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

1580704661510.png

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
www.eastidahonews.com

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 www.eastidahonews.com

1580705763474.png



edited by staff to add new media link
www.crimewatchers.net

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 www.crimewatchers.net
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
Kimster said:
I tried a lot of searches and couldn't find out anything new.
Click to expand...

I found a couple of things of interest in that clots can form postmortem and that clots can be caused by being injured. Most of the terminology and lack of interest in reading such dry information means I can't give a lot more detail than that. I read of one case where the defense and prosecution debated the cause of a leg clot and the prosecution said it was due to being struck on the head.

I doubt it would apply to Alex's case, I would think it was likely a thorough autopsy, however, I still say taking the clot seems odd.
 
I am a licensed healthcare professional. I read the ME's report. Now, I'm not a doctor or a pathologist, but I do have a medical background.

I. He had blood clots in his lungs. Bilateral means both sides. So it wasn't just one clot. But there was probably a "one" that ultimately killed him. These clots usually develop elsewhere in the body and travel to the lungs. There was no indication of clotting elsewhere in the body.
II. He had heart disease / coronary artery disease...narrower blood vessels in the heart and lungs. Can make it easier for these small clots to "get stuck".
III. He had some blood vessel clusters on his liver. Most don't cause issues.
IV. He had some abnormal growths on his stomach. Most don't cause issues.
V. He had an enlarged prostate.
VI. Toxicology negative. (He had Narcan in his system...I wonder if they administered that at the hospital or if he had a prescription.)

Nothing else seemed noteworthy. If you have any questions about what something means I can try to answer it in layman's terms. As to why they would give the detective the clot and not send it for toxicology...I have no idea. Possibly to hang onto it in evidence "just in case". I imagine they asked for it.

With the insane nature of this case, I'm sure if they had ANY doubt about the nature of his death, they wouldn't have released this and would still be investigating.
 
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed said:
I am a licensed healthcare professional. I read the ME's report. Now, I'm not a doctor or a pathologist, but I do have a medical background.

I. He had blood clots in his lungs. Bilateral means both sides. So it wasn't just one clot. But there was probably a "one" that ultimately killed him. These clots usually develop elsewhere in the body and travel to the lungs. There was no indication of clotting elsewhere in the body.
II. He had heart disease / coronary artery disease...narrower blood vessels in the heart and lungs. Can make it easier for these small clots to "get stuck".
III. He had some blood vessel clusters on his liver. Most don't cause issues.
IV. He had some abnormal growths on his stomach. Most don't cause issues.
V. He had an enlarged prostate.
VI. Toxicology negative. (He had Narcan in his system...I wonder if they administered that at the hospital or if he had a prescription.)

Nothing else seemed noteworthy. If you have any questions about what something means I can try to answer it in layman's terms. As to why they would give the detective the clot and not send it for toxicology...I have no idea. Possibly to hang onto it in evidence "just in case". I imagine they asked for it.

With the insane nature of this case, I'm sure if they had ANY doubt about the nature of his death, they wouldn't have released this and would still be investigating.
Click to expand...
Linda on the "It's a Crime" youtube podcast said her hubby is an EMT and that given the information from the 911 call, they probably gave him Narcan due to the symptoms - in case of an overdose. She said it wouldn't have harmed him by them giving it to him. Makes sense.

Thank you SO MUCH for the information, @SheWhoMustNotBeNamed ! Much appreciated! :thankyou:
 
Kimster said:
Linda on the "It's a Crime" youtube podcast said her hubby is an EMT and that given the information from the 911 call, they probably gave him Narcan due to the symptoms - in case of an overdose. She said it wouldn't have harmed him by them giving it to him. Makes sense.

Thank you SO MUCH for the information, @SheWhoMustNotBeNamed ! Much appreciated! :thankyou:
Click to expand...
That makes sense about the narcan.
 
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed said:
I am a licensed healthcare professional. I read the ME's report. Now, I'm not a doctor or a pathologist, but I do have a medical background.

I. He had blood clots in his lungs. Bilateral means both sides. So it wasn't just one clot. But there was probably a "one" that ultimately killed him. These clots usually develop elsewhere in the body and travel to the lungs. There was no indication of clotting elsewhere in the body.
II. He had heart disease / coronary artery disease...narrower blood vessels in the heart and lungs. Can make it easier for these small clots to "get stuck".
III. He had some blood vessel clusters on his liver. Most don't cause issues.
IV. He had some abnormal growths on his stomach. Most don't cause issues.
V. He had an enlarged prostate.
VI. Toxicology negative. (He had Narcan in his system...I wonder if they administered that at the hospital or if he had a prescription.)

Nothing else seemed noteworthy. If you have any questions about what something means I can try to answer it in layman's terms. As to why they would give the detective the clot and not send it for toxicology...I have no idea. Possibly to hang onto it in evidence "just in case". I imagine they asked for it.

With the insane nature of this case, I'm sure if they had ANY doubt about the nature of his death, they wouldn't have released this and would still be investigating.
Click to expand...

Thank you! That clears up a lot. I also watched Linda and it sounds like the EMTs may have given him the Narcan. With not knowing much medically, the autopsy did look pretty thorough to me, the collection of the clot by LE simply seemed odd.

Linda also mentioned how he drove truck, had been on planes recently and long drives and sat a lot. So that made sense with clots too.

Crazy case, I would have never thought his death could be natural considering all of the things surrounding this cast of characters.
 
Wow, this Linda packs a lot into a podcast which I guess I have said before. This is interesting. I would like to find the full interview of Melanie and Ian. When you listen to it, if you do, did I hear right that Ian lived across the street from Melanie in Rexburg....? There was so much in it and that was more toward the early part of the podcast... Much in this to discuss.

 
Another part I would remark on, there was so much, I am still processing is when Melanie keeps saying when the kids are here again or seen again or come back again, Linda though it as hopeful they all know where they really are. I did as well for a bit but it also immediately struck me on Melanie's remarks that she means "in the next life" or something like that... When they say they are fine, it is I feel based on they believe they are in a "better" place. If anyone watches this, I would be interested to know what stood out to you.
 
Oh and another one, I don't put as much store in this stuff as others do, Melani said that JJ WAS (past tense) always up in everyone's faces and was a handful (paraphrasing). I go a bit both ways about past tense, I think some times too much is made of it but sometimes it is so often and obvious. I mean my daughter "was" here the other day and she is not at my place now, so I see at times where it is just a natural remark. Her remark about his behavior though too, with it, was an odd statement.
 
GrandmaBear said:
Oh and another one, I don't put as much store in this stuff as others do, Melani said that JJ WAS (past tense) always up in everyone's faces and was a handful (paraphrasing). I go a bit both ways about past tense, I think some times too much is made of it but sometimes it is so often and obvious. I mean my daughter "was" here the other day and she is not at my place now, so I see at times where it is just a natural remark. Her remark about his behavior though too, with it, was an odd statement.
Click to expand...
They are all liars. Yes Ian lived across the street from M. Those kids are not alive. M and Ian know this . Just listening to them talk, I would say they are all aliens, if I believed in such stuff for they are spaced out all the time. High on drugs? I’m just glad I don’t know them. Scary people.
 
Oneofthem said:
They are all liars. Yes Ian lived across the street from M. Those kids are not alive. M and Ian know this . Just listening to them talk, I would say they are all aliens, if I believed in such stuff for they are spaced out all the time. High on drugs? I’m just glad I don’t know them. Scary people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they are something. Hearing Ian lived right near the three of them was something, if I heard before, I forgot. Then knowing Rexburg or so they say is "the place" of this "cult", etc.... Hmm. Way too many weird coincidences in this case.
 
GrandmaBear said:
Oh and another one, Melanie married Ian without him ever meeting her four children. Who does that?
Click to expand...
I don't know if it was just me, but I think Linda mentioned this, too. I felt that during this interview the two of them didn't seem as cozy as the Dateline interview. Ian appeared ill at ease more than once.
 
Last edited:
GrandmaBear said:
Yeah, they are something. Hearing Ian lived right near the three of them was something, if I heard before, I forgot. Then knowing Rexburg or so they say is "the place" of this "cult", etc.... Hmm. Way too many weird coincidences in this case.
Click to expand...
He never fully explained his notes. In fact it made it more hinky when he said he indeed wrote them. Who would just go on and on about the things he was writing and then today dismiss them? That is really weird.

By the way, I haven't had a chance to see part 3 yet.
 
Kimster said:
I don't know if it was just me, but I think Linda mentioned this, too. I felt that during this interview the two of them didn't seem as cozy as the Dateline interview. Ian appeared I'll at ease more than once.
Click to expand...

I have not yet finished the interview I posted above. Linda talked like the full one she was talking about was from Nate Eaton, the reporter. If I get to it, I am going to look for those next. I know he is on Twitter.

Yeah, I can't figure out their deal. Ian and Melanie I mean, but I don't trust it nor them.
 
GrandmaBear said:
I have not yet finished the interview I posted above. Linda talked like the full one she was talking about was from Nate Eaton, the reporter. If I get to it, I am going to look for those next. I know he is on Twitter.

Yeah, I can't figure out their deal. Ian and Melanie I mean, but I don't trust it nor them.
Click to expand...
Here's a link to part one to get you there:

 
GrandmaBear said:
Thank you! Been up since 3:00 something a.m. and watching podcasts pretty much. Recently there had not been many on the ones I watch and now there are more than a few to catch up with. Feast or famine I guess... :)
Click to expand...
I really enjoy Linda's show. She picks out all the little details quite well. Most podcasts that I've watched I haven't been able to get into because they're just regurgitating old information. She comes up with new things to think about.
 
I like the criminal attorney's show, too. What's the name of it again? I forgot. I like it because he can tell you the legal angle of a case.
 
Kimster said:
I really enjoy Linda's show. She picks out all the little details quite well. Most podcasts that I've watched I haven't been able to get into because they're just regurgitating old information. She comes up with new things to think about.
Click to expand...

I agree. I watched her closer to when she first started not too many months ago and I was a bit both ways about her but she has really keyed in and changed her setup and gained viewers and still is gaining rapidly. That is what I liked about her. When I saw the headline this morning of a recent one of hers about Ian and Melanie, like you say about other podcasters, I figured it would be regurgitated stuff but it wasn't. She clues in on good points and new things all of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
2,999
Messages
238,496
Members
953
Latest member
dayday
Back
Top Bottom