Jump to content

Update on Story Re: Missing Kids (Daybell)


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

They are back on Kauai now.  Police are keeping track of them as one checked the gate to be sure they were on the plane back.

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2020/02/chad-and-lori-daybell-leave-maui-return-to-kauai/

What continues to bother me is that they don't haul them in for questioning just like they do when any child goes missing. Or maybe they tried that? Or this is just a significantly unusual case? 

This comment on that linked site says how I feel..."It's so surreal to see two people seemingly getting away with multiple murders including their own children, yet other people get killed by law enforcement just for a traffic violation."

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post

No crime has been committed that they have been charged with. Failing to show up to turn over the kids gets Vallow a contempt of court, but I understand that might be unenforceable in Hawaii to bring her back to Idaho. 

LE may know how much money they have and may be relying on them being more vulnerable once it runs out.  Or they just want them worn out...that seems to be happening finally.

If evidence of murder comes up, that would be different and there could be more direct action. We may just need to wait until the autopsies are complete.

They can’t just haul them in for questioning anytime they want. They are likely saving their opportunities when it will be more than a fishing expedition. 

Link to post
9 hours ago, Calm said:

No crime has been committed that they have been charged with. Failing to show up to turn over the kids gets Vallow a contempt of court, but I understand that might be unenforceable in Hawaii to bring her back to Idaho. 

LE may know how much money they have and may be relying on them being more vulnerable once it runs out.  Or they just want them worn out...that seems to be happening finally.

If evidence of murder comes up, that would be different and there could be more direct action. We may just need to wait until the autopsies are complete.

They can’t just haul them in for questioning anytime they want. They are likely saving their opportunities when it will be more than a fishing expedition. 

How is it not a crime to refuse to prove that the children you are legally responsible for are safe?  This is what I don't get.  If I refuse to show proof of a driver's license I can be arrested in some circumstances. But refusing to show proof that your child is alive is less enforceable?  That seems crazy to me.

Link to post
10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What continues to bother me is that they don't haul them in for questioning just like they do when any child goes missing. Or maybe they tried that? Or this is just a significantly unusual case? 

This comment on that linked site says how I feel..."It's so surreal to see two people seemingly getting away with multiple murders including their own children, yet other people get killed by law enforcement just for a traffic violation."

I'm with you Tacenda.  Children are missing and it seems like the police are all 'well, hopefully they turn up."

Link to post
24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How is it not a crime to refuse to prove that the children you are legally responsible for are safe?  This is what I don't get.  If I refuse to show proof of a driver's license I can be arrested in some circumstances. But refusing to show proof that your child is alive is less enforceable?  That seems crazy to me.

I think we'll see a "Tylee and JJ's Law" as a result of this case.  It will enable law enforcement and the Courts to compel parents or guardians to produce minor children where the welfare of the children is in question.  Right now it seems like Idaho does not have such a law.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

How is it not a crime to refuse to prove that the children you are legally responsible for are safe?  This is what I don't get.  If I refuse to show proof of a driver's license I can be arrested in some circumstances. But refusing to show proof that your child is alive is less enforceable?  That seems crazy to me.

Probably has to do with a history of not wanting the government to usurp parental rights, I am guessing.

There are apparently a number of cases out there where this has happened, kids never been found and nothing done to parents who have not cooperated (reported on websleuths when this gets discussed).  If you are interested, I will keep an eye out for them if they get repeated and post them.  I haven't wanted to clutter up the thread with things that just interested me.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
Link to post
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Probably has to do with a history of not wanting the government to usurp parental rights, I am guessing.

There are apparently a number of cases out there where this has happened, kids never been found and nothing done to parents who have not cooperated (reported on websleuths when this gets discussed).  If you are interested, I will keep an eye out for them if they get repeated and post them.  I haven't wanted to clutter up the thread with things that just interested me.

No, that's o.k., thanks though.  

It's insane to me that there is no legal recourse for making sure that a child is being taken care of by his or her legal guardians.  

Link to post
4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think we'll see a "Tylee and JJ's Law" as a result of this case.  It will enable law enforcement and the Courts to compel parents or guardians to produce minor children where the welfare of the children is in question.  Right now it seems like Idaho does not have such a law.

Thanks,

-Smac

Let's hope so.  It's insane that the law is powerless to force a parent to prove a child is o.k.

Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Let's hope so.  It's insane that the law is powerless to force a parent to prove a child is o.k.

It seems children aren't that important in the realm out there. The only thing I can think is happening is that the police are afraid to arrest them, possibly because they may take their own lives and then we'll have no answers. It seems like the couple might actually believe that Tylee and JJ are in a better place. So maybe they are considering joining them. This might all be so discounted later, and the kids are well and safe, hopefully!

Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It seems children aren't that important in the realm out there

I disagree.  I think instead people highly respected the parent-child relationship and laws were written with that in mind.

Now more is known about domestic abuse and with multiple high profile cases, including this one, more states will probably create laws to cover loopholes.

Even with this one, there were a number of comments when it was new about how this was the government trying to take kids away from their family.  Showing them in Hawaii seems to have cut down on that level of support, but I am not hanging out on too many forums looking at this, so may be wrong.

Link to post

I'm acutely aware of the differences between this case and the Parker Jensen case.  Insofar as I am aware, in contrast to the cases of JJ Vallow and Tylee Ryan, there never was any question regarding the young Mr. Jensen's whereabouts.  The question simply was about what was best, and who got to decide, for the young Mr. Jensen.  Still, I think the case of the young Mr. Jensen might serve as a cautionary tale for those who demand that the state step in (and possibly overstep) in determining what's best for children.

It's easy to say, in hindsight, that authorities should have, for example, filed criminal charges against Josh Powell.  But the hue and cry would have been no less shrill if they had done so while lacking sufficient evidence to convict, resulting in his acquittal.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm acutely aware of the differences between this case and the Parker Jensen case.  Insofar as I am aware, in contrast to the cases of JJ Vallow and Tylee Ryan, there never was any question regarding the young Mr. Jensen's whereabouts.  The question simply was about what was best, and who got to decide, for the young Mr. Jensen.  Still, I think the case of the young Mr. Jensen might serve as a cautionary tale for those who demand that the state step in (and possibly overstep) in determining what's best for children.

Good example, Ken.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
29 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm acutely aware of the differences between this case and the Parker Jensen case.  Insofar as I am aware, in contrast to the cases of JJ Vallow and Tylee Ryan, there never was any question regarding the young Mr. Jensen's whereabouts.  The question simply was about what was best, and who got to decide, for the young Mr. Jensen.  Still, I think the case of the young Mr. Jensen might serve as a cautionary tale for those who demand that the state step in (and possibly overstep) in determining what's best for children.

It's easy to say, in hindsight, that authorities should have, for example, filed criminal charges against Josh Powell.  But the hue and cry would have been no less shrill if they had done so while lacking sufficient evidence to convict, resulting in his acquittal.

I’m not advocating that anyone step in and determine what is best. I’m advocating that the police should have the legal power to determine if a child is dead or being harmed. 

Link to post
15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

being harmed. 

What is being harmed may be debatable (medical procedures).  Laws will need to be carefully written to avoid being misused.

I would prefer the focus be kept on proving they are alive for a new law.  Less likely to be debated.  There may be enough laws already in place as far as harm as long as the kids can be found to be examined.

Edited by Calm
Link to post
13 minutes ago, Calm said:

What is being harmed may be debatable (medical procedures).  Laws will need to be carefully written to avoid being misused.

I would prefer the focus be kept on proving they are alive for a new law.  Less likely to be debated.  There may be enough laws already in place as far as harm as long as the kids can be found to be examined.

Child abuse laws don’t seem to be all that debatable though. That’s the kind of harm I’m referring too. 

Link to post
58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m not advocating that anyone step in and determine what is best. I’m advocating that the police should have the legal power to determine if a child is dead or being harmed. 

You needn't worry.  My comment wasn't in response to your post specifically.  In any event, what you advocate sounds good in theory (and, indeed, in the vast majority of  cases, quite probably would be good even in practice).  The problem (or, perhaps better said, the challenge) is that every power given to government so that it may accomplish a worthwhile end also has the potential (and, in far too many cases even the probability) of being abused to accomplish a not-so-worthwhile end.  It's deciding how such a power would be used in practice where complexities come in.

What if, say, an older teenager (but one who's not quite of an age so as to be able to see to all of his needs on his own) simply leaves?  What if he doesn't tell his parents (or anyone else) his plans, doesn't tell them where he's going, doesn't hint at anything amiss in his life, but simply leaves?  There's no evidence of foul play except that, now, nobody knows where he is.  He might be dead, he might be alive, he might be hurt, he might be laboring under an altered mental status, or any number of circumstances might be playing out in his life, but there's no evidence to be able to determine whether any of these things is the case.

In that case, should the authorities be able to arrest and charge the parents, simply because they cannot answer any questions about the child's welfare or about his whereabouts?

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

In that case, should the authorities be able to arrest and charge the parents, simply because they cannot answer any questions about the child's welfare or about his whereabouts?

I think the key here would be cooperation, but then there is the issue of a minor having committed a crime and hiding from police.  Could parents be arrested because they do not cooperate with the police in locating them?  That could really stress the parent-child relationship ("if you loved me, you would have gone to jail for me"; "I had to take care of your brothers and sisters!"; "you love them more than me so I will never speak to you again")

Edited by Calm
Link to post
24 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think the key here would be cooperation, but then there is the issue of a minor having committed a crime and hiding from police.  Could parents be arrested because they do not cooperate with the police in locating them?

This post should not be construed as legal advice.  Anyone needing such advice should contact an attorney who is licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where the matter arose.  Now, with that exceedingly-tiresome caveat out of the way, and to answer your question ... :rolleyes:

Possibly.  It depends on how you define "not cooperate."  Would parents be required, specifically for the benefit of law enforcement, to conduct their own investigation to determine the location of a child whose whereabouts are unknown to them?  Probably not.  But are they required to disclose any information they know, or that they come to know?  Probably.  And are they required to avoid doing anything that would hinder the authorities in their efforts to investigate, and to locate and to apprehend the parents' child?  Yes. Consider Utah's Obstruction of Justice statute.

 

Quote

That could really stress the parent-child relationship ("if you loved me, you would have gone to jail for me"; "I had to take care of your brothers and sisters!"; "you love them more than me so I will never speak to you again")

Yes, often, parent-child relationships are strained under such circumstances.  The "too-easy" answers are (1) Parents should do everything they can to ensure that their children don't violate the law; and/or (2) If children, nonetheless, choose to violate the law, they shouldn't embroil their parents in such wrongdoing.  Are authorities wrong to use such strain as leverage?  Perhaps, perhaps not.  It might be a "tomayto, tomahto" "potayto, potahto" sort of question.  It might be wrong to use such strain as leverage in some circumstances but not in others.  Rightly or wrongly, as important as preserving family relationships might be, in many cases, society has decided that detecting, investigating, and prosecuting criminal wrongdoing takes precedence.

Link to post
18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It seems children aren't that important in the realm out there. The only thing I can think is happening is that the police are afraid to arrest them, possibly because they may take their own lives and then we'll have no answers.

I don't think that's it.  I think the police are gathering what evidence they can.  Meanwhile, the law does not appear to allow for Vallow/Daybell to be arrested.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 2
Link to post

https://www.yearofpolygamy.com/uncategorized/episode-177-the-curious-case-of-chad-daybell/

Lots of commentary on this podcast, included is Julie Rowe's comments too. One thing that caught my attention is that it's possible the children are with the cult in Missouri in bunkers somewhere, gave me lots of hope thinking that could be the possibility. Makes me hope the Idaho authorities are interviewing all of the people that were followers of Chad to figure out where the children could be.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

One thing that caught my attention is that it's possible the children are with the cult in Missouri in bunkers somewhere,

Was any evidence given or was it just speculation?

Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Was any evidence given or was it just speculation?

None that I heard, so speculation on my part from listening to what the podcast said about this group and the end of times preparedness and moving to underground bunkers in Missouri. Plus, wondering how Chad and Lori can remain so calm and blase about the whole thing, maybe they know the kids are in a good place, until they figure out a way to get out of the crimes they've committed, if that is the case. Or wishful thinking..

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
24 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

None that I heard, so speculation on my part from listening to what the podcast said about this group and the end of times preparedness and moving to underground bunkers in Missouri. Plus, wondering how Chad and Lori can remain so calm and blase about the whole thing, maybe they know the kids are in a good place, until they figure out a way to get out of the crimes they've committed, if that is the case. Or wishful thinking..

According to at least one WS poster who appears to have had access to either some writings of the group or heard about them, the group that Chad belongs to is predicting the end of the world in July 2020 and in anticipation of that, members of the group were to withdraw to a mountain camp (iirc as I only saw this part once) a year in advance.  He believes some likely candidates have dropped out of sight in the past months.  Chad is also not the leader of this group, though likely seen perhaps as one of the elite with his visions being published...which may be why he can be off in Hawaii, some suggest serving as a distraction. 

This may be one reason why Chad wanted to sell his publishing company, but Tammy didn't.  Given the two examples of Chad gave of sharing his revelations and Tammy obeying (one dealt with Tammy playing a video game too much, the other moving to Rexburg), I wonder about this pushing his buttons or figuring out she wasn't going to be cooperating with any big changes.

It is also claimed that one has to be married in order to be part of the 144,000 who are saved, which would explain the marriage and quick remarriages of Alex Cox, Melani B (the niece of Vallow), Vallow, and Daybell.

Anyway, might not be Missouri.

None of this is confirmed (save Chad's two revelations for Tammy), so take it as purely hearsay.

Edited by Calm
Link to post
8 minutes ago, Calm said:

... It is also claimed that one has to be married in order to be part of the 144,000 who are saved, which would explain the marriage and quick remarriages of Alex Cox, Melani B (the niece of Vallow), Vallow, and Daybell. ...

Dang! :(:unknw:

:D:rofl::D

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...