Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - 9 Truly Unusual Moments as Lori Vallow Defends Herself

Episode Date: April 18, 2025

Lori Vallow Daybell chose to represent herself in the trial for the conspiracy to murder her husband, Charles Vallow, in 2019. She is not a trained lawyer so there have been some missteps and moments you wouldn't otherwise see. The prosecution focused on the investigation and Charles Vallow's injuries during the second week of the trial. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy looks at some of the most damning evidence against the Doomsday cult mom and the wildest moments as she represents herself in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Get 50% off of confidential background reports at https://www.truthfinder.com/lccrimefix and access information about almost anyone!Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Producer:Jordan ChaconCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law & Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. You have charged me with a crime. Is that correct? I have not, no. The jury in Lori Vallow Daybell's case has seen all of the evidence and they've watched her represent herself. I got it, Your Honor. I take a look at some of the most damning evidence against the doomsday cult mom and some of the wildest moments

where she represented herself in the trial for the conspiracy to murder Charles Vallow. And were we eating my green chili chicken enchiladas? Do not remember that. You do not remember that? Nope. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy, and I just want to let you know, in case you didn't, that we are now available both video and audio on Spotify. So please check us out and follow us there. Now, the second week of Lori Vallow Daybell's trial in Maricopa County, Arizona has come to an end and it ended with Lori

resting her case without calling one witness to the stand and without her testifying. Lori had repeatedly indicated, not in front of the jury, of course, that she would take the stand, but she didn't. Take a look. Are you going to present evidence tomorrow, either through witnesses or through your own testimony? No, Your Honor, the defense will rest. Now, Lori is representing herself, of course. She's a trained hairdresser, not a trained lawyer. So there have been some missteps, some big ones. Some of her witnesses were precluded from testifying, and there was a big issue with her sending out subpoenas to crime victims. So how was it an oversight?

I didn't, I just signed them all and we got them prepared and I signed them all and I did not check them. It's my own fault. But I apologize to the families. Are there, so do you know the names of all the people you subpoenaed or you just signed a stack of subpoenas? I did sign the stack, but I thought I was aware of all the, that they were the ones that I had asked to subpoena. For this trial or for the next one as well? Just for this one we haven't done our subpoenas yet for the next trial. I'll try

and for the next trial I need you to be more diligent in what you're signing and if there is a subpoena for someone who is a next of kin or a victim under the Victims Bill of Rights the subpoena that needs to be coordinated through county attorney's office or is there a victim representative attorney? I don't, I haven't had one yet. There is not a victim representative attorney, so it would come through us, your honor. Okay. Yikes.

So Lori signed a stack of subpoenas and some of them went to crime victims and she's not supposed to be contacting them. And you heard that she apologized, but still. Now, these are the perils of representing yourself, but Lori has insisted she's got this. Objection, relevance, speculation. Next question. I got it, Your Honor. And she's been warned by Judge Boreski about the way she questions witnesses when she offers commentary.

Firefighter Kaczynski. Okay. Kaczynski, that's the one I didn't have. It's possible depending on the person. Okay, that's fair. So we work in tandem together. We're the investigative body and they're the scientific portion of it. Makes sense. They used them to shoot until the threat went away,

and that can be with one shot. It can be with more than one shot. Okay, that's fair. Now, that was from the first week of the trial. It happened again during the second week. Oh, that's right. The one I couldn't remember how to spell. I mean, I can't. sustain, please don't testify.

Lori Vallow has had several last names, Cox, Ryan, Vallow, and of course now Daybell. I searched her in truthfinder.com to see what might come up. Sure enough, she comes up as Lori Ryan and Lori Vallow. The name Daybell does not appear. And the murder case out of Arizona actually shows up. Truthfinder is really great because it will show you a person's past and current addresses, phone numbers, social media accounts, and of course, criminal and traffic records. So if you'd like to try Truthfinder, you can get a really great deal. 50% off of those confidential background reports. Log on to www.truthfinder.com slash lccrimefix, log on and start accessing information about almost anyone. The first week of the trial

focused on people who knew Charles Vallow and Lori, like Nancy Jo Hancock, who went on a date with Charles Vallow the night before he was killed. So you did go on a date with married Ben. I went on a date with Charles. But you did not know he was killed. So you did go on a date with married man. I went on a date with Charles. But you did not know he was married. I knew his divorce was not final. His divorce was not started. Okay. Okay.

So in your text messages, you asked Charles if he was a good kisser. Is that correct? Maybe, sure. Did he answer that text message? I'm sure he did. Again, 611, harassment. I'll sustain the objection And hearsay. So are you trying to tell me and this jury that you went on one date with my husband and he told you all the details of our lives? I'm telling you the truth and that's what I know. So you spent your whole date getting to know each other talking about me? Don't flatter yourself. No, we did not spend the whole time talking about you. You talked, you knew a lot about me, right? I knew what I've testified to.

What else did you talk about on your date? Lots of things. Like what, for instance? Life, kids, the church, lots of things. Okay. Did he tell you anything about our other four children? Yes. So you knew that we did have five children as well? I did. Okay.

Did he talk to you about my daughter, Tylee? He did. Did he talk about his relationship with her? I don't recall that. Did he talk about you, the contention in his relationship with my daughter, Tylee? I don't recall that. I'm sure you don't. I'm going to object to comments by the defendant made after questions, testifying.

I'll sustain the objection. Lori definitely seemed to let her emotions get the best of her there. And she also got upset during week one when her brother, Adam Cox, testified against her and didn't remember her signature dish. And when was the last time we had any communications? The last time I remember our communications was you and I were speaking in the kitchen when the family was over.

Okay. So you think that was that time in 2018? I think so. Okay. And were we eating my green chili chicken enchiladas? Don't not remember that. You do not remember that? Nope. Is that what I made every time we had a family get together, which was like 10 times a year? I don't remember that.

Okay. And when was the last time that we had a phone call or text message? I have no idea. You don't often see something like that in a trial. Then there was Lori's cross-examination of Kay Woodcock, Charles' sister. Were you aware at all of the relationship between Charles and Tylee? It was, let's say, it was a bit contemptuous. It seemed like there was always a lot of drama going on.

And so that's all I knew. I didn't, he didn't say too much about it, and I didn't pry. But you knew that there was some kind of contention going on with those two for a while? I can't remember. I'm sorry. You did know that there was some kind of contention going on with those two for a while? I can't remember. I'm sorry. You did know that there was some kind of contention going on with those two for a while? Yes. Okay.

And you weren't really aware of the events that happened that morning, were you? The morning of the murder? Of July 11th. No, I wasn't. Okay. Because you didn't tell me. Ms. Woodcock, did you see or hear or personally witness me conspire with Alex Cox to kill my husband, Charles Vallow? No, but I saw a ton of evidence that did. Thank you. No further questions. So that was how the first week of the trial ended. And the thing about this case is that,

yes, it's a murder case, but it's also a case about a conspiracy, a plan. So the question to Kay Woodcock about whether she heard or saw Lori conspire with Alex to kill Charles seemed a bit odd. The second week of the trial focused more on the investigation and Charles Vallow's wounds. Dr. Given the trajectory that you observed that from the gunshot wound to Charles's abdomen that exited his left shoulder and the fact that the gunshot wound was shored, would that be consistent with the shooter standing somewhere near Mr. Vallow's feet and firing at Charles Vallow as he was laying on the floor? Yes, that's certainly possible. Dr. Derek Bumgarner testified that Charles Vallow was already on the ground when he was shot. Remember, this is a self-defense case. And listen to this.

What is a short exit wound? A short exit wound occurs when the body is pressed up against a firm surface while the bullet is exiting the skin. Does that cause sort of this different tearing that we see going on here in that exit wound? It does. If a person was, for instance, laying on the floor when they were shot, would you expect to see a short exit wound in that situation? I would. When you're talking about something pressed up against the skin, have you ever seen a short wound from someone wearing a t-shirt? I have not. Have you seen other short wounds in your experience?

I have, yes. Approximately how many have you seen in your years of working? I mean, they're relatively rare, so maybe less than 50. Lori had suggested through questioning another witness earlier in the trial that Charles Vallow's bamboo t-shirt could have caused the short wound. On cross-examination, Lori had questioned Dr. Bumgarner about other injuries Charles had to bolster her self-defense claim. As far as the abrasions on Charles' knees, could those have been, you said that they were consistent with having been close to the time of death, is that correct?

They had that general appearance, yes. And so those could have, those abrasions could have been caused by a scuffle before he was shot, is that correct? Yes. And not necessarily falling forward onto his knees? Correct. And then the abrasions on his hands as well? What about them? That they could have been caused from a scuffle beforehand? Yes. Okay. The jury also heard from Detective Cassandra Yinklin, who interviewed Lori the day of the shooting. She testified about her interactions with Lori. Detective, did we answer all the questions asked to us by the police that day? By me, yes, I believe so. And we were dropped off at home by the police, is that correct?

Correct. I drove you back to the house. And we were given by the police, is that correct? Correct. I drove you back to the house. And we were given no further instructions, is that correct? Just that we would be in touch with you at the conclusion of the search warrant. Is it also correct that we voluntarily handed over Charles' phone to you when you asked for it? Yes. Did we delay in that or just do it immediately? No, you gave it to me when I asked. Was there any time, Detective, on July 11, 2019, that we did not comply or cooperate fully with the police in their investigation?

In my interaction with you, you were cooperative. Thank you, that's all I have Your Honor. Again, Lori was warned during her questioning of the detective. In the course of your investigation, did you ever learn that Charles had stolen my phone so I had to replace it? I object to testifying and move to strike. Sustained. Your Honor, it's all part of the investigation. Sustained its testimony. The form of the question was testimony. Were you aware that after he gave it back to me that I kept both phones? I'm gonna object. Sustained.

The jury also heard Lori Vallow-Daybell calling Charles Vallow's life insurance company four days after he died to claim that $1 million life insurance policy. And what was the date of Mr. Vallow's passing? July 11th. And what was the cause of his passing? Well, he was shot. Okay. I don't know how I want to put that. Okay. All right. And I hate to ask, but is it, you can just say yes or no.

Is it, was it a homicide? No, it was an accident. An accident, okay. Okay. And what state did he pass away in? Arizona. Okay. Just bear with me for one moment. I just need to pull up a few other things. Okay. Just bear with me for one moment. I just need to pull up a few other things. Okay.

Are you aware of who the primary beneficiary of the policy is? It's me. But it wasn't Lori. Charles had changed the beneficiary to Kay Woodcock months earlier. Lori would later discuss this in a text message with Chad Daybell. And so we learned that Lori received a email indicating she was not the beneficiary. And later she had a phone conversation. Correct. Does this one appear to be sort of the earlier one because it references, I just got the letter from the insurance company saying that I'm not the beneficiary. It's a spear through my heart. Who do you think he changed it to? Brandon or probably Kay? He left nothing for JJ. Correct. Did that conversation go on? Wow, that's terrible. There's no way to find out.

It did. And did Lori then tell Chad, I might be able to see when I get his computer on Sunday, I could check the email sent to the insurance company. It will show change of beneficiary. He must have done it recently. Correct. So we had seen, in fact, photos what appeared to be from a computer that were sent to Chad Daybell, correct? Correct. Showing that beneficiary change. Yes. So does that seem to match with, again, what Lori is telling Chad here about finding out who got that money. It does. The jury also heard about Lori marrying Chad later that year in Hawaii. The jury also heard about a text between Lori and her brother Alex Cox before Charles was shot.

On July 9th at 9 50 PM, At 9.50 p.m., does Lori Vallow send her brother Alex Cox a message? Getting sleepy, so I'm going to need you to stay close to me the next couple days. Mel, too. She can't go to Utah. They are planking some kind of intervention, but want Mel out of the way so I'm left alone. I need to come get the stuff at your house tomorrow and store it or secure it. Lots to do.

Thank you for standing by me. It's all coming to a head this week. I will be like Nephi, I am told, and so will you. When you saw that message, did you ever check Alex Cox's cell phone records to determine whether or not there was a phone call after that? I did. see that Alex Cox and Lori Vallow talked on July 9th at 2156 hours. What time would that be? 956. So six minutes after this, or 56 minutes? Correct. So six minutes after this text message, Lori and her brother have almost an hour-long conversation. Yes. Now, in this message, when you are going through these records,

did you recognize or learn who Nephi was? So in going through this particular message, I knew that Nephi was a figure in the Book of Mormon related to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but I didn't understand the significance. Adam Cox, Laurie's other brother, testified in week one about the significance. Can you tell us about the story of Nephi? Nephi? Well, Nephi was a prophet in the Book of Mormon. It's the first chapter. He was a prophet, very humble and faithful servant of the Lord.

And ironically enough, his brothers tried to kill him at one point. But he actually ended up going to Jerusalem to get these plates back. And he was run off, came back, and then went back again because the Lord asked him to. And when he did, the King Laban, who was actually a wicked king, was laying on the ground drunk in front of him. And Nephi was told to kill Laban. Who was he told by? The spirit or, yeah, God. So God was using a Holy Spirit to tell him to kill Laban? Yes.

And did he? Yes, he did. Was that something he anguished over? Yes. But ultimately, it was a justified killing? Yes. So the jury has now heard that the prosecution believes Lori and Alex believed that killing Charles was justified. But Lori had tried to distance herself from Adam when he testified.

Mr. Cox, how long has it been since we've seen each other in person? Don't know. When was the last time you saw me? I don't recall. So has it been a year, two years, three years, five years, six years, seven years, eight years? Something. Okay so you have no idea? Nope. You have no idea when the last time you saw me in person? I don't know the year or how many years it's been. Okay, so did you see me at Colby's wedding in January 2018? No, I was not there. You didn't come to Colby's wedding? No, I did not. So did you see me sometime that year at my house? Possibly. Where Colby got married? That house. I did see you at

that house. Yes. At least one time? Yes. So possibly in 2018? Yes. Now back to Charles Vallow's phone. You've heard Lori had it that day. The jury also heard testimony about where it was and what was going on with it after Charles was shot. When was that read? 12-13 as well. Is Charles Vallow alive at 12-13? He is not.

So someone else is reading those? Yes. And this is coming from the extraction of Charles Vallow's phone? Correct. Do you know who was in possession of Charles Vallow's phone at 12.13 p.m. on July 11th of 2019? Lori. How do you know that? She told us and she turned the phone back over to us later that afternoon. Did you ever find any other evidence that Lori Vallow and Alex Cox went through Charles Vallow's

phone on July 11th of 2019? Yes. On cross-examination, Lori questioned Detective Nathan Duncan about things that were not done in the case, like testing the baseball bat for DNA. She continued to grill Detective Duncan about the investigation. Now we learned that the bat was swabbed for DNA and sent to the lab. Is that correct? Yes. And was that ever tested? No, it was not. And why not? When making this decision, you have to look at the probative value of that and what that would show or what a test would prove. DNA and fingerprints are not time-specific. That bat was owned by Tylee, to our knowledge. It was in a household where you lived. It was in a household where Alex was. And at one point, based on the fact of when we understood the bat to have been purchased,

Charles was living in the house as well. So that bat was accessible to all those people. So if at one point during that time that person touched that bat, all that it would be saying is that somebody touched that bat at some point, not during this incident. Right. Lori continued to question Duncan about the bat. But would that be able to be told from DNA? There was nothing that was visible that could see, like if blood dries or anything like that.

There was nothing that would indicate that here's a spot we need to test for that particular for blood. Right. But would DNA tell if there was blood? Could they do it, find out if there was blood on the bat from the DNA test? Once again, blood is, you would see if it dries and crusts, then you would see that particular blood. DNA comes in many forms. It can come in touch. It can come in sweat, blood. But you would think that blood would be visible at that point to be able to test.

And we did not see anything like that. Okay. So if there was none of Alex's DNA on the blood, wouldn't that tell us something? I mean, on the bat at all, then wouldn't that tell us something? If there were none of Alex's, it would just mean that Alex never touched that bat at any time. And wouldn't it tell us that Alex was never hit in the head with that bat? Once again, it's not specific. If there was blood on the bat, then yes, that would,

we would test for that. But there's no visible blood on the bat. And then Lori got into a little bit of trouble again. So if Charles' DNA was on the bat, then would Nat tell us something also? That he touched the bat at some point? Yeah, that he took it from Tylee like she said in her interview. And I'm going to check and move to strike that. The jury should disregard that last question. That information is not in evidence. Lori questioned the thoroughness of the investigation. I understand that, but when you're doing an investigation, are you not trying to figure out what happened?

Yes, and that's what we did. Don't you want all the information to do that? Yes. And so whose responsibility would it be to request the DNA testing from the swab that was taken? Once again, that would just show, it's not showing that it's blood. There's no blood on the bat. It was just showing that a DNA swab was taken of that particular area to be able to test later on.

But there's no discoloration that would show any kind of blood. And who in the Chandler Police Department would be requesting that DNA to be tested? Who would have to do that? That would be me. As the new case agent, that would be requesting that DNA to be tested? Who would have to do that? That would be me. As the new case agent, that would be me or Detective Moffitt at the beginning. And so Detective Moffitt never did that. Is that correct? Correct. And you never did that. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And Lori ended her cross-examination like this. You have charged me with a crime. Is that correct? I have not, no. You have helped them charge me with a crime. Is that correct? I have not, no.

You have helped them charge me with a crime. Is that correct? The state of Arizona? I conducted an investigation and I sent it forward, yes. And you did not feel it was necessary to test any of these things as the case agent? You have been asked to answer like four times. Sustained. What logical reason do you have as an investigator to not investigate all of these things that were available to you for the past five years? Your Honor, I'm again going to object to asked and answered. If there's a specific thing that hasn't been asked. That's a really very broad question. I'll sustain the objection. That's all I have, Your Honor. Prosecutor Trina Kaye pointed out that investigators found a lot

of inconsistencies in Lori's and Alex's story. Closing arguments are expected Monday, and then the jury will deliberate. And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.