JOSHUA "JJ" VALLOW, TYLEE RYAN, TAMMY DAYBELL, & CHARLES VALLOW: State of Idaho/Arizona vs. Lori & Chad Daybell *GUILTY*

Police seem to be no closer to finding 7-year-old Joshua “JJ” Vallow and 17-year-old Tylee Ryan than they were when this story began months ago.

Since that time, the story has gained international attention as it’s taken twists and turns involving a purported cult, dead spouses, delusions of divinity and preparing for the end of the world. Despite all the angles, and the ever-growing number of people related to the case, the facts remain essentially the same as when it was first announced.

The two children remain missing and the parents, Lori (Vallow) Daybell, and her new husband, Chad Daybell, refuse to disclose their whereabouts to police. Both have been named persons of interest in the disappearance of the children. Law enforcement is also investigating the deaths of the Daybells’ previous respective spouses, Charles Vallow and Tammy Daybell, though neither Chad nor Lori have been named suspects in those cases.

Written timeline of events

• April 3, 2018 - Tylee Ryan's father, Joseph Ryan, dies. Death ruled heart attack.
• December 2018 - Chad Daybell & Lori Vallow make first appearance on Preparing a People podcast.
• February 2019 - Charles Vallow files for divorce from Lori, claiming she viewed herself as a god preparing for the second coming, and she would kill him if he got in her way.
• February - April 2019 - Lori disappears for nearly two months, leaving her children with others.
• June 2019 - Lori's niece demands a divorce from her husband, who says she shares similar beliefs to her aunt.
• July 11, 2019 - Charles Vallow shot and killed by Lori's brother Alex Cox. Shooting initially ruled self-defense.
• August 2019 - Lori moves to Rexburg, Idaho with kids
• September 3, 2019 - Joshua "JJ" Vallow enrolled in school
• September 23, 2019 - JJ last attended school
• September 24, 2019 - Lori unenrolls JJ from school, saying she would be homeschooling him.
• September 2019 - Tylee also seen in September, but it's unclear when and where (she had graduated early)
• October 2, 2019 - Lori's niece's ex-husband was shot at, missing his head by inches. Shooter was driving a vehicle registered to Charles Vallow.
• October 9, 2019 - Tammy Daybell, Chad's wife, called 911 and said a masked man shot at her with a paintball gun.
• October 19, 2019 - Tammy Daybell dies, death is ruled natural
• October 25, 2019 - Tylee, or someone using her phone, texts a friend
• Late October / Early November 2019 - Chad Daybell & Lori Vallow get married
• November 26, 2019 - Welfare check requested for JJ at the request of extended family - police are told he is in Arizona with family, but he is not
• November 27, 2019 - Police return to serve a search warrant, finding the Daybell's gone
• December 12, 2019 - Lori's brother, who had shot her ex-husband, dies mysteriously in Arizona
• December 20, 2019 - Search for JJ and Tylee goes public
• December 30, 2019 - LE says Lori knows where her children are but will not cooperate
• January 25, 2020 - Chad & Lori are located in Hawaii, served with a notice that she must produce the children within 5 days
• January 30, 2020 - Lori fails to produce JJ and Tylee

The latest timeline in the cases of Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell - East Idaho News

REXBURG — Police seem to be no closer to finding 7-year-old Joshua "JJ" Vallow and 17-year-old Tylee Ryan than they were when this story began months ago.

www.eastidahonews.com

edited by staff to add new media link

Are Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow Daybell serial killers? Has their doomsday cult finally ended? Keep up-to-date on this bizarre case!

Keep up-to-date on this case at Crimewatchers.net!

www.crimewatchers.net

 

[GrandmaBear]

ZP is testifying what supposedly happened that day -yet she did not directly witness what happened. She is recounting what Lori told her (that's hearsay). Lori is alive. The other four people (Charles, Alex, Tylee and JJ) are dead.

If ZP is recounting what Lori said to HER, it is not hearsay. If she is recounting what Lori said that another person said it is hearsay. Direct one to one talk is NOT hearsay. Emphasis not meant at you, just clarifying. If you tell me your cat is a brat, it is not hearsay. If you tell me your cat told you the dog is a brat, it is hearsay.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I don’t know why Melanie would lie because I don’t think she wants Lori to get off.

I think she knows she doesn't have the power to get her off but she only came forward when she was in a corner and her interview with Nate Eaton, etc. she still loved Lori and was sending messages as far as I'm concerned. She is in a spot of total attention in this and if she outright acts as if she is 100 percent Lori then she is going to deal with sh*t but I don't think she hates her, wants her to go down, etc., etc. Mel G gave a sh*t about Lori's kids either.

She won't lie about the things that are obvious and known or get herself in trouble imo but that b.s. about the life insurance was b.s. Total b.s.

Jmo, not arguing with you, just voicing my opinion. Zulema is doing the same. These two AND Mel P knew a heck of a lot more than we will ever hear.

 

[GrandmaBear]

And I've been wasting my time since getting home and finally facing a day off tomorrow listening to Zulema. I'm both sick of it and yet keep listening.

 

[GrandmaBear]

This is a short, just seconds. By the Behavior Analysts.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I thought that in some cases you can’t quote somebody that can’t be questioned by the court.

I am going to guess this was likely all talked of, debated, argued and/or agreed on before trial.

General rule I know is if it was said directly to you you can. With them dead of course they can't dispute it. But there are also exceptions for those that can't speak for themselves (the dead, the missing, the sick),. I don't know the rules on it but I am guessing this was addressed as Boyce is so careful, in fact taking too long through these years for decisons, etc. on motions.

I did a quick search earlier and here is one I came up with. Skimmed it but not for long and haven't determined when it is okay and isn't.

Rule 804. Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[GrandmaBear]

Mel P married again (Ian P) in November 2019 a day before Zulema and Alex. They had met on a dating site and she discovered he lived right there in Rexburg. Am trying to remember when the attempt on Brandon was but I think it was only in the October so not exactly sure when they got divorced. Will have to check that out.

That was all very suspect. Also from what I heard back when Ian had a place right near or across from them. They all date and marry fast is all I'll say. Well you know it isn't all will say but...

And the dates and timing. Just like Z marrying Alex same time Mel P and Ian married, all in Vegas. Now here's the thing, if I recall right, the 144,000 were to be per Chad and Lori or the scriptures or whatever, married couples, NO children, etc. So on the surface perhaps that was the reason for pushing... However, Z if telling the truth had an odd thing with a massage bu Alex and major distance from her new hub before that that day, and then Alex ends up dead. Things were heating up around this time and these months...

I personally think it was pushed as the married couple thing but it was all an income/life insurance thing. The other was just Chad and Lori's reasoning and cover for profit...

I really recommend watching the one I posted earlier... Her kids knew Chad's kids and more and they were pushed and it goes into Julie Rowe, Chad, pushing purchase and land on them, etc.

 

[Tresir]

but Lori could get up and testify to dispute it.

Lori is not going to when the testimony is to her benefit. MG just took away Lori's motive for Charles' murder with her testimony.

 

[Tresir]

If ZP is recounting what Lori said to HER, it is not hearsay. If she is recounting what Lori said that another person said it is hearsay. Direct one to one talk is NOT hearsay. Emphasis not meant at you, just clarifying. If you tell me your cat is a brat, it is not hearsay. If you tell me your cat told you the dog is a brat, it is hearsay.

She is saying what Lori said to her about the 4 people who are now dead and they themselves are not available to dispute that version of events. So it seemed like hearsay to me but I am certainly not sure.

 

[Guess Who]

Lori is not going to when the testimony is to her benefit. MG just took away Lori's motive for Charles' murder with her testimony.

That is up to her. She's still available to either dispute it or agree with it. Is she's not going to get up and dispute it, that's on her.

 

[Tresir]

That is up to her. She's still available to either dispute it or agree with it. Is she's not going to get up and dispute it, that's on her.

At present we don't even know if she is going to testify. I think if she decides not to testify, what MG said that she said would be hearsay. I also think that what she told ZP about the shooting of Charles and the actions of herself and those who are now dead will be hearsay too unless she testified and can be questioned on it. But hey, jmo, as I am certainly not sure.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Lori is not going to when the testimony is to her benefit. MG just took away Lori's motive for Charles' murder with her testimony.

She did for a moment but now there are texts confirming Lori did NOT KNOW the beneficiary was changed, texts between her and Chad and showing talk of life insurance AND there is her upset at Alex screwing things up on the day Tammy was shot at AND the fact he died right after news she was exhumed, etc. There is motive aplenty now shown.

Mel G. LIED imo.

 

[GrandmaBear]

She is saying what Lori said to her about the 4 people who are now dead and they themselves are not available to dispute that version of events. So it seemed like hearsay to me but I am certainly not sure.

I think though since the reason is to show Lori's pattern, that each was labeled a zombie or dark before they ended up dead, it would likely be allowable hearsay for that purpose. Or something on that order and close to that. There ARE exceptions.

It also isn't as if the hearsay will convict them based on just "rumor" or "hearsay" for instance, they aren't on trial.

 

[GrandmaBear]

At present we don't even know if she is going to testify. I think if she decides not to testify, what MG said that she said would be hearsay. I also think that what she told ZP about the shooting of Charles and the actions of herself and those who are now dead will be hearsay too unless she testified and can be questioned on it. But hey, jmo, as I am certainly not sure.

She told the cops also her version of the shooting of Charles. It of course doesn't make it true but it was allowed as testimony and not objected to or stricken. The jury will decide whether to believe all or part of someone's testimony, like in the case of Mel Gibb's testimony, and they will decide if Lori's version of what happened the day Charles was murdered is true (doubtful).

If hearsay out there is being questioned as much as it is in here, hopefully a lawyer who covers this case like Scott or Lori Hellis will explain when it is allowed and when it is not. The Cornell U article I posted above explains some of the exceptions.

 

[Tresir]

She told the cops also her version of the shooting of Charles. It of course doesn't make it true but it was allowed as testimony and not objected to or stricken. The jury will decide whether to believe all or part of someone's testimony, like in the case of Mel Gibb's testimony, and they will decide if Lori's version of what happened the day Charles was murdered is true (doubtful).

If hearsay out there is being questioned as much as it is in here, hopefully a lawyer who covers this case like Scott or Lori Hellis will explain when it is allowed and when it is not. The Cornell U article I posted above explains some of the exceptions.

She told the cops the version of the shooting that Lori shared with her. As long as Lori testifies and can be questioned about this, I don't think it will be hearsay. If Lori declines to testify, then I think it can be designated as hearsay IMO.

Also, both Lori and Tylee were interviewed about the Charles shooting so what ZP said about what Lori said, can be compared to what they each said in their interviews. Not sure if there was a video interview of Alex though.

 

[GrandmaBear]

She told the cops the version of the shooting that Lori shared with her. As long as Lori testifies and can be questioned about this, I don't think it will be hearsay. If Lori declines to testify, then I think it can be designated as hearsay IMO.

I get what you are saying I think as to whether the jury buys it or not but I am saying it is already allowed in and wasn't stricken. It of course doesn't make it true. It doesn't make anything Lori said to Mel true (except that which is confirmed like in the phone recording or texts, etc. and those things would make it TRUE that she said them to Mel but not necessarily that Lori is telling Mel the truth). Yes, I get you mean that only Mel has claimed Lori said various things to her and the other participant in these claims, Lori, can refute them or agree that she said them, that is what I think you are saying right? And that other person is Lori.

I am more talking of the judge allowing such statements and not striking them as hearsay. They aren't subject to the hearsay rule in a one on one conversation because Lori IS there, yes, to refute or agree IF she chooses to. That's on her to decide. If she decides not to, then it's on her.

Defense isn't even close to up yet and they could try in some other way to refute such and that's up to them as well. I don't see how, one way would be to show Mel G. is lying, but again I don't see how. Yes, Lori could but the jury would have to believe her. I don't see them doing so.

 

[GrandmaBear]

One thing that is becoming very clear is that Mr. Largely Silent Innocent Toad Man Being Beguiled by Temptress Chad Daybell is nothing such. I personally have never believed that.

I haven't even listened to all but in listening to a large part of Zulema now and Mel G, etc. constantly we are hearing how it was Chad who gave blessings (which we knew0, Chad who came with the dark and light things (which we knew) Chad that was called to see if the castings had worked and who deemed mostly that they hadn't, Chad who told Lori she needed to move to Rexburg, Chad who told Zulema she had to and blessed her, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

John Prior better get an associate watching and reporting instead of going himself while he gets his butt to work because CHAD is emerging to people who thought it was the other way around. Don't get me wrong, this isn't exonerating Lori by any means, I think her conniving nature and self interest and the want of other's money (which was always her now wasn't it?), etc. jumped righti on board (right away or shortly in?) and this is the show and dance they did for and to others. She KNEW exactly what was going on.

This stuff or most of it has always been out there but so many think he was some duped dumb arse blinded by blonde locks. NO he was not.

 

[Guess Who]

At present we don't even know if she is going to testify. I think if she decides not to testify, what MG said that she said would be hearsay. I also think that what she told ZP about the shooting of Charles and the actions of herself and those who are now dead will be hearsay too unless she testified and can be questioned on it. But hey, jmo, as I am certainly not sure.

But it's not because she IS available to answer.

 

[GrandmaBear]

But it's not because she IS available to answer.

Yes she can refute it if she chooses to.

It isn't quite the same but it is like Alex Murdaugh basically feeling he had to take the stand. All his family and friends were identifying the voice on a recording as his and he either had to refute it OR admit to it to explain his big LIE to the jury in hopes of a last ditch effort to convince them he lied for a reason but DIDN'T kill them. Of course it didn't work but he almost had to.

Lori has the same right and as testimony adds up or piles on maybe not in her favor, they (defense and her) will have to decide if it is necessary or worth it, etc. to refute such.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

She did for a moment but now there are texts confirming Lori did NOT KNOW the beneficiary was changed, texts between her and Chad and showing talk of life insurance AND there is her upset at Alex screwing things up on the day Tammy was shot at AND the fact he died right after news she was exhumed, etc. There is motive aplenty now shown.

Mel G. LIED imo.

A court watcher said that Lori was shaking her head throughout Mel's testimony, like none of it was true.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I think I'll add here for the record here on this case that Lori said she was receiving $6,000 a month in social security due to Joe's death, Charles' death, both for each child due to respective father and for herself as married to Charles for more than ten years.

I'd say there was a he77 of a profit motive throughout with her.