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

 

[Tresir]

by the way if I have it right, I also heard earlier tonight it was the DEFENSE trying to get the recordings Ian made to be played in court, NOT the prosecution. Is this correct?

Yes. That's why I said i wondered if it could be grounds for appeal, the way the recordings were obtained.

 

[Tresir]

I don't think police here ever provide anyone a lawyer and they certainly wouldn't have provided one for Ian imo.

I don't know what is going on but it seems to me much more should have been asked of Ian than it sounds as if was. However, since Boyce would not allow the recordings, that probably ties into whatever the reason is somehow...?

Both Zulema and Ian have the same lawyer. Not sure about Melaniece. I think she may have a different lawyer. I think Ian was purposely not a party to the conversations so he could not testify about them. He just facilitated the recordings. I thought Melaniece must have given permission for LE to record them and that's why she did not testify, but Ian clarified in the Nate interview below that she didn't know about the recordings at the time.

 

[Tresir]

Yes. That's why I said i wondered if it could be grounds for appeal, the way the recordings were obtained.

This is another source. The defence wanted to play them but the prosecution objected it was hearsay evidence and the judge upheld that. Further on in this source it seems that Lori and Chad knew Alex was going to die. They warned Melaniece there was going to be a spiritual attack and then Alex died.

Lori Vallow Daybell shrugged after being handed legal docs about delivering up her kids

A number of witnesses took the stand during day 17 of testimony in the Lori Vallow Daybell trial, including a detective who conducted a search warrant on her rental car in Hawaii, as well as an Arizona officer who discussed the connection to an attempted shooting investigation and her children's...

ksltv.com

"One of those calls involved a conversation between Melani, Daybell and Vallow Daybell following Alex Cox‘s passing.

Ian said during this call, Melani was “told by Chad and Lori that there would be a spiritual attack that day and to get a place of safety.”

He continued, “When Alex died, it felt very strange to me they called that out right before it happened.”

Ian was then released by the state, but the defense said they may call him as a witness later in the trial."

 

[Tresir]

Here's a DM article about Ian. He explains that after the attempt on Brandon, he was worried sick for his children and his ex wife. Understandably with what we now know as well.

Lori Vallow's attorney brands her relative SNITCH after he wore a wire

Attorney Jim Archibald told the judge in Vallow's murder trial that Ian Pawlowski was a 'snitch' and that he should be dismissed and give no further testimony.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Tresir]

This is part 2 of an interview Nate did with Ian and Melanie. It was recorded approx a month before Tylee and JJ's remains were discovered. Neither Melanie, Lori or Chad knew at the time that the recordings were being made according to this. Ian and Melanie have several lawyers. Garrett Smith, Robert Jarvis and Josh Garner.

Melani and Ian Pawlowski discuss religious beliefs, disturbing court documents, why Lori Daybell isn't talking and what they know about missing kids - East Idaho News

Editor’s Note: This story contains the final portion of our interview with Melani and Ian Pawlowski. The video has been split into two parts. The first section can be watched in the player above. The second section can be found down in the story. IDAHO FALLS — Lori Vallow Daybell’s niece and her...

www.eastidahonews.com

Nate Eaton

@NateNewsNow


I have seen Garrett Smith and Josh Garner in the courtroom today. They are both attorneys for Melani Pawlowski. Smith represented her in Arizona, Garner represented her during grand jury proceedings in Idaho.





ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com
https://ewscripps.brightspotcdn.com › ...

PDF​

Pawlowski Press Release 022620

​

26 Feb 2020 — Melani Pawlowski, represented by Robert P. Jarvis and. Garrett

 

[Tresir]

What DNA has to be tested? Chad's DNA maybe?

LIVE UPDATES: Court hearing underway in Chad Daybell case - East Idaho News

LIVE UPDATES FROM CHAD DAYBELL COURT HEARING 4:17 p.m. Prior says he is fine with having the trial in June 2024. Nothing else in this hearing. Court is adjourned. 4:16 p.m. One of the prosecutors has an event next May, so prosecutors ask if Boyce is considering next year, June would be...

www.eastidahonews.com

​

LIVE UPDATES FROM CHAD DAYBELL COURT HEARING​

4:17 p.m. Prior says he is fine with having the trial in June 2024. Nothing else in this hearing. Court is adjourned.
4:16 p.m. One of the prosecutors has an event next May, so prosecutors ask if Boyce is considering next year, June would be preferred. Blake says the state is not opposed to having the trial earlier. The months of March, April and May are problematic.
4:14 p.m. Blake has some concerns if the trial is scheduled in the fall as there could be some issues with holidays. Prior says the fall will be problematic for him. Boyce will take the requests under advisement and will set the trial date “fairly soon” after speaking with the attorneys further.
4:12 p.m. Boyce asks Prior when all the DNA will be tested. Prior says it will take 60 days from when he tests it. Prior says it hasn’t been tested yet because he needs to get with Rob Wood to set up parameters.
4:11 p.m. Prior says he’s been working well with prosecutors, and they have offered to put all of the evidence on one hard drive to make it easier for him and his experts.
4:10 p.m. Prior says he predicts the trial will take 10 to 12 weeks, including time to pick the jury, time for prosecutors and defense, and the mitigation phase. Prior asks to hold the trial in May 2024.
4:08 p.m. Boyce asks Prior when he thinks the trial should be held. Prior says he plans to call 7-8 experts to the stand and will need an entire transcript of Lori Daybell’s trial. Prior says he doesn’t want to run into discovery issues and says Chad will need time to go over the entire audio of Lori’s trial.
4:07 p.m. Blake says if the jury questionnaire process is the same at Lori’s, the trial could go into nine weeks. Also, acting in the mitigation/death penalty phase, nine weeks would be safer.
4:04 p.m. Boyce asks defense attorneys and prosecutors for input on when Chad’s trial should be scheduled. Fremont County Prosecuting Attorney Lindsey Blake says the trial will take eight weeks and will defer to the court on schedule but Blake asks to keep witness schedules and holidays in mind.
4:02 p.m. We see Chad on the big screen in the courtroom. He is dressed in a white shirt and tie.
4 p.m. This hearing is being held in the same courtroom with Judge Boyce. Court personnel are working on getting the Zoom feed from the Fremont County Jail.
3:53 p.m. Jim Archibald and John Prior have swapped seats. Archibald watching the proceedings from the audience and Prior is setting up at the defense table. Waiting on Judge Boyce to enter the courtroom. Lori Daybell is not here. She was taken from the courtroom back to the Ada County Jail.
3:43 p.m. A status conference is being held in Chad Daybell’s case. John Prior, his attorney, and prosecutors are in the Ada County Courthouse. Chad will join via Zoom from the Fremont County Jail. I will post live updates as the hearing begins.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I don't think Ian was part of the convo. I think he was recording Melaniece, Lori and Chad. I think probably M knew.

That's the problem then imo. I don't think that would be legally admissible evidence...?

 

[GrandmaBear]

She's too flaky to rely on I think. They don't know what she will say or do.

If she has any type of deal I hope they revoke it!

I have wondered what it is/was they thought she'd add anyhow. I know in her interview by news or whatever it was she never offered one darned solid thing that I can recall. She talked in circles never responding directly to any question imo.

It also doesn't sound to me like Ian offered much of anything or at least they didn't question him to the extent one would have figured? I haven't watched it but that's the impression I'm getting.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Yes. That's why I said i wondered if it could be grounds for appeal, the way the recordings were obtained.

I was under the impression it was the prosecution who wanted them and who you meant could appeal.

I don't think they can appeal since they weren't allowed but yeah, had they been allowed, that could likely be ground I imagine but then why would the defense ask for them to be heard...? If they were brought in at their request, I would almost think that would null their basis for appeal but darned if I know for sure how that would work. It isn't like things always make sense when it comes to the law...

 

[Guess Who]

Prosecution doesn't appeal, only defendants/defense.

I don't like he didn't allow these and not sure why that would be.

MOST states now (not all) it is only required one person knows something is being recorded, meaning only Ian would need to know and he would need to be part of the conversation. Not sure what ID's law is on it. If they are not a one party state then that is likely the reason.

Well, the person recording it would always know so there would ALWAYS be at least one person knowing it was recorded, so that doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Guess Who]

I don't think police here ever provide anyone a lawyer and they certainly wouldn't have provided one for Ian imo.

I don't know what is going on but it seems to me much more should have been asked of Ian than it sounds as if was. However, since Boyce would not allow the recordings, that probably ties into whatever the reason is somehow...?

The police do have lawyers for police personnel. Not sure how that applies here, but they do have attorneys for them if needed for police activities.

 

[Guess Who]

She is so full of sh*t. Even God wouldn't "say" such but Lori controls Satan? Unbelievable.

Sounds like grift to me.

 

[Guess Who]

I'm fairly certain blessings are mainstream Christianity prayers for others.

Pretty sure with this group they also had $$ involved.

 

[Tresir]

I was under the impression it was the prosecution who wanted them and who you meant could appeal.

I don't think they can appeal since they weren't allowed but yeah, had they been allowed, that could likely be ground I imagine but then why would the defense ask for them to be heard...? If they were brought in at their request, I would almost think that would null their basis for appeal but darned if I know for sure how that would work. It isn't like things always make sense when it comes to the law...

I think the defence probably want the evidence in as possible grounds for appeal. I don't think them requesting it would mean they could not appeal anything in it but I guess it depends on whether they have even heard it yet? We don't know if the defence has heard it right?

 

[GrandmaBear]

Well, the person recording it would always know so there would ALWAYS be at least one person knowing it was recorded, so that doesn't make much sense to me.

That's the way it is though now in most states but I am talking about a two person conversation where one of the two is the one recording, not a recording of other people where the one recording doesn't participate which this apparently was.

 

[Tresir]

I was under the impression it was the prosecution who wanted them and who you meant could appeal.

I don't think they can appeal since they weren't allowed but yeah, had they been allowed, that could likely be ground I imagine but then why would the defense ask for them to be heard...? If they were brought in at their request, I would almost think that would null their basis for appeal but darned if I know for sure how that would work. It isn't like things always make sense when it comes to the law...

What would happen if someone ate that taco? Would that be the end of Satan?

 

[GrandmaBear]

The police do have lawyers for police personnel. Not sure how that applies here, but they do have attorneys for them if needed for police activities.

I don't think under any stretch of the imagination Ian is police personnel.

 

[Tresir]

That's the way it is though now in most states but I am talking about a two person conversation where one of the two is the one recording, not a recording of other people where the one recording doesn't participate which this apparently was.

I don't really see why it would be any different to the other recorded phone calls we have heard as evidence.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I think the defence probably want the evidence in as possible grounds for appeal. I don't think them requesting it would mean they could not appeal anything in it but I guess it depends on whether they have even heard it yet? We don't know if the defence has heard it right?

I think they have. I listed to some things last night and don't quote me but yes I think they had it in discovery.

 

[Tresir]

I don't think under any stretch of the imagination Ian is police personnel.

They can swear people in temporarily though right? I've seen it in the movies.