Update on Story Re: Missing Kids (Daybell)

[Calm]

For those who want to dig deeper, some podcasters applied for and received the over 1700 pages on the custody case of Tylee and other stuff. I hadn’t realized they weren’t just a podcast, so I was ignoring them, but they provide extensive text info as well. I might explore the site and provide further links or may not.  But to start others off…

https://wickedtruthsandfbombs.com/category/the-lori-vallow-and-chad-daybell-saga/ 

You might want to start at the bottom.

Link to documents 

https://www.patreon.com/posts/vallow-ryan-docs-49198307?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copy_to_clipboard&utm_campaign=postshare

BTW, some people think this site is offensive because they document that Charles supported LV at times aggressively in her fight against her ex husband, Joe Ryan. How much he was manipulated and deceived by LV into doing so or if he went along with willingly, I don’t believe they show. I believe that the info is useful in showing a pattern of abusive behaviour by LV even during the time that LV was described by others as a great mom, etc. IOW, I don’t believe she flipped or had a mental breakdown that changed her, but that it was a process of increasingly abusive and narcissistic behaviour over the decades, where those who got in her way were demonized (literally once she hooked up with CD) and those who gave her what she wanted were ‘loved’ and made a big deal about (according to her friend, Melanie Gibb, LV was able to make one feel very important, like they were instant best friends, was able to really draw someone in…she seems nature charismatic as well as good looking, leading people to want to please her).  Unfortunately for him, Charles was drawn in and first used to attack others and then becoming a target himself.  

Added: It appears his own weaknesses may have made him more vulnerable to such manipulation. He was apparently bipolar and may have been violent with his previous wife and children.  He had been recently diagnosed during this time period, which may be why Adam Cox is so resistant to the idea that Charles had a screaming match with LV at the time of his killing (medication and giving up drinking due to interaction with his meds helped Charles to control his temper).
 

https://wickedtruthsandfbombs.com/2021/03/25/charles-vallow-the-untold-story-part-one/

Edited October 17, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

This has most likely been shared, but I hadn't heard it yet. He is such a liar, and saying he is Charle's nephew when making the call to the funeral home/crematory? And that he's from Ohio and he quickly changes the spelling to his name lol. Or not a laughing matter. This is so sick. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i45zQFY-OmA

ETA: Here are the texts that I hadn't seen before as well, with Lori and his sons 36 hours after Charles death. They are pretty upset she won't talk instead of throwing a text out only. How sad for them that they weren't able to be involved in the decisions or see their father before cremation. Or did they, maybe they did. I hope they got some kind of closure. They sure don't want their names out there according to the East Idaho News. https://www.eastidahonews.com/2020/02/read-the-text-messages-lori-daybell-sent-charles-vallows-sons-after-he-died/

Edited October 19, 2021 by Tacenda

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This has most likely been shared, but I hadn't heard it yet. He is such a liar, and saying he is Charle's nephew when making the call to the funeral home/crematory? And that he's from Ohio and he quickly changes the spelling to his name lol. Or not a laughing matter. This is so sick. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i45zQFY-OmA

ETA: Here are the texts that I hadn't seen before as well, with Lori and his sons 36 hours after Charles death. They are pretty upset she won't talk instead of throwing a text out only. How sad for them that they weren't able to be involved in the decisions or see their father before cremation. Or did they, maybe they did. I hope they got some kind of closure. They sure don't want their names out there according to the East Idaho News. https://www.eastidahonews.com/2020/02/read-the-text-messages-lori-daybell-sent-charles-vallows-sons-after-he-died/

Seems like just a lot of stalling on Lori's part.

[Calm]

The move is official.

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2021/10/idaho-supreme-court-approves-move-of-daybell-trial-to-ada-county/

I believe there is a status hearing for LVD today.

May be repeats…

Interview of brother of Charles Vallow: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqP76aEaxfk

Interview of LVD friend:

https://youtu.be/L217FMbxx1k

calls to police by  JJ’s grandparents:

https://youtu.be/utfjTaepoaY

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

Hoo, boy:

Quote

MERIDIAN, Idaho (Court TV) — Lori Vallow Daybell’s attorney has filed an explosive motion alleging that his client, who is currently committed to a psychiatric facility, is being manipulated by her caretakers.

Lori and her husband, Chad Daybell — who have been dubbed the Doomsday Couple because of their extreme religious beliefs — face multiple criminal charges, including the murders of her children, Tylee and JJ.

Earlier this year, Lori was deemed not competent to stand trial and confined to an Idaho psychiatric facility for treatment. Once she’s deemed competent, her case will go forward.

The case against her is on hold.  Got it.

Quote

According to the motion filed by her defense attorney Mark Means, Lori and the clinician treating her at the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare watched Chad Daybell’s change of venue hearing together on October 5, 2021.

During that hearing, the clinician recommended that Lori contact LDS church headquarters’ legal counsel to discuss her case and possibly obtain new legal counsel. The clinician even reportedly provided the phone number and told her that making that call was part of her treatment.

The motion states that Lori would not otherwise have reached out to this other legal counsel had she not been prodded by the Department of Health and Welfare employee.

According to Means, Lori didn’t want to make the call — she felt forced. And when Lori told her treating clinician that she had informed Means about the call, the clinician said “no you didn’t.”

Lori spoke to Daniel S. McConkie at LDS legal counsel. According to the motion, Lori made Brady Violation disclosures under the guise that the church was her friend and was there to assist her. Means insisted Lori would not have made those disclosures without McConkie’s assurances that he already knew every detail of her case.

The reference here to "Brady Violation disclosures" seems to pertain to the "Brady Rule," described here:

Quote

The Brady Rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. A "Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused--evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness.

If the prosecution does not disclose material exculpatory evidence under this rule, and prejudice has ensued, the evidence will be suppressed. The evidence will be suppressed regardless of whether the prosecutor knew the evidence was in his or her possession, or whether or not the prosecutor intentionally or inadvertently withheld the evidence from the defense.

I'm a bit confused here.  "Brady material" is usually exculpatory evidence (evidence that tends to exonerate the criminal defendant) that the prosecutor has but does not turn over to the defense.  I'm not sure how that applies to Lori talking to the McConkie.

That said, it seems pretty odd for Daniel McConkie to have talked to her.  It also seems pretty odd that a clinician would encourage (require?) Lori to call a lawyer as "part of her treatment."

Also, the reference to "LDS church headquarters’ legal counsel" seems a bit odd, as McConkie works for a law firm, and is not employed directly by the Church.

Back to the article:

Quote

Means reported that McConkie never disclosed to Lori that there was a conflict of interest or that their conversation was not, in fact, protected by attorney-client privilege.

Hmm.  I'm not sure this is correct.  First, I'm not sure what the "conflict of interest" is.  The Church isn't a party or a victim in the case, and McConkie works for Kirton McConkie, which handles some legal work for the Church, but is not part of the Church.

Also, why would the conversation not be "protected by attorney-client privilege?"  Aren't preliminary conversations between a lawyer and a prospective client covered by the privilege?

Quote

Lori believed she would be protected by the rules of the spiritual world.

Not sure what this means.  

Here's where things get really interesting:

Quote

Means stated that McConkie disclosed the details of the conversation he had with Lori to prosecutor Rob Wood. Wood later revealed that Lori only told McConkie that she wanted a new appointed public defender. According to the motion, this was not true.

In the motion, Means goes on to describe Lori’s “obsession” with the LDS Church and her belief that LDS’ legal counsel “can control and manipulate the Court system, Judges, Prosecution and the like in this very case.”

Per Daniel McConkie, an attorney working for Kirton McConkie, and an attorney with nearly 40 years of experience, and also per the prosecutor (Rob Wood), he (McConkie) received a call from Lori Daybell, and he then turned around and disclosed the details of the conversation to the Wood.  Wood then "revealed" (to Lori's attorney, I think) that Lori had "only told McConkie" that she wanted another lawyer.  That narrative seems to make sense (much more than the obscure conspiratorial one Means is peddling).  It would explain why McConkie, a very experienced attorney, would contact the prosecutor.  If Lori had told McConkie something incriminating, then I think that would be covered by the attorney-client privilege. And if statement from Lori to McConkie is privileged, it would not be admissible at trial.  

Also, McConkie is not licensed to practice law in Idaho, and so I think would have been a bit leery of giving legal advice to a resident of Idaho, paricularly one situated like Lori (under medical care for mental health issues, with criminal charges waiting in the wings if she gets batter).  

I'm still not understanding the "Brady material" angle.

Quote

According to Means, Lori’s beliefs were used against her without her attorney’s supervision or knowledge.

Not sure what this means.  What has happened that has been damaging to Lori?  Who is using what "against" her?

Quote

Calling these actions unethical and possibly illegal, Means suggested that the LDS Church might be working in tandem with the prosecution to manipulate Lori into making statements that were not in her best interests.

Huh?  How does he reach that conclusion/suspicion?

Quote

“These behaviors, if true,” stated Means, “are clearly unethical and possible illegal activities to undermine Defendant’s Constitutionally protected rights.”

Means doesn't exactly have the best track record in this case.

First, he appears to have made a significant misrepresentation to the court pertaining to his joint representation of Lori and Chad.  See here:

Quote

Lori Vallow’s attorney, Mark Means, raised some eyebrows during Lori’s arraignment on new charges when he reported to the judge that he had not represented any other parties.  The judge asked, “Mr. Means, the court is inclined to ask one question here today, number one because the charge has been listed here in the information does pertain to conspiracy, Mr. Means, have you ever represented any of the alleged co-conspirators that are set forth in the complaint?” To which    Means answered, “No, your honor, other than Mrs. Daybell.”  Prosecutor Wood pointed out that Means said he represented Chad Daybell before any criminal charges were filed against him.  The judge questioned whether a conflict exists and directed both sides to submit their request regarding that issue.
...
It’s clear that Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell’s interests are adverse to each other now.  A lawyer is ethically bound to zealously represent his client by acting in that client’s best interest. The lawyer can’t adequately represent the interests of two clients in the same case who have conflicting goals about the outcome.  If Mr. Means represented Chad at any time, even if it was before any criminal charges were filed, there is a chance that Means was privy to information from Chad that he can now use to benefit Lori. Conversely, he may be privy to information from Lori that will hurt Chad, whose interests he must protect. Clients can waive some conflicts in writing, but most lawyers will tell you doing so is dangerous. Keeping a case when there is a conflict is inviting trouble; your client could later sue you for malpractice, and it could subject the case to a challenge in the appeals court.   

Frankly, I'm surprised Means is still Lori's attorney.

Second, Means apparently has a tendency to file unreasonable/absurd things with the court.  See here:

Quote

Special prosecutor Rob Wood says a recent motion filed by Lori Vallow Daybell's attorney is "inappropriate" and "absurd."

On Friday, Daybell's attorney, Mark Means, asked District Judge Steven Boyce to grant several requests after his client was committed to the Department of Health and Welfare. In a court filing, Means said the requests are necessary because of the "fragile mental state of incompetency, as a direct result of the historical and systematic mental, emotional and physical abuse (Lori Daybell) suffered."
...
Means wants Boyce to order IDHW to follow a specific treatment outlined by a court-appointed mental health evaluator. While it is not clear what the report from the mental health expert says, Wood says such a request is not covered under Idaho law.

"The state is unaware of any legal, psychiatric or medical authority that would allow the court, defense counsel or the prosecutor, all of whom lack medical degrees, to interfere with the daily treatment of the defendant or dictate how any such treatment should proceed," Wood wrote.

Third, I'm starting to question whether Means is manipulating Lori.  Means is not "death penalty certified," meaning he cannot represent Lori in a criminal proceeding where the death penalty is a possible punishment.  Consequently, in August the judge appointed another attorney, Jim Archibald, as co-counsel along with Means.  Archibald is qualified to hand death penalty cases.  This article goes on to explain some issues with Means continuing as Lori's attorney:

Quote

 A new death penalty qualified attorney will be representing Lori Vallow.

The announcement comes as her original attorney requested to dismiss the grand jury indictment, charging her in the deaths of her children and Chad Daybell’s first wife, Tammy Daybell.

KSL TV spoke with a law expert who said they don’t see a lot of merit in the motion to dismiss Vallow’s grand jury indictment. In fact, they think it could actually hurt the defense down the road.

Death penalty certified attorney James Archibald has been chosen to represent Vallow in the capital punishment case against her.

Vallow and her husband, Chad Daybell, are facing the death penalty in the murders of Vallow’s children — Tylee Ryan and JJ Vallow — as well as Tammy Daybell, Chad Daybell’s first wife.

Judge Steven Boyce recently ordered the couple be tried together, but they each will have a unique case number and independent representation.

A death penalty certified attorney has not been assigned to Daybell, who is currently represented by attorney John Prior.

Under Idaho law, when appointing an attorney to indigent defendants in death penalty cases, the judge must assign two death penalty certified attorneys.

However, in Vallow’s case, the judge is keeping Mark Means as co-counsel with Archibald. Means is not a death penalty certified attorney, but Boyce’s order states that Vallow has the right to “waive death penalty certified counsel.”

Samuel Newton, associate professor at the University of Idaho College of Law, is an experienced death penalty attorney. He said the judge’s decision is pending Vallow’s psychological treatment.

The order is a compromise between what Vallow could choose and what the law requires.

“What the judge is saying here to Mr. Means is, ‘There is the possibility that Lori Vallow could waive that requirement for Mr. Means,” Newton said. “‘We’ll appoint one attorney that meets those requirements. If Lori Vallow’s competency is restored, we will deal with that then.'”

In the meantime, Means is moving full-steam.

On Monday, he filed a motion to dismiss Vallow’s murder charges in the grand jury indictment since there is a stay in her case, which is halting all proceedings, pending her psychological treatment.

“It’s very, very unclear what Mr. Means is trying to argue,” Newton said. “That doesn’t prevent the state from pursuing additional charges.”

Newton said he feels Means’ motion is without substance.

“If that’s (the stay) the basis for the motion, it’s not a good motion,” Newton said.

On Thursday, Means filed another motion to compel, requesting Tammy Daybell’s autopsy results and medical history, including “psychological/depression records” from at least two years prior to her death.

Means has also requested witness interview recordings he alleges were incomplete for several family members, including the Daybell children.

Means alleged prosecutors aren’t giving him proper access to evidence.

The motion to compel alleges, “The refusal to comply with Idaho Rules of Criminal Procedure, bad faith and lack of professionalism is shocking.”

In one instance, on June 21, Means claims a fruitless trip cost $4,346 in legal fees, gas and a hard drive when the Fremont County Prosecutor’s Office denied his request to provide evidence materials.

While attorneys need proper access to evidence, Newton said weak motions raise red flags and could lead to problems down the road.

“You’re just opening a pandora’s box when you have unqualified attorneys or people who don’t know because capital litigation is very different than felony litigation,” Newton said.

Yeesh.  Means is, I think, in way over his head.  I can't help but suspect that he's staying in this case not because it's good for his client, but because it's good for him.  He gets his name in the news.

On balance, I'm inclined to not take Means' motions very seriously.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 28, 2021 by smac97

[bsjkki]

A summary of the court filing referenced above. 

https://m.facebook.com/jlumfox10/posts/pcb.444992133658282/?photo_id=444979620326200&mds=%2Fphotos%2Fviewer%2F%3Fphotoset_token%3Dpcb.444992133658282%26photo%3D444979620326200%26profileid%3D100000095052625%26source%3D48%26__tn__%3DEH-R%26cached_data%3Dfalse%26ftid%3D&mdp=1&mdf=1

Edited October 28, 2021 by bsjkki

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yeesh.  Means is, I think, in way over his head.  I can't help but suspect that he's staying in this case not because it's good for his client, but because it's good for him.  He gets his name in the news.

 

Exactly. I also think he has some pretty major personality issues. 

[Calm]

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yeesh.  Means is, I think, in way over his head.  I can't help but suspect that he's staying in this case not because it's good for his client, but because it's good for him.  He gets his name in the news.

It has been reported he intends to write a book, I don’t know how accurate a rumor, but since his ability to write is poor, it will have to be inside knowledge that will bring him money.  He needs to stay on as long as he can.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

A summary of the court filing referenced above. 

https://m.facebook.com/jlumfox10/posts/pcb.444992133658282/?photo_id=444979620326200&mds=%2Fphotos%2Fviewer%2F%3Fphotoset_token%3Dpcb.444992133658282%26photo%3D444979620326200%26profileid%3D100000095052625%26source%3D48%26__tn__%3DEH-R%26cached_data%3Dfalse%26ftid%3D&mdp=1&mdf=1

Huh.  So a few observations:

1. I suspect the IDHW worker was *responding* to Lori, not prompting her.  I suspect Lori voiced a concern about Means and the worker, rather naively, told her to call "the Church" for help.

2. "The Church" doesn't provide legal advice, but the prominent and well-known law firm it often uses, Kirton & McConkie, does.  So she called them and spoke with Daniel McConkie.

3. McConkie, being a fairly competent attorney, acknowledged that he knows about her case (lots of people, including attorneys, keep up to date on legal proceedings in famous cases).  There is nothing wrong with that.

4. McConkie apparently did not give her legal advice, and instead told her that he "would help her find her an attorney that could legally practice law in Idaho" (as noted above, McConkie isn't licensed in Idaho).

5. McConkie, not having established an attorney-client relationship with Lori, and in the apparent absence of any confidential or privilged communication from her, contacted Rob Wood, the prosecutor, and told him about the call.  

6. Wood then contacted Lori's other attorney, Jim Archibald, to pass along the apparent request from Lori to get "a new non-state appointed attorney."

7. So it looks like . . . there was no secrecy here.  No betrayed confidences.  No effort to subvert Lori's constitutional rights.  Instead, it looks like Lori may not altogether have a lot of faith and trust in Mr. Means.  

8. The communication from the prosecutor to Lori's other attorney, Archibald, is significant.  Everything seems to be on the up and up.

9. I wonder what Means is thinking in terms of Archibald's involvement in the case.  Archibald was apparently not involve din the filing of the various motions.

10. As between the two attorneys, Archibald and Means, the latter is *far* more disposable.  Apparently state law requires *two* death-penalty-certified attorneys to represent Lori, and the judge has been letting Means stay on as counsel in a let's-wait-and-see-what-happens-with-Lori's-mental-health kind of way.

11. I am somewhat flummoxed at the behavior of the clinician as alleged in the motions.  It may be that the clinicial was engaged in inappropriate behavior.  But it may also be that Lori asked for the help, and is not looking to keep Means on.

12. I read the motion.  It is not particularly well-drafted.  

13. I predict Means will end up being removed as counsel because A) he is not certified to handle death penalty cases, B) he has a pretty clear conflict of interest (because he previously represented Chad, whose interests are adverse to Lori's), C) Lori does not seem to want him as her attorney, D) Archibald in on board, and E) Means keeps making himself look foolish and incompetent in the filings he is submitting tot he court.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can't help but suspect that he's staying in this case not because it's good for his client, but because it's good for him.  He gets his name in the news.

He only cares about himself, she only cares about herself; he's a bad attorney, she's a bad girl - they are a perfect match.  They deserve each other! 

[ksfisher]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

he's a bad attorney, she's a bad girl - they are a perfect match.

Sounds like the tag line for a made for TV movie.

[Vanguard]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Sounds like the tag line for a made for TV movie.

Sounds like a 70s-something feature film starring Goldie Hawn & Chevy Chase (see Foul Play & Seems Like Old Times)! ; )

[pogi]

29 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Sounds like the tag line for a made for TV movie.

Totally!  I write for Lifetime in my spare time. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It has been reported he intends to write a book, I don’t know how accurate a rumor, but since his ability to write is poor, it will have to be inside knowledge that will bring him money.  He needs to stay on as long as he can.

Ah.  That would go quite a ways in explaining his behavior.  He's not death penalty certified, so under normal circumstances he would be removed as Lori's attorney.  However, if Lori waives this requirement, then I think the court might be able to let him stay on as co-counsel (with Archibald).  But this becomes bad because it would give Means a strong incentive to exercise undue influence on Lori, to pressure her into keeping him on as her attorney.  And if the narrative turns out to be that she contacted McConkie for help in finding an attorney to replace Means, then the motion - in which Means quotes and paraphrases his client (a questionable practice, I think) - because suspect.  Is Lori really a victim here?  And if so, who is the victimizer?  McConkie, the lawyer in Utah who immediately contacted the prosecutor about the call?  Or could the victimizer be Means, the guy who - is reported to be looking for notoriety and money by writing an exposé on this once-in-a-lifetime case, but who will likely not be able to do so if he is removed as counsel?

Any potential conflict of interest there, Mr. Means?

Boy, it sure would be interesting to see the prosecute move to remove Mr. Means as counsel, and for the court to ask Means point blank if he intends to write a book about Lori.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He's not death penalty certified, so under normal circumstances he would be removed as Lori's attorney.  However, if Lori waives this requirement, then I think the court might be able to let him stay on as co-counsel (with Archibald).  But this becomes bad because it would give Means a strong incentive to exercise undue influence on Lori, to pressure her into keeping him on as her attorney. 

Wouldn't the fact that the court allowed a non-death sentence attorney to represent her also be grounds for appeal for Vallow if she was found guilty and sentenced to death?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Wouldn't the fact that the court allowed a non-death sentence attorney to represent her also be grounds for appeal for Vallow if she was found guilty and sentenced to death?

Maybe.  If Lori knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to two death-penalty-certified attorneys, and instead knowingly chooses to keep Means as one of her attorneys, then that could make an appeal on this point difficult.  However, I think the judge would be very unwise to let Means continue as her attorney.  That he is not certified, and that he is not doing a very good job, and that he has an apparent conflict of interest, would all be pretty good grounds for an "ineffective assistance of counsel" claim.  The judge can avoid all that by removing Means.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

A link to the motions filed yesterday: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pw8THN0RwpCHBJXvc4t2fPtMKz6GI2Z3/view

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Maybe.  If Lori knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to two death-penalty-certified attorneys, and instead knowingly chooses to keep Means as one of her attorneys, then that could make an appeal on this point difficult.  However, I think the judge would be very unwise to let Means continue as her attorney.  That he is not certified, and that he is not doing a very good job, and that he has an apparent conflict of interest, would all be pretty good grounds for an "ineffective assistance of counsel" claim.  The judge can avoid all that by removing Means.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Your avatar fits perfectly with the posts you've been making. Maybe that's the life of a lawyer too. Thanks for your insight.

[Calm]

Conversation with police by Debbie ____, Alex Cox’s ex wife (married in 92)…more about craziness in the Cox family and Alex expressing a desire to provoke a fight so that he could kill Joe Ryan in self defense.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LoriVallow/comments/q82u5r/alex_cox_had_been_married_divorced_chandler_pd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by Calm

[katherine the great]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Conversation with police by Debbie ____, Alex Cox’s ex wife (married in 92)…more about craziness in the Cox family and Alex expressing a desire to provoke a fight so that he could kill Joe Ryan in self defense.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LoriVallow/comments/q82u5r/alex_cox_had_been_married_divorced_chandler_pd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

 

Ewww. That is very yucky! 🤮 The Coxes just sound like trashy people all around. 

[Calm]

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2021/10/lori-daybells-attorney-says-she-being-manipulated-and-reached-out-to-lds-church-attorneys/

[smac97]

 

https://www.postregister.com/news/crime_courts/vallows-attorney-allege-she-was-manipulated-by-an-idhw-employee-into-contacting-lds-legal-counsel/article_d89ab448-974a-5ea6-a924-cec3ab535e18.html

Quote

McConkie's law firm, Kirton McConkie, issued a statement in response to the motion. 

"On October 6, 2021, Kirton McConkie received an unsolicited call from Lori Daybell seeking assistance," the statement reads. "Kirton McConkie informed Mrs. Daybell that it could not provide advice or representation and directed her to the State Bar of Idaho or the court if she needed assistance in finding an attorney. Subsequent calls with her counsel and the prosecutor confirmed the unsolicited contact."

Archibald told the Post Register in a text message that he could not talk about the motion. 

"I can't comment at this time about what Mark Means filed," Archibald said. 

 

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

 

It has been reported he intends to write a book, I don’t know how accurate a rumor, but since his ability to write is poor, it will have to be inside knowledge that will bring him money.  He needs to stay on as long as he can.

As a lawyer he wants to write a book about his defense of a client? Is he trying to get disbarred and sued?

Edited October 29, 2021 by The Nehor

[rongo]

Dan McConkie is the head attorney at the Church's abuse hotline. There are others, but he always gets the "hard" questions. I've spoken to him a number of times on the hotline. He is the picture of a competent, cautious attorney. Means' version of his conversation doesn't sound believable to me

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Conversation with police by Debbie ____, Alex Cox’s ex wife (married in 92)…more about craziness in the Cox family and Alex expressing a desire to provoke a fight so that he could kill Joe Ryan in self defense.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LoriVallow/comments/q82u5r/alex_cox_had_been_married_divorced_chandler_pd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

 

Here's the interview on tape in full. Notice in the comments on youtube that JJ's grandmother is commenting. And youtube verified that it's really her, or somebody did. 

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Tacenda