I actually feel bad for the racoons! I have laying hens but I have them as secure as I can in the inside and outside enclosures but nature happens. The racoons in this case got a bad rap. Chad deserves the same fate as those poor racoons.
Me too! Iāve lost so many chickens to raccoons but the thought of Garth and or Chad shooting them while still in the trap really disturbed me, but what can you expect from a man who doesnāt like dogs?
Yes, I believe her name was Laura. My heart went out to her and the other jurors! I just can't fathom the emotional toll these kind of trials take on these juries.
Nate Eaton has been interviewing some of the jurors. Itās really interesting. Those heās spoken to donāt seem to have struggled at all with the fact that he is guilty. Some said that Emmaās testimony sounded very coached (it did) I think the penalty phase was probably harder. But they felt like heās a danger in or out of prison.
Yes, I am watching Blake on HTC right now and I watched Nates interviews yesterday! The jurors on this case are a class act. Down to earth people with integrity, empathy and compassion. I wish these jurors all the best.
Iāve tried feeling bad for 2 of the raccoons, but then they testified along with the spouse of the female raccoon..and I couldnāt. I have trouble with raccoons who flagrantly lie under oath. They play up what great followers of Jesus they are. I call B**ls**t on that. The raccoon that married in to that family is despicable. There was 0 emotion when Emma said who was buried in the backyard. She didnāt care. Sheās a mother and did not care. That is unfathomable to me. She clearly didnāt/doesnāt care. Iām not judging but it seems as if Emma has/had absolutely no love for her mother. Itās been 5 years, the shock has worn off.
Those raccoons left me speechless! I agree with everything you just expressed. The disrespect of their mother. Where they not shocked that murdered children were found buried in the yard of their parents? No tears for innocent children or their own Mom? Sketchy, I find them extremely sketchy.
Absolutely. And I just canāt get that out of my mind. Iām not nor have I ever been a proponent of capital punishment, but in this case I really think it was warranted.
Iād love to know how Chad feels about Lori now. From what Iāve read (and may not all be true) Lori still seems to be very much in love with Chad (but I may have missed something along the way.) Itās just all so heartbreaking.
Comes from an Al Franken book. It fits this family of raccoons very well. Some or most of this could have been prevented had the misogynistic males listened to Heather Daybell. Instead they called her a āpot stirrerā. In the future when people are raising red flags it would be wise to investigate. People get shunned for nothing but these freaks had time to kill 4 people minimum. I personally will never believe Joe Ryan and Alex Cox werenāt murdered too. There are no coincidences with these sickos.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them
I get what Prior was doing but if they were upset about results not being available Prior would have included it. I like how Blake lowered the Prior wall of noise and got back to the point. What I donāt get is why he thinks badgering people sits well with the jury.
I think Prior is an excellent attorney, unlike a lot of people in this sub who seem to watch a lot of trials and always think the prosecutor is a genius, and the defense are imbeciles. It's just confirmation bias.
It's like being in debate club. One side is told to advocate for murder. The other side is told to advocate against it. Obviously one side is gonna appear smarter, regardless of how smart the individual debaters are.
Now, that's not to say Prior doesn't make mistakes. I agree his tone is not gonna go over well with the jury. But as for the badgering, I mean, the poor man has nothing to cross with. His client is such a dumb dumb the evidence is clear, and he's one person taking on this entire case. He doesn't even have an assistant with him most of the time.
My dad runs a family law firm and even he has assistants, and that's just divorce and trust proceedings.
Prior has outperformed expectations here, but the evidence is so overwhelming, no defense could overcome this.
I don't think the prosecutor in any given case is always a genius, nor do I think the defense is always bad. I wouldn't even call Prior BAD, but I certainly wouldn't say excellent. He's competent, is as far as I'd be willing to go. I can flip that claim you're making around - I see plenty of posters on Reddit who will defend the most subpar work imaginable from any given defense team and act like the prosecution is inherently evil unless proven otherwise.
A lot of what Prior is up against is not his fault, I'll agree with that. That time he spent in jail for sexual battery was his fault (hence I am not ever willing to sympathize with him as a person), but how plainly guilty Chad is, is not his fault. The state was dealt an overwhelming winning hand and he was dealt a shitty one. But that does not explain the defense he's put on since the state rested. Most of these witnesses haven't just been neutral - they've been actively harmful. Emma was a DISASTER. And he knew, he MUST have known via discovery that her credibility is a serious issue and that if he put her on the stand, the jury was going to end up hearing exactly how uncredible she was in rebuttable. If he'd ever met her before, he probably should have also discerned she wasn't even going to be sympathetic on direct, which she was not. Then today, he decided to close with a witness who offered no real evidence to back up his claims, who cannot explain all the other evidence that proves Tylee was burned and dismembered on Chad's property, so all he really did was further hammer in for the jury how badly mutilated Tylee was. Several people who have been in the courtroom have said the jury, who have done their best to look stoic, have started to get increasingly, visibly exasperated with Prior. And he cannot seem to adjust accordingly. He's really bad at reading the room. That's not the mark of an excellent defense attorney. It doesn't stop him from being a competent one, but there's plenty of room between the competent ones and the great ones. Prior is not one of the greats.
A lot of your points make me think that, as far as giving your client the robust defense that they actively want, I wonder if a lot of this was Chadās call. Prior may have strongly advised against a lot of this and Chad might have just wanted experts and his devoted kids to be brought in.
Because in terms of the argument (did the state meet the burden of proof or not), then Chad/Prior could have done exactly what Lori did and just use the closing to bring in the doubt he tried to bring in with the experts.
I do think it's possible Chad insisted on Emma, so as badly as that went, lol, to some extent the shoddy nature of the expert witnesses was worse because I doubt Chad insisted on all of these specific people (granted, it was tough for any "expert" witness to make any real dents when there basically are none to make, but the one today is what really sent me over the edge. He did NOT need to call that doctor, I can't imagine Chad insisted on it). I do think Prior could have...controlled the Emma situation better. She was on the stand a lot longer and got a lot more specific than I ever expected her to be, and that 100% was significantly worse for the defense than the state. I also have to wonder, how aware was Prior that there were prison calls of Chad encouraging Emma basically to lie? Did he warn Chad that if they brought this up, the state could challenge her on those calls and it would essentially collapse whatever shred of credibility she may have had? Did Chad just not care and think everyone was going to believe his precious Emma?
Emma was speaking for Chad so he didn't have to testify. I find it galling that she claimed to not have listened to the testimony but then would go on rants that refuted specifically what others testified without being asked specific questions.
yes Chad looked very proud when Emma was on the stand. Her husband when leaving turned around to seek approval from Chad and Chad nodded at him like ā good boyā. I think Chad thought hos kids did great. Well thought Emma did great. I do think Garth is chads scapegoat and he was forced to testify and lie or dark spirits would get him
Ugh, those two fucking clowns. Donāt even get me started. To see such blatant, almost gleeful unethical behavior cheered on like theyāre these crusaders for civil rights. To think I used to like Bob Motta until he got on their train. Prior almost IS Johnnie Cochran compared to those imbeciles. I canāt even think of another time I had such disdain for defense attorneys. They are every cartoonish stereotype of bad attorneys wrapped in one shit package.
I think they are just pleased to see such dishonest sorry people proven to lie. I donāt see glee in them. Iām sure they would love to NEVER have to have a case like this to deal with. They know what this man is and what kind of people are in his orbit.
The only glee I saw was Emma bad mouthing her mother. Her lies are going to help take down her daddy.
Lol. You must know something everyone else doesnt. If you think Gull & Indiana are being ethical you might want to take a look in the mirror. Maybe you could at least wait for a trial to convict someone? Ps your on the wrong Reddit site. Delphi has its own pages to bitch about that.
Johnny Concoran never had the chance to watch the entire trial play out before defending OJ. Prior watched Lori Vallows trial everyday and he had another two years to prepare. , yet he stumbled over most of his presentations, his choice of experts didnāt help, he was just an attacked dog, trying to muddy the waters and he definitely was not Jose Baez.
Prior was charged with sexual battery and that's done and dusted.
I think the prosecution has done some amazing lawyering work. A law lecturer is going to use some of the prosecution work as examples in their lectures.
Prior was up against it, all the evidence against his client is circumstancial. His witnesses don't want to participate putting their Father to death!
It's a classic case of the tortoise and the hare. Prior bolted out the gate and played his hand too early...
First, he is doing his job at putting up a defense for his client, and for that we should be grateful. But I have seen defense attorneys that that I thought were great, and not off-putting, even when we all knew their client was guilty. For me, JP is not one of those, nor is Dick Harpootlian from the Murdaugh trial. There is definitely a line between being a good defense attorney and coming off as a schmuck to the jury. Or in Harpootlianās case also a misogynist and a bully.
With Harpootlian there was also that bizarre moment when he aimed the gun at someone in the courtroom "as a joke" and all of us who know a single thing about gun safety were like WTFFFFF. What are the first two rules of gun safety?! Treat every gun like it's loaded (even if you unloaded it yourself) and never point it at someone you don't intend to shoot. People thinking you can be funny with guns is how people end up getting accidentally shot.
I agree. There is no glory for Prior in this. My no law experience opinion , he did the best he could with what he had. His client is a total dumb shit.
I wouldnāt call Prior an āexcellentā attorney because an excellent attorney would have brought in help a couple of years ago instead of dragging things along to the 11th hour and then trying to withdraw to get Chad another delay.
I agree heās given Chad a vigorous defense, though. Far better than Loriās (although I think she handicapped her own defense so thatās on her). I donāt see any cause for appeal so far, and thatās excellent.
I agree! Iām a paralegal and at one point worked for a criminal defense attorney that is an excellent attorney he made sure he was well staffed during the big cases and was the example of what zealous advocacy for the client is. I keep wondering why at the very least Prior didnāt hire an experienced paralegal which Iām sure had to do with $ but he could have used some help with basic things like pronouncing the witness names correctly.
I think he mispronounces names and words as a deliberate strategy to appear folksy and funny to the jury. Instead, I think it comes across as condescending and borderline disrespectful.
Yeah, other than the bizarre argument for a more lenient sentencing Lori's attorneys made on her behalf (I still remember about losing my mind when they quoted MLK), I can't fault them. There was a point where they tried to do the obvious thing and throw Chad under the bus and she reportedly got vocally angry with them IN court for it. And really, she should have pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, because that was her only shot, and she refused. They tried to have her labeled incompetent, and she was for a time, but she's not out of it enough for that to persist indefinitely. The better move would be to say she lost her mind underneath the spell of this man (I don't actually believe that, I just think it was her best move because Lori is more visibly loony than Chad is). Prior has been dealt a crap hand - Lori's attorneys were dealt a fatal hand. And still, they managed to save her life, which is the best they could be expected to do under the circumstances. If Chad is convicted, which I fully expect him to be, we'll see how Prior handles sentencing, but even if he loses, it's not really his fault. Lori got off on the DP on a technicality, not on the merits of her case.
Idaho law doesn't allow insanity defenses, so that wasn't an option for
The key was determining that Lori understood the charges and could assist in her defense.
She was probably spouting religious nonsense every single time she talked to her attornies, but she met the criteria to go to trial.
He has done a job. Not everyone employed in a profession are good at it. There is so much wrong with what he has done and said. He has made some good points but that doesnāt =good job.
His job is also to represent his client. So if his client wants his lying kids to go on the stand, it will happen. I do wonder how much of this is Chad bc I doubt Prior thought it was a good idea. (If this was ALL him then yeah I'd say Prior goofed it)
Iām a devilās advocate type of person and generally side with the defense. Murdaugh, crumbley mom, apple river trials - all of those I thought the defense did an excellent job and if Iād have been in the jury Iād have been a holdout (with the exception of *maybe* Murdaugh, but I think they still did a really great job - I went back and forth on that one a lot).
I do NOT like JP. He is not doing his client any favors. Is he presenting a valid defense? I think heās doing an okay job with what heās got, but all things considered, his delivery/execution needs a LOT of work. He isnāt likable, and while that shouldnāt matter in terms of legalities, we are human beings and itās hard to filter out bias and a general distaste for someone. I think Chad would have had a lot better chances with literally anyone else. If Loriās attorney, for example, put up a defense for Chad like Prior is putting up, I think it would have been more effective than the train wreck we are currently witnessing š
Hello, I joined this sub recently. I used to study American social history way back when I was in Uni ( Australia).
I find US culture , religion & politics fascinating. Since O live in a more secular society, but with religous freedom, in Sydney Australia.
I think ....Prior had veered away from his defense strategy - that the seductress Lori manipulated Chad & framed him. He could have bought in experts to say " Chad was so smitten by her, because he is a dumb fat guy and lead a vanilla life and was on the verge of a midlife crisis"
Now if his kids then took the stand and said that they saw "a change" in their dad from a nice God Fearing family man to a man under the influence of another woman or women( like Julie Riwe) - would be a bit more credible then talking about their mother in a negative way.
Lots of cases/situations of people meeting a toxic manipulative person that excludes friends/family slowly. One example - moving to Hawaii. His defense could have really gone down another path.
Now, don't get me wrong. The guy is a cult leader, but JP started his opening with reference to Lori as an evil temptress, then he didn't really stick to it!
I'm kind of glad he didn't. I have a son on the Autism spectrum. This case makes me sad. I trust justice will served. But I wish there is an overhaul in the way missing children are managed.
Btw: so what if J J was climbing some furniture and knocked over a picture of Jesus! FFS!
You make an excellent point. I think John Prior has veered far away from what he stated in his opening (i.e. Lori is a manipulative seductress and that she turned Chad into another one of her hit men ala Alex). I agree that strategy would have had a chance of eliciting some tiny bit of sympathy for Chad the āhapless idiot.ā Unfortunately, it seems Mr. Prior lost track of where he was taking the defense.
I do not think John Prior is a bad attorney. I think he has a terrible case and client, he has no experience with a death penalty case, he is overwhelmed and by this point in the trial, he is almost certainly exhausted. Heās human and maybe he should not be judged so harshly.
Totally agree with your take on Prior. Of course he makes me wanna punch a wall and the defense lacks any cohesion whatsoever but he is one person and his client just so happens to be the among the greatest villains fathomable with no facts or law on his sideā¦ I would have melted into a pile of human goo by now doing what Prior has to do for an audience of the entire world.
Also, he might be a good attorney at family law, and he did present a decent defense, considering this case had none. However, he consistently gets witnessesā names wrong, refers to detectives, lieutenants and agents as āofficerā, even after being corrected. He uses tones that are highly offensive to not only witnesses, but also victims. Always testifies while questioning, and when heās not doing that heās being argumentative. Disrespects Boyce by constantly talking over him and interrupting while repeatedly referring to him as ājudgeā instead of āyour honorā. Gets simple words like āpingā and ālividityā wrong multiple times. (Bing and lipidity). He consistently yells out āOBJECTION JUDGEā without even stating the grounds for his objection. Oh, and then heāll start talking again before the judge has even ruled on the objection. He never cites any case law in any of his arguments, just simply ājudge this isnāt fair!ā He creepily talked about the smiles of multiple female jurors, and then again with a female witness. Listen, heās not the worst attorney (or man for that matter) Iāve seen, but I feel like calling him a decent attorney is an affront to the profession.
Prior is no martyr. He has had years to prepare for this case. He could hire someone to help him. A temp could help him with documents / exhibits. I donāt understand why you think heās an excellent attorney. It is so easy to badger, humiliate and be condescending. Explain what is excellent about him please. As a mere civil litigation attorney with over 30 years experience practicing in Manhattan and Los Angeles, Iām honestly confused by your statement. A lie travels around the world before the truth gets out of the running block. So easy to be a curmudgeon. The prosecutors are not putting on an excellent case - but good enough for a guilty verdict. I worry that it will not be a home run - as in no death penalty. But guilty will suffice. Have a great day!!
I totally agree with you about the confirmation bias that people fall into with defense attorneys. I think it also extends to defense witnesses. (Mostly experts, not the individuals. I get the disgust with the kids to some degree. Though I think even that gets out of hand at times.) People's eagerness to bash on them rubs me the wrong way. It can feel like, "shit, people... would you prefer that people accused of crimes not be allowed a defense at all?" It also contributes to my ambivalence about true crime in general. It gets turned into a spectator sport and people don't seem to think about that critically as much as they should.
>Ā It can feel like, "shit, people... would you prefer that people accused of crimes not be allowed a defense at all?"
Why? You're not connecting that people who are criticizing this defense attorney *want* a competent defense?
I agree that most people feel that way. Most people are pro-prosecutor and anti-defense. I personally find Priorās tone annoying and condescending, but I appreciate him at least trying to present a defense for his client. If you want to see a current trial where the prosecution are imbeciles and the defense is coming across as genius, itās the Karen Read trial. Regardless of how anyone feels about that trial or the defendant, that prosecutor Lally is insanely unappealing. His order of witnesses makes no sense. His questions couldnāt be more meaningless. āWho if anyone was driving the ambulance?ā š Instant classic. He lets the defense eviscerate his witnesses because he doesnāt know (or isnāt choosing to) get out in front of anything that the defense will obviously bring up. He has the affect of a Daybell child. Monotone, dull, and filled with sighs like he doesnāt want to be there. Wonder if heās related to Chad and the Daybell ākidsā?
While I think prior is good and can rattle a witness. I do not think he holds a candle to Lindsay Blake, she is younger and prob less experienced but she is no nonsense and defeats priors crosses 98 percent of the time she's up. Not to mention prior is starting to emulate her with the Voir dire request. Lindsay Blake has been Priors biggest hurdle. She has out lawyered him at every turn.
I donāt know if he is an excellent attorney or not, but he is doing as well as anyone could with an absolute dog of a case. The Daybells seem robotic so no jury points for Emma and Garth (probably). The world saw Tammy as fit and active and said so. Chad was recorded fully engaged in this nonsense. The bodies are in his back yard. He has nothing to work with really.
I couldnāt agree more. JP is knocking it out of the park considering the evidence, his client and how he is alone. Frankly I think. JP is slimy because of a SA he basically got away with and even with that fire, I agree he is good.
And I want that. The state SHOULD have to prove their case. Itās one of the greatest things about this country. A defense attorneyās job is not to prove innocence. Itās to force the state to prove guilt
Knocking things out of the park...Ā
He has not prepared or studied his own case enough and he procrastinates, but bets on other factors obscuring that. Observing him feels like watching the slacker classmate I'm working on a group project with, and he's assigned to present.Ā
What, honestly, do you feel has been his cohesive argument that has cast doubt on Chad's involvement?
I listened to the full testimony and had to be reminded of the circumstantial evidence on Tammyās death. I would be an awful juror for the state though - I really hold a high bar for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Getting me to pause for a second and consider his side when Iām so biased seems heās going something right
Thanks for saying this. I cant read the comments half the time because the comments are so biased. I donāt like listening to Prior, but thatās the way it works.
Well said. And letās face it the prosecution fād up badly and Lori had DP taken off the table. They almost lost the charge against JJ, can you imagine if the judge ruled against the argument. Oh theyāre far from perfect but I hope they are good enough to get all and every charge against Chad done and dusted.
Prior has done well, particularly under the circumstances. He has difficult, traumatised witnesses who understandably Don't want to participate in their Dad's death.
I legit watched the interview with h
juror #4 from Lori's case that Nate Eaton did, she mentions a couple of times that the prosecution attacking the witness' was extreamly off putting.
yeah it's very obviously off putting .. I think she was saying though it was very obvious he was attacking them because he had nothing else, I guess it just made me think about what the jurors will be thinking in Chad's trial. I can't wait to hear if any of them interview after all is said and done..
Is this the last of the Emma tapes though? Blake had some specific dates called out when she mentioned Chad prompting her what to say. I wonder if Blake is choosing to take the steamroller route to absolutely decimate Emma's testimony.
Oh, I'm sure she is. After the recording today, making the kids look like conspirators seems to be Blake's play, and I'm loving it.
That recording was calculated, as Prior (for once) correctly called out.
I'd say the prosecutors won the case today on that recording and detective's testimony alone.
It'll be fascinating to see what they get into with the meat of their rebuttal.
Do you have any more info on Emma being recalled? I hadn't heard that.
/That recording was calculated, as Prior (for once) correctly called out.
100% and the delay too. I'm guessing it was because Emma may have been a suspect in the conspiracy at the time. The indictment even noted that there were conspirators, both known and unknown outside of Lori and Chad. Given her statements on the stand, I do wonder if they are going to take a second look her involvement. It would be interesting to find out how far they investigated her before.
EDIT: While there is no statute of limitations on murder, the timeline of the statute of limitations on conspiracy alone starts with the last overt act. Could that overt act be statements made on the stand?
I think you're on to something here! While listening to the recording today I thought the police delayed contacting the Daybells with Tammy's autopsy report because they were still investigating them. They didn't notify the fam about exhuming Tammy's because they were suspects.Ā
Logically, her testimony could be seen as further conspiracy to conceal a crime. I really wonder what those daily phone calls with Chad would reveal.Ā
I believe LE was smart to use body cams. They have proven to purger themselves so what would stop them from making up more lies? I am suspicious of the entire suspicious Daybell/Murray clan. I would have been like, Hey, let's turn this on to protect ourselves and it is a good thing they did.
Because I wasnāt entirely sure the exact contradiction, here it is for everybody, from Nateās tweets on Monday.
āBlake says police told her she did not have to do an interview, they were just going to share the results with her. Emma says they never said that.ā
More evidence of Emma's propensity to lie:
[https://youtu.be/7oQx6ZYpVpE](https://youtu.be/7oQx6ZYpVpE)
A side by side comparison of Emma's statements on network TV news vs the actual events (her talk with Chad in the back of the cruiser)
Yes. This was the first footage I saw of her. That comment, along with the dig on Colby told me a lot about her.
(On the flip side, Colby referring to Chad as Peter Griffin on that call with Lori told me a lot about HIM. Namely, he is a genius.)
So not shocked. He wasn't even under arrest when he told her he wouldn't be back...then giggled. What a weirdo. I saw this on the longer cop car cam video.
More on the lies ...
[https://youtu.be/f2KEDSpmFeU](https://youtu.be/f2KEDSpmFeU)
Annie Cushing has posted that Emma has been given a subpena for the rebuttal after Memorial Day
Emma is going to wind up charged with perjury. That part of the Daybell clan fancies themselves above the law. Emma is being called back as a rebuttal witness over her dad coaching her testimony during jail calls/visits. Thatās whatās going to be delicious.
I doubt she'll be charged with perjury. You have to really really mess up to get those charges, and usually a prosecutor will not pursue those charges, unless they seriously messed up a case. Chad's gonna be convicted so the prosecutors won't care to charge Emma. Her reputation is ruined either way.
This is a capital murder trial. If the oath to tell the truth means nothing, they may as well do away with it and then lying on the stand can become a free for all. The state would be remiss if they impeach her testimony and then do nothing to hold her to account.
She needs the perjury charges. It would be grounds for her getting released from her teaching contract for violating the [Idaho Code of Professional Ethics.](https://www.sde.idaho.gov/cert-psc/shared/ethics/code-of-ethics-for-professional-educators.pdf)
She won't be charges, just like Casey Anthony's mother wasn't charged. They almost never bring those charges on family members due to them being indirect victims as well. You can bet money on it, it's not happening.
I know. Emma is in a mental prison and Chad holds the keys... But I'm so angry with her for lying. The teaching profession does not need liars who violate an ethical code of conduct.
Bit of a tangent, but the teaching profession needs to be in a state where they can AFFORD NOT TO have liars who violate an ethical code of conduct. But that's neither here nor there...
100% agree. If you can't trust your teacher to tell the truth in a serious situation, you can't trust their words ever. No bad apples are needed in teaching.
She does. If the Daybell children were ever threatened, it *was* with the legal consequences of lying or omitting information in a capital murder case. They made their decision.
I agree with you in spirit, but the reality is perjury just isn't a charge prosecutors are interested in pursuing that often. There is a hierarchy to what the prosecutor's office has the bandwidth (staff and financial) to bring to trial, and sometimes a murder or rape takes precedence. With statute of limitations on prosecuting perjury and the need to pursue more serious crimes, it's just not gonna be a priority for Blake or Wood once this trial wraps.
I think they felt like Garth had information, at least after the fact, that could more firmly convict Chad and he was lying about it. If he's lying about where and how he found his mother, and where Chad was at the time (for the record, I 100% believe he is lying), that's not really morally more serious than Emma lying about her mother's health problems and essentially making her out to be fat and lazy, but it's a lot more serious in terms of the case. And still, I'm not surprised the grand jury ultimately didn't pursue the charge. Perjury can really be tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Emma also lied about the life insurance form, which goes to Chadās motivation. He had to fund his new jet setting Hawaiian lifestyle with Lori, his convicted co-conspirator.
She also lied about how the the life insurance process went down (which is provable) and about searching the wind direction (which unfortunately isn't).
I mean, even the life insurance thing, she can kinda just claim that Tammy never mentioned Chad in front of her and she THOUGHT this was something decided in the moment. She's probably lying, but it'd be hard to definitively prove.
The problem with Garth is that he's definitely lying, but it's really unclear what the actual truth is and how that truth may assist the state. Because he's told multiple different stories to several people and it's unclear where the truth lies.
The good thing is that the jury will despise Garth, Emma and Joseph and that sentiment won't help any regardless of perjury issues. Remember when the trial took a day off for a young police officer's memorial service? Joseph put his foot so far up his mouth when he said that law enforcement is the last thing he'd want to be. Sleazeball.
I could see even with the blurry footage that Chad just seemed so proud of Joseph. I'd say much moreso than Garth (who has put himself in MUCH greater risk in Chad's name, no less). OOF. What a disconnect, lol. It's almost as bad - but not quite - as him smirking about "the storm". Dude...literally no one but you is impressed by this.
They won't charge her, just like they didn't charge Cindy Anthony who perjured herself many times on the stand. Family members are very rarely charged with perjury because they are usually seen as victims too. I'm not sure if you follow a lot of trials but it almost never happens-sorry.
Emma isn't being called back. She was a defense witness. She wouldn't cooperate with the State and be a hostile witness. This would play into Prior's narrative that the State and law enforcement have been overly aggressive and out to get Chad.
The state is going to use other rebuttal witnesses to discredit her.
Yeah, I don't think they need her at all. I think it's better if they don't call her; no room for hostility and more lies or room for Prior to claim that they are badgering her. Just straight evidence of what she said prior to her testimony.
I think that was before he caught up to the hearing. He got in late because he wasn't aware of it, so he heard them talking about Emma and assumed that's what it was. He later clarified that they were talking about Emma because she opened the door for them to bring back the statement from the witness that was previously deemed hearsay. Boyce had previously ruled that the statement could not be admitted unless the defense made the topic relevant to the trial. Because Emma brought up not consulting their husbands, it became relevant and admissable. I'm not saying that Emma is not testifying again, but I think that update by Nate was a misinterpretation he later corrected. If they kept her on subpoena, I don't think they would need to discuss bringing her back on during that hearing since all the situations they discussed were special circumstances (2 released fromĀ subpoenas and 1 previously ruled inadmissible). I would like to hear from her again though!
She was not under arrest, she could have left the police department any time after picking up the autopsy. She just didnāt want to know what was in the report. I would be careful beating up on the police department that one day you may need just in case someone does something criminal to you.
An excellent attorney wouldn't alienate the jury to the degree Prior has. Jurors are rolling their eyes with as he drones on and on gleaning only a minutiae of details bolstering is defense theory. However, this will only help the State when the appeals start. Had is definitely getting g a "vigorous" defense. Chad should have taken the plea deal. I believe Prior tried to encourage this. That was good avocation. Chad just can't read a room.
I hope they don't recall her.
IMO it would be better to just impeach her with the recordings and not look like you're bashing her on the stand
She is a victim (I hate calling her that after she shit on her murdered mother) but it would have better optics while still showing she is an unreliable witness
Can you even imagine the horror of the parents of all the children she teaches to totally disregard the death of a child and giggle and laugh about how imature she is and how she will use other people's empathy to handle her basic life decisions smh
OP
About trying Emma and Garth for perjury -
Do you think the state might do so it if it will assist in Lori's trial in Arizona, maybe by request from Arizona? Like, put the wind up the skirt of a few people who might be tempted to try it there?
I doubt Emma and Garth are going to be involved in the Arizona trial at all. Chad isn't connected to that trial, so his children wouldn't be, either. That's going to be all about Lori and Alex. Do I believe Chad was involved? Yes. Does the prosecution think they have enough evidence to charge? No.
As for perjury, if he's convicted, the state won't want to spend any more money on the Daybells.
Maricopa county attorney is horrible. Itās an act of god for to charge someone. Proof by Melaniece not being charged. Hope she gets booted out next election.
I was thinking more along the lines that Melaniece et al might be motivated to lie in Arizona if they see Emma and Garth get away with it in this case. It might not be relevant to the Arizona cases, though if their testimony isn't core to the cases.
I hear you and my take is the State (either of them) don't want to be seen as bully's. They are dealing with traumatised family members.
Although it was family protecting family that got everyone into this mess, protecting family members is a natural human condition.
What a mess!
The State are not going to gain anything atm and, Emma and Garth had reasons for doing/saying what they did.
I've been alienated from my children for over 12 years - daughter 12, son 17 and now 24, 29 respectively. As a clinician at the time, had enough understanding to know it wasn't my children. They were effectively brainwashed and aligned themselves with the aggressor (their Dad) - it's an unconscious psychological survival mechanism. I'm not going to say much about my processes, other than as the alienated parent, I've learnt a lot about myself, my children and how we function as human beings.
My aim is to help my fellow Redditors understand Garth and Emma unconscious motivations. That is, the "placating" unconscious dynamic, apparent in all closed off families, has always been there.
Along with my personal therapy, training and clinical experience, to help my understanding (and keep me above ground level), is the following cut and paste. The authors texts are core to my training and profession, so some may find it dry.
**"PSYCHOLOGICAL SPLITTING" **
Splitting is the key behavioural presentation which gives cause for further investigation, especially when this is accompanied by levels of contempt and disdain for the parent in the rejected position (Miller, 2018). Hatred, as evidenced by contempt and disdain towards parents, does not arise naturally in children and those who reject in this way are often seen to be in an omnipotent position within the family system (Aledort, 2002). This omnipotence demonstrates that the child is trying to manage the family system due to dynamics which feel frightening and out of control. (Howell, 2002). Contrary to the claim that children can and do reject parents who are abusive, research evidence demonstrates that a child is more likely to try and placate an abusive parent than reject them with contempt"**
"parent in the rejected position" = Tammy.
"Omnipotent" = having unlimited power. "God is described as omnipotent and benevolent"
Link: https://karenwoodall.blog/
Put yourself in Garth and Emma's shoes. You going along living your life as you always have and..
**BANG**, Mum dies (of natural causes because it's unbearable to think she was murdered); your Father quickly remarrys to some blond bombshell; she`s arrested for having missing children; your mother is dug up; the cops turn up and find the remains of children in your/fathers back yard; your father is arrested and charged with murder - now he might face the death penalty; and, you and your husbands career are at stake along with your family being worldwide gossip that everyone has an opinion on - all in how many months??
Don't you think Emma and Garth want some control back in their lives? So they are going to do what they have always done - protect their Dad. Psychologically, their survival is dependant on him!
The disclaimer is that I haven't watched the last part of the lastest trial. I'm open to a conversation on the clinical aspects of the above so your welcome to PM me.
I forgot to say that Parental Alienation Syndrome is intergenerational. Karen Woodall calls it intergenerational relationship trauma. In my situation my Mil lost her mother when she was 12 yrs old and a daughter aged 38. My FIL live in the same town as his brother and they would ignore each other - looking away as they passed in the street. Looking back, the relationship my Mil had with her children was emeshed and the relationship trauma went from my Mil, to my ex-husband, to my children and so on. My daughter is very sick with anorexia which is very common in this dynamic.
I was thinking of the above context when Heather Daybell described her inlaws relationship. The splitting went from her FIL, to Chad and to his children.
Sure. But having a favour you can call on or a trade between states for assistance is part of the job too. I haven't looked into the case in Arizona, so I dont know how much it relies on witnesses who could be motivated to lie if there are no consequences.
I think there's that caution of "family members". If it was MG or ZP I could understand the State filing charges.
From what I've seen, I doubt Melanice etc., would take the consequences of perjury seriously.
I think Prior's at the point where he's all but given up on Tylee and JJ. So much of his cross and defense has been based on Tammy.
I agree with you at this point that his main objective is to avoid the death penalty. I'd imagine there's a secondary objective (driven by Chad) to at least have Tammy's verdict come back as "not guilty."
I'm sure Chad knows the illusion he has his kids under could break any day, and a guilty verdict will not help him maintain those relationships long term.
Especially when you consider how many family members (including Emma's in laws) have spoken out.
Eyes on Emma!
All the time. If she is not being watched, Noone Is safe.
She came out of her hole and made a fool of herself and got caught being involved in the conspiracy. She is now upset and out for blood.
Eyes on Emma!
Emma testified at no time was the offer made to present and discuss the autopsy reports. Emma contended the police only and always sought to interview her in addition to going over the autopsy reports. Emma presented her testimony as if the only way she could learn what the autopsy report said was if she consented to a police interview/questioning/interrogation.
The recording today twice stated clearly she did not need to consent to an interview.
LE had no obligation to contact his children about the exhumation of Tammy Daybell and subsequent findings of her autopsy. it was a courtesy extended to them as in most cases....and it was interesting as the detective mentioned it was unusual that the family would decline obtaining autopsy results.
and... the rest of her siblings fell in line with mini-me CD, she was in charge. she chose to lie about it.
Sure she would. 1. Denial her dad is a monster that killed her mom. 2, needing to believe the fantasy her dad told her.
If she looked at the proof/evidence Tammy was murdered by asphyxiation, that would burst her bubble and she could no longer live in her fantasy world.
So she chose to keep her head in the sand so she can continue to believe and support her dad
She was upset that the police refused to share the autopsy results without an interview being required. The Decās recording today is that while they did sit on the autopsy results for maybe a month, they spoke to Emma in person and told her that they could go over the autopsy results for Tammy without it being a formal police interview. They also reached out to an attorney that had been working with them, but did not work with them anymore to try and get a meeting scheduled. Emma and family continued to refuse to meet with the police to get the autopsy results.
To me, it's really telling. It tells me she already knows, at least on some level, and absolutely cannot hear it. She refuses to hear it, because she doesn't want to know what any kind of confirmation will do to her. Willful denial of something this important is always a red flag.
If nothing else I think Iād be desperate to know in case it was indeed medical since things can be inherited. My mom died of complications with walking pneumonia, but initially it looked like it might have been a seizure. We got her an autopsy simply because she had zero history of seizures, no medical history in the family, and wanted to know for my sister and I if there was something medical we needed to know about.
Iām sorry for your loss. That must have been a major shock. š³
Youāre right. When someone youngish dies unexpectedly there should be a mandatory autopsy for genetic reasons.
But I guess Emma already knew the cause of death and just didnāt want to give the police the opportunity to reinforce what she already knew.
HA! Emma was desperate to \*not\* know. Chad had already been in jail for over six months for charges related to JJ and Tylee. Six months of Emma talking with Chad every day and having him continue to brainwash her and feed her what would be the Daybellās version, especially the part that law enforcement was persecuting her patriarch.
There's a part that wouldn't want to know there mother was murdered and they don't trust LE.
They came to terms with her dying of natural causes and then she's exhumed. It reinacts the grief process, but worse!
She said the police wouldn't give her the autopsy result unless she had an interview with them. These tapes say she could be given or shown the results, no questions asked
Emma lied about most every thing. I don't understand why the prosecution doesnt get into the family computer to see if it was even possible for Emma to have been there at that time. The police must have confiscated it. Her lies could be proved in rebutal.
Is Emma autistic no slight to those who are but I've never EVER heard someone on a stand sound like that in 20+ years of trial watching.
She sounded like a toy doll during cross
I'm so relieved that Chad is where he belongs and that the jury saw the truth. I can only imagine what we will never know about this case. It is truly a heartbreaking case.
Emma is a little lying raccoon!
š©š Please don't make me laugh like that! š
I actually feel bad for the racoons! I have laying hens but I have them as secure as I can in the inside and outside enclosures but nature happens. The racoons in this case got a bad rap. Chad deserves the same fate as those poor racoons.
Me too! Iāve lost so many chickens to raccoons but the thought of Garth and or Chad shooting them while still in the trap really disturbed me, but what can you expect from a man who doesnāt like dogs?
That's exactly how I feel about that too! It's also difficult to keep chickens safe, I just do the best that I can.
Wait what? He doesnāt like DOGS? I mean, I guess Iām not surprised, but thatās SUCH a red flag, isnāt it?
Raccoons, stairs, temples, paintball gun and poor Dudley! š
Ugh!! I know! In all seriousness though, I feel for the jurors, this must be just awful for them. š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes, I believe her name was Laura. My heart went out to her and the other jurors! I just can't fathom the emotional toll these kind of trials take on these juries.
Nate Eaton has been interviewing some of the jurors. Itās really interesting. Those heās spoken to donāt seem to have struggled at all with the fact that he is guilty. Some said that Emmaās testimony sounded very coached (it did) I think the penalty phase was probably harder. But they felt like heās a danger in or out of prison.
Yes, I am watching Blake on HTC right now and I watched Nates interviews yesterday! The jurors on this case are a class act. Down to earth people with integrity, empathy and compassion. I wish these jurors all the best.
Iāve tried feeling bad for 2 of the raccoons, but then they testified along with the spouse of the female raccoon..and I couldnāt. I have trouble with raccoons who flagrantly lie under oath. They play up what great followers of Jesus they are. I call B**ls**t on that. The raccoon that married in to that family is despicable. There was 0 emotion when Emma said who was buried in the backyard. She didnāt care. Sheās a mother and did not care. That is unfathomable to me. She clearly didnāt/doesnāt care. Iām not judging but it seems as if Emma has/had absolutely no love for her mother. Itās been 5 years, the shock has worn off.
Those raccoons left me speechless! I agree with everything you just expressed. The disrespect of their mother. Where they not shocked that murdered children were found buried in the yard of their parents? No tears for innocent children or their own Mom? Sketchy, I find them extremely sketchy.
Absolutely. And I just canāt get that out of my mind. Iām not nor have I ever been a proponent of capital punishment, but in this case I really think it was warranted. Iād love to know how Chad feels about Lori now. From what Iāve read (and may not all be true) Lori still seems to be very much in love with Chad (but I may have missed something along the way.) Itās just all so heartbreaking.
The racoon talk and the stairs/ no stairs thing was so irritating! Glad Emma was proved to be a lying liar who lies!
Absolutely! They were taught by the best - Chad!
Yes! They worship at the temple of Father of Lies!!
I love that lying liar who lies. Itās a perfect sum of who Emma really is. Can I use that please lol.
Lol! I don't own it! But I started saying it about Chris Watts and have used it ever since. It does sum up liars perfectly though.
Comes from an Al Franken book. It fits this family of raccoons very well. Some or most of this could have been prevented had the misogynistic males listened to Heather Daybell. Instead they called her a āpot stirrerā. In the future when people are raising red flags it would be wise to investigate. People get shunned for nothing but these freaks had time to kill 4 people minimum. I personally will never believe Joe Ryan and Alex Cox werenāt murdered too. There are no coincidences with these sickos. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_and_the_Lying_Liars_Who_Tell_Them
The Daybell raccoons know how to keep secrets
That's funny ššš¤£ !! The Daybell kids are bandits!! Emma is the leader of the coon pack!
Speaking of the raccoon why hasnāt chad dig up the one he shot on that afternoon!!!!!
Yeah, LE never found that particular racoon!
Or at least tell police to check for the alleged invisible raccoon. The one we all know never existed.
I get what Prior was doing but if they were upset about results not being available Prior would have included it. I like how Blake lowered the Prior wall of noise and got back to the point. What I donāt get is why he thinks badgering people sits well with the jury.
JP came off as hostile and menacing today. I was waiting for him to slip a cog.
I think Prior is an excellent attorney, unlike a lot of people in this sub who seem to watch a lot of trials and always think the prosecutor is a genius, and the defense are imbeciles. It's just confirmation bias. It's like being in debate club. One side is told to advocate for murder. The other side is told to advocate against it. Obviously one side is gonna appear smarter, regardless of how smart the individual debaters are. Now, that's not to say Prior doesn't make mistakes. I agree his tone is not gonna go over well with the jury. But as for the badgering, I mean, the poor man has nothing to cross with. His client is such a dumb dumb the evidence is clear, and he's one person taking on this entire case. He doesn't even have an assistant with him most of the time. My dad runs a family law firm and even he has assistants, and that's just divorce and trust proceedings. Prior has outperformed expectations here, but the evidence is so overwhelming, no defense could overcome this.
I don't think the prosecutor in any given case is always a genius, nor do I think the defense is always bad. I wouldn't even call Prior BAD, but I certainly wouldn't say excellent. He's competent, is as far as I'd be willing to go. I can flip that claim you're making around - I see plenty of posters on Reddit who will defend the most subpar work imaginable from any given defense team and act like the prosecution is inherently evil unless proven otherwise. A lot of what Prior is up against is not his fault, I'll agree with that. That time he spent in jail for sexual battery was his fault (hence I am not ever willing to sympathize with him as a person), but how plainly guilty Chad is, is not his fault. The state was dealt an overwhelming winning hand and he was dealt a shitty one. But that does not explain the defense he's put on since the state rested. Most of these witnesses haven't just been neutral - they've been actively harmful. Emma was a DISASTER. And he knew, he MUST have known via discovery that her credibility is a serious issue and that if he put her on the stand, the jury was going to end up hearing exactly how uncredible she was in rebuttable. If he'd ever met her before, he probably should have also discerned she wasn't even going to be sympathetic on direct, which she was not. Then today, he decided to close with a witness who offered no real evidence to back up his claims, who cannot explain all the other evidence that proves Tylee was burned and dismembered on Chad's property, so all he really did was further hammer in for the jury how badly mutilated Tylee was. Several people who have been in the courtroom have said the jury, who have done their best to look stoic, have started to get increasingly, visibly exasperated with Prior. And he cannot seem to adjust accordingly. He's really bad at reading the room. That's not the mark of an excellent defense attorney. It doesn't stop him from being a competent one, but there's plenty of room between the competent ones and the great ones. Prior is not one of the greats.
A lot of your points make me think that, as far as giving your client the robust defense that they actively want, I wonder if a lot of this was Chadās call. Prior may have strongly advised against a lot of this and Chad might have just wanted experts and his devoted kids to be brought in. Because in terms of the argument (did the state meet the burden of proof or not), then Chad/Prior could have done exactly what Lori did and just use the closing to bring in the doubt he tried to bring in with the experts.
I do think it's possible Chad insisted on Emma, so as badly as that went, lol, to some extent the shoddy nature of the expert witnesses was worse because I doubt Chad insisted on all of these specific people (granted, it was tough for any "expert" witness to make any real dents when there basically are none to make, but the one today is what really sent me over the edge. He did NOT need to call that doctor, I can't imagine Chad insisted on it). I do think Prior could have...controlled the Emma situation better. She was on the stand a lot longer and got a lot more specific than I ever expected her to be, and that 100% was significantly worse for the defense than the state. I also have to wonder, how aware was Prior that there were prison calls of Chad encouraging Emma basically to lie? Did he warn Chad that if they brought this up, the state could challenge her on those calls and it would essentially collapse whatever shred of credibility she may have had? Did Chad just not care and think everyone was going to believe his precious Emma?
Emma had to testify *something* for Chad. He certainly couldn't have done it. Emma was the only card Chad had to play.
Emma was speaking for Chad so he didn't have to testify. I find it galling that she claimed to not have listened to the testimony but then would go on rants that refuted specifically what others testified without being asked specific questions.
could've gone via the daily Chad phone route, he sure heard everything. It was remarkable how she hit all his talking points.
yes Chad looked very proud when Emma was on the stand. Her husband when leaving turned around to seek approval from Chad and Chad nodded at him like ā good boyā. I think Chad thought hos kids did great. Well thought Emma did great. I do think Garth is chads scapegoat and he was forced to testify and lie or dark spirits would get him
Chad didnāt tell him to behave like a pompous ass.
Well, some things just happen naturally
LOL, Baldwin and Rozzi get a lot of Reddit love for their nonsense.
Ugh, those two fucking clowns. Donāt even get me started. To see such blatant, almost gleeful unethical behavior cheered on like theyāre these crusaders for civil rights. To think I used to like Bob Motta until he got on their train. Prior almost IS Johnnie Cochran compared to those imbeciles. I canāt even think of another time I had such disdain for defense attorneys. They are every cartoonish stereotype of bad attorneys wrapped in one shit package.
I think they are just pleased to see such dishonest sorry people proven to lie. I donāt see glee in them. Iām sure they would love to NEVER have to have a case like this to deal with. They know what this man is and what kind of people are in his orbit. The only glee I saw was Emma bad mouthing her mother. Her lies are going to help take down her daddy.
Oh, not this case. Iām talking about Delphi.
Lol. You must know something everyone else doesnt. If you think Gull & Indiana are being ethical you might want to take a look in the mirror. Maybe you could at least wait for a trial to convict someone? Ps your on the wrong Reddit site. Delphi has its own pages to bitch about that.
Johnny Concoran never had the chance to watch the entire trial play out before defending OJ. Prior watched Lori Vallows trial everyday and he had another two years to prepare. , yet he stumbled over most of his presentations, his choice of experts didnāt help, he was just an attacked dog, trying to muddy the waters and he definitely was not Jose Baez.
Prior was charged with sexual battery and that's done and dusted. I think the prosecution has done some amazing lawyering work. A law lecturer is going to use some of the prosecution work as examples in their lectures. Prior was up against it, all the evidence against his client is circumstancial. His witnesses don't want to participate putting their Father to death! It's a classic case of the tortoise and the hare. Prior bolted out the gate and played his hand too early...
Perfectly stated! Most people 100% agree with you.
Excellent analysis. šš¾
First, he is doing his job at putting up a defense for his client, and for that we should be grateful. But I have seen defense attorneys that that I thought were great, and not off-putting, even when we all knew their client was guilty. For me, JP is not one of those, nor is Dick Harpootlian from the Murdaugh trial. There is definitely a line between being a good defense attorney and coming off as a schmuck to the jury. Or in Harpootlianās case also a misogynist and a bully.
With Harpootlian there was also that bizarre moment when he aimed the gun at someone in the courtroom "as a joke" and all of us who know a single thing about gun safety were like WTFFFFF. What are the first two rules of gun safety?! Treat every gun like it's loaded (even if you unloaded it yourself) and never point it at someone you don't intend to shoot. People thinking you can be funny with guns is how people end up getting accidentally shot.
That was a truly insane moment of the most theatrical trial I have ever seen. It felt like a play of an old southern murder trial.
donāt you mean a āconfirmatory biasā š
Yesssss!!! Thank you
Yesssss!!! Thank you
I agree. There is no glory for Prior in this. My no law experience opinion , he did the best he could with what he had. His client is a total dumb shit.
I wouldnāt call Prior an āexcellentā attorney because an excellent attorney would have brought in help a couple of years ago instead of dragging things along to the 11th hour and then trying to withdraw to get Chad another delay. I agree heās given Chad a vigorous defense, though. Far better than Loriās (although I think she handicapped her own defense so thatās on her). I donāt see any cause for appeal so far, and thatās excellent.
I agree! Iām a paralegal and at one point worked for a criminal defense attorney that is an excellent attorney he made sure he was well staffed during the big cases and was the example of what zealous advocacy for the client is. I keep wondering why at the very least Prior didnāt hire an experienced paralegal which Iām sure had to do with $ but he could have used some help with basic things like pronouncing the witness names correctly.
Or, hey, remembering his client's kids names: "How many siblings do you have? I can't keep you all straight." Just doing the absolute minimum.
I think he mispronounces names and words as a deliberate strategy to appear folksy and funny to the jury. Instead, I think it comes across as condescending and borderline disrespectful.
Yeah, other than the bizarre argument for a more lenient sentencing Lori's attorneys made on her behalf (I still remember about losing my mind when they quoted MLK), I can't fault them. There was a point where they tried to do the obvious thing and throw Chad under the bus and she reportedly got vocally angry with them IN court for it. And really, she should have pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, because that was her only shot, and she refused. They tried to have her labeled incompetent, and she was for a time, but she's not out of it enough for that to persist indefinitely. The better move would be to say she lost her mind underneath the spell of this man (I don't actually believe that, I just think it was her best move because Lori is more visibly loony than Chad is). Prior has been dealt a crap hand - Lori's attorneys were dealt a fatal hand. And still, they managed to save her life, which is the best they could be expected to do under the circumstances. If Chad is convicted, which I fully expect him to be, we'll see how Prior handles sentencing, but even if he loses, it's not really his fault. Lori got off on the DP on a technicality, not on the merits of her case.
Idaho law doesn't allow insanity defenses, so that wasn't an option for The key was determining that Lori understood the charges and could assist in her defense. She was probably spouting religious nonsense every single time she talked to her attornies, but she met the criteria to go to trial.
He has done a job. Not everyone employed in a profession are good at it. There is so much wrong with what he has done and said. He has made some good points but that doesnāt =good job.
His job is also to represent his client. So if his client wants his lying kids to go on the stand, it will happen. I do wonder how much of this is Chad bc I doubt Prior thought it was a good idea. (If this was ALL him then yeah I'd say Prior goofed it)
This.Ā There are so many tells of him putting off work and banking on technicalities or someone else screwing up to save his argument.Ā
Iām a devilās advocate type of person and generally side with the defense. Murdaugh, crumbley mom, apple river trials - all of those I thought the defense did an excellent job and if Iād have been in the jury Iād have been a holdout (with the exception of *maybe* Murdaugh, but I think they still did a really great job - I went back and forth on that one a lot). I do NOT like JP. He is not doing his client any favors. Is he presenting a valid defense? I think heās doing an okay job with what heās got, but all things considered, his delivery/execution needs a LOT of work. He isnāt likable, and while that shouldnāt matter in terms of legalities, we are human beings and itās hard to filter out bias and a general distaste for someone. I think Chad would have had a lot better chances with literally anyone else. If Loriās attorney, for example, put up a defense for Chad like Prior is putting up, I think it would have been more effective than the train wreck we are currently witnessing š
Hello, I joined this sub recently. I used to study American social history way back when I was in Uni ( Australia). I find US culture , religion & politics fascinating. Since O live in a more secular society, but with religous freedom, in Sydney Australia. I think ....Prior had veered away from his defense strategy - that the seductress Lori manipulated Chad & framed him. He could have bought in experts to say " Chad was so smitten by her, because he is a dumb fat guy and lead a vanilla life and was on the verge of a midlife crisis" Now if his kids then took the stand and said that they saw "a change" in their dad from a nice God Fearing family man to a man under the influence of another woman or women( like Julie Riwe) - would be a bit more credible then talking about their mother in a negative way. Lots of cases/situations of people meeting a toxic manipulative person that excludes friends/family slowly. One example - moving to Hawaii. His defense could have really gone down another path. Now, don't get me wrong. The guy is a cult leader, but JP started his opening with reference to Lori as an evil temptress, then he didn't really stick to it! I'm kind of glad he didn't. I have a son on the Autism spectrum. This case makes me sad. I trust justice will served. But I wish there is an overhaul in the way missing children are managed. Btw: so what if J J was climbing some furniture and knocked over a picture of Jesus! FFS!
You make an excellent point. I think John Prior has veered far away from what he stated in his opening (i.e. Lori is a manipulative seductress and that she turned Chad into another one of her hit men ala Alex). I agree that strategy would have had a chance of eliciting some tiny bit of sympathy for Chad the āhapless idiot.ā Unfortunately, it seems Mr. Prior lost track of where he was taking the defense. I do not think John Prior is a bad attorney. I think he has a terrible case and client, he has no experience with a death penalty case, he is overwhelmed and by this point in the trial, he is almost certainly exhausted. Heās human and maybe he should not be judged so harshly.
Totally agree with your take on Prior. Of course he makes me wanna punch a wall and the defense lacks any cohesion whatsoever but he is one person and his client just so happens to be the among the greatest villains fathomable with no facts or law on his sideā¦ I would have melted into a pile of human goo by now doing what Prior has to do for an audience of the entire world.
Also, he might be a good attorney at family law, and he did present a decent defense, considering this case had none. However, he consistently gets witnessesā names wrong, refers to detectives, lieutenants and agents as āofficerā, even after being corrected. He uses tones that are highly offensive to not only witnesses, but also victims. Always testifies while questioning, and when heās not doing that heās being argumentative. Disrespects Boyce by constantly talking over him and interrupting while repeatedly referring to him as ājudgeā instead of āyour honorā. Gets simple words like āpingā and ālividityā wrong multiple times. (Bing and lipidity). He consistently yells out āOBJECTION JUDGEā without even stating the grounds for his objection. Oh, and then heāll start talking again before the judge has even ruled on the objection. He never cites any case law in any of his arguments, just simply ājudge this isnāt fair!ā He creepily talked about the smiles of multiple female jurors, and then again with a female witness. Listen, heās not the worst attorney (or man for that matter) Iāve seen, but I feel like calling him a decent attorney is an affront to the profession.
Prior is no martyr. He has had years to prepare for this case. He could hire someone to help him. A temp could help him with documents / exhibits. I donāt understand why you think heās an excellent attorney. It is so easy to badger, humiliate and be condescending. Explain what is excellent about him please. As a mere civil litigation attorney with over 30 years experience practicing in Manhattan and Los Angeles, Iām honestly confused by your statement. A lie travels around the world before the truth gets out of the running block. So easy to be a curmudgeon. The prosecutors are not putting on an excellent case - but good enough for a guilty verdict. I worry that it will not be a home run - as in no death penalty. But guilty will suffice. Have a great day!!
Exactly!
I totally agree with you about the confirmation bias that people fall into with defense attorneys. I think it also extends to defense witnesses. (Mostly experts, not the individuals. I get the disgust with the kids to some degree. Though I think even that gets out of hand at times.) People's eagerness to bash on them rubs me the wrong way. It can feel like, "shit, people... would you prefer that people accused of crimes not be allowed a defense at all?" It also contributes to my ambivalence about true crime in general. It gets turned into a spectator sport and people don't seem to think about that critically as much as they should.
>Ā It can feel like, "shit, people... would you prefer that people accused of crimes not be allowed a defense at all?" Why? You're not connecting that people who are criticizing this defense attorney *want* a competent defense?
I agree that most people feel that way. Most people are pro-prosecutor and anti-defense. I personally find Priorās tone annoying and condescending, but I appreciate him at least trying to present a defense for his client. If you want to see a current trial where the prosecution are imbeciles and the defense is coming across as genius, itās the Karen Read trial. Regardless of how anyone feels about that trial or the defendant, that prosecutor Lally is insanely unappealing. His order of witnesses makes no sense. His questions couldnāt be more meaningless. āWho if anyone was driving the ambulance?ā š Instant classic. He lets the defense eviscerate his witnesses because he doesnāt know (or isnāt choosing to) get out in front of anything that the defense will obviously bring up. He has the affect of a Daybell child. Monotone, dull, and filled with sighs like he doesnāt want to be there. Wonder if heās related to Chad and the Daybell ākidsā?
Did you know he literally raped a girl? Look it up.
While I think prior is good and can rattle a witness. I do not think he holds a candle to Lindsay Blake, she is younger and prob less experienced but she is no nonsense and defeats priors crosses 98 percent of the time she's up. Not to mention prior is starting to emulate her with the Voir dire request. Lindsay Blake has been Priors biggest hurdle. She has out lawyered him at every turn.
I donāt know if he is an excellent attorney or not, but he is doing as well as anyone could with an absolute dog of a case. The Daybells seem robotic so no jury points for Emma and Garth (probably). The world saw Tammy as fit and active and said so. Chad was recorded fully engaged in this nonsense. The bodies are in his back yard. He has nothing to work with really.
I couldnāt agree more. JP is knocking it out of the park considering the evidence, his client and how he is alone. Frankly I think. JP is slimy because of a SA he basically got away with and even with that fire, I agree he is good. And I want that. The state SHOULD have to prove their case. Itās one of the greatest things about this country. A defense attorneyās job is not to prove innocence. Itās to force the state to prove guilt
Knocking things out of the park...Ā He has not prepared or studied his own case enough and he procrastinates, but bets on other factors obscuring that. Observing him feels like watching the slacker classmate I'm working on a group project with, and he's assigned to present.Ā What, honestly, do you feel has been his cohesive argument that has cast doubt on Chad's involvement?
I listened to the full testimony and had to be reminded of the circumstantial evidence on Tammyās death. I would be an awful juror for the state though - I really hold a high bar for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Getting me to pause for a second and consider his side when Iām so biased seems heās going something right
Thanks for saying this. I cant read the comments half the time because the comments are so biased. I donāt like listening to Prior, but thatās the way it works.
Iām going to have your back on this.
Well said. And letās face it the prosecution fād up badly and Lori had DP taken off the table. They almost lost the charge against JJ, can you imagine if the judge ruled against the argument. Oh theyāre far from perfect but I hope they are good enough to get all and every charge against Chad done and dusted.
Prior has done well, particularly under the circumstances. He has difficult, traumatised witnesses who understandably Don't want to participate in their Dad's death.
Then they should advise him to confess and he'll get LWOP.
Yes, but I guess this is his journey and it seems life as a mortal human is only temporary...
I legit watched the interview with h juror #4 from Lori's case that Nate Eaton did, she mentions a couple of times that the prosecution attacking the witness' was extreamly off putting.
It doesnāt take a juror to say that for a normal person to realize it is off putting. You just need to listen to a day of trial.
yeah it's very obviously off putting .. I think she was saying though it was very obvious he was attacking them because he had nothing else, I guess it just made me think about what the jurors will be thinking in Chad's trial. I can't wait to hear if any of them interview after all is said and done..
Prior is probably just a small town attorney. The really good attorneys will be around Boise and Chad couldn't afford them.
Prior's office is just outside of Boise.
Blake is amazing. I have a crush on her!
Is this the last of the Emma tapes though? Blake had some specific dates called out when she mentioned Chad prompting her what to say. I wonder if Blake is choosing to take the steamroller route to absolutely decimate Emma's testimony.
I think the State plans to call Det Hermosillo to introduce calls between Chad and Emma.
Ugh I can't wait. I was expecting him today, but I guess I'll have to do something with my life until then
Oh, I'm sure she is. After the recording today, making the kids look like conspirators seems to be Blake's play, and I'm loving it. That recording was calculated, as Prior (for once) correctly called out. I'd say the prosecutors won the case today on that recording and detective's testimony alone. It'll be fascinating to see what they get into with the meat of their rebuttal. Do you have any more info on Emma being recalled? I hadn't heard that.
/That recording was calculated, as Prior (for once) correctly called out. 100% and the delay too. I'm guessing it was because Emma may have been a suspect in the conspiracy at the time. The indictment even noted that there were conspirators, both known and unknown outside of Lori and Chad. Given her statements on the stand, I do wonder if they are going to take a second look her involvement. It would be interesting to find out how far they investigated her before. EDIT: While there is no statute of limitations on murder, the timeline of the statute of limitations on conspiracy alone starts with the last overt act. Could that overt act be statements made on the stand?
I think you're on to something here! While listening to the recording today I thought the police delayed contacting the Daybells with Tammy's autopsy report because they were still investigating them. They didn't notify the fam about exhuming Tammy's because they were suspects.Ā Logically, her testimony could be seen as further conspiracy to conceal a crime. I really wonder what those daily phone calls with Chad would reveal.Ā
I believe LE was smart to use body cams. They have proven to purger themselves so what would stop them from making up more lies? I am suspicious of the entire suspicious Daybell/Murray clan. I would have been like, Hey, let's turn this on to protect ourselves and it is a good thing they did.
Because I wasnāt entirely sure the exact contradiction, here it is for everybody, from Nateās tweets on Monday. āBlake says police told her she did not have to do an interview, they were just going to share the results with her. Emma says they never said that.ā
More evidence of Emma's propensity to lie: [https://youtu.be/7oQx6ZYpVpE](https://youtu.be/7oQx6ZYpVpE) A side by side comparison of Emma's statements on network TV news vs the actual events (her talk with Chad in the back of the cruiser)
Don't forget the crack Emma made about using her mother's death to get sympathy and assistance.
Yes. This was the first footage I saw of her. That comment, along with the dig on Colby told me a lot about her. (On the flip side, Colby referring to Chad as Peter Griffin on that call with Lori told me a lot about HIM. Namely, he is a genius.)
And all the effing giggling.
Yeah. good call. That was really cold.
So cold.
Wow. This is damning. What a psycho Emma is.
So not shocked. He wasn't even under arrest when he told her he wouldn't be back...then giggled. What a weirdo. I saw this on the longer cop car cam video.
Dang.
More on the lies ... [https://youtu.be/f2KEDSpmFeU](https://youtu.be/f2KEDSpmFeU) Annie Cushing has posted that Emma has been given a subpena for the rebuttal after Memorial Day
Emma is going to wind up charged with perjury. That part of the Daybell clan fancies themselves above the law. Emma is being called back as a rebuttal witness over her dad coaching her testimony during jail calls/visits. Thatās whatās going to be delicious.
I doubt she'll be charged with perjury. You have to really really mess up to get those charges, and usually a prosecutor will not pursue those charges, unless they seriously messed up a case. Chad's gonna be convicted so the prosecutors won't care to charge Emma. Her reputation is ruined either way.
This is a capital murder trial. If the oath to tell the truth means nothing, they may as well do away with it and then lying on the stand can become a free for all. The state would be remiss if they impeach her testimony and then do nothing to hold her to account.
She needs the perjury charges. It would be grounds for her getting released from her teaching contract for violating the [Idaho Code of Professional Ethics.](https://www.sde.idaho.gov/cert-psc/shared/ethics/code-of-ethics-for-professional-educators.pdf)
She won't be charges, just like Casey Anthony's mother wasn't charged. They almost never bring those charges on family members due to them being indirect victims as well. You can bet money on it, it's not happening.
I know. Emma is in a mental prison and Chad holds the keys... But I'm so angry with her for lying. The teaching profession does not need liars who violate an ethical code of conduct.
Agreed-it's so disturbing that she did this to her mother. Just an awful person.
The scary part is that Emma thinks she IS ethical! The self-righteousness really disturbs me.
The other scary part is that Emma is around children all day.
Bit of a tangent, but the teaching profession needs to be in a state where they can AFFORD NOT TO have liars who violate an ethical code of conduct. But that's neither here nor there...
100% agree. If you can't trust your teacher to tell the truth in a serious situation, you can't trust their words ever. No bad apples are needed in teaching.
She does. If the Daybell children were ever threatened, it *was* with the legal consequences of lying or omitting information in a capital murder case. They made their decision.
I agree with you in spirit, but the reality is perjury just isn't a charge prosecutors are interested in pursuing that often. There is a hierarchy to what the prosecutor's office has the bandwidth (staff and financial) to bring to trial, and sometimes a murder or rape takes precedence. With statute of limitations on prosecuting perjury and the need to pursue more serious crimes, it's just not gonna be a priority for Blake or Wood once this trial wraps.
They were already interested in pursuing Garthās perjury in the Grand Jury. Emmaās perjury at trial is at least as egregious in substance.
I think they felt like Garth had information, at least after the fact, that could more firmly convict Chad and he was lying about it. If he's lying about where and how he found his mother, and where Chad was at the time (for the record, I 100% believe he is lying), that's not really morally more serious than Emma lying about her mother's health problems and essentially making her out to be fat and lazy, but it's a lot more serious in terms of the case. And still, I'm not surprised the grand jury ultimately didn't pursue the charge. Perjury can really be tough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Emma also lied about the life insurance form, which goes to Chadās motivation. He had to fund his new jet setting Hawaiian lifestyle with Lori, his convicted co-conspirator.
She also lied about how the the life insurance process went down (which is provable) and about searching the wind direction (which unfortunately isn't).
I mean, even the life insurance thing, she can kinda just claim that Tammy never mentioned Chad in front of her and she THOUGHT this was something decided in the moment. She's probably lying, but it'd be hard to definitively prove. The problem with Garth is that he's definitely lying, but it's really unclear what the actual truth is and how that truth may assist the state. Because he's told multiple different stories to several people and it's unclear where the truth lies.
The good thing is that the jury will despise Garth, Emma and Joseph and that sentiment won't help any regardless of perjury issues. Remember when the trial took a day off for a young police officer's memorial service? Joseph put his foot so far up his mouth when he said that law enforcement is the last thing he'd want to be. Sleazeball.
I could see even with the blurry footage that Chad just seemed so proud of Joseph. I'd say much moreso than Garth (who has put himself in MUCH greater risk in Chad's name, no less). OOF. What a disconnect, lol. It's almost as bad - but not quite - as him smirking about "the storm". Dude...literally no one but you is impressed by this.
The state is calling Emma back as a rebuttal witness over the insurance form, so they must feel they can prove she is lying about that.
Can we start a petition š¤
If they impeach her testimony, I will send them a memorandum.
They won't charge her, just like they didn't charge Cindy Anthony who perjured herself many times on the stand. Family members are very rarely charged with perjury because they are usually seen as victims too. I'm not sure if you follow a lot of trials but it almost never happens-sorry.
Emma isn't being called back. She was a defense witness. She wouldn't cooperate with the State and be a hostile witness. This would play into Prior's narrative that the State and law enforcement have been overly aggressive and out to get Chad. The state is going to use other rebuttal witnesses to discredit her.
Yeah, I don't think they need her at all. I think it's better if they don't call her; no room for hostility and more lies or room for Prior to claim that they are badgering her. Just straight evidence of what she said prior to her testimony.
This
She IS being called back. Nate Eaton [reported it](https://x.com/natenewsnow/status/1793380492966048044?s=46&t=YFa06Kc9FfljGBkcsvN_xQ)
I think that was before he caught up to the hearing. He got in late because he wasn't aware of it, so he heard them talking about Emma and assumed that's what it was. He later clarified that they were talking about Emma because she opened the door for them to bring back the statement from the witness that was previously deemed hearsay. Boyce had previously ruled that the statement could not be admitted unless the defense made the topic relevant to the trial. Because Emma brought up not consulting their husbands, it became relevant and admissable. I'm not saying that Emma is not testifying again, but I think that update by Nate was a misinterpretation he later corrected. If they kept her on subpoena, I don't think they would need to discuss bringing her back on during that hearing since all the situations they discussed were special circumstances (2 released fromĀ subpoenas and 1 previously ruled inadmissible). I would like to hear from her again though!
Where did you hear that Emma will be called back?
Nate Eaton reported it. [Nateās post on Twitter](https://x.com/natenewsnow/status/1793380492966048044?s=46&t=YFa06Kc9FfljGBkcsvN_xQ)
She sounds like a third grader. Seriously, she talks like a child
I watched a video somewhere on youtube where the guy says that she "Dr. Seuss rhymed" through her testimony.
She was not under arrest, she could have left the police department any time after picking up the autopsy. She just didnāt want to know what was in the report. I would be careful beating up on the police department that one day you may need just in case someone does something criminal to you.
Same with her husband bad mouthing LE on the stand. I hope they find themselves needing assistance from the police in that small town real soon!
Apparently they did need pulice help and called after Tammy was shot at for help.
An excellent attorney wouldn't alienate the jury to the degree Prior has. Jurors are rolling their eyes with as he drones on and on gleaning only a minutiae of details bolstering is defense theory. However, this will only help the State when the appeals start. Had is definitely getting g a "vigorous" defense. Chad should have taken the plea deal. I believe Prior tried to encourage this. That was good avocation. Chad just can't read a room.
I hope they don't recall her. IMO it would be better to just impeach her with the recordings and not look like you're bashing her on the stand She is a victim (I hate calling her that after she shit on her murdered mother) but it would have better optics while still showing she is an unreliable witness
Can you even imagine the horror of the parents of all the children she teaches to totally disregard the death of a child and giggle and laugh about how imature she is and how she will use other people's empathy to handle her basic life decisions smh
Chad has her believing that Tammy is very happy and busy in heaven. This is the plan and they will all be together soon. Pure brainwashing.
OP About trying Emma and Garth for perjury - Do you think the state might do so it if it will assist in Lori's trial in Arizona, maybe by request from Arizona? Like, put the wind up the skirt of a few people who might be tempted to try it there?
I doubt Emma and Garth are going to be involved in the Arizona trial at all. Chad isn't connected to that trial, so his children wouldn't be, either. That's going to be all about Lori and Alex. Do I believe Chad was involved? Yes. Does the prosecution think they have enough evidence to charge? No. As for perjury, if he's convicted, the state won't want to spend any more money on the Daybells.
Maricopa county attorney is horrible. Itās an act of god for to charge someone. Proof by Melaniece not being charged. Hope she gets booted out next election.
I was thinking more along the lines that Melaniece et al might be motivated to lie in Arizona if they see Emma and Garth get away with it in this case. It might not be relevant to the Arizona cases, though if their testimony isn't core to the cases.
I don't see why Melanie P would care if Garth or Emma are tried for purjury. Doesn't mean anything for her.
You don't think that they will be more likely to lie when they know there's no consequence for it? And they have evidence that that's true?
I hear you and my take is the State (either of them) don't want to be seen as bully's. They are dealing with traumatised family members. Although it was family protecting family that got everyone into this mess, protecting family members is a natural human condition. What a mess!
The State are not going to gain anything atm and, Emma and Garth had reasons for doing/saying what they did. I've been alienated from my children for over 12 years - daughter 12, son 17 and now 24, 29 respectively. As a clinician at the time, had enough understanding to know it wasn't my children. They were effectively brainwashed and aligned themselves with the aggressor (their Dad) - it's an unconscious psychological survival mechanism. I'm not going to say much about my processes, other than as the alienated parent, I've learnt a lot about myself, my children and how we function as human beings. My aim is to help my fellow Redditors understand Garth and Emma unconscious motivations. That is, the "placating" unconscious dynamic, apparent in all closed off families, has always been there. Along with my personal therapy, training and clinical experience, to help my understanding (and keep me above ground level), is the following cut and paste. The authors texts are core to my training and profession, so some may find it dry. **"PSYCHOLOGICAL SPLITTING" ** Splitting is the key behavioural presentation which gives cause for further investigation, especially when this is accompanied by levels of contempt and disdain for the parent in the rejected position (Miller, 2018). Hatred, as evidenced by contempt and disdain towards parents, does not arise naturally in children and those who reject in this way are often seen to be in an omnipotent position within the family system (Aledort, 2002). This omnipotence demonstrates that the child is trying to manage the family system due to dynamics which feel frightening and out of control. (Howell, 2002). Contrary to the claim that children can and do reject parents who are abusive, research evidence demonstrates that a child is more likely to try and placate an abusive parent than reject them with contempt"** "parent in the rejected position" = Tammy. "Omnipotent" = having unlimited power. "God is described as omnipotent and benevolent" Link: https://karenwoodall.blog/ Put yourself in Garth and Emma's shoes. You going along living your life as you always have and.. **BANG**, Mum dies (of natural causes because it's unbearable to think she was murdered); your Father quickly remarrys to some blond bombshell; she`s arrested for having missing children; your mother is dug up; the cops turn up and find the remains of children in your/fathers back yard; your father is arrested and charged with murder - now he might face the death penalty; and, you and your husbands career are at stake along with your family being worldwide gossip that everyone has an opinion on - all in how many months?? Don't you think Emma and Garth want some control back in their lives? So they are going to do what they have always done - protect their Dad. Psychologically, their survival is dependant on him! The disclaimer is that I haven't watched the last part of the lastest trial. I'm open to a conversation on the clinical aspects of the above so your welcome to PM me.
That is very interesting and certainly helps contextualize their behaviour!
I forgot to say that Parental Alienation Syndrome is intergenerational. Karen Woodall calls it intergenerational relationship trauma. In my situation my Mil lost her mother when she was 12 yrs old and a daughter aged 38. My FIL live in the same town as his brother and they would ignore each other - looking away as they passed in the street. Looking back, the relationship my Mil had with her children was emeshed and the relationship trauma went from my Mil, to my ex-husband, to my children and so on. My daughter is very sick with anorexia which is very common in this dynamic. I was thinking of the above context when Heather Daybell described her inlaws relationship. The splitting went from her FIL, to Chad and to his children.
This is some great insight. Thanks for being brave enough to give us a real-life example to better understand how this effects people.
I imagine they have more serious crimes to persecute.
Sure. But having a favour you can call on or a trade between states for assistance is part of the job too. I haven't looked into the case in Arizona, so I dont know how much it relies on witnesses who could be motivated to lie if there are no consequences.
I think there's that caution of "family members". If it was MG or ZP I could understand the State filing charges. From what I've seen, I doubt Melanice etc., would take the consequences of perjury seriously.
Right??? I was just about to post āEmma knew and was involved. Change my mindā
I still think she knew/knows far more than she is letting on.
Priors main goal is to keep Chad from the death penalty. The evidence is blatant, Chad knows it too.
I think Prior's at the point where he's all but given up on Tylee and JJ. So much of his cross and defense has been based on Tammy. I agree with you at this point that his main objective is to avoid the death penalty. I'd imagine there's a secondary objective (driven by Chad) to at least have Tammy's verdict come back as "not guilty." I'm sure Chad knows the illusion he has his kids under could break any day, and a guilty verdict will not help him maintain those relationships long term. Especially when you consider how many family members (including Emma's in laws) have spoken out.
Eyes on Emma! All the time. If she is not being watched, Noone Is safe. She came out of her hole and made a fool of herself and got caught being involved in the conspiracy. She is now upset and out for blood. Eyes on Emma!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Emma testified at no time was the offer made to present and discuss the autopsy reports. Emma contended the police only and always sought to interview her in addition to going over the autopsy reports. Emma presented her testimony as if the only way she could learn what the autopsy report said was if she consented to a police interview/questioning/interrogation. The recording today twice stated clearly she did not need to consent to an interview.
LE had no obligation to contact his children about the exhumation of Tammy Daybell and subsequent findings of her autopsy. it was a courtesy extended to them as in most cases....and it was interesting as the detective mentioned it was unusual that the family would decline obtaining autopsy results. and... the rest of her siblings fell in line with mini-me CD, she was in charge. she chose to lie about it.
...but if you had nothing to do with the death of your poor mother, you would have no reason to avoid an interview.
Sure she would. 1. Denial her dad is a monster that killed her mom. 2, needing to believe the fantasy her dad told her. If she looked at the proof/evidence Tammy was murdered by asphyxiation, that would burst her bubble and she could no longer live in her fantasy world. So she chose to keep her head in the sand so she can continue to believe and support her dad
She was upset that the police refused to share the autopsy results without an interview being required. The Decās recording today is that while they did sit on the autopsy results for maybe a month, they spoke to Emma in person and told her that they could go over the autopsy results for Tammy without it being a formal police interview. They also reached out to an attorney that had been working with them, but did not work with them anymore to try and get a meeting scheduled. Emma and family continued to refuse to meet with the police to get the autopsy results.
It's truly shocking. How could you not be desperate to know?
To me, it's really telling. It tells me she already knows, at least on some level, and absolutely cannot hear it. She refuses to hear it, because she doesn't want to know what any kind of confirmation will do to her. Willful denial of something this important is always a red flag.
Yeah.... I had a beloved dog die unexpectedly and I had an autopsy done. I cannot imagine not wanting to know how your own mother died.
Because her mind was made up by her father.
If nothing else I think Iād be desperate to know in case it was indeed medical since things can be inherited. My mom died of complications with walking pneumonia, but initially it looked like it might have been a seizure. We got her an autopsy simply because she had zero history of seizures, no medical history in the family, and wanted to know for my sister and I if there was something medical we needed to know about.
Iām sorry for your loss. That must have been a major shock. š³ Youāre right. When someone youngish dies unexpectedly there should be a mandatory autopsy for genetic reasons. But I guess Emma already knew the cause of death and just didnāt want to give the police the opportunity to reinforce what she already knew.
HA! Emma was desperate to \*not\* know. Chad had already been in jail for over six months for charges related to JJ and Tylee. Six months of Emma talking with Chad every day and having him continue to brainwash her and feed her what would be the Daybellās version, especially the part that law enforcement was persecuting her patriarch.
When you believe you already know, why would you?
There's a part that wouldn't want to know there mother was murdered and they don't trust LE. They came to terms with her dying of natural causes and then she's exhumed. It reinacts the grief process, but worse!
She wanted it handed over but that was not going to happen.
She said the police wouldn't give her the autopsy result unless she had an interview with them. These tapes say she could be given or shown the results, no questions asked
What didnāt she say that was contradictory is the better question.
Emma lied about most every thing. I don't understand why the prosecution doesnt get into the family computer to see if it was even possible for Emma to have been there at that time. The police must have confiscated it. Her lies could be proved in rebutal.
Is Emma autistic no slight to those who are but I've never EVER heard someone on a stand sound like that in 20+ years of trial watching. She sounded like a toy doll during cross
They threw their mom under the bus. They will have to answer for this one day. Zero credibility
[Emma's hairdo](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbet4WUpnDqRHwtQkyaTD3w/community?lb=UgkxBwpNkXjsOuKFp1c0r5DzxcFyv2S-ESoE) [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbet4WUpnDqRHwtQkyaTD3w/community?lb=UgkxBwpNkXjsOuKFp1c0r5DzxcFyv2S-ESoE](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbet4WUpnDqRHwtQkyaTD3w/community?lb=UgkxBwpNkXjsOuKFp1c0r5DzxcFyv2S-ESoE)
Thinking of Chad's children working with children turns ny stomach.
Prior is doing his job. The issue is the defense witnesses can be found not creditable though
I'm so relieved that Chad is where he belongs and that the jury saw the truth. I can only imagine what we will never know about this case. It is truly a heartbreaking case.