Jump to content

Update on Story Re: Missing Kids (Daybell)


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And Daybell's lawyers know how insane Lori sounds.  I looks like they have a lot more of Lori saying crazy stuff than they do of Chad.  I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to separate the trials so that they could pretend it was all Lori.  Chad doesn't deserve to get off that easily.  They were partners in this, they can do down together.

Yep, yep and yep!

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

So apparently according to FB, LVD’s attorneys have a motion to have her death penalty excluded as there is no evidence she colluded in the 3 deaths or evidence she has a wanton disregard of life on record…

I wonder if the “on record” was included so the prosecution couldn’t bring up the pool party she had on the day her brother killed her husband. 
 

Referred to here but not in detail.

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2022/12/daybells-appear-in-court-together-for-the-first-time-trial-date-set/

Trial is delayed till April.  The prosecution barely turned over some discovery items.  I am beginning to wonder if they have their act in gear.

 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Lori Vallow's attorneys have filed a motion to have her case dismissed for [allegedly] violating her right to a speedy trial.  https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2023/1/26/23573356/lori-vallow-asks-for-case-to-be-dismissed.  How long did her trip to Crazytown last?  I'm no expert, but I don't think you get to delay your own trial by taking a detour to Crazytown and then turn around and claim that the prosecution is violating your right to a speedy trial.  Just sayin'! ;) 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Lori Vallow's attorneys have filed a motion to have her case dismissed for [allegedly] violating her right to a speedy trial.  https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2023/1/26/23573356/lori-vallow-asks-for-case-to-be-dismissed.  How long did her trip to Crazytown last?  I'm no expert, but I don't think you get to delay your own trial by taking a detour to Crazytown and then turn around and claim that the prosecution is violating your right to a speedy trial.  Just sayin'! ;) 

My guess is they are trying hard to get the cases severed because Pryor wants more time (he may have good reason to going through all the documents of texts and stuff from a couple of years, I believe) and her attorneys want less.   It seems pretty clear as is they want to dump it all on the brother, but that isn’t enough really given it appears he was her attendant, not the other way around.  It would be much nicer for her if she could blame it on her husband as well.  It is almost believable that both her brother and husband assuring her the kids were okay convinced her, but given she was apparently the mastermind behind the misdeeds that surrounded her custody hearings with her third husband, I just don’t buy it.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 12/9/2022 at 6:50 AM, Calm said:

Trial date set is April 3, 2023.  I really hope it happens then and is not delayed again.

https://www.facebook.com/100044424966565/posts/pfbid09n6GLADyiRXNWWzdpANkfdJUTJfW7QdYZ23T1Ef5ziKCoKQkgfvRkU3ptU5uXa7hl/

Maybe Lori will take another detour to Crazytown? :crazy:  (I hope no one is offended by my mention of this locale, which is perfectly charming and delightful in every way: I know; I live here.) ;)   As Napoleon XIV sang so well, "Life is beautiful all the time" here. :D 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment

Obviously, there is a limit (in theory, and, hopefully, in practice, but who really knows? :unknw:) to how much defense attorneys representing separate clients who have been charged with crimes arising from the same criminal episode can collaborate: "I represent my client, counselor!  It is his [or her] interests that are paramount to me!  You want to collaborate with me?  Well, you can go pound sand!"  (Or perhaps, "I will advise my client of your wish to collaborate and get back to you, but ... don't hold your breath.")

The former, as I understand it, according to the rules (though, of course, I welcome enlightenment from someone who is more erudite than I, legally speaking) is what should happen, at least when any collaboration would prejudice either clients rights, but ... Does it? :huh:  And whether any collaboration would prejudice either client's rights is not always cut and dried.

 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment

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...