I'd much rather hear wild hypotheses about what may be happening so we can investigate them than personal attacks on POIs we all don't like.