If Lori is being held to produce the children, and if those are positively identified as the children does that mean she is free. Statements were said that if she produced the children all the court cases would be mute.

Just wondering.

Once the proof exists that she didn't actually abandon the kids, she will be free from being prosecuted for such charges.

Ain't America great!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Once the proof exists that she didn't actually
> abandon the kids, she will be free from being
> prosecuted for such charges.
>
> Ain't America great!



That is so dissapointing.

Don't be disappointed, babe!

She will have other, much more serious charges filed against her, and maybe her bail, which she hasn't 'purchased', will be increased! She won't be freed from custody.

I still think she's faithfully waiting for Jesus to spring her, on July 21. (I'm not positive on the date, but I know it's close to that.)

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't be disappointed, babe!
>
> She will have other, much more serious charges
> filed against her, and maybe her bail, which she
> hasn't 'purchased', will be increased! She won't
> be freed from custody.
>
> I still think she's faithfully waiting for Jesus
> to spring her, on July 21. (I'm not positive on
> the date, but I know it's close to that.)

Oh for sure.... the old "waiting for jeebus" talk

One of the great things about your relationship is that you two don't have to wait for Jesus to be enraptured.

Yes, I was entrapped long ago...

Not entrapped but enthralled.

I have a few 5-gallon jugs of water ready to be turned into wine. There is also a ream of paper I’d like Jesus to try his hand at.

I suspect that there was some sort of break in the case with her. Perhaps she thought she could pin it on the husband. However now that they are both in custody and the children are confirmed dead they will both sing like canaries to save their literal neck.

Some of my feverish opinions:

I reject the notion that either Lori or Chad gave anything away or even thought about trying to make any deals. Something else triggered the availability of a judge to issue a search warrant.

I give serious heed to the idea that they still believe that come July 21 (or thereabouts) Jesus will come bail out their Jesus-loving butts and they will be free.

My guess is that for the above reason they will clam up. They have attorneys and I just don't see an FBI-led investigation team trying to pry information out of them, or messing with any of their rights, such as the attorney-client privilege.

Towards the very tail end of August, after Jesus has let them down, they will have to fall back on the arts of legal defense in order to find a get out of jail strategy. Probably the best sounding strategy is to put it all on Alex Cox, Lori's deceased brother, the one who shot her last husband, and who may have shot at her niece Melinda's ex-husband. His death last December (the autopsy report says it was 'natural') opened that up as a possible escape route. He can't deny the allegations they will make about him. Yes, there are serious flaws if they follow this route, but hey, it's pretty much all they have!

The prosecution has to come up with evidence to support any 'facts' they wish to offer up to a jury. At this point, the only evidence that exists is that the kids were found buried on Chad's property. Remember, Chad doesn't have to take the stand. He cannot be called by the prosecution. But if he did take the stand as part of his defense, he can be cross-examined on the information he provided.

So how does the prosecution prove that he buried the kids? If they don't try to prove that, can they even prove that he knew the bodies were buried there?

I think he's in a way better position to beat any and all charges, compared to Lori. Remember, he didn't become their step-father until November, after the kids had last been seen.

As for Lori, she's totally screwed. And as such, she is Chad's weak spot. What if the prosecution offers her a deal? "Help us nail Chad and we'll go easier on you than we would if you don't help us." Sucks to be her right now!



I am very interested in seeing if they stay clammed up until after the sun comes up the day after Jesus-Comes-Back Day, and he didn't come...

And it's a bit of a black eye for mormonism, which is always a nice thing, in my view.

I believe a defendant Can be called to testify by the prosecution (?) , but said person can claim the 5th & refuse to testify; in that respect, it's a bit of a show for the jury....

(any atty is welcome to correct me)

I'm not sure how that could even happen.

Before the trial both sides have to submit their witness lists to the court and opposing counsel. At that point the defense would object and the judge would strike the name on the basis of the fifth amendment. If the prosecutor then called the defendant, she would immediately be overruled on the same grounds as if she had called some other unnoticed witness--except that in this case she might also be sanctioned personally and the case very likely declared a mistrial.

The only way a prosecutor can get a shot at a non-cooperating defendant is if the defense attorney calls the defendant to the stand. Then the prosecutor can proceed to cross-examination, in which case the defendant might invoke the fifth amendment.

But asking the defendant to the stand as a means of forcing the invocation of the fifth amendment on the record would be malpractice and sanctionable.

I need to ask my wife when I get home, but I'm pretty sure that no one, including a judge, prosecutor, or one's own attorney, can compel a defendant to take the witness stand in his/her own trial.

I thought GNPE was talking about calling a defendant to testify against someone else in the same matter.

IE, call Chad to testify against Lori regarding the stuff that happened or that was verbally shared before they got married, when Tammy was still alive. I don't believe that stuff is protected by marital privilege, is it? I could be wrong. But it would be a coup for the prosecution even if that person sat there and took the 5th on every question. Jury impressions matter.

> IE, call Chad to testify against Lori regarding
> the stuff that happened or that was verbally
> shared before they got married, when Tammy was
> still alive. I don't believe that stuff is
> protected by marital privilege, is it?

It depends on the state. Usually the privilege would give the spouse the right to refuse to testify about any past event, before or after the inception of the marriage.


-------------------
> it would be a coup for the prosecution
> even if that person sat there and took the 5th on
> every question. Jury impressions matter.

That's why a prosecutor cannot call a defendant. Making her invoke the fifth before a jury would be highly prejudicial; it would make her pay a price for exercising a constitutional right.

lillium Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought GNPE was talking about calling a
> defendant to testify against someone else in the
> same matter.
>

GNPE didn't indicate that, and a "defendant" is only a defendant in a case in which he or she is being tried [or sued].

Just because the bodies were found doesn't mean she didn't criminally abandon them.

That's what she is being held on.

He's being held on withholding evidence and mishandling remains.

Since they are legally married, does the clause that prevents a husband or wife from being required to testify against the other kick in? I only ask because Lori made some kinds of noise about disavowing her marriage to Daybell.

It's nice that we can pretty much count on being screwed over if there's enough in it to make it worthwhile, for the screwer over the screwee.

This is not Dickens, "The Tale of Two Cities".

I don't believe they'll have the marital privilege available, especially if they conspired together.

I would count marital privilege as a legal escape as diminishing in use-application in the courts (my non-atty opinion, based on scattered information, little research).

That they may have conspired together would not negate marital privilege.

Here's a pretty good overview, courtesy of a law firm...

https://www.appealslawgroup.com/can-my-spouse-testify-against-me-at-my-criminal-trial/


If you burrow on down a little, you'll find that some states do NOT allow the spousal privilege:

In a prosecution for abandonment of or failure to provide support for the other spouse or their child;

In a prosecution of one spouse for any other criminal offense against the minor child of either spouse, including any child of either spouse who is born out of wedlock or adopted or a foster child.

But, "No husband or wife shall be compellable in any event to disclose any confidential communication made by one to the other during their marriage."


I don't know if the Feds are going to be able to do much in the way of prosecuting Chad & Lori.

Certainly, the court of public opinion is ready to hang the couple, but when it comes time to try the case, who is going to be able to testify against them, in terms of who killed them and where they were killed. Forensic evidence will probably establish when and how, but the 'who'... How can that be proven, absent testimony from whoever did it or from someone who was there to see it?

Maybe one of them told another party the "who and where" and then it'll be a swearing contest, and a jury will be delighted to believe that third party.

the 'marital privilege' is about 75% 'Perry Mason' type law, there's no substitute for a complete legal education, training, & experience.

Not a federal case. But Idaho doesn't recognize spousal limitations in cases involving the children of either of them.

That's good.