The Trial Against Lori Vallow Daybell for the Conspiracy to Murder Charles Vallow

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:03):
Hi, welcome to True Creeps,where the stories are true and the
creeps are real.
We'll cover stories fromgrotesque gore to.
The possibly plausibleparanormal to horrifying history
to tense and terrible truecrime and.
Everything else that goes bumpin the night. We're your hosts, Amanda,
and I'm Lindsay.
And we want you to join us.
While we creep, we covermature topics. Listener discretion

(00:25):
is advised. Hello, everyone.Today we are going to be talking
about the Valo case and wehave been covering this for years
now.
This is like one of the casesthat Amanda has known so much about
for a very long time.
It's intense. It's crazy.
Yeah.
It feels like it's not real.But if you haven't heard about this

(00:48):
case, our first episode wascalled Sinister Love Valo and Daybell,
and it was all the way from2021. And if you're not familiar
with the case, we will have avery brief overview of the case today.
But this one is insanelycomplex and it includes like a million
people, various states, and alot of charges between those states.

(01:09):
Now, Laurie's Arizona trialjust took place last week and we
wanted to do an update on howit went, some new details that we
found out, which were morethan I expected, and discuss the
verdict. We are going to focuson mainly the new stuff and how it
relates to what we had alreadyknown. And then just a few interesting
notes about some things thathappened before the trial. And just

(01:31):
a note, Lori Valo will have aseparate trial for the attempted
murder of Brandon Boudreau.And as of right now, it looks like
it's going to be at the end ofMay, possibly June, but of course,
that could always change. Solet's start with a brief overview
of the case and the chargesfor this trial. Again, if you haven't
listened to the otherepisodes, you should be able to follow
along once we go over theoverview. And for the people that

(01:53):
do know about the case, justknow this is a high level overview
because we could talk probablyfor hours, just about all of the
insane details.
I would say there is no lessthan 3 days, 15 hours of content
that we have on just all ofthe cases and things surrounding
Lauri. There is, it is a lotand it is super complex. Also, should

(02:14):
you be listening and you'relike, who is this? This is a lot
of people. If you go to ourwebsite, we actually have a list
of the who's who. So if youare new to the case, so you're not,
you're a little less lost.Yes, yes. Agreed.
So Lori Valow was married toher fourth husband, Charles Valow.
Laurie had two kids, Colby andTyler, from previous marriages. Charles

(02:34):
also had two boys from aprevious marriage named Cole and
Zach. Laurie and Charlesadopted their son, JJ Valo. And JJ's
biological father wasCharles's nephew, which was the son
of Kay Woodcock, his sister.
While married to Charles,Laurie met a man named Chad Daybell
at a conference in 2018, andthey pretty much immediately hit

(02:55):
it off. At the time, Chad wasalso married. His wife's name was
Tammy, now Chad. And thenalso, Laurie had some very strange
religious beliefs thatdiffered from the standard LDS religious
beliefs. And this includedthat they were both translated beings
so they didn't have to repent.They also thought that some people

(03:15):
were quote, unquote, zombiesor were dark. When they describe
this, it's almost kind of likepossession is what it sounds like.
They also said that they knewabout past lives together, and they
believe they were chosen tolead the 144,000 in Idaho. And then
they also thought that somepeople had special powers, like Chad
had visions. And then. We'rereally not going to talk about Salma

(03:35):
Pastanes today. We've talkedabout her in other episodes, but
they believed that she could control.
Storms and she was one oftheir friends.
Yes. So as Chad and Laurie gotcloser and closer, how surprising
that anybody who got in theway of this relationship began to
be seen as dark. And thatincluded spouses, children, other
relatives. Laurie was alsopretty close to her niece, Melanie

(03:58):
Boudreau, now Melanie Palowskiand her brother, Alex Cox. She also
had a friend named MelanieGibb. So between this group, there
are so many texts that wouldhave come out throughout the cases
where we learn about theirbeliefs, their plans to get rid of
people who was or wasn't dark.And about Chad's visions, we also

(04:20):
see a lot about them giving,like, blessings to each other and
hyping each other up beforethings are about to go down.
And very disgusting storieswritten by Chad.
Ugh. Yeah.
Just to add that in there, it's.
Also like just very callousdiscussions about, like, what's going
on. Oh, yeah, it's gross. Andone of. One of the conversations
is one that I had not recalledhearing, hearing before this trial,

(04:42):
which was just so blunt. Andthat's going to be closer to the
end of the episode. But in2019, Laurie's then husband Charles
began to get very worriedabout Laurie and the things that
she was saying because shedidn't have these beliefs before
she met Chad, and he Evenended up going to the police with
his concerns. So as this ishappening, Chad and Ari are getting

(05:03):
closer and closer. And Alex,Laurie's brother, her are very close.
People kind of talk about himas her Guardian. So on July 11th
of 2019, Charles was killed byAlex Cox. And both Laurie and Alex
said that it was self defense.
And that's what we're going tocenter this episode around for the
trial.

(05:24):
Yes. So we're going to give alittle bit more context to the rest
of the case so you can see howthis fits in with the timeline of
everything else. So shortlyafter Charles's death in August,
Lori relocated herself and herchildren, JJ and Tylee to Rexburg,
Idaho. And this was very closeto where Chad lived. Alex followed.
So after they moved toRexburg, Tylee and JJ were murdered.

(05:47):
The trial for this has alreadyhappened. Chad and Lori were both
convicted for their murders aswell as another murder that we're
going to talk about in amoment. And so the other trial that
we were talking about that'safter this one, centers around an
October 2019 attempted murderwhere Brandon Boudreau was shot at
that and Brandon Boudreau isLaurie's niece's ex husband. Also

(06:09):
in October of 2019. There's alot of stuff going on in that year.
Chad's then wife, Tammy Daveldied by what was believed to be natural
causes at the time. Then justtwo weeks later, Laurie and Chad
went to Hawaii and gotmarried. So there's a lot of shady
going on. Charles's sister, K,who we mentioned earlier, was very

(06:31):
worried when she didn't hearfrom JJ for a longer period of time
than was normal. And shecontacted authorities to do a welfare
check. And that happened onNovember 26th. That's how all of
this really started getting alot of media attention because there
was a search for the children.Laurie began to make up weird lies
about where the children were,and she asked other people to cover
for her, too. Then same yearin December, Alex dies. And just

(06:56):
the day before, he received ablessing from Chad. So again, police
are looking for JJ and Tyleeand she refuses to produce the children.
So she's arrested thatfollowing February of 2020. And this
is when, like, pieces of thepuzzle really start to come together
and the investigation really,really takes off. So they start really
pouring into digital recordslike cell phone data and icloud accounts

(07:19):
and where people were and whenand emails that were being sent.
And they're interviewingeveryone. And as part of this investigation,
they also decide to exhumeTammy's body because they're not
quite sure if she died ofnatural causes. So as the investigation
continues throughout 2020, weget to June 9, and authorities executed
a search warrant on ChadDaybell's property. There they find

(07:41):
the remains of Tyler and jj.And it's heartbreaking and disgusting.
That's when Chad was arrested,because Laurie's already in custody
because she didn't produce thechildren when she was supposed to.
Right.
So, fortunately, Chad and Loriwere both convicted for the murders
of Tyler, JJ and Tammy inIdaho. So that's already happened

(08:02):
today. The case that we'retalking about are those Arizona charges
against Laurie for conspiringto murder Charles, because, again,
Alex died years ago, so theycan't charge him with this murder
because he's not around,unfortunately. Unfortunately.
So this has been a long time coming.
Mm.
Charles was murdered first,and his family has been waiting for

(08:25):
so long. We're really happythat we're able to cover this and
see some more details as towhat had happened. Now before the
trial, just because we thoughtit was really interesting, Lori decided
that she was going torepresent herself during the trial.
And Laurie did an interviewwith Arizona family shortly before
her trial started anddiscussed her reasoning why she chose

(08:45):
that path. And this isactually the second interview she's
done in the recent months,which was interesting because we've
never really heard her talkbefore. So according to Laurie, she
came to Arizona with theintention of having a speedy trial.
And now all of this is goingto be from Laurie's perspective.
So it doesn't mean that it's all.
Correct, but some of it might be.
When she spoke with attorneys,she brought up that the prosecutors

(09:06):
have had five years to put thecase together, and she would like
to just go to trial. Loridiscussed that she was being housed
in a pod with women facing thedeath penalty and that they have
been waiting for years fortheir trial in jail. Lori said that,
quote, Arizona has nointention of giving anybody a speedy
trial, even though it's yourconstitutional federal right. And

(09:27):
because of that, Lori said,quote, I'm fighting for these women
and trying to set a precedenthere, but you can't just leave these
women in jail for yearsbecause the conditions at the prison,
if you do get convicted, are amillion times better than they are
at the jail. Jails are notdesigned to let you stay long term,
which. Okay. Like, I thinkthat's the first time I've ever agreed
with Laurie ever in thehistory of the world.

(09:49):
Given if the facts that shesaid are true, I would Agree, Right.
But that is presuming that sheis not stretching the truth.
Of course. Of course. But thefact that there are people that are
in jails all over the countrythat have been waiting for a long
time, that's what I agreewith. Okay, I get that. So when she
brought all of this up toattorneys and that she would like

(10:10):
the speedy trial, they toldher, look, we can't do that because
of course they want to go tocourt prepared. They can't learn
all of this web of nonsensequickly to be able to represent her.
No the correct way.
Way.
Right.
And she even said that makessense. It does make sense. She says
that she has been working onher case, though, for five years.
So she knows her case betterthan any attorney can even learn

(10:33):
it in two years.
I do think what's interestinghere is she's looking at this like,
this is the case that I know.Here's my understanding of it. And
because she's not an attorneyor a legal professional or for a
person who looks at this kindof stuff a lot, she's thinking, I
know all the facts of thecase. Not I know all the evidence
they found and the sheervolume of the information that they

(10:55):
found. You know, thousands ofpages of phone records and GPS stuff
and all of that alone, you canknow your story front and backwards.
But that kind of stuff, ittakes time to go through.
It does. It does. So becauseof that, along with if she were to
waive her right to a speedytrial, she says that they could keep
her there as long as theywanted. And so she just decided she

(11:18):
would just represent herself.She also mentioned that if a lawyer
asks for more time, it autowaives your right to a speedy trial.
And that's what's happening toso many women in the jail that she's
talked to. This is Lori'stake, by the way. Just saying.
So of course, we were like, Idon't know if that's true. And look,

(11:39):
perhaps there is a local rule,but if you're thinking of just like
laws, generally, state versusfederal, federal law and constitutional
rights supersede state law. Soif our constitution says that you
have a right to a speedytrial, a state cannot take that away.
They can give you moreprotections for that speedy trial,

(12:00):
but they can't take anythingaway. So in Arizona law, it's statute
13, 4435, in any criminalproceeding, the court, prosecutor,
and law enforcement officialsshall take appropriate action to
ensure a speedy trial for theVICT victim. And so I'm not going
to read the entire statute.But some things to note. The court
shall grant a continuance onlyif extraordinary circumstances exist

(12:21):
and the delay is indispensableto the interests of justice. A continuance
may be granted only for thetime necessary to serve the interests
of justice. That seems prettyspecific. And I'm not saying that
there's not women in thisparticular jail who are feeling like
their personal experience isnot serving the interests of justice.

(12:44):
But also, in that same vein,if you don't understand everything
it takes to build yourdefense, then it's kind of hard to
gauge, like, what feels fair.And if you have a public defender
who has a lot of cases, thereis only so much they can do at a
time, even when they're doingtheir best and working as hard as
they possibly can. So it mightmean that things take a while because,

(13:06):
you know, like, for so manyreasons that aren't just. The system
wants you in there.
Right. And it's not a great system.
No, we've said it many times before.
It's not great.
Things are messy.
Yeah. Things fall through thecracks, and it's horrific. But Laurie
is trying to spend a littlebit of time on some things that may
not be 100% accurate. Notsaying that she's 100% wrong, but

(13:26):
I'm thinking there's somepieces missing perhaps.
Yeah. I also think that she'strying to, like, pageant around,
frankly.
And she used to be in pageant,so she knows how to do this.
Yeah.
So additionally, she broughtup that she had told her attorneys
in the last trial to bringcertain things up and to say things
a certain way, and theydidn't. She didn't like that. So

(13:47):
she wants to speak for herselfthis time. And just like Lindsay
said, she's kind of doing thewhole pageant routine here. She brought
up a lot of things to appearalmost like a hero. And you're like,
wow, she's not 100% wrong inthe sense. Right. Jail system's messed
up. Everything's kind ofshitty. Sometimes innocent people
get stuck there, and there'sno excuse for it.
Right.

(14:08):
But she continues. She keepstalking. That's what kind of messes
her up all the time. She says,quote, there are intelligent, strong,
beautiful women in here, andthey have been here for eight years
because of family tragedies.It's the same like my case. And she
focuses on that again duringthe trial, by the way. We'll talk
about it.
But the fear, the pure rage.

(14:30):
Yeah. A family tragedy. Andit's absolutely not. She also mentioned
something about uplifting thewomen in jail. And that's her purpose,
why she's there. She believesGod put her there to help the women
there. And we're like, no,Lori, the reason why you're there
is because you murderedpeople. And I. I don't think my eyes
could roll any harderlistening to her talk about this.

(14:51):
No, it's absolutelyinfuriating. It's like, yeah, this
is a family tragedy. It's notyour tragedy. You caused this. This
is all because of the shit youdid. From what you hear about prison,
women who hurt children do notfare well. And it might behoove her
to try to kind of get onpeople's good side before she goes

(15:13):
in. Because since she's stillin jail and she's not yet in prison,
I'm sure she has to have someidea of the fact that it's not going
to be a fun time for her,given what she's done.
Right. And she has been infive different facilities since being
arrested in Hawaii. Becauseshe started in Hawaii. Idaho. She
was moved for the trial inIdaho. Then she was in Arizona. So

(15:35):
she's been all over the place.And she said, by far, Arizona has
been the worst one. It's hardfor me to feel sympathy for her.
But also Amanda's like,arizona does suck.
Arizona's garbage.
Yeah.
Things garbage. But I don'tknow, I kind of was like, okay, Laurie,
you're finally feelingsomething. What?
Self pity and self righteousness.
Self pity. But also she's notenjoying herself. And it finally,

(15:58):
like, it made me feel a littlebit better that she's not having
a good time right now.
Yeah.
Because before, the way thatshe spoke, and she could be just
playing it up, it seems likeit hasn't been all that bad for her.
And now she's like, oh, thisis really bad. And again, jail system
is garbage. Everything's garbage.
No debating it.
I feel for the people whoshould not be in there. Absolutely.
But she has every right to bethere. Anyways, this interview was

(16:21):
a very interesting watch. Ifyou get a. I think it was like 20
minutes, maybe. If you havethat to watch it. I think everyone
should. It's. It's interestingto see how she can win people over
and come across as likable.And I feel like that's kind of how
she got away with so much ofthis for so long. Like, you kind
of get to see it play out on video.
Yes. And I think that that isalso one of the very interesting

(16:42):
things that she tries to do atthe trial is she tries to Be likable
and charming and deferentialand I don't want to say approachable,
but that's kind of the vibethat I got that she, she tried to
act like she's having aconversation with people. Right.
And it just didn't fucking work.
Not this time.
Because it was not the settingto be charming and all of those things.

(17:04):
Right. It was the place tounderstand how it works. And we're
going to talk about it as wego. But like over and over, she just
proved that she shouldn't havebeen her own attorney. Frankly.
Yes. Agreed.
So we're going to present allof the new details and information
that we learned about thiscase and the general excite case
of these issues. Becausethere's some stuff that we found

(17:25):
out about, like how peopletalk to each other, but we're going
to present it in the orderthat the jury heard it. There's lots
of more information that theygot. It's just if it's not new, we're
not covering it today becauseour outlines are already 30 pages
long with just the newinformation. So just. So if you're
like, why are they bouncingback around different topics? It's
because we're telling you theinformation, how the jury heard it.

(17:46):
And the prosecutor left someof the last ones. Last for a reason.
Yes.
So it's interesting.
Yes. So let's get right oninto it. So the trial started on
April 7th of 2025.
And I know I had mentionedbefore that I really wanted to go
to some of the days, butunfortunately when it started, I
was out of town. Yeah. So Iwas like, I was sad to miss it, but
I'm glad that we were able toreview all the footage. Yeah.

(18:08):
The judge for this case wasJudge Justin Bareski. And he, he
did allow cameras in thecourtroom, but required a 30 minute
delay for the live stream. I'dalso point out that one of the very
interesting things is in thelast trial in Idaho, the cameras
were looking right at Laurie,like right in her face. And this,
it was really the back of herhead, like it was like one position

(18:31):
looking like straight down themiddle. Ish. So it wasn't, it didn't
feel like it was made for likea true crime documentary. It felt
like it was made so that thepublic could see what was going on,
but not, you know, a thousanddifferent angles and such. So the
trial itself was forconspiracy to commit first degree
murder of Charles. Theprosecutor was Trina K. And because

(18:52):
we have Kay Woodcock, who wetalk about as Kay, we're going to
refer to Trina K as Trina,because normally we would call her
by her last name out ofrespect, but there's a reason why
we're not cause just to keepthings not confusing. And so Trina,
the prosecutor, I mean, justright out the gate, she starts with
information that we hadn'theard of. So even just the opening
statement itself, she includedthat Laurie had been drugging Charles

(19:13):
by crushing up JJ's pills andputting them in his protein drinks.
And that was according to oneof the witnesses who we're going
to talk about later. She alsosaid that Adam, Laurie's brother,
had been talking to Charlesabout an intervention with Lori.
In this opening statement, shealso talks about some of the text
messages that we discussed inother episodes about Charles being
Ned and Alex, Laurie'sbrother, staying very close to her.

(19:35):
So another just. This was,like, not shocking, but we're just
like, oh, we have never heardof this. And so many people who are
involved with this case andhave been witnesses have given interviews
and come forward in the media,and the fact that this person didn't
makes them all the morecredible. To me. That this is the
first time we're hearing aboutthem is in the interest of justice

(19:57):
for Charles, because. Right.Like, there's no, like, oh, let me
go get an interview and getfamous about this. It's simply, I
want to help his family getjustice for him. But. So the night
before Charles was murdered,he went on a date with a woman named
Nancy Jo, and we'll talk abouther testimony, which was fascinating.
So on the first day of thetrial, a juror ended up being released

(20:18):
because being there for theduration of the trial was going to
affect them financially. Andanother juror was released on the
second day of the trial, butwe don't know why. And then get.
Another juror brought it tothe court's attention that they may
have seen a video about thecase in the past on YouTube. So after
they showed body cam footageduring the trial, they were like,
hey, I think I saw that onYouTube, but I didn't do more research.

(20:38):
I just was, like, presentaround. And he didn't remember much
about it, so they allowed himto stay. Also, just this part was
very weird, but at one point,a juror pulled out their phone and
was, like, typing. And so theyhad to, like, reach out later and
be like, what were you doing?He's like, I'm sorry. I had to, like,
make sure my daughter wasawake. And they were like, okay,
but you have to turn off yourphone. Like, you can't do that. Like
you've been texting during atrial. Wild.

(21:01):
Yeah, that's weird. I didn'teven know that they'd be able to
have their phones in there.
That was weird. Yeah, agreed.
So let's move on to Laurie'sopening statement. And she discussed
life insurance for both ofthem, her and Charles, their marriage
details, and that her daughterTylee and Charles relationship wasn't
always that great. And itbecame difficult when she became

(21:21):
a teenager. And they were evenmeeting with the therapist about
it. Also, the argumentsbetween Tylee and Charles escalated,
according to her. Andpersonally, I thought it was interesting
that she focused so much onthe children, especially Tylee, only
because Tylee could not comeup and be a witness. And of course,
they couldn't bring up thatshe had charges for murdering her

(21:42):
in Idaho either.
So throughout the trial,Laurie dances around that. So, okay,
you can't bring up thatthere's another trial, but if the
defense opens the door, theprosecution can walk right through
it. So, so many times Lori'slike, we should open this door. And
the judge is like, are yousure you want to talk about this
thing? And it happens, like,over and over.

(22:05):
He, like, saved it a couple times.
Yeah. And like, there is alittle bit more of like, hey, are
you sure? When it's a persondefending themselves. So, like, you
know, I'm sure that that waspart of it, but it is just kind of
like, you know, if it was anattorney who was doing the shit that
she was doing, first off, shewould have an easy way of. Of claiming
ineffective counsel. Butthere's so many times where it was

(22:28):
almost brought up because,like, if I was a juror, I would have
been like, what aren't theysaying right now? Like, it would
have been so clear that Iwasn't being told the full story.
Exactly. Yeah.
But it's also interestingthat, like, when you're talking about
someone's conversation withanother person, that's not admissible
because it's hearsay. Andbringing it up in the ways that she

(22:49):
did, when she did it seemedvery purposeful because it's like,
not only Tylee not testify,but there's also no ability to prove
what was happening or what wassaid. Right. Like, her opinion on
their relationship iscompletely subjective and completely
fluff. Right. It's just heropinion and she's on trial related

(23:09):
to this murder. So of courseshe's going to be like, they argued.
Yeah, of course. Of course.She also discussed her point of view
of the events that day. ThatCharles was killed. So one of the
first people to take the standwas Scott Cowden, and he's a Chandler
firefighter, and he discussedCPR and his take on what happened
after he arrived at the sceneof Charles's death. He mentioned

(23:30):
that if someone had performedcpr, there would be evidence of it,
and that evidence would beimpressions on the skin. And then
also he talked about howthere's a crack that you feel when
you first start doing CPR initially.
Mm.
And so that was kind ofhinting that CPR was not performed
that day. Now, this isinteresting that he's talking about
this, and also interesting, wedidn't get to hear the 911 call,

(23:52):
but when Alex Cox called 911after shooting Charles Valo, the
woman on the other end walkshim through how to do cpr, and he's
like, confirming as she'sgiving him the steps. So anyone listening
would be like, okay, he triedcpr. Well, Scott brings all this
up only to discuss what hefound that day as he entered, because,

(24:14):
surprise, surprise, no CPR wasdone. So when he discussed what Charles
looked like, he mentioned thatthere wasn't much blood around him
and that there was nodepression in Charles's chest from
someone doing cpr. Also, ifyou think about it, if someone was
shot, if you're pushing ontheir chest or anything around their
chest, you would think thatmore blood would.
Come out or you would say, oh,my God, I tried. And, like, this

(24:35):
happened. Like, you would heara person panicking when they tried.
Agreed. Agreed. And sothere's. There's not the depression.
There's no extra blood,nothing. Also, because this was,
I guess, protocol for Scott,he started doing cpr, and when he
did, he felt that initialcrack. And because of both those
things, if I was a jurymember, I'd be like, hmm, it seems
like CPR was not done. Andthen Scott goes on to say he doesn't

(24:58):
believe that anyone performedCPR on Charles and that he was the
first to do so that day. Wekind of discussed this before, but
it's good to hear aprofessional give their take on it
and kind of confirm ourthoughts. Yes.
From this testimony and moretestimony that we're going to talk
about in a moment. Andthroughout this episode, the prosecution
is really painting a picturethat the story that they were told

(25:19):
does not match the crime sceneand what was found. So they're walking
him through cpr. It's prettyclear CPR was not performed. So then
the next witness, Kent Kellerwith the Chandler Fire Department,
talked About how Charles bodylooked when it was found. Specifically,
he's talking about lividityand skin modeling. He describes modeling

(25:39):
as sort of patchy looking skinthat's caused by not enough oxygen
getting to the skin and saidit could have been from his heart
not beating. From ourunderstanding, it's that there's
this self defense shooting perAlex and then he calls 911 right
after. So it's bizarre thatthis would have started happening
this fast. Again, as Imentioned a moment ago, he also talked

(26:01):
about lividity. And if you'vewatched any like true crime show,
you've heard them talk aboutlividity and livor mortis. So lividity
is when a person dies whenthey're in a position for a given
period of time, the bloodstarts to drain from the tissue because
of gravity and it drains tothe lowest part of the body. It takes
a little while after someonedies for that to happen. And we've

(26:25):
also talked about this inother episodes. The process by which,
you know, the blood isdraining from the tissues is called
liver mortis. And so he'slike, hey, it's kind of weird that
this had begun if he had justnow called 911. And so again he's
saying it's self defense. Thestory is later that he was attacked
with a bat and that he was hitin the head. Yet there are ambulatory

(26:46):
services available. He neverhas anybody check his head out.
And that's Alex.
Yes. Part of what Alex sayshappened is that Charles struck him
in the head with a bat andthat is what prompted him to defend
himself. And yet when therewas ambulatory services on the scene,
he didn't ask for medicalhelp. And you would think that if

(27:07):
someone hit you over the headwith a bat that you might be like,
hey, can you check this out? Imight be concussed. And just because
you don't see blood onsomeone's head doesn't mean that
there's not something veryserious that could have happened.
Especially the baseball bat.Charles was a strong, healthy guy
and.
He had a baseball backgroundas well.
Yes.
So there were several medicalprofessionals that spoke during this

(27:29):
trial saying that they neverwent and did anything to Alex because
no one ever asked or evenknew. Yeah. That he had gotten hit.
Exactly, exactly. So we'restarting off just so clear of we
don't believe this story.Yeah, your story's. Yeah. So then
Daniel Coons of the ChandlerPolice Department, in his testimony,
he talked a lot about how muchblood was found and he mentioned

(27:53):
that he didn't see any bloodon Charles's arms or other extremities.
There was very little blood onhis chest. There was no blood on
the floor near Charles's body,but there was blood pooling underneath
of him. They showed photos ofthe home during the trial and you
could see that there, therewasn't blood like trailing around.
Think you're getting into afight with somebody and you shoot

(28:15):
them because you were scaredfor your life. It's just bizarre
to think that it would beclean and there was no evidence that
it was cleaned up. Correct?
Correct.
So that's the other part of itthat's just so strange. If you kill
someone in self defense, whywould you clean up? So it doesn't
really match again with whatthey're seeing.
Right, Right. Yeah. And just alittle bit on the sink faucet. I
think Alex mentioned that hehad washed his hands. But yeah, if

(28:38):
there's a scuffle, especiallywith two guys fighting with a bat
and a gun, you would thinkthat there'd be a lot of blood somewhere.
Right.
It's also important to notethat the residence that they were
in was sparse. There wasn'tany furniture. So when we're talking
about like, was there evidenceof a struggle? There was very little
items present to show evidenceof a struggle. So even if they were

(28:58):
like tussling and wrestling,you really wouldn't have seen anything.
Unless they're like dentingwalls and things like that. So that
makes it a little bit harder.
Yeah. The walls or themirrors? There were large mirrors
in that room.
Yeah.
So the witness that we broughtup before who was new and had all
new information, her name wasNancy Johan, and Charles had sent
her a message on an LDS datingsite and the two texted and talked

(29:22):
a lot in that time. Charleswas open about his struggles with
Laurie and their separation.She knew that he worked in some sort
of life insurance or withmoney, but didn't really focus on
that in the conversation.Nancy is LDS and confirmed a lot
of stuff that Charles had toldher about. Laurie was definitely
outside of their beliefs. Andbecause we haven't talked about Charles

(29:44):
for a while, Nancy said somereally nice things about him, so
we just wanted to mention it.Nancy said that he was very funny,
he was kind, had good banter,and he seemed like a pretty awesome
guy even with all of thecraziness around him. So the two
met for the first time inperson on July 10, and that would
be the only time that they gotto meet. So the night before he was

(30:06):
killed, Charles's plane wasdelayed that evening, but they went
to a restaurant, and then theyended up talking until it closed.
And then even after it closed,they're like, we still want to continue
our conversations. So theywere outside by her vehicle for a
while longer and continued it.I thought that was cute. She mentioned
that Charles was so excited tosee JJ the next day and take him

(30:27):
to school. And she describedhim as, quote, like a kid on Christmas
morning. He was very excitedto see jj. That just broke my heart,
the way that she was talkingabout him. Like, he was so happy
to see his kid.
Yeah.
He was also going to look fora place to live and meet with Adam,
Laurie's brother. So she wasaware of that at this point. He was
in Texas, but he was comingback to Arizona. That was his intention.

(30:51):
Nancy also noted that she wassurprised by how Charles spoke kindly
about Laurie despiteeverything that happened during their
conversations. He also sharedwith her that he had changed his
life insurance beneficiary toK. And she had even said, like, based
on everything you've said, youmight want to let her know this.
And he's like, yeah, Iprobably should. And Amanda and I

(31:12):
were talking, and I was like,hey, isn't it kind of weird to talk
about that in a first date?But then we were like, okay. Well,
it also does make sense to belike, hey, I am married right now,
but I want you to know that Iam taking steps to, like, get out
of this marriage. And changingyour life insurance beneficiary is
certainly, like, a concretestep. Yeah.
It's showing the distance thathe's putting between them. Right.
Like, yeah, I'm still gonna bethe dad. We're still gonna share

(31:34):
our kids, but we're not gonnado this anymore.
Yeah. So they had loose plansto meet up the next day, which was
July 11th. So she texted himaround 11 to ask how his morning
with JJ had been, and shedidn't get a response. She tried
calling a few hours later,because, again, they had, like, loose
plans, and she never got acall back. And, you know, she has

(31:54):
this date where he's veryopen, seems like a good guy. And
so she's surprised becauseshe's like, I thought this went well.
So she's thinking, like, oh,he kind of ghosted me. So then fast
forward to December, and she'swatching tv, and his photo shows
up on the news, and that'swhen she finds out that Charles died.

(32:15):
Yes. I can't even imagine whatwas going through this poor woman's
head. Like, yeah, I want tohelp Charles's family and be here
for the trial. But now thisfucking lunatic has to ask me questions.
Yes. It is also so bizarrebecause the whole vibe of Laurie
is that almost like she'sjealous that Charles went on a date
with her. And I'm like, dude,you were, like, cheating with your,
I don't know, eternal,reincarnated, translated, closet,

(32:38):
portal, thumb of a dude. Whoare you? But anyway. But anyway.
So Laurie's questioning. Shegrills Nancy about why she would
go on a date with a marriedman, which is just so fucking bizarre
considering, like, her andChad are writing, like, weird stories
about each other. He's veryinto her leggings. They're very inappropriate.

(33:02):
Incredibly inappropriate. Sojust the audacity of her to be like,
he's a married man is wild.But Nancy's like, well, he told me
that he was in the process ofgetting a divorce and they were separated.
That's known.
Right? We all know that. Yeah.
And so Laurie's response is,did it surprise you later to find
out that we were not in theprocess of a divorce? So Nancy pauses

(33:24):
for a moment, and then, withall the confidence in the world,
says, charles was in theprocess of a divorce. Yeah.
Like, this is the fact.
We love to hear it, Nancy.
I loved it. Yeah, it was good.
We love to hear it.
So Laurie seemed pretty upsetwhile questioning her and even snapped
at the judge at one point.
Wild. That judge is like, Ihope he had, like, just, like, the

(33:46):
largest glass of wine everynight, because you could tell he
had to be stressed.
Right. And he saved her assmultiple times during this. So I'm
like.
He's like, I don't want todeal with this.
He's so nice.
Yeah, yeah. Like, I'mexhausted for him.
Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Lauriethen tried to ask her if Charles
answered a text about being agood kisser, and the prosecutor steps

(34:07):
in. Is, like, relevance and harassment.
Absolutely not just dude.
Right, right. And you couldtell Laurie's so pissy about this
too.
Yeah.
And something interesting thatwe noticed is she continually, when
talking about Charles, says,my husband. And I'm like, how dare
you?
Just the sheer delusion.

(34:30):
Yeah. Yeah.
They thought that he had beendark and he had been this Ned character
since, like, February.
Wasn't her husband at thattime. That's a good point. Yeah.
You're already underminingwhat you said.
Yeah.
So Laurie's questioning.Right. And she. You could tell she's
upset, she's angry, and she'sdigging a little bit deeper about

(34:50):
the date and how he said allthe details of his life and their
life together on this date.And Nancy's like, I'm telling the
truth.
I also just find itfascinating that she's so hung up
on this that she's notdefending herself.
Right.
Regardless of her feelings onit, you know, whatever. She had them.
But the purpose of what'shappening is for her to advocate

(35:14):
for herself. She's saying, I'mthe best advocate for me. And yet
here she is getting swept upin her feelings rather than in logic
and being like, it actuallydoesn't behoove me for you to continue
to talk about what an amazinghuman he is. That only makes the
jury not like me. Theinteraction, it wasn't doing Laurie

(35:35):
any favors is my point here.Yeah, this is why people should not
defend themselves.
Right? Right. And I think thiswas my favorite part of that particular
day, because Laurie then says,so you spent your whole date getting
to know each other, talkingabout me? And Nancy just looks at
her and says, don't flatteryourself. No, we did not spend the
whole time talking about you.

(35:56):
Part of getting to knowsomeone is getting to know their
lore. And when you have thisbatshit person as part of your lore,
it's gonna come up. But again,Laurie assuming that everything is
about her at all times. Yeah,she's definitely making the jury
love her.
Exactly. Exactly. So Laurieasks about texts after dinner as

(36:17):
well. And Nancy says that theydid text after, but really couldn't
remember the time frames ofthe text. Laurie then asks, what
did you discuss in those textmessages? And that is objected for
relevance because why? Thathas nothing to do with anything.
Laurie then says, nancymentioned something about hearing
a lot of things about hiswife. You didn't say ex wife.

(36:38):
You said wife.
Nancy says, okay, sure. Andthen Laurie asks, what were a lot
of things? So she wants toknow everything they talked about
in relation to what they mayhave said about her. And then Nancy
replies, the things Itestified to. And then Laurie asks,
can you be more specific? Soagain, she's just like, I need to

(36:59):
know everything you guystalked about about me. And Nancy
kind of looks a littlepuzzled, and she's like, can I do
a narrative? And the judge hasa conversation. It can't be heard
in the room. And the judgecomes back and says, quote, the last
question the defendant askedof the witness was along the lines
of, what things did youdiscuss about me? Meaning the defendant,

(37:19):
are you sure you want her toanswer that question? Because you
are opening up a really bigdoor. I'll allow her to Answer the
question. If you want her toanswer the question and there's no
objection from the state,we'll bring the jury back in and
we'll have her answer thequestion. You hear Trina, Immediately.
Before that even leaves hismouth. No objection.

(37:42):
She's like, we'd love to hearit. Inevitably, part of this conversation
is going to have to includethe kids.
Yes.
And bringing up how much heloves his kids. And even, hear me
out. If he was like, you know,Laurie and I don't get along, but
she's a great mom. Even thatisn't good for her because she's

(38:02):
talking about her children inthe past tense. And that happens
throughout the trial. Tyler'snot testifying. She's also not there.
And she would have been anadult, so it wouldn't have been completely
unreasonable that she might bethere to support her mom, even if
J.J. was too young. Still, I'mnot saying that they should have
been if they were alive. I'mjust saying their absence is so palpable,

(38:23):
any mention of them looks verybad for her.
It does. But then also, she'sdigging for information from these
texts that can be horriblethings about her still. You know,
like, it can't be, I'm worriedabout my children being with her,
or, you know, I'm excited togo pick up jj. I know he'll be safe
with me tomorrow. You know,who knows what could have been text.
Yeah, but she's so vain andobsessed with herself.

(38:47):
She's throw.
Like you said, she's kind ofthrowing it away to be like, but
what did you say about me?
That's my point, though, isthat worst case scenario for her,
he says terrible things thatthe jury gets to hear, but best case
scenario, he says lovelythings about her. And then this happened.
She's so callous about hisdeath and doesn't even seem to care.
There's no winning.

(39:07):
It doesn't benefit her in anyway. I'm sure that's why the prosecution
was like, love to hear it. Gofor it. Go wild.
Yeah, exactly. Now, at thispoint, she mentioned something like,
I have a lot more questions.So they're like, all right, let's
take a lunch break. And thenwhen they returned, surprise, surprise,
she did not ask that question.
She did have consultingattorneys there, so I'm sure they

(39:28):
were like, knock it the fuck off.
Yeah, chill, please. So, asyou can already hear, the questioning
from Laurie was kind of a shitshow. And at one point, she confirmed
with Nancy that. That it wouldbe fair to say that she Only knew
Charles for a week from July3rd through the 10th. Nancy answers,
yes. Laurie followed with, youhad no contact with him after that.

(39:50):
And Nancy's like, well, he was dead.
Oh, my God. Laurie.
Like, what?
Laurie? Laurie. So Nancy Johas this date, this experience, this
information. We don't knowwhen she went to the police. We don't
know when she became involvedin the case, other than it was likely
after she heard about things,which was in December. But she never

(40:10):
came forward to the news oranything like that. But she did contact
Kay, and that is one of thethings that Laurie asked about. So
she said that she reached outto Kay to express her condolences,
and she also talked to her alittle bit more about, like, the
things that Charles had talkedto her about. She talked about how
much Charles loved JJ andLaurie cut her off at that point

(40:30):
and went, thank you, that'senough. And then ended her questioning.
Bizarre, right? It's justlike, yeah, okay, we're done. You're
saying too many nice things.
Yeah. And so you have your ownwitness, you do your questions, then
you have a cross examination.And then the original party who calls
that witness can do aredirect. So Trina did that next.
And so she had a couplequestions for Nancy Jo. So Nancy

(40:52):
Jo mentions during thisredirect in response to Trina's questions
that she was pretty upfrontwith Charles with the fact that he
is going through a divorce,and it's going to be hard for him
to find someone who wants tobe serious with him while he's still
married. And that includedher. And so she said that she had,
you know, she had planned tohang out with him again, and she

(41:12):
had fun with him, but that shewasn't pursuing anything serious
at that point because he wasstill married. And I think that that
speaks to that fact of thatoriginal question of were you pursuing
a married man? Right. ThatLaurie kind of threw at her. And
I feel like she's like, no.Like, he was at a phase where he
was, you know, leaving thatmarriage. I wasn't trying to jump
into a relationship with him.I was just getting to know him.

(41:33):
Yeah.
So after this redirect, thejury actually had a question for
Nancy, and they asked ifCharles expressed any verbal indications
of stress. And when the judgeasked that, he was telling her to
answer yes or no, and she kindof cut him off mid thing and was
like, definitely, like, beforehe had even finished. So it was an
absolute yes. So the nextwitness we're going to talk about

(41:54):
is Christina Atwood. And Trinaactually referenced some of what
she's going to testify about.In her opening statement, Christina
talked about meetings that wealready knew about, including where
Laurie had some friends doingcastings to pray for the, quote,
dark spirits to be cast out ofsomeone. And that someone was Charles.
During one of those gettogethers, Alex said that he wished

(42:14):
he could just kill Charles,and he said it more than once. And
per Christina, Laurie neverreacted to these statements and never
said anything like, hey, youcan't stay. Stuff like that, or,
no, you can't kill my husband.I feel like the silence speaks for
itself, but.
Yeah, yeah.
You know, Laurie alsomentioned that she was crushing up
some of JJ's meds and puttingit into drink mixes for Charles to

(42:36):
drink.
Wild.
Yeah. And so Christina tellsLaurie later on, she's like, hey,
I'm a little worried about allthese things that I'm hearing. And
she said, if something happensto Charles, I am going to go to the
police and tell them aboutthis. And Laurie's like, no, we're
just being silly. You're justbeing dramatic. Wild.
Yeah.
Laurie here has no questionsfor Christina, which I think is really

(42:58):
interesting, because if shewanted to suggest that Christina
was taking things out ofcontext or blowing things out of
proportion, it would have beena good time to do so. Right. Like,
oh, did Alex say that rightbefore he made a joke? Did I say
this and then say, justkidding, I would never do that? Right.
Like, she's not. She didn'teven try to impeach Christina's testimony.

(43:20):
No. She's just like, allright, it is what it is.
She seems relatively resignedat a certain point.
Yeah. Yeah. So then Adam Coxtook the stand. That's Laurie's brother.
And he discussed their family,Laurie's beliefs, Laurie and Charles's
marriage, and his plans withCharles to do an intervention for
Laurie. They wanted to recordit and show it to the stake president
of their church to hopefullyrevoke her temple recommend. He landed

(43:43):
in Arizona July 10, and he wassupposed to stay with Alex. However,
he couldn't get a hold ofAlex, and that was very strange.
So imagine, like, asking yourbrother, hey, can I stay with you?
I'm going to be in town. Andhe's like, yeah, sure, he knows he's
coming. Right? Like, he shouldhave been ready for this. And then
he just ghosts him. So becauseof that, he ended up staying with
his parents. So he hung outwith them. And then his son Zach,

(44:06):
he reviewed the text messagesbetween him and Charles, planning
the intervention, how theywould record her and then the text
the morning that Charles wentto pick up jj. Charles text him that
morning, but nothingafterwards. His family never told
him what happened. So Adam hadno idea. He was chatting with a friend
when he went to go visit himin Tucson. And he was like, this
is strange that Charles nevergot back to me. They googled his

(44:28):
name and that's how they found out.
That's so bizarre to mebecause you would have assumed that
somebody in their family wouldhave said something to him.
Yeah, exactly. So he called Kbecause he's like the only person
I'll believe is Kay. Then hecalled his mom, who already fucking
knew about it. So then him andhis son Zach went to go chat with
her and apparently theconversation did not go well and

(44:51):
it created a break in hisrelationship with his mom. And as
we've seen before with aninterview that was years ago between
Laurie's mom and sister, theywere on her side. Right. They went
out to the world and saidLaurie could never do anything wrong
when the kids were missing.She would never hurt her kids is
what they said to the world.And so just wild and sad for poor

(45:14):
Adam. Just trying to navigate,you know, like he's trying to do
an intervention to help hisfriend, his brother in law.
For his sister, which justcomes from a place of love. Right.
Like, you don't have anintervention for someone who you
don't care about, even if theywere like, hey, we're trying to make
you not be able to do stuffwith our religion. Right. At the
end of the day, Charles couldjust be like, I'm getting a divorce.
I'm going to go for fullcustody. Tyler was nearly an adult,

(45:37):
so like, he could have kept arelationship with her if he wanted
to. It's not as though he hadto be a nice guy.
No, exactly. And so this ispartially the reason she probably
took Charles's phone. We knowthat that is what happened that morning
and why he didn't just pick upJJ and leave immediately is because
she took his phone. And theypurposefully did not tell Alex, anyone

(45:58):
in the family and obviouslyher about the intervention. And so
I bet, I mean, she was lookingthrough it and saw this and probably
got pissed off.
Yeah. So the next witness wasSerena Sharp. And she discussed how
she met Laurie, her beliefsand their interactions during visits,
including one after Charleswas murdered. And this particular
visit was the end of July. Andshe says that it was sometime between

(46:18):
the end of July and earlyAugust and Laurie had invited a group
over. And I mean, mind you,we're Less than a month from Charles's
death.
Right.
And Laurie doesn't really seemaffected. She's not mourning, she's
not crying. And that seemsbizarre. Right. You would think that
there would be some type offeeling because even if she didn't
want to be with him anymore,this is still a person she was with

(46:39):
for 15 years. So that's suspicious.
Yeah.
When Laurie Cross examinedher, she spoke very forcefully and
she asked her to specificallyrepeat what was said about zombies
during one of the get togetherweekends and ask questions about
LDS beliefs.
I thought that was the onlysmart thing that Laurie did is like,
well, you heard this, so tellme exactly what I said and when.

(47:02):
And she's like, well, I can't.So, like, I felt like that was kind
of good on Lori's side, butshe was focusing a lot on LDS beliefs
as well and, like, asking herspecific questions. And I. I'm not
of that faith, so I didn'tquite follow 100%, but. Interesting.
Okay, so if you've ever gotteninto an argument with somebody who
you love and you care aboutand they're focused on not being

(47:23):
wrong and they're not focusedon the impact of what whatever happened
did. Right. We're like, no,but I'm not wrong. Yeah. And throughout
the trial, that's one of thethings that I feel like Laurie is
hell bent on proving. She'shell bent on proving that she's not
wrong, not that she didn't dosomething wrong. It's that, like,
she's like, well, do you knowthis? I'm not wrong. Like, my beliefs

(47:45):
aren't wrong. This isn'twrong. My point of view is this.
And this is the way it shouldbe because it's my point of view.
Yeah.
We're not going to get into ittoo much, but for the last witness,
like, grills him about, like,his religious understanding and it's
like, this is not necessary.Does not behoove you to do this.
I think she was trying to alsoshow that some of the things that
people were talking about thather and Chad were saying were part

(48:08):
of LDS faith, but, like, skewed.
Oh. Like it wasn't too off the wall.
Yeah. I think that was hergoal. That's my guess.
I think that that makes sense.I just don't think it came through.
No. No.
So the next witness wasretired police detective William
McDonald, and he discussedgetting information off of the cell
phones. Laurie didn't have anyquestions on a cross exam, so we

(48:30):
didn't learn any newinformation from Trina's original
questioning of him. And Lauriedidn't have any cross examination
questions, but the jury didhave questions for him, which I do
like that the jury wasproactive and was like, no, we want
to understand this, but Idon't think that this was necessarily
like a question for this case.I think they were like, I just generally

(48:50):
need to know this, becausethey asked, if someone deletes their
browser history, can you stillget their history? And Detective
McDonald said on occasion, ifit's more recent, that information
can be recovered by software.And more recent meant within the
past year.
Interesting, though. Because.
Interesting.
Yeah. If you want to look atit from this case, anything that
Lori's like, oh, I'll justdelete it. And they'll never know.

(49:11):
They're like, just kidding.Yeah, we're going to see everything.
Digital footprints, man.
But also horrifying.
Yes. And so perhaps what Iwould say was the most heartbreaking
testimony was Kay Woodcock,which was Charles's sister. We've
mentioned her before, but shetalks about how she found out that
her brother had died. So hernephew Cole called her the day after

(49:33):
he died and said that Lauriehad texted him and told him that
his dad was dead. And whenCole spoke with Kay, he was like,
I'm confused. Like, what'sgoing on? And Kay's like, I am at
a nail salon. I also don'tknow what's going on. So she calls
Larry. He's like, okay, I'lllook into it. He Googles around.
And then he calls her back andis like, this is true. And for a
little bit of context, ifyou're not super familiar with the

(49:54):
case, after Charles died,Laurie texted Zach and Cole, Charles's
sons, that Charles had died. Atext? Not even a call.
Yeah, the text she. She sentthe day after, by the way. So whole
day after, in the lateafternoon, it was at 4:36, at least
from the screenshot that Icould find. And it says, hi, boys.
I have some very sad news.Your dad passed away yesterday. I'm

(50:17):
working on making arrangementsand I'll keep you informed with what's
going on. I'm still not surehow to handle things. Just want you
to know that I love you and sodid your dad.
Disgusting. Disgusting. Yeah.And so in addition to barely notifying
his family, she doesn't evenreally keep up communication with
them or fill them in once theyare aware. And when she was testifying,

(50:38):
Kay broke down a little bit atthis part because, I mean, look,
she was married to Charles for15 years, which means that she was
part of their family for 15years. She was taking care of JJ,
which was Kay's grandsonbiologically. So obviously they trusted
her. They cared about her. So,like, this is this person who was
important in their life who'sjust being so reckless with their

(51:00):
feelings.
Right.
And she also talked about whatshe knew about what was going on
in Charles and Laurie'srelationship at that point. She said
that she had helped Charlesmove out and that there were a few
family events where, you know,Charles came, but Laurie didn't show
up. She even said that at onepoint, Laurie said she didn't want
J.J. or Tyler anymore.
Heartbreaking.

(51:21):
Heartbreaking and disgusting.And the thing is, if that is true,
then you just call your familyand you say, hey, I can't do this.
That was all it took. Oneuncomfortable conversation could
have saved so many people'slives. Murder was not the only option
here.
Right. And it was clear thatKay would have taken JJ at any moment.
Oh, yes. Yes.
Right. Any moment.
1. Also, like, although notblood related to JJ, Laurie's siblings,

(51:47):
other than Alex, who wasclearly a shit show, they also cared
about him. Right. Like, itwasn't as though they were like,
eh, we don't give a shit abouthim. We only care about Tyler. They
loved him, too. So I can'teven imagine thinking that this someone
couldn't do this and thenbeing like, oh, my God, I was complicit.
Yeah.
But anyhow, so getting back toK's testimony. So when she found

(52:07):
out that Charles died, she wasin Arizona by noon the next day,
and one of her primaryconcerns was jj. She had to wait
to talk to detectives, butwhen she did, she was like, I'm worried
that JJ's not safe, and I'mworried that he may have seen something,
which is fair.
Yeah.
So Charles's remains werecremated, and they were sent to Kay's

(52:27):
office with a few of hisbelongings, as well as his letterman's
jacket. Laurie gave Kay andthe rest of their family permission
to go to his house in Houston,Texas, to get whatever they wanted.
But when they got there,Charles's personal belongings and
JJ's didn't seem to be there.So then we mentioned. Right. That
the beneficiary changed forhis life insurance. Kay also mentions

(52:50):
that when Laurie found outthat Kay was the beneficiary, she
sent K a screenshot of theinformation and was like, is this
why you want jj? As though theonly reason she would want to take
care of him would be formoney. Disgusting. So they have a
service for him And JJ wassupposed to attend with Kay, but

(53:11):
then Laurie changed her mind.She said that they were too busy
and that it would be tooconfusing for JJ to go.
That's sad. Charles was, like,JJ's biggest fan.
Yes. And also JJ was beingraised by Laurie and Charles, but
Kay and Larry, that was theirboy. And, like, one of the things
that gets me the most aboutthe entire situation, the entire

(53:32):
case, is there's a documentarywhere they're following Kay and Larry,
and they are there. The momentthat Larry finds out that JJ has
died, and the sound that comesout of him is just like. It's a whale.
Right. So it's this grieving whale.
Yeah.
And it's like, he was soloved. And they talk about how much
they love Tyler, too, because,again, blood doesn't make a relative.

(53:55):
Right.
Yeah.
So it just breaks my heart so,so much about so much stuff that
just didn't need to happen.
Right.
That image burned into my head or.
That moment in that documentary.
Yeah.
Is burned into our headsforever. And every time I see Kay,
especially Lar, but Kay andLarry together, all I think of is
that moment, and then it makesme cry.
Yeah. Yeah.

(54:15):
So K fired back at Laurie andsome of the questioning, and I feel
like in Kay's face, you couldsee the anger and the hurt, understandably
and especially like you'rebeing questioned by the person that
killed your brother and killedyour grandbaby. What a weird, horrible
situation to be put into.
Also, if there was ever a timefor her to not question someone,

(54:36):
this was it.
Oh, yeah. There's nothing shecould say that's gonna help her.
There's nothing that she'sgonna say that could help her. If
she makes it look like Kaylied, the gotcha moment isn't going
to work in her favor becauseshe's still getting a gotcha moment
against the victim's family.And Kay is always very articulate,
always so well spoken andclear, but also not shy to show emotion.

(54:59):
Right. And I just don't knowwhat she was thinking.
Yeah. And the questions thatshe asked, I don't see how in any
way this could have helped her.
Mm. Mm.
It was dumb. But the firstone, this is the one where I'm like,
what the fuck, Laurie? Whatare you doing? Laurie asks. You weren't
really aware of the eventsthat happened that morning, were
you? And K says somethingalong the lines of the morning of

(55:21):
the murder. She may have saidCharles's murder, but it was, like,
hard to hear with the camerabeing so far. Laurie quickly says,
July 11th. And Kay says, no, Iwasn't, because you didn't tell me.
And she just stone face saysthis to her. Laurie then said, did
you see or hear or personallywitness me conspire with Alex Cox

(55:41):
to kill my husband, CharlesVallow? She wouldn't have been like,
hey, sister of my husband, I'mgoing to kill him. Do you want to
talk about it? Like, thatwouldn't have happened. So K obviously
said no, but I saw a ton ofevidence that did. And I was like,
okay. Yeah.
And here's just another point.If this was an offense, defense attorney
who said that it would makesense. Kay is talking about their

(56:02):
relationship and where it was,how she was notified of his death,
that Laurie seemed a littlebit cold.
Yeah.
None of these really provethat Laurie did it. It really doesn't.
It just proves how Laurie wasacting at the time. And people handle
grief in vastly differentways. Right. So a defense attorney
asking that question and thensaying, oh, have you ever been present

(56:25):
for Laurie grieving? Like, doyou know how she was handling it?
Is it possible that she didn'tcontact you because she was heartbroken?
Right. Like, there are waysthat they could have approached that
where that question would haveactually made a lot of sense.
Yeah.
If literally anyone other thanLaurie asked it.
Agreed. So after Kay mentionedthe evidence, Laurie ended it. There,

(56:47):
all done. And then just anote. Nate Eaton, the reporter from
Idaho, we love him. He'sgreat. He interviewed Colby after
court that day, which wasLaurie's oldest son. And he mentioned
that he noticed how rude hismom was being and how disrespectful
she was in court. And I wasjust like, if your son is literally

(57:08):
saying that, like, the wholeworld is looking at it, but he knows
her, and he's like, she'sbeing awful in front of the world
right now. I just felt bad forhim. And I know it was his birthday
week, too. And so I was justlike, this poor guy.
Yeah. It hurts my heartbecause he lost his siblings. And
one. I just. I can't. I can'timagine losing a sibling, but I also

(57:28):
can't imagine knowing that mymom did it.
Yeah.
But so early in theinvestigations, and even when she
was arrested, he was like,begging her to be like, tell me this
isn't true, basically. Right.Like, in his interactions, he's like,
what's going on? Because I'mhearing all this stuff. I don't want
to believe it. Which. Whowould want to? Again, hurts my heart.
Yeah. Yeah. The next personwas Dr. Derek Baumgartner. And he

(57:52):
was from the medicalexaminer's office. He discussed the
autopsy and the specifics forthe gunshot wounds to Charles. I
will say, when this guy talks,he just can rattle things off super
quick. He knows his stuffquite a bit. So Charles had one bullet
wound to the chest and thenone to the left abdomen area. He
also had abrasions on both ofhis knees and a small one on his

(58:15):
left hand, which Dr.Baumgartner says were caused at the
time of death. The shot to thechest had stippling, which is when
gunpowder strikes the skinafter a bullet enters. The closer
the gun muzzle is to theperson increases the amount of stippling.
He estimates that the shooterwould have been about 2 to 4ft away
from Charles. The chestgunshots exit wound was in the middle

(58:36):
of the back, so it seems likeit went kind of straight through.
He reviewed the wound path andlike specifically every organ and
everything it hit. And itwouldn't have been immediately fatal.
And that Charles would havelived seconds up to very few minutes,
which made me really sad tothink about.
Yeah.
As a note, one of Charles'shands had blood on it. And it's speculated

(58:59):
that he grabbed his chestbefore falling to his knees, which
explains the abrasions to his knees.
The second gunshot wound wasin the left abdomen and had no stippling,
which meant that the muzzle ofthe gum was likely 4 to 5ft away.
The exit wound for this onewas on the back of his left shoulder,
which I feel like that's aninteresting trajectory, by the way.
Yeah.
And the exit wound accordinglywas atypical, and it was a short

(59:22):
exit wound, which is when thebody is pressed against a firm surface
when the bullet is exiting theskin. Like if someone was laying
on the floor. Trina asked,given the trajectory that you observed
from the gunshot wound onCharles's abdomen, would that be
consistent with the shooterstanding somewhere near Mr. Vallow's
feet and firing at CharlesVallow as he was laying on the floor?
And Dr. Baumgartner answered,yes, that is certainly possible.

(59:45):
And it's also important tonote, and we'll talk more about this
later as well, but there was amark on the floor in that area where
the bullet hit.
And so I wonder, then he hitCharles and didn't realize that Charles
would still be moving. Andafter he fell, he's like, shit, he's
still alive. And then shot him again.
There was also testimony fromRobin Smith Scott, who is the custodian
of records for Banner LifeInsurance. And they played two calls

(01:00:08):
where Laurie had called aboutCharles's life insurance, and we'd
heard one before, but we don'tthink we'd heard the other one before.
So the first call that we hadheard before was her calling and
starting the claim for lifeinsurance right after Charles had
died. And when they asked herif he had died by homicide, she said
that he was shot and it was anaccident. Now, the second call is
her calling after she hadreceived an email, and she's calling

(01:00:31):
to discuss policy details thatshe has and wants to know when the
beneficiary was changed. Soduring the call, Robin explains that
he can't give a lot ofdetails, but it was changed in March.
And Laurie sounds frustratedin the call, and she says, I'm trying
to figure out what he wasdoing. We have five kids and have
been married 15 years. He owesa lot of people money, and I was

(01:00:52):
worried that if I got money,they'd be coming after me for money.
But now I am left with none.She then asks if it was changed to
one person, and Robin cannotanswer that. So, you know, again,
during this call, she hasRobin check her own policy, which
was for $2 million, to see ifanything was changed on hers, but
it may have been with anothercompany, as Robin couldn't find it.

(01:01:14):
Yeah. So it must have beenwith a different company. And Laurie
has no idea what is going on.So Detective Cassandra Incline from
Chandler Police Departmentdiscussed her view of the crime scene
and everyone's demeanor thatshe had observed. She said Alex was
normal and wasn't agitated orupset, which, I mean, like, you mentioned,
too, when there's, like, atraumatic thing that happens, everyone's

(01:01:36):
gonna act differently. Butthis just seemed a little out of
scope.
I just feel like you would be,like, shaking. You've just taken
someone's life. Horrifying.But you've just taken somebody who
you've known for at least 15years. Life. Like, who people who
you love, care about, even ifyou don't. You know what I'm saying?
Like. Like, it's bizarre.
Yeah. I forget which part ofthe testimony, but Laurie tried to

(01:01:58):
say, like, did you know thatCharles and Alex were friends? And
they're like, what does thishave to do with anything?
Okay, then that's worse.
Yeah. Yeah. But anyway, so shedid notice that he was holding what
looked like a paper towel ormaybe a Kleenex in his hand at one
point, and that he did reachback and touch the back of his head.
And we've seen that in some ofthe interviews, too, from that day.

(01:02:18):
That he was doing that, but itdoesn't seem consistent with, like,
a big blow to the head, in myopinion. She observed Laurie and
Tyler, but didn't know whothey were at first, but acknowledged
that they arrived after her.Because of that, she spoke with her
sergeant once she figured outwho it was about, maybe taking Laurie
aside and giving her a deathnotification. And her sergeant's

(01:02:39):
like, yeah, that's probably agood idea, because how could someone
know if they just showed upthat their husband died? And especially.
I'm sorry. Lori was actinglike a typical day. Right. When you
watch those videos, she'ssmiling. She's totally fine. I would
be like, she doesn't know herhusband's dead.
Well, it's also right, like,have you ever pulled onto your street
when there's an ambulance andyou don't even know if it's at your

(01:03:00):
house? But, like, just thedrop in your stomach and the way
that. That feels.
Yes.
Like that surprise, thatshock, the fact that wasn't present,
I found strange.
Yeah.
And then even more so thatshe's acting normal once she's there.
And it's clearly somethinghappened in that particular unit.
Right. Right. There's cautiontape up and everything. So she's

(01:03:22):
like, she must not know herhusband's dead. Talks to her sergeant.
They both agree we should gotell her. But her plan was maybe
to take Laurie away becauseshe's with Tyler. They were in, like,
this van, like, a victim van,I believe, some sort of van. But
they're both sitting there,and she's like, I need to get Laurie
away from Tylee so I can tellher, because I don't want to say
this in front of a child.Well, they ended up talking with

(01:03:45):
her with Tyler present,because Laurie immediately shares,
oh, I already know because Iwas there. So she didn't seem overly
affected and almost nonchalantabout the whole situation. Also,
the detective noted thatLaurie's demeanor didn't change after
she confirmed Laurie's husbandhad died. Because Laurie and Tyler

(01:04:06):
were now witnesses, they alsohad to be interviewed. And so she
ended up driving them in thatvan to the station and then having
to drive them home later. Theyplayed parts of Laurie's interview
with authorities that day, andthat took place at the Family Advocacy
center, which that's beenavailable for a long time now. So
if you want to see it, it'sall over YouTube, everywhere. Laurie

(01:04:26):
wanted the whole video to beplayed, but they only played segments
at the end of the trial.Laurie actually even gets upset because
the whole video was notAdmitted. And it was after the time
that she could have raised theissue. The state had already rested
by this.
Point and so had she.
Yeah, it's already done. Youcan't add any more. So she was very
pissed. I don't know. I haveto watch that video again. It's been

(01:04:47):
years since I watched it, butI'm wondering what detail did she
want them to hear or see?
So I remember that she talksabout. Well, first off, she's very
charming in it because she'svery charming generally. But she
also is, like, talking abouthow he was heated and agitated and,
like, angry. It seems like sheis trying to support the story that
Alex is going to tell of selfdefense and that Charles attacked

(01:05:10):
him.
Yeah, just bizarre. I'll haveto go back and. And take a look,
because she was very adamantabout it. Now, during this interview
that was played from that day,she mentions that Charles had sent
her threats to her phone. ButLaurie never offered to show these
texts to the detective, eventhough she had her cell phone with

(01:05:30):
her. Like, if you're like, oh,he was doing really bad things and
like, he's a bad person and hetried to attack us and all that,
wouldn't you be like, oh, bythe way, he sent me this. You know,
like, I. Again, I don't. I'mnot in that situation, but I feel
like you would have offered it.
Yeah, I feel like, oh, mygosh, he's been sending me this.
Like, I was scared, something.I mean, I just feel like even in.

(01:05:52):
Just not even in a calculatedway, but like, if police were there
and I was like, no, he was abad guy. I'm not saying Charles was
a bad guy, but, like, right.If my brother was potentially going
to get in trouble for hurtingsomebody, where my story was that
they were terrorizing me, Iwould absolutely be advocating for
them as much as I could.Right. Like, I wouldn't be like,

(01:06:12):
don't leave.
It up to chance.
He was a bad guy. Like, no. Noproof, nothing. I'd be like, no,
I want you to know this inyour bones.
Exactly. Another detail that Ithought was interesting that the
detective brought up was, youknow, how when they start talking
to someone, they ask for,like, their name, their phone number,
all of that stuff. Right.Pretty common. Well, she learned
that the communicationsbetween Laurie and Charles were actually

(01:06:35):
on a different phone and thatLori didn't even provide that phone
number for it.
We're not going to get intothe weeds on this too much today,
but we've talked about it inother episodes that this blows my
mind. Laurie had multipleicloud accounts. I can't imagine
having multiple icloudaccounts. That would be exhausting
to try to remember, like,where I had things, you know? But,

(01:06:57):
yeah, bizarre. So Amandamentioned it earlier, but the detective
also drove them back aftertheir questioning, and she said that
Laurie was just chatting awaylike it was any other day and not
acting as though somethinghorrific just happened. Then when
detectives could not findCharles's phone, they asked Lori
and Tyler, and Tyler justpulled it out of the cup holder and

(01:07:17):
handed it to the detective. SoLaurie had the phone the whole time.
So she's in there beingquestioned, and she has his phone.
And as a reminder, the cellphone was apparently, like, the instigating
factor in the. In the fight.That's what they were arguing about,
that Laurie in Charles'sphone, and she refused to give it
back. And that's what madeeverything escalate.

(01:07:38):
And she never brought up whyshe did that either in any interviews?
No.
Ever.
So when detective inland wasasked about Laurie's demeanor and
if it stood out to her, sheresponded, yes, based on what was
going on, that we had ahomicide. Her husband had been shot
and killed. Her brother shothim. It was inside her home. Her
children were partiallypresent for this event. Her demeanor

(01:08:01):
seemed odd based on what wasgoing on at that house that day.
That's all so much. Even,like, with half of those facts, it's
a lot. You would assume thatsomebody wouldn't be business as
usual, for sure. And one ofthe biggest things to note when Laurie
was cross examining her wasthat when Laurie referred to jj,
she did so in the past tense.For example, she asked, are you aware

(01:08:23):
that JJ had autism? And. Andagain, remember, the jury doesn't
know about Tyler and JJ'sdeath. So, like, speaking about him
in the past tense is like,hey, he's not alive. And then there's
also a sidebar with the judge.And we later find out that Laurie

(01:08:43):
had wanted to ask thedetective about whether she had observed
Laurie's behavior at theprevious trial and on, like, media
interviews. And the judgesaid, maybe you don't want to open
that door, because it's like,dude, you're bringing up this other
case, and once you bring itup, the prosecution can talk about
it. So, like, do not bringthis up. It's wild how often it seemed

(01:09:07):
like the judge had to be like,are you trying to get convicted right
now? I mean, it almost likewith the way she was acting, it seemed
like it's what she wantedalmost. You know, almost.
I'm just surprised. Like, hestepped in so many times that she
was so rude to him severaltimes, and he continued to step in
and almost help her. Not thathe shouldn't have. Like, he was just
being a good person.
He's being a good judge.
She was really digging to seehow much the detective could read

(01:09:30):
behavior like that. That washer to be like, well, maybe you're
not an expert on that.
Yeah. And there absolutelycould have been questions that she's
asked, like, hey, have youexperienced other people doing this?
Or what should I have acted like?
Exactly. Yeah.
What would have been right foryou? How should I have acted when
my husband was killed? Whatwould have been good enough for you?
Right.
Do you see how that completelyflips it of, like, I kind of sound

(01:09:53):
like an right now, you know,Like, I don't know.
Yeah.
Literally anything other thanwhat Lori is doing. Lori wanted her
opinion and her voice to beheard, but she didn't think about
how other people would receivethat. Because just because you're
talking doesn't mean somebodyunderstands what you're trying to
say.
Right.
But anywho. So the beginningof the trial the next day was a little
bit odd because the judge hadto pull the attorneys aside and talk

(01:10:15):
to them about subpoenas thatwere being received by people who
were not on Laurie's witnesslist. When you watch crime dramas,
they'll have, like, a surprisewitness. That's not real. You can't
really have a surprisewitness. Both parties have to be
aware of the witnesses, whichmeans they have to be on the witness
list. So they're on the actualsubpoenas themselves. There wasn't
a number that they could callbecause Laurie was signing them.

(01:10:37):
And she's in jail, so shedoesn't have a phone that they can
call. So the people who arereceiving the subpoenas were reaching
out to the prosecutor. And thejudge was like, this is what you
do. Like, this is how you dothe subpoenas. So that she understood
for her next trial. And Lauriewas like, oh, the people who are
getting these shouldn't be onthe witness list. Like, this was

(01:10:59):
an oversight. And Tina's like,you signed these. So, like, how is
it an oversight if youliterally sign these and sent them
out? Yeah. And Lori said thatshe signed all of them, but she didn't
check them as she was doingit. She's like. I was like, basically,
she says that she's sloppy.
Yeah.
And the judge is also like,are all of these people even, like,
relevant? Do these people needto testify. Is this about this case?

(01:11:22):
Because, again, it seems likeLaurie's like, I'm gonna use this
as an opportunity to justfigure out some stuff, ask people
questions who I want them toanswer on Stan. That's what it feels
like. She's like, I'm here formy own reasons, and it's not to defend
myself. And there were severalpeople on her list that they couldn't
find or serve with the subpoenas.
Interesting.
Wild. I'm like, who are these people?

(01:11:44):
But anywho, another witnesswas Detective Ariel Werther, and
they were from Chandler PoliceDepartment, and he discussed the
timeline of events on July11th. And this was really good to
see all in one, because we'veseen bits and pieces here and there
as things have come out. Butseeing everything compiled into one
nice timeline, I think just,like, helped me to understand that

(01:12:07):
day and to really prove thatLaurie and Alex's story was complete
nonsense.
And also, just to point out,we are, like, up to our elbows in
case research on this case.Right. Like, we have read everything
we can find. We've talkedabout it a lot. I can't even imagine
being a juror who's, like,trying to parse out all this information
for the first time and learnit live.
Oh, my gosh. Yeah.

(01:12:28):
So it's helpful that they didthis to really be able to create
a narrative of what happenedand what. What they think is and
is not fact.
Yes. I think the only otherthing that was missing, in my opinion,
that could have just made thestory for the prosecution make thousand
percent sense, is the actual911 call when Alex called about Charles.

(01:12:49):
Because he did say. They said,like, how long ago did it happen?
And he says, a few minutesago, I believe. So, like, it would
have made sense to play it.But anyways, this was good, too.
So the 911 call was placed at8:36am Police arrived between 8:41
and 8:42. So, very quick, Loriis seen on body cam footage at 8:48.
So just a few minutes later.Now, Detective Werther says this

(01:13:11):
timeline just doesn't makesense, because how would Laurie go
from her house to burger king,drive seven miles to JJ's school,
then drive back? All of thatin 12 minutes, given that there would
have been traffic.
Exactly.
And that's their story that weheard a while ago. So I know if you're
new to this, they claim thatCharles was shot and she immediately

(01:13:31):
left to take the kids outbecause obviously kids should not
be there. But she went toBurger King And I think that was
because he had promised JJBurger King. Maybe. She also mentioned
that she had gone to a storeto buy sandals as well, and that
she drove JJ to school beforereturning home. So that couldn't
have happened. That doesn'tmake sense because she arrived on
the body cam footage at 8:48.Now, he also watched Burger King's

(01:13:53):
surveillance cameras, and hecould see that she went through the
drive thru at 7:54am so howwould she have left the house after
Charles was shot but be atBurger King before?
Exactly.
Right before the 911 call.Yeah. 7:54. That's a while before.
The detective was also toldthat Laurie went to CVS that day
to buy flip flops. Well, heended up going to seven different

(01:14:15):
stores and no one could findvideo evidence of this. So what he
did was he extracted GPS datafrom Charles's phone since she had
it that day and she hadactually gone to Walgreens. So he
was able to get thatsurveillance footage and the receipt
and verify the time of that.He had a complete PowerPoint to show
the geolocation cell phoneinfo for all their phones. So Charles,

(01:14:37):
Lori and Alex's phones. And hebasically color coded each one to
signify who was the owner ofthat phone and, you know, their GPS
and where they were. Charles'sphone was at the hotel at 7:16am
between 7:16 and 7:31. He wastraveling to Lori's house at 7:37.
That was the last text messagesent from Charles's phone. Between

(01:14:57):
7:37 and 7:49. The phone is inthe area of Laurie's home. At 7:50,
the phone leaves the area. Sothe earliest him being there would
have been about 7:37. And thenit's leaving at 7:50. If there was
this big drawn out scuffleargument, all of that, I feel like
it would have taken placelonger than 13 minutes. Yeah, possibly

(01:15:21):
even less. Like if you look atthe 7:49 time as the arrival.
Yeah. How exactly?
So at 7:52, Alex callsLaurie's phone. Not 91 1. Lori's
phone now going off of Charlesphone ping GPS between 7:52 and 7:56am
it's near the Burger King,which the surveillance footage confirmed.
At 7:56, the phone startsmoving north. Alex then calls Laurie

(01:15:44):
at 8:06 from his phone. Again,not 911. Laurie's phone. Charles's
phone arrives at Walgreens at8:16, was at JJ's school between
8:17 and 8:33. I believe shedid walk him up from her story, at
least, who could know? Then itheads south between 8:33 and 8:35.
911 was called at 8:36. Soafter Lori had already dropped JJ

(01:16:06):
off and was already headingback, Laurie arrived back at the
house at 8:48am Then Charles'sand Laurie's phone both are together
and move around in the noonhour. All three phones. So Charles,
Laurie and Alex's were in thearea of Alex's house between 1:42pm
and 2:07pm so they met afterall of this and likely talked about

(01:16:27):
their.
Stories would be my guess.
Laurie calls Detective Inklandat 2:07pm and then she calls the
mortuary at 2:28pm Charles'sphone returns to the house between
2:43 and 3:11pm and that'swhen it's given to detectives. So
later that afternoon. So shehad a bit of time to go through it,
right?
Yeah.
And then after he goes throughthis damning evidence. Right. Like,

(01:16:50):
you guys lied 1000% lied. Whatshe chooses to ask the detective
is if he pulled anyinformation from Charles's phone.
I assume about Charles meetinga woman and sending money, like,
not quite to the woman. Ithink it was two different. Like,
yeah, he met a woman here,we're sending money. And of course,
that was objected forrelevance because, like, what does
that have to do with anything?Lori, everything she does seems pointless.

(01:17:13):
Agreed, Agreed. So we're atnow day seven of the trial, by the
way. That's where we're atnow. And it's Detective Nathan Duncan's
testimony, and he's actuallythe last witness that's called. Now,
he spent months going throughicloud data. As an interesting note,
one of the things DetectiveDuncan mentioned was that text messages
that were sent to Charles'sphone were read after he died. So,

(01:17:38):
like, they can confirm she wasnoodling around like it's a given
because she had it, but it'slike knowing that, like, the messages
we're showing is red. So fromthe very beginning, the scene was
inconsistent with the storythat they were being given, and that's
why police startedinvestigating, including just really
starting to dig into all ofthe digital evidence. Very interestingly,

(01:18:01):
one of the things he mentionedwas that he didn't have any information
about anyone else in Lori'sfamily, like Janice, Barry or Summer
being at the scene. He evenmentioned that Summer was on.
Her way out of town andSummer's Lori's sister. Janice and
Barry are her parents.
Yes. He also mentioned thatthe medical examiner didn't come
to the actual crime scene andlook at Charles's body, where it

(01:18:21):
was. They reviewed photos andhis actual remains for their conclusions.
Detective Duncan also notedthat the bullet that was in the floor,
it was clear that it wentthrough Charles's shoulder. And he
also said that the bullet onthe floor was, quote, 100% consistent
with char being shot while hewas on the floor. And they were so

(01:18:41):
sure of this, they actuallyended up cutting a portion of the
floor out as evidence. Theyalso showed a picture of Charles
lying on the floor of the homein court. And Kay didn't look at
that photo, which is fair. Idon't think I would want to see that
up my sibling either.
They did that with the autopsyphotos, too, and I believe she left
for those.
So fair. So they also talked alot about the bat that Charles had

(01:19:03):
allegedly struck Alex with.And they noted that there was no
damage to the plastic tip ofthe bat bat. They also said there
was no blood or hair visibleon the bat. So they didn't really
test it because they werelike, what are we gonna find? Right.
They didn't put luminol on itbecause if there was blood, they
would have been able to seeit. There shouldn't have been any
cleanup if it was selfdefense. So it's. There shouldn't
be any hidden blood, you know.And then Lori was a bit, what I would

(01:19:26):
say, obsessed with pepperingdetective Duncan with questions about
the testing that was done onthe bat. Specifically, she was really
concerned with the fact thatDNA. There wasn't DNA testing on
it. And detective Duncan waslike, like, this was in your house.
Your brother Alex was there.Tyler lived there, you lived there.
Charles, you know, stopped byand visited. We don't know how long

(01:19:47):
you've had this bat for. Sothere are innocuous reasons for everyone's
DNA to be on that bat. So whywould we test it when there's non
suspicious reasons for thatDNA to be there? And as a note, Detective
Duncan didn't even know thatAlex had gotten hit when he was on
the crime scene because hewasn't the lead investigator at that

(01:20:07):
point. And there were a fewdifferent things that during his
testimony, Laurie was like,why didn't they do it this way? Why
didn't they look at this? Andhe was like, that wasn't my decision.
She's like, well, but whydidn't they do that? And that's another
instance where the judge,like, he can't tell you why other
people did things like, yeah,he's not other people. He is Him.

(01:20:28):
They also talked about abouttext exchanges where there was a
Nephi slash order to kill. Andin the context of this, Laurie's
asking him about this, and shejust kind of adds on. Like, half
of the text exchanges betweenAlex and I were jokes.
Okay.
If that was true, then you hadsubmitted evidence showing your text
messages where it's all jokes,you know? He also notes that Alex's

(01:20:49):
phone was given back to himthe day of the shooting. So there
was also a text exchange thatwas shared before, but it is very
damning. And they're talkingabout Charles's life insurance policy
in this conversation. So Chadsaid it will be interesting if it
got changed after he got twobullets in his chest. Laurie responds,
I don't think it could have.You can't change it. After the death

(01:21:09):
date, they would review that.Then Laurie gave Chad a blessing
and said she thought K was thebeneficiary. Chad then says, you
should have a good paper trailto prove it.
I love you.
This is terrible. It'sprobably just another step in bringing
down the Gantians, especiallyBrandon. They also note that the
first mention of Ned, which isapparently the dark zombie, whatever

(01:21:30):
that was inside of Charles,the first mention of Ned was in February
of 2019. And again, one of theparts that I thought was particularly
damning was that DetectiveDuncan said that he believes that
Charles was dead for 47minutes before Alex called 911, which
would explain the lividity,which would explain why there was

(01:21:51):
modeling in his skin. And thisother part, it's something that we
knew, but just in theaggregate of seeing it, it was interesting
to see just how often Lauriewould be having a conversation with
someone, and she would say,call me. And it was always, like,
when you could tell they weregonna start talking about nothing
good, you know, like they weregonna start doing details, and that's

(01:22:14):
when they would call it.Obviously, there's not any records
of the actual content of thosecalls other than, like, she said,
call me, then the person wouldcall her. And there's always bad
shit going on after it. Yeah, yeah.
Also during his testimony, the24 was brought up, and apparently
there were 24 zombies, andthey were working on figuring out
who all of them were. DuringDuncan's testimony, they showed texts

(01:22:35):
that talked about Adam's sonZach, being a zombie.
Later, they actuallyidentified him as the. The last zombie.
Like, the last identifiedzombie, which hurt my heart. Yeah.
That's scary.
It's a relative, another relative.
And Adam's there too, youknow, like. Yeah. Later, Laurie told
Alex that Adam too was a zombie.
So he's just like, soapparently there's 25.

(01:22:57):
Like, yeah, they were gonna goafter me and my kid. Like, how scary
for Adam. M. Like thinking tooabout Brandon and how scary it was
for his life. And he haschildren, you know, with one of the
people very close to Laurie.So I'm like, yikes. If they hadn't
been stopped, what else couldhave happened?
Exactly.
We do have a long list of whothey suspected to be zombies, including

(01:23:20):
detectives and. And anyonethat stood in their way throughout
all of our other episodes. Twoof the state's witnesses did not
testify. They were DetectiveNathan Moffett and Jason Hunsacker.
And from our understanding, webelieve Moffat was the original lead
detective. But I feel likeeven without their testimonies, everything
was fine.

(01:23:40):
It was also very clear thatLaurie was picking apart why certain
things were investigated andwere not. And I think that Detective
Moffat, I'm sure, had verygood information that would have
been helpful, but it wouldhave been a repeat of information
that was already given. AndLaurie would have been like, why
didn't you do this? Why didn'tyou look at this? And it would have
given more opportunity forthere to be some holes in the prosecution.

(01:24:03):
That, that's my understanding.Not that, like, I don't think. I
don't know whether he didanything wrong or not. I don't. I
didn't investigate it, butthat would be my guess as to, like,
that he didn't. There was novalue in like him specifically when
there was so many other peoplewho could come to those conclusions
without the critiques. Right.
Lori and the state rested, butthey did not do so before the jury.
So that had to be done thenext day in front of the jury. And

(01:24:23):
both sides did do that thefollowing day. Day. This means that
Lori couldn't testify on herown behalf, which I was very curious
if that was going to happen.
Oh, I wasn't. I knew shewasn't. That's the whole reason,
in my opinion, why she wasrepresenting herself.
I believe she was asked thatin one of the interviews and she's
like, I haven't decided yet.
Oh yeah. Because she's notgoing to say that. The reason why

(01:24:44):
she's representing herself isso that she can talk without being
cross examined and possiblyimpeached. Because if she lies on
the stand, then they can thenintroduce new witnesses and evidence
to show that she's a liar. Butthey can't do it unless she lies.
Right. So I think that it wasso that she couldn't get cross examined
and impeached, which is the.One of the only smart fucking things

(01:25:05):
she did.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. In atextbook. Yeah, she made the right
choice, but she typicallydoesn't act with her.
Yeah, she's not good at doing that.
Yeah, you know, just likemakes quick decisions often as far
as like what was spouting fromher mouth most of the time. So I
just thought she was going toget upset and just be like, well,
now it's my turn, you know,Know. But I mean, okay, she didn't.

(01:25:26):
Whatever.
As an interesting note, shealso obviously gave her own closing
argument. So she had thebenefit of being able to tell her
story without the downside ofbeing cross examined by the prosecution.
But she also had to stick withwhat was brought up during the trial,
so she didn't have too much towork off of. Yeah, there were 14
jurors, two women and 12 men.And the juror instructions were pretty

(01:25:49):
along. The judge told them todetermine the facts only by what
was given in court. Evidenceand witnesses only. Any testimony
stricken from court recordmust not be considered. If something
was objected and sustained,jurors should not consider, which
there's a few times that Lorisaid things that they can't really
think about anymore. The judgereviewed a packet with them for almost
40 minutes with all of theinstructions to ensure that every

(01:26:11):
single person understood. Andeach juror also had their own packets.
So they were like going overit like a class, you know, like,
this is what this means. Theycould make sure that everyone had
a clear understanding of whatthat meant. So after that, the closing
arguments happened. Trina'swas about an hour and 40 minutes
long.
Wow.
Laurie's was about 16 minuteslong. And Trina's rebuttal was about

(01:26:34):
eight minutes long.
So Trina, her poor voice, shewasn't fucking around though.
No, she was not fuckingaround. But hers was very good. And
I want to say one of.
The jurors already said, like,yeah, her.
Her closing argument reallylike got me me. But she reviewed
texts between Laurie and chat,summarized important parts of the
testimony, Laurie's beliefs.She showed a timeline on the screen

(01:26:57):
of all the events, money beingthe motive, how Laurie exaggerates,
minimizes, and is untruthfulabout even the smallest of things.
And discussed her affair withChad. She did a phenomenal job. Now,
Laurie's was quick. Lauriereviewed some of the jury instructions.
That seems like, like what sheheld on to and specifically when

(01:27:19):
they should find the defendantnot guilty. Like, she read them and
she's like, so you should findthe defendant not guilty, like, and
read them one by one. And Iwas like, they just heard this. But,
okay. She brought up that herwhole interview, remember the day
that Charles was killed,Wasn't shown, but most of it is admitted,
and that it's specificallyExhibit 286, and that she encouraged
all of them to watch it. Shetried to say that the state chose

(01:27:41):
not to show certaininterviews, but the judge says that
they should disregard itbecause they should only consider
what is admitted intoevidence. So she's already spouting
things, and he's having tostop her during her closing arguments,
even, which I feel like thatdoesn't look good to the jury. You
know, like, you can't even getyour point fully across because you're
already messing up again.
Yep.
She also spent a good amountof time talking about Nephi and then

(01:28:05):
how she ended it was, again,it was a family tragedy.
And again, it is a familytragedy. It's just not your tragedy.
It's a tragedy you caused.Yes. So after closing statements,
the judge determined who theultimate jurors would be. And that
was juror 14 and number five.Both were men. And they began deliberations

(01:28:26):
around 3pm they only went forabout 10 minutes before they were
like, okay, we're going tocontinue the next day. The next day,
while deliberations arehappening, the judge brings up the
aggravation phase. And whatthat is is that once a defendant
has been convicted of specificoffenses that could be considered
dangerous, the state then hasthe burden of proving that the defendant

(01:28:48):
is eligible for a particularsentence. So during this phase, new
evidence and witnesses can beintroduced. And when you're thinking
of, like, why would that bethe case? There are times where evidence
might not be admissible intrial for a host of reasons. It could
be that it's not relevant todetermining guilt, but it is relevant

(01:29:12):
to determining why a personmay have done something. But. So
the judge asks that andwhether they'll be having witnesses.
The state says that they wouldhave two or so family members testify.
And when he asked Laurie, thisis before the verdict comes in, because
you only go into theaggravation phase ways if a guilty
verdict is rendered, becauseotherwise you're not sentencing somebody
who's not guilty. So we are.Before the verdict has come in, Laurie

(01:29:35):
asks the judge if she canstipulate to the aggravating factors,
meaning that she would beaccepting the possibility of the
worst punishment without doingan extra, like, judicial step. And
she asks a few times. She'slike, can I just Stipulate to it.
Like, can I just stipulate toit? And the judge is basically like,
let's wait until the verdictis rendered before you make a decision
on stipulating to a harshsentence. And the jury then returns

(01:29:59):
a verdict. It's around 3pm andat 3:49, the verdict was read and
the jury found Lauriegloriously guilty. So after this,
the judge asks the jury tostep out. At this point, he asks
again, do you want tostipulate to the aggravating factors?
And specifically, theaggravating factors for this charge
in this instance are that itwas a dangerous offense, that the

(01:30:24):
victim died as a result, theconduct of the offense caused physical,
emotional or financial harm tothe victim's immediate family, and
the offense involved thepresence of an accomplice. Laurie
said that she stipulated toall of it. The judge then went over
a few things and was like, youconfirm this, you confirm this. And
one of those things was thatadditional aggregating factors could

(01:30:46):
be added to this list. And ifshe stipulates now, then she stipulates
to all the ones they couldadd. So interesting that she was
just like, okay. And next thejudge asks if she wants to be sentenced
in the next 30 days or if shewants to wait until after her next
trial again, which is in June.And she asks what the judge suggests,
and he's like, I recommend youtalk to your counsel. Because she's

(01:31:07):
like, being deferential in theweirdest way.
Yeah.
And so we're recording thisjust a few days after the verdict
was returned, and there havealready been a few juror interviews.
Also, as we're recording itright now, I just saw that Laurie
did another interview as well.So we haven't had a chance to watch
that. But the headline is thatshe said Tyler died by suicide and

(01:31:29):
that she expresses doubt thatthe jurors were unaware during the
trial that Tylee was dead. Somuch. So much is still going to be
happening with this. Butanyways, so as soon as the.
Jurors walked out of thecourthouse, the reporters pretty
much jumped on them. And onejuror already said something that
raised some red flags. Andthey were asked, do you remember
your reaction to learning thatshe had been convicted in killing

(01:31:50):
her two children? And thereply was, you know, I feel sorry
for her. I was driving homeyesterday and I was like, God, she's
spending the rest of the nextthree lives in a prison cell. You
gotta feel sorry for her. Eventhough that's an awful thing to do.
I mean, there's somethingwrong up There, but you still just
feel awful about it.
Yikes.
People are hoping that he. Hemisspoke out of exhaustion. There's

(01:32:10):
also another interview withNate each Eaton where he posted.
Him and some of the otherreporters were chatting to the same
guy and someone asked if hewas aware that this woman had already
been convicted of threehomicides. And he replied, no, I
did not. So it's completelypossible that when he learned of
that, it was because someonetold him. You know what I'm saying?
Like, it, like in the courseof this.
Right.

(01:32:30):
Also, it is pretty hard tothrow out a verdict once it's in.
Like, there has to be likesome serious. That goes down more
than a person knew about somethings typically.
Right. And I even, like, whenI saw that interviews, I sent screenshots
to Lindsay, I was like, isthis the same person? Like, because
of what he's wearing, it's.It's not a common color that people
would be wearing just toensure. Because I really do think

(01:32:52):
he could have misspoke or. Imean, I don't know the time frame
between those two interviews,which one happened first or what,
because they were all in frontof the courthouse back to back, it
seems. Yeah. So he could havesaid that, been told about her already
killing other people. Andperhaps he was thinking, like, fuck,
if we deliver the verdicttomorrow and it's guilty, the rest
of her life likely is going tobe in prison. And maybe that's what

(01:33:15):
he was referring to.
Yeah, I mean, it's. It's alsothat this response is not. Yeah,
I remember. She can get.Right. It was. Even though she did
a bad thing, it still is awfulthat she's going to spend the rest
of her life behind bars.
It showed empathy.
It showed empathy. And I thinkthat if you're talking about juror
or bias, I'm not nearly asconcerned about this response than

(01:33:35):
if somebody was like, fuckher, you know?
Yeah, yeah. If we were. Yeah, yeah.
If you and I, we'd be like, wecan't be jurors on this. We cannot
be a juror. Obviously.
Yeah. But like, I wish Icould. Could.
Yeah. And then other jurorsalso discussed that they were going
to like, Google more about thecase afterwards and that they wanted
to watch the documentary oncethey got home, which, I mean, fair.

(01:33:55):
I would also want the fullstory, especially if I had spent
so much time looking intothis. And it is no small thing to
render a guilty verdict,especially in a situation like this.
Right. So she was her owncounsel. She did a bad job at it.
Is she convicted because she'sdone a bad job at defending herself
or is she actually guilty?Obviously they thought that it was.

(01:34:16):
She was still guilty. But Icould see having that nagging feeling.
So I would want to go and belike, let me go look at the full
picture where no one isdeciding what I should or should
not hear. I think that wouldbe, like, good for them.
What a night they must havehad, though.
Yeah. Yeah. One of the jurorsalso mentioned they were like, we
feel like we're missing a bigpart of the story and they are. So
we will see what comes ofthese interviews and what comes next.

(01:34:39):
Again, as Amanda mentioned,there's already another interview
with Laurie in our ownrecording. We just hit 2 hours and
30 minutes, so it probablywon't get added to this episode.
But when we talk about thesentencing and the trial for the
attempted murder of Brandon,we'll probably cover anything Valo
in that as well.
Yeah, that's real. I mean, ifit's not a repeat of everything,
because it seems like a lot ofthem were already saying very similar

(01:35:00):
things. But the Lori interviewcould be wild. We'll see. So we have
one more trial to go withLori, and we're hoping for another
guilty verdict. We've beenfollowing this case pretty much since
we started the podcast.
Yes.
And then I had been followingit before that. I even went to Idaho
at one point to interviewpeople surrounding the case. So just
wild. It's great to see thatthe victims families are finally

(01:35:22):
getting the justice that theydeserve. Yeah. And it just. It makes
me so happy to see Kaysmiling, you know, like after and
being like. Yeah.
There was a lot of concern asto whether there would even be trials
for Charles murder and forBrandon's attempted murder. Because
of the convictions that happenin Idaho. Yeah. And a lot of times

(01:35:42):
jurisdictions do not continueto prosecute somebody who's going
to spend life in prison. Partof the purpose of this is to make
sure that this person isn'tback out in the world. And if that's
impossible already, what's the point?
Yeah.
But trials aren't always toget justice for families, which is
unfortunate, but it issometimes true. So I am glad that
they did this and that. Yeah.The families were able to get a little

(01:36:03):
bit more closure.
Yeah. Yeah. And we'll probablykeep talking about this in our True
Crime Digest depending on whenLori decides for her sentencing and.
What goes on, but we'll updateyou. Yeah.
And with that, have a great weekend.
Thanks for creeping with us.Thanks for listening. And as always,
a special thank you to ourpatrons who support us via Patreon.

(01:36:24):
Please see the link in ourshow notes to learn more about how
you yes, you can begin tohaunt the Delta Guard Vortexes or
even become a scorching Sasquatch.
Ooh. Also in our show notesyou can find the link to our website,
more information on oursources, our social media handles,
and our merch store.
We'd love for you to keepcreeping with us, so if you like
this episode, pleasesubscribe, rate, review and share

(01:36:47):
the show with your fellowcreeps and or ghosts.
I beg of.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Trial Against Lori Vallow Daybell for the Conspiracy to Murder Charles Vallow

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

All Episodes

The Trial Against Lori Vallow Daybell for the Conspiracy to Murder Charles Vallow

Dateline NBC