Blue light special

Only on the child abandonment charge in Madison county.
There is still a $1 million bail in Fremont county.

Article says Lori is unlikely to get out, due to other charges pending in a different county.

So she will remain in jail, where she apparently is a model prisoner.

I wish she was released, because she would be quite likely to do something wild and wacky and crazy, and that could be interesting.

If ever released, she could request no house arrest, but can't leave the county, and can't communicate in any way with husband (except telepathically which I'm sure they think they can do).

If no house arrest, she'd be unlikely to go out in public since she'd be stared at and treated horribly everywhere.

My hope for an ultimate jail sentence: I think 40 years is about right. Not a life sentence, but pretty darn close. And let her beg for parole after a while. She won't get much sympathy in Idaho.

Your sympathy for Vallow is surprising.

Why on earth is she not as culpable as a mob boss who orders the murder of an innocent person?

ok we mostly believe that she was the driving force behind ordering the horrendous crime of the murder of her own 2 children.

As a practical matter, there's the problem of what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

I can certainly see "life without parole" as reasonable, but only if they can really prove a lot of stuff with great evidence, and they will also have to combat all the tricks the defense will come up with.

> ok we mostly believe that she was the driving
> force behind ordering the horrendous crime of the
> murder of her own 2 children.

She doesn't have to be "the driving force" behind the murders. Just like a mob hit, the boss who places the orders, the intermediaries who transmit the orders, and the executioner are all guilty of murder. If Vallow was part of the plot or its implementation, she is guilty of murder. The question is merely whether her culpability merits the first or the second degree.


---------------
> As a practical matter, there's the problem of what
> can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Above you said that a life sentence was too tough a sentence and that you would be comfortable with 40 years. But does that not mean you have already reached your conclusions?

That's what I don't understand. Why would you give her the benefit of the doubt before the evidence is available?


----------------
> I can certainly see "life without parole" as
> reasonable, but only if they can really prove a
> lot of stuff with great evidence, and they will
> also have to combat all the tricks the defense
> will come up with.

Again, that doesn't explain why you are biased in her favor. There has to be something else going on here.

There’s a certain degree of insanity involved. She thought they weren’t her children anymore because their souls were gone. They were now zombies. That’s crazy even by Mormon standards.

The legal standard for insanity is not the conventional standard. In a court, all that matters is that the defendant understands the charges against her and is capable of participating in her own defense. If Vallow can plan murders, conceal evidence, evade police, and help her attorney request a reduction in bail, she is legally competent for trial on murder charges.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/19/2020 10:05PM by Lot's Wife.

>In a court, all that matters is that the defendant understands the charges against her and is capable of participating in her own defense. If Vallow can plan murders, conceal evidence, evade police, and help her attorney request a reduction in bail, she is legally competent for trial on murder charges.


That is the standard for competency to stand trial.
There is also an insanity defense on the grounds that the defendant wasn't culpable because of mental illness

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insanity_defense

The problem for Vallow is that Idaho has abolished the insanity defense.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html

> There is also an insanity defense on the grounds
> that the defendant wasn't culpable because of
> mental illness

True. And the relevant law for the affirmative defense varies from state to state. But the standard is still high.

The Model Penal Code, which most states use to one degree or another, says that Vallow's defense must prove that as "a result of mental disease or defect [the perpetrator lacked the] substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of [her] conduct or to conform [her] conduct to the requirements of the law."

Here too Vallow is in trouble. For not only does the concealment of the bodies, the absconding to Hawaii, and the lies to the police indicate "an appreciation of the criminality of [her] conduct," they also imply an ability to "conform [her] conduct to the requirements of law."

So even if Idaho allowed the affirmative defense, the general standard seems prohibitive. Unless Vallow can show that she was unaware of the murders when they occurred, she is in trouble.

Agree. Her actions after the fact would make any insanity defense difficult.

If the day comes and goes, will they predict a new date or will they see that their beliefs aren't worth diddly squat?

I can't imagine that Lori Vallow would be happy out in public in Rexburg or anywhere else;

I'm guessing that Fremont County doesn't want to jail her there > she's in the Madison County lockup / 'Crowbar Hotel', ja ja.

IDK if it will be legal for Fremont judge (HQ Saint Anthony) to hold court in Rexburg or not, but I think it's a possibility.

If you google the words "It's a crime, Lori Vallow Secret Society" it should take you to very intersting analysis of the Lori Vallow Mess and possible Book of Mormon connections.

Remember, everyone involved in this mess is a true-believing, recommend holding, tithe paying Mormon.

It is incredible to me that a non-Mormon commentator can have such a great insight into this mess. She must be getting help from people familiar with the LDS culture. Even I didn't pick up on the B0M references in the many interviews I have watched.

All of her videos on Lori Vallow are worth a listen. This woman has got to be the most astute analyzer of true crime I have ever come across. She is a genius.

And to get to the heart of a mess as convoluted as this one -- whew!

Lois