Vallow Daybell killed her 2 kids for sure.

I know it. I'm sure.

She's as guilty as Jack the Ripper- it's just a matter of what they can prove.

I can tell just by looking at her stressed-out face.

yup, she maybe pushed them into old faithful for sure, She had a pool party after she found out her 4th husband had been killed. She was laughing up a storm and was so happy.

The location has to be proven as well as the act...
This could be a Major Challenge for police & prosecutors

Location doesn't need to be proved. It helps a lot if the police can identify the place and/or produce the bodies, but it is possible to get a conviction with neither.

LW:

U are TOTALLY WRONG on this, the location MUST be established so a criminal case is filed in the court that has jurisdiction over the act(s).

With her travels to many states, this is crucial - critical.


Please refrain from statements you know little or nothing about, OK?

Location can be assumed...

Take a gander at this case, which almost comes down on all fours:

https://www.woodwardnews.net/archives/arrest-made-in-tucker-case/article_9a22d2fc-5aee-59a9-b71c-e3c829534efd.html


Which I found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_murder_convictions_without_a_body

for a case to move beyond a preliminary hearing, there has to be EVIDENCE that the matter is being considered in the proper court.

In an extreme case, if she was charged in county or state "A" & brought to trial, but then proved or had evidence that the crime was committed in county or state "B", she would be free from further court action, Double Jeopardy (It's in the U.S. Constitution) would prevent another trial.

eta: I use the word 'county' because that's the way court jurisdictions are determined here in Washington State; perhaps some other areas have different court jurisdictions such as Districts, IDK.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 12:53PM by GNPE.

What's needed is probable cause. This can be established with both physical and circumstantial evidence. Obviously, the less physical evidence there is, the more powerful must be the circumstantial evidence. Should this be established and charges made, a case can be transferred to jurisdiction "B" if necessary.

In another thread, I described how I responded to a domestic violence case in neighboring town "B," where the the crime occurred in an apartment that straddled the boundary with my city "A." With cops from "B," we determined that the preponderance of the crime occurred in "A," thus my arrest. Had subsequent evidence determined that "B" was the site of greater crime, the case would have then been transferred to town "B," even if the suspect had been arraigned in "A."

That is not double jeopardy, which states that a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime in the same jurisdiction. Sometimes, a person is tried at the local/state level, then tried again in Federal court for the same crime with a Federal intensifier ("add-on"), such as a hate crime or conspiracy.

For the U.S. (subject here, Correct?) the prohibition regarding double jeopardy lies in the U.S. Constitution, 5th amendment, no mention of 'same jurisdiction' as you claim....

Your anecdote supports my position that the proper location of an alleged crime must be established Before a court has jurisdiction.

> the proper
> location of an alleged crime must be established
> Before a court has jurisdiction.

Do you have evidence for this assertion?

How would you reconcile this assertion with the ruling in the court case that EOD provided?

Why on earth do you question everything I say on legal topics? Is there a reason you feel so confident that you know this better than I? Is there a reason you adamantly refuse to do even a google search?

I know it, too. She's obviously a full-blown psychopath. Her kids just got in the way, that's all, and were never really human beings, in her view, in the first place. I have known two extreme psychopath's, and they were very scary--a hairline away from murdering anyone who got in their way, or were "inconvenient" in their life.

She's like Hacking. Hacking didn't fool anyone, either. And no one is looking for the "real" killer of OJ Simpson's wife and boyfriend.

We know they will never find those missing kids. Sad.

She thought she was a translated being, a Goddess.
She probably didn't view what she did as murder, but more along the lines of sending them off to a new and glorified existence.

According to friends and neighbors, CHad Daybell was a different creature before he met Lori. Did she turn him into a killer If so, he may be the first to crack?

Yes, I think she either killed her children or had someone else do it. But she can't think of it as murder.

There are a lot of parallels between this lady and Annalee Skarin. Annalee abandoned her children, but she didn't kill them. She was very theatrical, loved attention and staged her own translation experience, before a witness. Google her story, told by Sam Taylor. It is fascinating.

For all you people that "know it", do you "know it" just like you know that Joseph Smith is the prophet and that the COJCOLDS is the one true church?

Just asking.

I don't "know it" as in a spiritual mormonese way, but there is a massive amount of circumstantial evidence and dead folks around them. I suspect that she and her brother pushed those kids into old glory to hide the evidence...those poor babies. She lured men, she lured her children. Probably because the girl saw her uncle kill the the last husband and Lori knew that she was a witness that would break. The adopted son - he probably bothered her. I hope she meets special friends in prison, but doesn't ID carry the death penalty?

Did she kill the kids?

Did Chad kill the kids?

Did she and Chad both kill the kids?

Did both Lori and Chad plan the killings together or did just one of them?

More likely than not she's involved, but anything else is just a guess at this point.

I agree with the opinion that the poor kids are more than likely dead and that their bodies have been slipped into one or two of the very deep hot pools where it would be impossible to find the bodies. I don’t think the daughter came back out of Yellowstone after that September trip there.

It has been so long since they were seen by anyone and then hearing about her trip to Yellowstone. What a horrible death if that is what she did.

Lacking witnesses, we won't know exactly what happened until one or both of them confess.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/yellowstone-missing-children-fbi-lori-vallow-tylee-ryan-idaho-a9384211.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 11:09AM by anybody.

They might get a confession if prosecutors take the death penalty off the table. I'm not normally a fan of the death penalty, but it's a useful bargaining chip.

I assume by that he meant that they are free of sin and therefore worthy to live with Jesus for eternity.

The gods must be crazy. At least this one is.

I expect her to be on suicide watch in July.

I referenced above a case that pretty much came down on all fours (a legal colloquialism) with Lori Daybell’s case, People v. Rutan. But the link I gave was to the story as it existed at the time of her arrest.

Here’s the entire matter, up through her conviction. It’s a clear, but lengthy, exposition on how a jurisdiction handled a situation in which a mother got rid of an inconvenient kid, and the hurdles the People faced in getting a conviction.

https://oklahoman.com/news/looking-for-logan-tucker


As to the issue of not knowing exactly where the death occurred, how does a defendant argue that issue? It’s no defense to say, “N’uh-uh, that’s not where I killed them!”

The People simply have to convince a trier-of-fact that, beyond a reasonable doubt, it was the defendant killed the kids. It becomes the available facts that end up supporting a conviction, not any issues of the law.

Facts...

It’s a long read...a long, sad read... Skip down to the reporting of the trial. It’s almost a textbook for trying and convicting Lori.

I hope he pays attention this time.

You don't need a body, you don't need a location, you don't need a precise jurisdiction, and you can do it all with circumstantial evidence. Each of these is a high hurdle to overcome, but the courts have adjudicated all of these issues.

each jurisdiction is precise & specific, whatever could that mean "you don't1 need a precise jurisdiction"?

ridiculous

a legal jurisdiction is defined by certain, fixed BOUNDARIES!

there are Jurisdictions of subject as in Small Claims, traffic infractions, probate, bankruptcy, maritime law, to name a few, and Location / area for criminal matters.

it is illegal to murder a U.S. citizen anywhere in the world, but that's not what we're discussing here....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 03:19PM by GNPE.

Holy Smokes

45 comments so far

I posted this in the middle of the night while working from home.

I just had to vent about this awful Mormon woman. . . and yes she is Mormon - altho they're technically not "Mormons" anymore.

must be a hot topic . . . . .

I apologize for derailing your thread. You are right.

mrx again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Holy Smokes
>
> 45 comments so far
>
> I posted this in the middle of the night while
> working from home.
>
> I just had to vent about this awful Mormon woman.
> . . and yes she is Mormon - altho they're
> technically not "Mormons" anymore.
>
> must be a hot topic . . . . .


I don't want you to get a swelled head...

We once had an overnight thread reach about 145 comments before Admin or the Mods noticed it. It was both epic and brutal; no prisoners were taken. Think 'Battle of the Somme' ...

It is not a defense to either the charge or a guilty verdict to content that the jurisdiction in which both steps took place, the charges filed and the trial, could not prove that the elements of the crime we're carried out within that jurisdiction.

Proper jurisdiction of a COURT with AUTHORITY can be agreed by continuing the process OR it can be CHALLENGED (in a pre-trial motion).

For state crimes, (issue at hand here) the AUTHORITY to have JURISDICTION is granted by the state legislature, NOT by reading a comic book!


What ya'll are suggesting is that jurisdiction (Authority of a court to impose a consequence - punishment) isn't necessary, that's 100% FALSE...


else crimes committed in Florida could be charged & outcome determined by a court in Hawaii (we're NOT talking about Federal offenses here!).

Pure, unmitigated B.S.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 03:48PM by GNPE.

> What ya'll are suggesting is that jurisdiction
> (Authority of a court to impose a consequence -
> punishment) isn't necessary, that's 100% FALSE...

No, that is not what we are saying. What we are telling you is that jurisdiction does not depend on the location of the crime. In most cases they are identical, but there are laws that allow alternative ways to establish jurisdiction--and there are dozens of cases establishing that.

You really need to read EOD's case


---------------
> Pure, unmitigated B.S.

I couldn't agree more. Pure, unmitigated, willfully ignorant B.S.

Black's law dictionary under jurisdiction: "Areas of authority: the geographic area in which a court has power or types of cases it has power <authority> to hear."


you're making a claim ('there are laws') , please support that stmnt, it's not my claim, I don't need to support it...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 03:56PM by GNPE.

Read EOD's case. What purpose is there in my providing alternative sources when you refuse to read the one that you have already been given?

Do you realize how foolish it looks to keep insisting on an assertion disproved by evidence people have laid right before your eyes?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 03:56PM by Lot's Wife.

B.S. AGAIN! opinions rendered here AREN't EVIDENCE!

you said that a precise jurisdiction isn't necessary (for Lori Vallow to be tried/convicted). FALSE.

No Jurisdiction = No Court, No Hearing, No Trial.

a defense atty would get your premise tossed before you could say boo!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 04:08PM by GNPE.

> B.S. AGAIN! opinions rendered here AREN't
> EVIDENCE!

Silly. Opinions rendered by courts are LAW. That's what it means to be in a "common law" country. Do you not understand that?

I guess the answer is obvious.


----------------
> you said that a precise jurisdiction isn't
> necessary (for Lori Vallow to be tried/convicted).
> FALSE.

You really don't get it, do you? I repeat. Jurisdiction is not the same thing as location.


----------------
> No Jurisdiction = No Court, No Hearing, No Trial.

Correct. But you don't need location to establish jurisdiction in cases like this. And contrary to your assertion, if charges are filed in the wrong jurisdiction, the jurisdiction is corrected. Double jeopardy never comes into play because jeopardy never obtained.


----------------
> a defense atty would get that premise tossed
> before you could say boo!

Funny, then, that defense attorneys did not succeed in doing that in the many cases--EOD's, countless mafia hits, etc.--that have been decided in the last few decades without location being proved.

But hey, don't let the facts and the precedents get in the way of a good rant. I mean, maybe you can hold the legal system in contempt of court, another issue about which you predicted the opposite of what actually happened.

Black's Law Dictionary:

"Court of competent jurisdiction: One having power and authority of law at the time of acting to do the particular act. One having jurisdiction under the Constitution and/or laws to determine the question in controversy."

Jeopardy attaches when a trial begins.

if the jurisdiction is corrected - determined BEFORE a trial begins (+ limited others), the proceedings can continue; once a trial or other formal proceeding has commenced, jeopardy has attached.

you said (I repeat!) 'no precise jurisdiction is needed' FALSE

For Criminal matters, jurisdiction is determined by geography-location.... Else a judge sworn only by Hawaiian authority could hear & determine criminal cases 'anywhere'.

All court matters are determined by a finding of FACTS/EVIDENCE, direct & circumstantial. There might could be enough evidence to convict LV of child neglect, but my OPINION (at this time) is not sufficient of murdering her children, to be DETERMINED by ONE COURT, ONE JURISDICTION.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 04:35PM by GNPE.

you guys are having some interesting legal back and forth pingpong. Very interesting, and as far as I can tell mostly civil.

> Black's Law Dictionary:
>
> "Court of competent jurisdiction: One having power
> and authority of law at the time of acting to do
> the particular act. One having jurisdiction under
> the Constitution and/or laws to determine the
> question in controversy."

Brilliant. But it does not say anything about what is necessary to establish jurisdiction. So brilliant but irrelevant.


-----------------
> Jeopardy attaches when a trial begins.

But what you said was that if the prosecutors file charges in the wrong jurisdiction, Vallow would be released and could not be recharged in the right jurisdiction. And now you are saying that jurisdiction does not attach until the trial begins?

Which is it? When charges are filed or when the trial begins?


---------------
> if the jurisdiction is corrected - determined
> BEFORE a trial begins (+ limited others), the
> proceedings can continue; once a trial or other
> formal proceeding has commenced, jeopardy has
> attached.

The first part of that statement contradicts what you earlier said. You claimed that jeopardy attached when charges were filed. Are you now, with this sentence, acknowledging that your previous claim was erroneous?

The second part is a misstatement of the law. If you would read the rest of the US section of the wikipedia article you were trumpeting, you would see the categories in which the start of a trial does not imply jeopardy. You are picking and choosing parts of the wikipedia article.


-------------------
> you said (I repeat!) 'no precise jurisdiction is
> needed' FALSE

No precise jurisdiction in the sense that the jurisdiction does not necessarily have to coincide with the location of the crime. You said that Vallow could not be prosecuted if the case started in the wrong county. That is false.

GNPE, you are in a hole. You should stop digging.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 04:47PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
You claimed that jeopardy
> attached when charges were filed.

I don't believe I said that, it's not consistent with what I QUOTED from wiki.

If you show me that I did write that ... in the context suggested, I'll retract it as a mis-statement.

HOWEVER, you did say that there must be a conclusion for jeopardy to attach, that's clearly, absolutely WRONG.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 04:52PM by GNPE.

"the location MUST be established so a criminal case is filed in the court that has jurisdiction over the act(s)." --GNPE, 11:13 AM

So where is your retraction?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 05:08PM by Lot's Wife.

> HOWEVER, you did say that there must be a
> conclusion for jeopardy to attach, that's clearly,
> absolutely WRONG.

I repeat, for about the fourth or fifth time, that you need to read the rest of the wikipedia article you cited. If you do, you will see a list of situations in which the initiation of a trial does not trigger jeopardy.

Just read what you cite, for heaven's sake.

I refer this conversation back to the U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment.

the only binding matters that clarify this Don't come from wiki, from myself, or from anyone else here, ONLY from appellate decisions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 05:04PM by GNPE.

And I refer it back to what the US Constitution, 5th Amendment means.

You made predictions about contempt of court, and you were wrong. You made predictions about bail, and you were wrong. Now you make statements about jurisdiction that are false and refuse to read the case on point that EOD provided. And you will neither correct your contradictions in this thread nor even read the whole wikipedia article that you mistakenly cited in support of your position.

To use the sentence you wrote to me, "please refrain from statements you know little or nothing about, OK?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 05:06PM by Lot's Wife.

Was EOD citing (with case #) a appeals court decision?

Popular renditions DON'T MEAN SQUAT!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 05:48PM by GNPE.

> Was EOD citing (with case #) a appeals court
> decision?

You can look it up as easily as I can.


--------------
> Popular renditions DON'T MEAN SQUAT!

I'm not sure what "popular rendition" means. It surely isn't a legal term. But if by that you mean a non-appellate court's decision, you are wrong. Those too are precedent.

Not that being wrong has ever stopped you. Strong emotions are proof, after all.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 05:56PM by Lot's Wife.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14319225716221187069&q=People+v.+Katherine+Rutan&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1


202 P.3d 839 (2009)
2009 OK CR 3
Katherine RUTAN a/k/a Katherine Pollard, Appellant
v.
STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
No. F-2007-1022.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

February 13, 2009.
841*841 Larry T. Jordan, Gerald Weis, Clinton, OK, counsel for appellant at trial.

Ray Don Jackson, District Attorney, Chris L. Ross, A.J. Laubhan, Assistant District Attorneys, Woodward, OK, counsel for the State at trial.

Michael D. Morehead, Oklahoma Indigent Defense, Norman, OK, counsel for appellant on appeal.

W.A. Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Keeley L. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Oklahoma City, OK, counsel for The State on appeal.

OPINION
LUMPKIN, Judge.

¶ 1 Appellant Katherine Rutan Pollard was tried by jury and convicted of First Degree Murder (21 O.S.2001, § 701.7), Case No. CF-2006-31, in the District Court of Woods County.[1] The jury recommended as punishment life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and the trial court sentenced accordingly. It is from this judgment and sentence that Appellant appeals.


DECISION
¶ 83 The Judgment and Sentence is AFFIRMED. Pursuant to Rule 3.15, Rules of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Title 22, Ch.18, App. (2008), the MANDATE is ORDERED issued upon the delivery and filing of this decision.

C. JOHNSON, P.J., and A. JOHNSON, V.P.J., concur.

CHAPEL, and LEWIS, JJ.: concur in the result.


Now, I did jump from ¶1 to ¶83, so you might want to read the 81 paragraphs...

Or not... You can continue providing us with your opinions and your views of how the law works, or ought to work. We all have time on our hands.

https://slate.com/human-interest/2014/02/can-you-commit-a-crime-within-idaho-s-part-of-yellowstone-and-not-be-charged.html

Maybe she did it in this section of Yellowstone where there may be no prosecution?

Other than that, she is good looking. Good looking women should not be prosecuted. It is un-natural.

Fascinating! From the article:

     "The “vicinage clause” of the Sixth Amendment requires that juries in federal criminal trials be drawn from both the state and the district in which the crime was committed. So, if you commit a crime in the Idaho portion of Yellowstone, you are in the state of Idaho and the district of Wyoming.

     "The only area that is both in the state of Idaho and the district of Wyoming is that 50-mile patch of Yellowstone that is in Idaho. And since no one actually lives in that 50-mile patch, prosecutors would not be able to impanel a jury that lives in both the state and district in which the crime was committed. The argument is that since no jury could be empaneled, you could not be tried and would have to be allowed to go free."

     So is it true? Certainly, the state of the law is true. But is it true that if you did commit a crime there you would get off scot-free because no jury could be empaneled? The answer is that no one could say for certain. It’s impossible to tell what a court would do in such a circumstance because there is absolutely no precedent."


The author goes on to suggest, by implication, that if Lori and her brother Alex knew about this apparent legal 'get out of jail free' card's existence, and killed the kids on this strip of Federal land thinking that they could use the cited defense, that the appropriate courts of appeal would sustain whatever innovation was used by the prosecution to set aside the 6th Amendment's seemingly explicit restriction.

That's a neat thing (and at times a grotesque thing) about the law: appellate court decisions are often written in response to the current state of society. But in this instance, EVERYBODY is in agreement that a guilty verdict against Lori Daybell will be upheld and enforced.

(Unlike school segregation's "Separate but Equal" travesty.)

Lori is a 'convicted-woman walking'. She may not get a fair trial, but she pretty much will get the verdict she deserves.


But how about this bit of hilarity: She gets convicted of their murder, in the proper jurisdiction, and receives her sentence.

The kids then pop up out of the survival bunker they've been playing in for however long it's been and the world mutters and scratches a collective toe in the dirt, and the wheels of justice turn and the verdict is overturned and Lori is released from jail.

She then shoots the kids on Facebook Live and claims that she can't be tried twice for the same crime...

Different crimes! The first conviction was erroneous and must be vacated, but the second is actual and subject to prosecution! But your scenario would make a great movie.

On reading OWJ's article, I had the same reaction as you. It raises the possibility that Vallow thought she could use that legal peculiarity to evade responsibility. My guess is that this issue has arisen before in other contexts (crimes on reservations?) and that there are workarounds. But she may not have known that.

A little legal knowledge is a dangerous thing--although a psychopathic woman is much more so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/18/2020 06:07PM by Lot's Wife.

Crimes committed on federal property are generally heard in FEDERAL Courts, few exceptions.

Interesting point.

Can you explain the relevance since the question is the empaneling of a jury and not whether the case will be heard in a federal court?

Popularr renditions are non-court written pieces that hold NO. precedence.

"Must be violated'? WTF IS THAT?

> Popularr renditions are non-court written pieces
> that hold NO. precedence.

And yet you cited wikipedia and Black's, both of which are "popular renditions." And you refused to consult the case EOD offered, which is a judicial decision with legal force and precedential value.

Curious, that.