Hidden True Crime - GUILTY Verdict Reaction with Criminal Psychologist | Lori Vallow Daybell

Episode Date: April 23, 2025

Lori Vallow Daybell has officially been found guilty of conspiracy for the murder of Charles Vallow. Shortly after the verdict, Dr. John and Lauren sat down live, to break down the latest in the case. From Lori's closing arguments to her admission of aggravating factors and even the psychology of all of these crimes. About Hidden True Crime: What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually got this really, really, beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality for the price. Quince

uses premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Hello, everybody. Hello, James, who I have essentially been with all day, except for the moment where I had a jump in an Uber or a Waymo here in Phoenix and come and jump on this live. And hello, hello, co-host. Hello, John. How's your day, Ben?

I'm still catching my breath and drinking water and filling up with liquids. It got really, really hot in Phoenix today. Same here, by the way. Same there. In Las Vegas, yeah. I'm not surprised. What just took place was wild. And I know that a lot of our gems have been with us all day and our Vertig watch live feed,

as well as my two lives. after court. We had two lives because my phone ran out of batteries in the middle of the press conference as Kay Woodcock was speaking, but we talked to three jurors today, John, three out of the 12 that were deliberating in there. And it was interesting that they just learned, just learned right before they walked out about Tiley and JJ and Tammy. They did not know that. And one of the jurors said that they were going and leaving to watch the Netflix doc that you're in with their grandma. Because a lot of family members of the jurors knew Lori Valo DeBell and their jaws dropped, but they did not say anything to the jurors. So I'm still processing that.

I'm processing a guilty verdict and the verdict I just saw. And Lori stipulated and the sentencing and she actually agreed. read to the aggravating factors. Let me set this stage here. We were listening. We were on our verdict watch all day where Troublemaker Baker, our wonderful moderator, was DJing with songs about the trial. And then the verdict came in.

The verdict was actually very fast. We all watched it together. And then I went straight outside and we spoke to jurors and we had a press conference. And then we jumped, like I said, in an Uber and here I am. So if I'm feeling a little scattered and all over the place, people know why. You know why. But I know that our gents have really been wanting to talk to you and hear from you. I know that you're all caught up with the closing arguments, closing statements.

And I know that you've done a couple of patrons too for those that have been wondering where John has been, Dr. John, who is my co-host and a criminal psychologist. He hasn't been with me reporting on the trial because he's been home holding down the fort, parenting full time. but you have been on patreon.com slash hindrachrom or on our apple subscriptions sharing your thoughts about each week of trial. But of course, we want you here with all of us today. And full disclosure, I don't even know what you thought about closing arguments, which happened Monday yesterday. It feels like they were a week ago now.

So much has happened. But let me just conclude the verdict. They all agreed guilty verdict. We learned from some of the jurors that a couple of them were not as sure. I mean, they just needed a little bit more evidence or to go through and to talk it out. Most of the jurors were certain of guilt when they started deliberating or felt confident about it. But there were a couple of holdouts that just sort of needed to process things. I mean, they all needed to process.

They also shared that all of them just just barely before walking out of the courthouse learned about J.J. Tiley and Tammy. And one of them was shaking. She was shaking. She said, I'm like processing so much. And she wanted to talk to Kay. And they also said that one of them said that Kay's testimony was the biggest thing for her during the whole trial was listening to Kay Woodcock. And she wanted to just give Kay a hug. And what else did we learn?

Only one of the jurors had an LDS background. That was one of them I spoke to. She was raised LDS. So she knew that the Nephi story that Lori was arguing was just ridiculous that she knew exactly what story Lori was referring to. And a lot of the jurors had questions for her. And to in the verdict, it was guilty. And then we were going to hear aggravating factors.

And Lori said, do we really need to do this? And to the jurors were then, after the guilty verdict happened, they left the courtroom. And then the judge asked Lori, like, do you agree that to these financial, to the deadly weapon, to all of these aggravating factors? And she said, yeah, I agree. I think she just didn't want to face K again because she hadn't agreed and they were going to go over all of these. I think the family could actually testify today. So she pretty much got rid of that today. And I believe what's going to happen now,

she'll be sentenced after the next trial. Anyway, I think I've caught you up. But let's talk. Well, can we watch it right now? I have it. Let's watch this really quickly. So you can see what happened in the verdict. Really quickly.

Here we go. In the event that the verdict is not guilty, this trial will conclude. in the event that there is a guilty verdict, we need to move on to an aggravation phase immediately after the reading of that verdict. I've given the parties proposed aggravating circumstances, instructions, and proposed verdict form.

The state and the defense both have a chance to review those. Yes, Your Honor. Are there any additions or corrections from the state? No, Your Honor. How about from the defense? The defense did email my. staff requesting an additional paragraph the defendant is not required to testify or produce evidence of any kind the defendant's decision not to testify or

produce evidence is not evidence of any aggravating factor which I did include in the bottom third of page three given that are there any additions or corrections no your honor are either the state or the defense requesting any other additional instructions yeah yeah If there's an aggravation phase, does the state plan on introducing any testimony or exhibits? Testimony, I believe, likely from two family members, we will limit it.

I don't plan on doing openings, just presenting testimony and an argument. All right. Would the defense anticipate presenting any evidence? Yeah, can we just stipulate to that? I mean, the statute says there's only, there's only one punishment for this crime. There's there, what is this, why is there an aggravation phase for this specific count?

Much like the guilty verdict. The jury in Arizona has to find whether or not there's any aggravating circumstances. In addition, the jury would still need to find that if it's a guilty verdict, whether or not it's a dangerous offense. Until it's found as a dangerous offense, that sentence that you're talking about wouldn't be triggered. So I think we need to have an aggravation phase regardless. So would you plan on presenting any testimony or evidence in the aggravation phase if there is an aggravation phase? No, but can I just stipulate to it or not. That's my question.

You can stipulate to aggravation and you can stipulate to whether or not it's a dangerous offense, but I think you should probably wait until we read the verdict to do that. So I guess it will, depending on what the verdict is, we may take another. break. Are you, are you, are your, if there is an aggravation phase, are your witnesses here yet? No, they are not here yet, Your Honor. The next to kin are,

from my understanding about five minutes out. Present. I'll ask the defendant you indicated earlier perhaps a willingness to stipulate, to aggravating factors. Is that something you want to do or do we want to go through this aggravation phase? I'm willing to stipulate to it, Your Honor. All there it is is the dangerous phase. Is that correct? There's only one statute that there's only one sentence.

Well, the jury would need to find, first of all, whether or not this is a dangerous offense first. Secondly, whether the offense caused physical, emotional, or financial harm to the victim, or if the victim died as a result of the conduct of the dependent caused emotional or financial harm to the victim's immediate family. And then thirdly, the offense involved

the presence of an accomplice. If you're willing to stipulate to all three of those, we can do that. If not, we'll bring the jury back in. I will stipulate to it, Your Honor. All right. You understand that if you stipulate to this instead of a jury finding, well, let me back up.

You understand the jury would have to find these aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt? Yes. All right, and do you understand that if you stipulate to these factors instead of a jury doing it, I could also find additional aggravating factors at sentencing? Sure. Has anyone forced or threatened you in any way to get you to stipulate to these factors?

No. Has anyone promised you anything to get you to stipulate to these factors? No. Have you any drugs, alcohol, or medication the last 24 hours? No. Do you agree that the pursuant to the jury's verdict of guilt that this would be a dangerous offense because a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument was used? I'm stipulating to it.

You agree that that's what the what that this is a dangerous offense? Correct. And you're further stipulating that as a result of your conduct, at least the victim or the victim's family suffered emotional or financial harm. Absolutely. And you're also further agreeing that the offense involved the presence of an accomplice. Yes. Is the state satisfied with the college?

satisfied with the colloquy? Yes, Rodney. It appears it's knowing, voluntary. All right. The court does find that the stipulation to those three factors was knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily made, I will accept the defendant's stipulation.

All right. Well, there you go. I think you're caught up. So she avoided really having to hear testimony from family or, you know, avoiding that for now, which I thought was interesting. And I agreed. I mean, is that sort of like

admitting guilt? I don't know. Stipulation is an agreement, basically an agreement with the DA or the prosecution to either serve time or in this case to certain sentencing requirements. Yeah. So it's just, you know, it's a way to save time, I guess. But I mean, yeah, I don't think she, I think she just wanted it over at that point, obviously. Right. I agree. She was done. What was the point?

Life in prison. You know? So now that we have a guilty verdict, I want to process closing statements with you. That's okay. And I know you watched them yesterday. and just, yeah, I don't even know where to start. I want to know what you thought about, you know, prosecutor Trina Kay's closing statements,

Lori's what Lori decided to do and rest and not call witnesses and what your thoughts were. I thought Trina Kay really nailed it. I thought her closing argument was very strong. I think that's probably one of the. reasons that she closed this deal because I thought she was focused. She was she was redundant at times, but in the right places. And then her rebuttal, after Lori's closing arguments, her rebuttal was so on point.

Yes. So she leaves the stage with a remarkable rebuttal that leaves no question of my mind at that point of guilt. So I think she did a great job. I think that it sealed the deal. It sealed Lori's fate. Lori, on the other hand, you know, her closing arguments were sort of a case study in criminality, in the criminal mind.

You know, I've said this repeatedly throughout this trial, but, you know, kind of in the same way that we talked about Robert Tellis, during Robert Tellis's trial in Las Vegas, when he testified, he just kept showing us over and over again how and why he would commit murder, right? And I think you have a version of that here. You know, number one, just the deceitfulness, right? Like, trying to sell this as a, like, she's trying to sell this as a family tragedy as an accident, essentially, a family tragedy, which, you know, the obvious question is, this is We know this because she told Colby this when she talked to Colby from jail and she said it,

she said it repeatedly, right? But to what degree does she believe that? You know, I've always felt, I've always felt like she believed it to some degree. But after watching this, I don't know. I don't know what she believes. Like, it's confusing, you know, but. Interesting to hear you say that. I think she's convinced herself.

You know, there's something called the sleeper effect, which is that, you know, if you tell yourself a lie long enough, eventually start believing it, and maybe that's what's going on here. But she knows. She obviously knows that at some level, she knows that they were murdered. She knows that Charles was ambushed, right?

She knows that that was not an accident. Absolutely. And so there's so many elements, you know, watching Lori's closing arguments that essentially it felt like it felt like it was a bit, you know, the judge kept admonishing her for bringing into evidence, almost like she was testifying. Right? She kept adding evidence and then Trina Kay would object. and then the judge would sustain it. He'd say, you know, you can't bring in new evidence. And that happened throughout her closing arguments.

And what's interesting about that is this notion that we've talked to, this happened throughout the whole trial where she kept trying to bring in new evidence or she would, if an objection was made and it was sustained, she would question or make other comments, right? Like there's this constant pushing of violence. boundaries. And, you know, in a courtroom with the judge, when you're kind of pushing the rules and the limits, there's, that almost has a kind of antisocial flavor. Yes. And, you know, and so, again, like, if you're looking for elements of, like, the criminal mind or criminal psychology, this, it's not like blatant. It's not like hitting you over the head with it. But, I mean, like, the subtle.

these subtle bids all the time to push the limits. You kind of take control of the judicial, the process and the court, the court process, right? Like, it has this very anti-social undertone, I think. And so that's a clear example of something that many, many criminals have.

They kind of have this antisocial, you know, rule-breaking quality, this disregard for norm. and rules and just kind of normal processes. And we saw this throughout the entire trial with Lori, but you really see it here because she's constantly trying to introduce new evidence. She knows she can't do it. She doesn't care.

So she just keeps doing it. Right. And the judge shuts her down. I think the judge was very patient. I think there's a lot of judges that probably would, not have been as patient with that kind of thing. But, you know, obviously at that point, the judge isn't going to declare a mistrial. But, but again, like, you, you know, if I'm thinking about this in terms of the psychological elements, I think this is a big one. And it's, it's an element

that we've seen throughout the trial. And so again, you see it here. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. Ora actively removes your data from broker's sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus,

password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove. And when you say antisocial, I think most know what that means. means, but we're not referring to people that don't want to go to parties. You're referring to

a trait and a founded psychopath. Yeah. So there's, well, yeah, that's, that would be a little more of a complex discussion. But so there, there's something called antisocial personality disorder. And I think I'm, I'm kind of riffing off of that. I'm not diagnosing her with that, but there's certain elements of antisocial personality disorder that you can see in this type of behavior, which is this idea of pushing the limits or breaking rules or, right, that the normal process is you don't introduce new evidence in closing arguments, and she doesn't care. She doesn't. So you have an authority figure, which is obviously the judge, and she's pushing up against

authority. So that's part of antisocial behavior, too, is that this kind of rebellion or this opposition to authority figures can often be. part of this kind of antisocial quality. So, and again, I'm not, I'm not saying she's antisocial personality disorder. I don't know. I've never met with her. I've certainly observed her a lot over the last five years.

But, but I think this, this is a constant motif, you know, this notion that she's challenging authority all the time. She's not really accepting the judge's limit. She does in the end, because she has. has no choice. She doesn't want to be held in contempt, but she keeps testing. She keeps pushing. She does. Yeah, I have to say, thank you for sharing that. A lot of people saying really interesting things. I have to say that the big thing that got me with her, which I talked a little bit about our subscriber on our subscriber episode was this sort of this nephi and laban argument that

she presented to the court where we all know what nephi she was referring to in the text she knows everyone that's been following this case knows and for her to say to the jury or or present nobody knows you know which nephi like just to so blatantly lie. And when she's so righteous. And I get that's a defense attorney's job. So she's actually doing a really good job being her own defense attorney in this moment. But to hear her just sort of like confuse the jury and the gallery and say, oh, you don't know that I meant that Nephi is just so manipulative and twisty for someone that declares to be so spiritual and religious and honest and Christ-like.

that's antisocial to me. Yeah, you know, I'm going to, I'll actually go through a few moments in closing that I think are to stand out. I'm here for it. I want to sit back and finally listen to someone. Go for it. I want to hear it. And by the way, I'm going to let me point out some moments from Trina Kay as well that I think she had some brilliant moments. and I want to talk about some of those two, which, by the way, on the leaf, on the, the, the Nephi stuff, Trina Kate came back with, of course, you know, she comes back with, well, she thought she was exalted, she thought she was a translated being, right? And she comes back with, quote, of course she thought she was Nephi.

Because she did, right? I mean, we'll get into that more later. This whole idea of being translated is, It's, you know, for those who have listened to our initial podcast years ago, I've lost track of time here, but they would know that I've had discussions about what that means, you know, that this idea that she's a goddess and this idea that she's immortal. You know, we know that Lori has flirted with, she loves Twilight. You know, I talked about that with Colby. Before any of this occurred, she was just obsessed with Twilight and like this idea of immortal love. And so, yeah, I mean, the prosecutor's right. I think she does think she's Nephi. So to try to run away from it here is she kept,

Lori kept using the words ridiculous and absurd. Yeah, it's absurd because she does believe that. She does, she has told us repeatedly that she's met with Jesus personally. She's met with him in jail a number of times. Like, this is someone who clearly thinks that there's some spiritual, figure of importance. So I think when Trina Kay came back with, she thought she was Nephi, I agree. You know, there's another, there's, so from my perspective, there's, there's, there were a lot of interesting moments during her closing arguments that might not be obvious. So let's just,

let's talk about them a little bit and how they impact kind of my view of Lori and kind of the psychological components of this case. One of the things she said is the state wants you to dislike me. The state, so she says, the state has no evidence. Quote, the state wants you to dislike me in order to convict. Let's think about that for a second. Like, what does that mean, right? Like, I think it indicates a lot of hubris.

right it indicates a grandiosity like she's so important that the state is going to paint this picture of her is this is this evil person so that the convict her based on her character which the state is getting wrong and not the evidence right like she's she's so self-absorbed that she's she has the audacity to say that the state is they're trying to portray me in this negative light because That's the only way they can convict me. Right. That's just to make me make you guys not like me.

Right. And so just that that's type of self-absorption, that type of egotism, that's another element of criminality. Right? You know, some would call that narcissism. I would call it maybe narcissistic features. Again, I don't, I'm going to avoid using the term narcissism because then people will go towards like a diagnosis.

But I think it's sufficient to say that just the egotism in that statement, like putting the focus on dislike of her and not the evidence and using that in her closing arguments. Right. And Judge Boyce in Idaho at her sentencing did state from her psychologically evaluation personality disorders with narcissism. So you are stating what's already she's already been diagnosed with. I don't think narcissism. I don't think he said narcissism. I think you said there were multiple generic personality disorders. It was never specified what they were.

No, it was never specified, but narcissism. Narcissistic teachers, maybe. Yes, yes. That's what was stated. Not that she was narcissistic personality disorder. The psychologist or psychiatrist, I don't know who he was. Stated personality disorders, but yeah, didn't say which ones, narcissistic features. Like, duh, we could have, we could have done that. We could have done that one

from our homes. All of, all of these, all these armchair psychologists here, me included, could have been told you that one. But, you know, Judge Boy said it so we can own it now. We're like, we knew that years ago, but thank you. So, but just this idea that this is about disliking her and she's, you know, the evidence doesn't count. she's so important that, you know, the state's going to come after her personally. You know, it's, it's, I can't believe she said that, but she did. And, and that would be, you know, a typical feature of criminal, like a criminal mind is just this egotism, this hubris. Huberous, you know, I think you, you see humorous in almost every major crime, I think, to some degree.

or at least this egotism that blinds people to, you know, negates their self-awareness. It really blinds them to what they're doing. Another thing she said is, quote, why does the state want to blame someone for this tragic event? Right. Right? So she's portraying herself.

Yeah. She's the victim. And again, this plays into a similar theme about, you know, her grandiosity, like she's being unfairly treated. She's being victimized. She's been blame. The state's coming after her. There's a little bit of paranoia in there, right?

She's been unfairly persecuted by the state. She's trying to get sympathy. So it's a bit of a manipulation. Again, all those would be elements of criminal mind or criminal psychology, someone who sees themselves as a victim, knowing clear, well, that they're not, that they participated in her murder. I mean, how many convictions do we need before she finally admits some responsibility, right? But she's not because criminals notoriously often are victims.

And, you know, there's the cliche about there's not a single guilty person in prison, right? Like everybody in prison is innocent. Just to ask them. She kind of implied that and implied that. that Arizona family interview with Brianna, that reporter Brianna, where she did say that I'm doing this because there are so many women that I'm helping that are innocent on death row. You know, we're victims. We're all victims. And you're right. She is always, always the victim. Always.

Right. And so that means that, you know, again, it gets back to this egotism. She's totally self-absor. She lacks self-awareness. Yeah, right. She sees herself in this, right, you're getting back to what you said. We talked about that a little bit. She sees herself as an advocate for prisoners, apparently, death row inmates.

It makes no sense. But, yeah, I guess in her mind's eye, that's what she's doing. Even though obviously she never talked about them during the trial because it wasn't relevant. But hey, you know, she's an advocate for prisoner rights, apparently. Yeah. Yeah.

So in this, this idea that the state is unfairly persecuting her, you know, you know, they're looking for someone to scapegoat and blame. I think there's a lot in that statement, as I just said, you know, that would be kind of indicative of the criminal mind. Here's another one from her closing arguments. She says, quote, I know this is one you mentioned earlier, by the way. She says, quote, I'm trying to do the best thing for our son. We were trying to do the best thing for our son, JJ.

I mean, you know, where do you start with that, right? Like, I mean, obviously the jury doesn't know that JJ was murdered. Right. But just the hypocrisy of that type of statement. And again, getting back to how does that tie into kind of the criminal mind, there's a total lack of empathy and a total lack of remorse. You know, there's research by a guy named James Blair about how psychopaths in particular, and I'm not talking, again, I'm not diagnosing Lori here,

but I'm talking about the research of James Blair, where psychopaths in particular have very shallow affect that they don't really, they don't, they don't really feel. They don't feel, they don't have empathy, they don't have remorse. Nonchalant. Right, exactly, nonchalant. That word kept coming up and now let's interpret it here. So if you look at the research of James Blair,

and Blair's research, by the way, has been duplicated a number of times. There's this consistent finding that psychopaths, and again, I'm not diagnosing. We know you're not. We'll have a tinct shirt soon. I know, right. I'm not diagnosing. Okay, go ahead.

We know you're not. Psychopaths have this very shallow affect. In fact, they have a very difficult time reading nonverbal cues. They have a difficult time reading emotion in general. They have a difficult time experiencing and understanding emotion. And so this kind of statement, like I'm doing. We were just doing the best for our son, JJ, who was murdered, is, it's mind-boggling, right? Because it shows an utter lack of insight, self-awareness, empathy, remorse.

Like, you know, a normal person, if they were defending themselves in this situation, they wouldn't make a statement like that because they would know how crazy that is. Right. And anyone who had a shred of emotion or self-awareness would not say that. knowing there's there they would say it if they wanted to try to win over a jury at all cost they would say it if they were super deceitful and if they were manipulative right those are also elements of psychopaths this incredible level of lying and deceitfulness and manipulation and so again like there's sort of at least in that moment there's this win at all costs attitude and and she doesn't care She doesn't. Who she's harming. She doesn't care if it's callous, right?

It's another element of psychopaths. The callousness is one of the defining features. In fact, if you look at some of the research on children that later become psychopaths, one of the critical elements in younger kids is this lack of emotion or callousness that, you know, that they're showing at a very fairly early age. And so you see it here. These comments about her kids, and in particular,

this one about JJ in closing about how she's this great mother just trying to do her best for Jay. I mean, okay. And not in the real world. You have been convicted of murdering him. Right. You've been convicted of murdering him. That was an appalling moment, too,

talking to these jurors who don't know her convictions. We were just trying to do the best for our special needs son. You've been convicted of murdering him. He's not alive anymore. He is dead. And so that statement was jaw-dropping to me. And again, like, it's easy to kind of lose track of some of these statements because they're like one sentence and they're not particularly obvious.

but I mean this is what I do day in and day out is I've listened for these kinds of things. So that was a moment in closing that was amazing, jaw-dropping that would also show kind of the criminal mind. Here's another one. She said she got admonished by the judge for this. There was an objection, but she started to say,

how do you choose between three people you love? Question mark. Like, like, somehow this is like Sophie's choice, right? Like, I mean, she created the situation. She took Charles's cell phone. She was the one who provoked this. There's no choosing when you create the scenario that leads to someone's murder and you know that person's going to be murdered.

This isn't about choice. No. Are you choosing which one to murder first? How do you choose between three? Are you deciding which one we murder first? Because in the end, they were all murdered. So, yeah. Right, exactly.

I mean, but, but like just to try to get sympathy from the jury for that, like also keep in mind, like, she's implying in that that Charles is someone that she still loves. Right? She's having an affair with Chad Daybell at that point. She's already planned Charles's murder. She's planned this ambush, which now she's a convicted, you know, murderer for that. Like, how do you choose between three people you love?

You don't. Because you don't because you already, she already made that decision. Like it's, again, all the things I just talked about, the deceitfulness, the manipulation, the lack of self-awareness, the, right, the shallow affect. Like, think about how callous that statement is. Think about how, right, think about how misleading and untruthful and, like, it lacks any type of empathy or remorse.

Yeah. And, I mean, I, you know, the, the prosecutor objected, rightly so. But, I mean, like, just the fact that Lori's, like, trying to sneak that in, like, oh my gosh, I have to make this terrible choice, you know. There was no choice. There was no choice. It was already determined who was going to be murdered in that moment. I mean, you stole one person's cell phone.

Right. I wouldn't give it back. Yeah. You knew. You thought this was your run club era. Turns out it was more of a thinking about run club era. The good news? Someone's marathon training is about to start.

Sell your workout gear on Deepop. Just snap a few photos and we'll take care of the rest. They get their race day fit and you get a payout for trying. Someone on Deepop wants what you've got. Start selling now. Deepop where Taste recognizes taste. Some other things to talk about. Also, just how manipulative that is, you know, trying to pull on the jury's heartstrings a little bit over how she's in this impossible predicament, right?

She's in this impossible predicament where somebody's going to get killed. Like, she's also implying that it could have been Alex or could have been timely. Yeah, she is. It was never, it was never, there was never any uncertainty over who was going to get killed. And so just the level of manipulation in that statement is just, it's incredible. I agree with that. A couple of other little moments. She says she wasn't angry about the life insurance.

Yeah, she was. She was very angry about the life insurance. If you listen to the phone call where Lori learned she doesn't have life insurance, yeah, she's angry. Like, she, I mean, and again, she's, so she's trying to tell us, I wasn't angry. I was fine, right? She's like, she's telling the insurance agent, you know, well, I was with him for 15 years. I think I deserve this money, don't you?

Right, I've got five kids. I've got five kids. Never mind, three of them aren't with us, but, you know, I mean, she was, she wasn't like a powder keg, but she was angry. She was definitely angry. I wouldn't want to be in the same room with her telling her that. Very angry. And, yeah, very angry.

So again, like this, this, you know, usually, if I'm talking about, like, the lack of affect with psychopaths, usually angers is an emotion that they're pretty familiar with. But even Lori. So this is interesting because in this moment, doesn't seem to really have any read on her or ability to discern her own anger. No. She doesn't think she's angry. She says that.

She said that in the interview with Arizona family. She said, I'm not an angry person. Right. She doesn't see herself as angry. Right. She doesn't see herself as angry. And yet she admonishes the judge. She pushes back all the time.

Like, okay. So again, that speaks to this idea. of potentially this idea that certain groups of psychopaths really struggle with affect. And I don't know if that applies to Lori, but certainly most psychopaths, most criminals may not feel anything other than anger, but they know anger pretty well. Like they, you know, and I've worked with, I've done groups with hundreds of felons. And anger is definitely one emotion. They're pretty well versed.

but apparently Lori's not. So that's interesting. This is also interesting to me too about psychopaths. We're just talking about psychopaths in general, although I have my speculations with Lori. I'll own that. But I remember you teaching me that while psychopaths don't feel a lot of emotion, they don't feel empathy.

And one thing you said is they don't feel fear, but they do feel anger. And that's always stuck with me because Lori was not fearful that day that Charles was shot. That is very clear to me. She was very confident. And there's another moment where Melanie Gibbs states

that when both Chad and Lori separately called her to tell her to lie about JJ's whereabouts after the welfare check in 2019, November 2019, Chad seemed nervous and Lori did not. She just said, just lie. Say you're up frozen with JJ. And one thing, so we've seen anger. We've certainly seen anger in Lori.

You're right. But one thing that I don't know if I've ever seen in Lori is fear. I don't know if I've ever seen fear in Lori. And I remember you teaching me that once. Could you expand on that? Is that true that sociopaths or those with antisocial personality sort of, do not feel fear? There's a lot of research showing that psychopaths,

they don't experience social anxiety. So in other words, they, you know, for people that struggle to be in social situations, they have no problem with that. They don't experience any fear or anxiety around in particular social situations. But yeah, a lot of psychopaths, The belief is, based on the research, that the amygdala of psychopaths in particular, is either malfunctioning or reduced in size, whatever it is, that the amygdala somehow suppresses the fear response.

So, yes, psychopaths tend not to experience as much fear and or anxiety. Marine is asking, don't psychopaths feel fear when they are threatened? They feel fear for themselves? That's a question from Marine. No. No, they're pretty fearless. I think they, well, it depends. It depends.

There's no one type, there's no one psychopath. There's, there's many variations on psychopaths. So there's different types of psychopaths. Some have certain characteristics. Others don't. It depends. So it's not, I'm talking about in broad strokes that this lack of fear tends, it seems to be a fairly common characteristic.

Yeah. Well, I was actually purposely muting while I asked our producer to pin or star certain questions so I can go to them later and you're done. So thank you for your questions, everyone. So, but that doesn't mean that someone that doesn't have a lot of fear as a psychopath either. Well, there's probably a lot of people going like, I don't have a lot of fear. What does that make me? It's not, it's just, if one is antisocial, they likely don't have a lot of fear.

Not if you don't have a lot of fear, you're not a psycho. So in one of our podcasts, we actually talked about this. And I talked about the idea, for those who know Alex Honnold, he's a rock climber who climbed, I forget, he climbed a ridiculously difficult route in Yosemite without a road. And it's there's a movie about it called Free Solo, but that there, he free climbs without ropes, yeah. Right. And so he, he actually, he was, there were some researchers in, I forget North Carolina, I think, who requested that he undergo fMRI to kind of look at his brain and see if there were,

any issues there. And they found some reductions in his amygdala. They found some similar things that you might find in like a psychopath, except, you know, Alex Honnold's a really nice guy. He's not a psychopath. He has a lot of compassion. Olivia is saying that her husband thinks he's a psychopath. Okay. I don't know.

Maybe. I hope he's not because he lives in our backyard. and if I call him a psychopath, I don't want him to somehow vilify me or dehumanize me for saying that. I don't know Alex Honnold. He seems like a fairly nice guy.

He seems like, I don't know. He seems like a pretty normal guy to me. He's not giving you psychopath vibes, in other words. Yeah, but here's the point. Here's the point is that through years of climbing and years of training where he's, thousands of feet off the, you know, the canyon floor on these insanely difficult routes that no normal human being would attempt. And where his life is at stake over and over and again,

Hanald has been able to suppress the fear response in these situations. So in other words, you can train your brain and you can train yourself to suppress fear to some degree. It's very difficult, but if you're Alex Honnold, you can do it. So for Alex Honnold, it requires years and years of experience and training. For a psychopath, you know,

it's pretty easy. They don't have to train to do it. It seems like it has kind of a genetic basis. Please don't come after me, Alex Honnold. You're not a psychopath. Or is he?

I'm a fan. I'm a fan. Let's say that. I can't imagine doing what he does. And I'm a skeptic. I'm going to be like, yeah, prove it. You're a skeptic. Yeah, you think he's a psychopath. No, I'm just saying that, you know. It is interesting that someone thinks that, though.

I don't know. He does seem to have pretty flat affect, but, you know, that could be a lot of things. That's not necessarily, doesn't necessarily make him a psychopath. So I guess I'll be proven wrong if he goes on some killing rampage on the strip. please don't yeah no I think I think he'll be good um I'm teasing but right that's a great example what else we went on a tangent I'm sorry um just some other little interesting issues that came up she she went off on this tangent about how well I guess it wasn't a

tangent but how no evidence was ever tested the bat the cars the gun the shirt the you know the bamboo shirt. If I have to hear about that bamboo shirt one more time, I'm going to lose my mind. Like she loves that bamboo shirt. That bamboo shirt came up. I don't know how many times, but that bamboo shirt was something else. So, but the bad, guess what?

The bamboo shirt was never tested. So I kept thinking like, this is like when she was talking about that, this is like a slight. hand, right? Like, the reason they didn't test that stuff is because they know precisely who did it. Like, this is not, this isn't a who done it. This isn't like clue. This isn't like some murder mystery where they're trying to figure out who the culprit is. Like, dude, they didn't test it because they knew that Alex killed Charles. There was never any doubt about it. Like, what do you? He was like, I did it. He's like, I did it. Lori's like, he did it. Lorry's like, he did it. He did

it. Or it's like, well, we should have tested the bat because we would have weren't like, what were you going to learn from that? I mean, that you cleaned up the scene? Right. The police are like, you know, Alex admits to committing the crime. Like, how he did it was in dispute, but not like who did it. And so, like, Lori's like, she's going off during closing arguments about how none of this

stuff was tested and like yeah because we know what happened like i mean yeah i guess i guess you could have gotten more details to put together a more detailed picture but still like i'm i'm thinking like oh my god this is why you should never represent yourself because you'll end up making ridiculous statements that are completely like based on your ego and like you won't see the forest from the trees like don't represent yourself right just don't just don't please don't please if you commit well first of all don't commit murder that would be my first recommendation i think they should put in the dsm on like the diagnosis scale like all the factors wants to represent themselves but under anti-social personality disorder like it you know you know

lacks empathy lacks you know your average emotions you know nonchalant wants to represent themselves if arrested. I think they should just throw that in to the DSM. Because it just seems like, you know, okay, pattern. Yeah. Yeah. So when she was going off on that, like she made a big deal of it. Like, see, you know, this is going to win.

This is going to win the day, right? Like, okay. Someone suggested I get you a bamboo shirt for Christmas. What they don't realize is I did get you. bamboo pajamas for Christmas and you quite liked them. As someone who doesn't really own pajamas, you're like, this is just like not your thing. You're like, you didn't take those plaid red pajamas off for weeks. You liked them.

But I didn't know they were bamboo until now. And by the way, like, I'm going to have to, I'm going to have to disagree with Lori and say that they were like super soft. They were like really comfy. She portrayed them as like, they were made out of like iron. I pictured like, I picture, when she talked about these bamboo shoes, I pictured like this was like an iron man suit. Like, it's the sturdiest material ever woven together if it can be woven together for any type of clothing. Like, I could, I don't know. So now I'm really confused because of the bamboo.

Well, you didn't know that not only are they soft, they're bulletproof. So, you know that. Well, I'd prefer not to test that. but yes um according to her they're bulletproof yeah so they're so expensive that was you didn't know i mean i got them for you for christmas put on your credit card but that's why they were pricey yeah marriage you know what are gifts when you're married it's it's just like me spending money but i they were matching we had matching pajamas they were in fact i in fact i in fact i i I was wearing the bamboo shirt last night,

and I didn't even know it. Here, here I'm knocking the bamboo. And I was wearing a bamboo shirt last night. I can't, wow. Okay. Yeah.

Well, maybe I'm so, maybe I shouldn't knock her on the bamboo so much. I would also just like to point out that you also said to me, never order me clothes, never, I am learning and you know what, I know when to buy you clothes because it was bamboo. And I was like, I got this one.

I was watching it. I was watching it with our, I was watching a movie with our son. We were watching Ratatouille and with the bamboo shirt. So I was quite comfortable. Let's let's talk about a few other way. Thank you for watching Ratatouille with our son while I'm at a murder trial. I just, I love you. Thank you.

We, thank you for being a team player. I haven't seen, I haven't seen Ratatoui. So it was, you know, we haven't finished it, but I'm enjoying it. So I didn't know it was about a rat who could cook. So, but anyway, Charles, so she says, quote, there's another little element of her closing. Okay. Somebody, by the way, asks if we're married. Yes, we're married.

That'd be really weird if we weren't. That would be a strange co-host relationship. So yes, everyone, we are married. Well, we have, you know, we don't do a lot of, we don't do our shows together. So I think sometimes it's confusing. Right. And we're, yeah, we go split screen too. Like, what's that about?

People don't like it. Well, you're in Arizona, but, and I'm not. So that's, that's an issue. She said, there's another thing she said, Charles could have put the bat down. I'm like, if the jurors were paying attention, I mean, I would have thought, well, actually, no, he couldn't have put it down because he never had the bat. Right. So, like, he had the bat when the crime scene was staged, but he didn't have the bat to put down because there was no confrontation. Right.

So, I mean, like. Or if he put it down, Alex would take it, you know, or somebody, you know. Yeah. These types of statements that are just. so misleading and so manipulative and so deceitful. You know, I mean, the whole time that she was doing her closing arguments, I just kept thinking, like, how crazy it was. Like, it's hard to watch that and think, like, what is this?

Like, this is a convicted murderer doing this. Like, lying. I mean, of course, we know she lies, but, like, Just the audacity of some of those lies. Like, she knows that Charles didn't have the bat. Yeah, she knew. Well, I liked how she demonstrated it in the, I don't know if you saw that, but during court,

you know, in the interview with police, they're like, how did he, how was he holding the bat? She's like, you know, like this. He was just like he's a baseball player and he's, he's like using it like a fly swatter. You know, like it was, it was, you know, anyway. Which, by the way, that that's evidence that, in fact, Charles never held that bat because, yeah, Charles would not, Charles would not hold the bat like a fly swatter. Right, fly swatter or someone said a magic wand.

Abruk! Yeah, yeah. Right, and he wouldn't miss. And Alex wouldn't be rubbing a little cut on the back of his head. He'd be in the ambulance. another thing that was just another interesting issue, which we've talked about this before, but she came back to this idea about how compliant she is. You know, she made a big point of saying, you know, they wanted me to do interviews.

They wanted me to do all this stuff. And I did it without any questions. I didn't know I was being video recorded. Like I still did all this stuff. the assumption being that somehow if she's compliant and cooperative, that she's apparently innocent and that she has nothing to hide. Because, of course, a psychopath couldn't go into an interview and lie. That's unthinkable, right?

Like, she's equating this idea of cooperation with truthfulness, with innocence, too. I guess if you go from truthfulness, then you have to go to innocence. And she, you know, she's, I thought that was interesting because if the jury was really paying attention, they would see how manipulative she was, right? They would see through so much of this. And they would understand that whether she's cooperative or not is irrelevant to the larger argument that the prosecution is making. And it's irrelevant to the evidence, right?

But somehow she wants you to believe that because she cooperated that she must have been innocent. And so I thought that was interesting. I think that it really contradicts this whole idea of how deceitful and how manipulative she is. And if jurors were paying attention very closely, they would see that throughout. She contradicted herself a number of times. Right. They would understand that, I think, at some level. Even being unable to explain, like calling it a family tragedy,

calling it an accident when your husband at the time, Charles, was on the ground. He already had a bullet through his chest and he's on the ground and then he's shot again. Right. Like there's no way around that. And, you know, Trina Kay brought that up in her rebuttal. Like, that's an execution. Yes. That is not an accident.

That's all you need to know, in my opinion. Right. Right. There's, right. I mean, there's so many pieces of evidence here that if you put them all together, there's, there's just no way around the conclusion that this is, that she's guilty. Correct. So much. And so I'll shift gears a little bit here then and talk about this is this, this is my favorite moment of the entire trial, by the way. Oh. Okay. because I thought it was like, for me at least, maybe it's because of my profession. But when Trina Kay said that Lori cried,

do you remember this moment? Yeah. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Lori, she said, Lori cried during opening statements, but not after her husband was murdered. So then she pointed to the examples of like all the interview she did and the body cam, right? Like, she, which,

that was a brilliant moment. That was. Because it showed how duplicitous she is. It showed how she can manufacture emotions for the jury, right? Like, there's so much in that statement.

For me, and also, like, seen her cry, I mean, you and I have been, we've been following this trial forever. This, the daybell case since, you know, 20-20. So you and I, I think, are well-versed in this. But, like, this jury, a lot of people are.

And, like, her crying during opening statements felt so manipulative to me. Yeah. And for Trina K to use that, right, to use that contradiction to say, look at her opening statement. She was bawling. She was, she was,

feigning, pretending, she was feigning remorse. But why didn't she show any of that on the day he was murdered? Right. You didn't see a single tear shed on the day that Charles was murdered. Right. That was brilliant because it really showed who Lori was and is, right, that this is someone who could put, you know, this is someone who could

manufacture tears instantly. This is someone who can be as emotional as she needs to be. Except when her husband's murdered. Yeah. And the reason she couldn't, by the way, I think the implications are obvious, the reason she couldn't is because she knew. She knew it was an ambush. She knew he was going to be murdered.

It wasn't a surprise. I think maybe if it was a surprise. surprise. She would have been emotional. Maybe. I don't know. But I thought that was, and again, I don't know if the jurors were paying attention to that, but that caught my attention. Like, that was brilliant. Yeah, I agree with that. It was brilliant. She cried during closing, during opening statements, and she didn't probably when her husband was murdered. She was nonchalant. Is Territoff? A minor. Don't miss the return of Marvel television's daredevil born again. So what's next?

I'll be liberated. We're going to take this city back. In an all-new season, now streaming only on Disney Plus. They're hunting us. It's time we started hunting them. I can work with that. This should be tons of fun. Marvel Television's Daredevil and Born Again, now streaming only on Disney Plus.

Right. And then, you know, there were some other little moments, like, Lori said that the murder was shocking. She used the term shocking. But then, of course, again, getting back to the lack of emotion, she was nonchalant. She was unemotional. It didn't appear to be shocking because, as Trini Kaye pointed out, she went to Burger King. She went to Walgreens.

She got some flip-flops, right? She got some chicken fries. So it didn't seem to be that shocking to her. She took her sweet time. She was in the house. So in the interview she did on the afternoon or the. you know, late after, early afternoon on the day of the murder, she told the detective that she heard the shot.

She was in the room when the shots were fired, but she didn't see it. First of all, I'm sure that's false. But let's just go along with that. Like, she's in the room when the murder occurs, and it never occurs to her to call 911. Right. Not once. And yet, so she's in there.

She sees the murder occur essentially. She denies that. but and then she tells it's shocking. Right. So again, getting back to like these elements of the criminal mind, it's so deceitful. It's such a manipulation. You know, another thing we haven't talked that much about with Lori

that was really evident during much of this trial is another element of psychopaths. is the superficial charm. Many people find the, many people find psychopaths to be charming. Many people are kind of seduced by their charm and their personality and how engaging they can be and how personable they can be, right?

And that was true of Ted Bundy, for example. Ted Bundy was notoriously good at luring his victims into his web. And he represented himself, that DSM. It would happen with the DSM, yeah. Right. And so, you know, we haven't talked about it too much, but it was, I think it was on full display during a lot of this trial that, you know, you could see, you can see how somebody would be drawn to Lori. You can see how she would be engaging. You can see how, I don't know how true this is, but, you know, she says that in her jail block with the death row inmates, that all the inmates look up to her and they take exercise classes with her, you know, they're doing like.

I don't know. What's like a, they're doing like jazzercise with Lori or whatever it is. They're doing. I don't know. Jazzercise with Lori. They're doing something like, and you could see like how she's,

how she does have kind of that charm, right? You can see how people would be drawn in by Lori. And that, that is often a characteristic of psychopaths, that people are kind of drawn into this. web before they realize they're about to be bitten. So I think that's worth pointing out because I she wasn't quite as over the top as I expected her to be.

I think she was a little more composed than I thought she would be. I mean, as I said earlier, there were these constant attempts to push the limits. There were these constant attempts to kind of challenge the judge's authority. We saw all that. but beneath that all, you could see how engaging she could be. And so I thought that was interesting. Like we've never seen Lori up close like this, and I think that was really interesting.

I agree. I mean, we've seen a sentencing, we've seen interviews, but never yet this up close, you know, managing her own defense. The, you know, another subtle thing was referring to Charles as her husband. Let's talk about that. All the time. Okay mentioned that, by the way, in the press conference, help setting that was for her.

She shared that today in an interview. Yeah. Again, it gets, all the elements we just talked about, it gets into just, it's a pure manipulation, right? She's trying to get the jury to, again, like this, I have to choose between three people I love. She's trying to get the jury to believe that, She was very close to Charles.

Maybe she was at one point, but she wasn't then. They were separated. She was having an affair. Maybe they were still married, but that's the only way in which he was still her husband. Petty Mason, my husband, my house, my enchiladas. Yeah. Speaking of that, that reminds me of Julie's, that reminds me of Julie's song, We need to play that because the, do you want to, is this, with this, should we play that now?

Do you have it? Do you have it? Oh, she sent an updated version and we have it. Okay, okay, so let me set the stage here. So we haven't heard the updated version. So this is going to be new for both of us. But during the verdict watch, we had a, we had a DJ Troublemaker Baker spinning records. Just like Lori spins lies, we had a mod spinning records.

and do you guys want to hear our Lori Daybow? Does it have the bit about the chicken being canned? Is that still in there? That's why. That's why I thought of it. No spoilers. Oh, okay. Yeah, sorry.

But yeah, for those that were on the verdict watch all day, we were enjoying the tunes. And so let's play it. And then after we play the song, Do you want to ask you some more questions? Let's just enjoy this. Things kicked off with chocolate milkshake. Or was it a barbecue on a paper plate?

Is it in there? Either way we all await the guilty verdict of Lori. Green chili chicken enchiladas That no one remembers so bland Perhaps it was due to the chicken Which we all now know was canned So yes of course the chaco shake those tasty ribs on that paper plate

with puffer bee we all watch and wait for the guilty verdict of Lord don't flatter yourself Nancy Joe replied A lorry's nonsense was cast aside And when Kay stared down those beady eyes, it really got to Lori, oh yeah. Nonchalant cucumbers, just chilling in the chat. Swat and flies in numbers so large we can't keep track.

And this love are those so cruelly taken justice will arrive To heal the heart's breaking the costly bamboo shirt The lies the stupid stories We're all so very ready The guilty verdict of Lori. I'm a shirt. Wait, I was enjoyed it. Okay.

Is that it? No more words. So we could have just kept feeling it. That was, that was wonderful. Troublemaker Baker. Thank you. Shout out to Troublemaker Baker. That was brilliant.

Thank you. She had some other zingers in there, the puffy bee. Did you hear the puffer bee? Yeah. For a bee, yeah. The chocolate cake, yeah. Some of our listeners aren't going to know the puffer bee, I don't think.

It's okay. It's okay. It's welcome everybody to our channel where we get some good laughs of past crimes, too. Sometimes you just have to have some dark humor in order to get through these things. Yeah. It's, it's, yeah, it's a bit. celebratory too, right, in the sense that this has been in the works for so many years. And for those of us who have followed it, you know, all we've wanted was justice for the victims.

And we received another bit of justice today. Yeah. Although, you know, though, no, go ahead, go ahead. I mean, but I always qualify that, you know, obviously people lost their lives. and they can never be returned. And so there's always something tragic. It's nice to have justice, but it's better to have human beings around.

So there's always sorrow. And our hearts do go out to all the family. Many people have mentioned Colby Ryan's live stream today, which I have not seen yet. We have not seen. But I am seeing everybody share how heartbreaking it was today and that he was emotional. And our hearts go out to Colby.

your heart's got to Kay and to Jerry and to Susan and to so many who love Charles. But this is also really, it's about JJ and Tiley and Tammy too. And Kay Woodcock did say that again in her press conference that Charles would have said, take care of Tammy and the children first. I'll worry about me later and that he's, you know, going to be, he's okay. But I do have to throw out. I have a request for Troublemaker. If she could, I loved the jazz rendition.

Like I said, I could just, it made me want to go get into some bamboo pajamas and just chill. But I think we need to make one for a jazzer size that the jailers can play for Lori to teach. Well, is she, where is she going to teach that in Arizona or Idaho? Like, where is she going to, she's sticking around here, right? Because she said for a bit. For a bit. Yeah, I'm just, but I mean, is she going to, is she going to transport her classes to different states? I don't know.

I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Yeah, that we do have some questions. Well, I have a question. actually. I short term memory loss. I've got my I've got my notebook here. Going back to the chicken fries, that moment in trial where yeah, she wouldn't cut chicken fries. And and, and, you know, that was one thing she was driving home to the jury is that she didn't lie. But look, the receipt matched what I said I bought. This idea that if she was honest with

everywhere she went to Burger King and she bought chicken fries, just like she said, and then to to Walgreens to buy flip-flops and to drop JJ off at school that somehow if she wasn't lying, then certainly she's a truthful person. And in some ways, I think she really believes that in many ways. You've talked about how she's such a literal person. That's one thing that Chad and Lori had had in common. They're both so literal, such black and white thinkers, so simplistic. So I guess I just wanted your take on that, the idea that if she's not lying to them about chicken fries and it's on the receipt, then thus everything else she's saying is true too, that she's honest.

Or what was your take on that? I think this is where you start crossing over into delusion a little bit, that there might be certain facts that are accurate, but the way she spins them into a larger narrative. you know, I think that's when you start getting into a certain amount of unreality or like a certain amount. Like at some point, like the narrative goes from minutia to fiction. Like these all become part of something that's this larger fantasy that she's creating. So you can have bits and pieces of that narrative that are, you know, she bought flip-flops or whatever at Walgreens,

but it's how they fit together. It's taking those and then spinning them into this idea of a family tragedy or an accident that becomes problematic. Yeah. Yeah, you're right. That makes sense to me. A couple other questions. Also, I love this.

I just want to read this. I remember binge listening to the HGC podcast five years ago. I remember the day the children were found. Dr. John and Lauren, you have not only helped me understand this case, but also myself. From Not Notchalant. Yeah, I love the name. Thank you. Yes.

And thank you, everyone, to the kind gifts I'm seeing. What would you say? So I spoke. I think McSpunky. McSpunkies a long-time listener and just all-around good guy. Thank you for being with us tonight. Yes. Oh, well, here's a question.

Lairdow word, thank you. Do you think she was manipulating the jury in closing by insinuating the state just was not allowing Tiley and Alex's videos to be. unfair. In other words, I think maybe a question is, does she really believe that? I mean, that was, we've already kind of talked about this, but it was just so brazen to know that she cannot bring Tiley up and these repeated objections to stop bringing Tiley's interview up. Like, Tiley cannot speak for herself. You don't get to speak for her. And she just, objection after objection, she continued.

Yeah, was she, I guess the question is, do you think she was manipulating the jury? Or how about I ask this, what was that? Was that a disregard for the rules? Was that manipulative? Was that what she really felt? Excema is unpredictable. But you can flare less with ebbglis. A once monthly treatment for moderate to severe eczema. After an initial four-month or longer dosing phase, about four and seven people taking ebb glist, achieved itch relief and clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks. and most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing. Ebglis, Librikizumab, LBKZ, a 250 milligram per 2 milliliter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema, also called atopic dermatitis that is not well

controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies. Ebglis can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you're allergic to ebbglis. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe, eye problems can occur. Tell your if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with ebbglis. Before starting Epgless, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Ask your doctor about Ebglis and visit ebglis.lis.com or call 1800 LilyRX or 100 545-9759. I think it was maybe a combination.

I think so much of what she does is a manipulation, so I think you need to start there. But also, you know, playing the victim. you know, that somehow this idea, I mentioned it earlier, that the state needs to blame someone, so they're blaming her. They're treating her unfairly by not letting her play video. Yeah. Yeah. Here's a question. Is it true that people like Lori can easily pass lie detector tests? Maybe. I mean, it depends. It depends on the, so psychopaths tend to do. well on lie detectors because they have no emotion. So a lie detector is based upon changes in skin conductivity and certain unconscious processes,

certain bodily somatic processes. And the theory is that those are driven by emotion or emotions like anxiety, for example. So if you can suppress emotion and you don't feel, then you're going to respond to every question the same way, or your body is going to process, the somatic responses are going to be similar. So you can, you can, you can overcome a lie detector if,

to some degree, if you can control your somatic responses to questions. Yeah. Thank you. A lot of people are asking this. Texas Swan. What's the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath, as well as Julia, saying, sorry if this is redundant, but Dr. John, do you differentiate between sociopath and psychopath?

Or is that no longer a recognized difference in the psychological community? So when it comes to social science research, the correct term would be psychopath, that almost all the research talks about psychopaths. sociopath was a term introduced years ago that was meant to imply that there was more of a nurture or social basis for the underlying pathology, whereas a psychopath, the implication was that it was more of a genetic or nature-based pathology. but essentially at some point I think a lot of researchers realized they were talking about the same concept, the same construct, that's the term we use. And the research veered over towards using the term psychopath and away from using the term sociopath. So almost all the research these days is under the term, under the construct of psychopath.

sociopath is still used because it was introduced, you know, I forget exactly when, but it was introduced many years ago as an attempt to explain more of the social basis for pathology. Cold Truth asks, Dr. John, do you think she's histrionic? I do believe, if I'm not mistaken, that they mentioned history. Yeah, they did. They mentioned histrionic trait. at her sentencing as well. But, yeah.

Again, I can't really, without interviewing her and testing her, it would be hard for me to know for sure. But I think it would be fair to say that she certainly has some histrionic traits or features like attention-seeking behaviors. So most histrionic personality disorders are big on attention-seeking. and she seems to have that. Yeah. We will wrap up.

I know you need to go, parent, go grab that bamboo shirt on and go watch a movie or do homework. I'm not home yet. I'm here. But, you know, I interviewed jurors today. And then afterwards, actually, there were some private conversations with jurors. And they just,

found out today. There was one juror who said she was shaking because they just told them before they left the courthouse that JJ is dead. Tiley is dead and

Tammy Daveo is dead. Any thoughts on that? Like how they're going to be able to handle that or manage that? Yeah, that that must be a, so she used the term shocking. It must be a shocking moment to learn that. I think there must be, I imagine there must be some relief, too, when they learned that.

Because could you imagine if they acquitted them, acquitted her? And then they learned that she's a convicted murderer. I mean, obviously that would have been hugely prejudicial if it came up in the trial. But, yeah, I'm sure there must be a lot of mixed emotions around that. And maybe even, you know, so on the one hand, shock, probably some confusion, some sorrow, I would imagine. I'm sure the jurors are probably, right, just probably blown away by the fact that, that, to learn that the children were also murdered. Yeah, it must have been really, it must have been a peculiar moment or a different. moment for them.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you. Troulemaker Baker is seeing as she can figure out a way to share the song. And we will work with Troublemaker Baker to share that. Right. Someone pointed out that illuminated Lotus pointed out that the jurors almost, they're going to almost have to go backwards now and learn everything.

One of them mentioned they're going to watch sins of our mother tonight. Yeah. Interesting. Right. And, you know, there could be some trauma. You know, there could be some vicarious trauma. I don't know. Yeah, I think it'll be interesting to see how it does impact the jurors. Yeah.

If, you know, maybe we can reach out to a few jurors down the road and talk about that. It's, it must be, I would imagine it must be somewhat traumatic as well, but probably a lot of emotions. Right. I agree. Thank you. Oh, I will end with this because this is some, this is a question actually I've been receiving a lot this week. Would Lori be considered a serial killer? And you do know, I do have a husband that knows a lot about serial killers. Would she and what type? Because I mean, she's not asking that. I'm asking that. Could you explain what she would be considered? Yeah, it's maybe a little confusing. I mean, I guess in a way, yes, but usually most serial killers kind of operate alone and in isolation, and they kind of work out of the shadows, right? And so the definition would be, I think at least two or three, I'd have to check.

it changes, but at least three victims, I think, two or three victims. So if you just go by like the number of victims, she would qualify as a serial killer. But on the other hand, she was working with other people. She's a co-conspirator. So she wouldn't typically fit, you know, the kind of the Dahmer, Bundy, Israel, type profile in the sense that she's not doing this on her own and, you know, she's not kind of hiding in the dark and attacking victims one by one. She's working with other people and her mission is quite different.

She has, you know, kind of a spiritual mission. A lot of serial killers don't have that. You know, a lot of serial killers are just motivated by personal indulgences. that's the way to put it, or personal pathologies. I think she is too, but it's a little bit, it's a little bit different. Okay. There are typologies of serial killers, and so

that might help clarify a little bit too, but there's a type of serial killer called mission-driven. I think that both herself and Chad would fall into that category. You've talked about that before, a mission-driven serial killer. How many types? Four. Four. And can you, can you name them?

I want to know. Or do you get like, what are they? Psychotic, mission-driven. You know, I have to brush up on this. It's been a while since I... Okay, sorry. I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I didn't mean to put you on the spot. Sorry. So Manson, Manson would fit the category of like a psychotic serial killer. I think there's one that's narcissistic. I don't, I'm sorry.

It's okay. But mission driven. I won't put you on the spot. We'll let you brush up and do a whole episode on serial killers. But mission driven. And then multiple people are asking this, forgive me. I know we need to wind down. Was Kay intimidated?

People are asking this because they felt that Lori was maybe fearful of Kay when she testified because she was shaking. Was she intimidated by Kay rather than fearful? Or what was that? Was Lori shaking? I mean, I couldn't see that closely. That would be useful information. Was Lori actually shaking? She was shaking.

Yeah. She was shaking. I thought that she, I thought that, I mean, they're. could be a lot of reasons that she was shaking. But I also, in my mind, thought she's thinking to herself, she was counseled, I'm sure, to not be, to make sure that she didn't cross-examine K in a way that would bring up, I think that could bring up the death of the children, too. I think she was also being careful with her cross-exam with K.

Right. But she was just a little bit more timid. Yeah. I mean, my hands were shaking today as I was doing my lunch live and I wasn't intimidated. I was just thirsty and low blood sugar. Low blood sugar, right. Yeah, I think she could have been. I think Kay was pretty confident when she testified. I think Kay, it was clear that Kay was being assertive. I think Kay wasn't going to really let Lori push her around. Yeah. So I think I think Lori probably sensed that. So yeah, I don't know for sure that Lori is someone who would get intimidated, but maybe. Yeah, I don't think she would either. So I just wonder, could have been low blood sugar and she could have just been timid because she was counseled to not bring up much.

I think she knew that there was a possibility that prejudicial information could be brought up in trial if she wasn't. careful is my thought. Yeah. So anyway, we will conclude. I, I just want to say, and thank you, everyone, for your kindness. Thank you. Blessing to Kay, Larry, and Colby, and Jerry and Susan and Julie Brooks and I'm picky. And I know they're supporting the ballows, just so many Larry Woodcock, too, who's not here. And yeah, so many. So so many. Brandon, Boudreau, I just want to thank are hidden gems because we, covering a trial is really big deal. And for you too, babe, like, it's not just me being here.

I get a lot of the things, but you are holding out the Ford at home and make it possible. And many times I said, I, if I didn't have such a supportive spouse, I wouldn't be able to do this. And I just want to thank you. And you have worked so hard, and I appreciate the work you've done and the coverage and, you know, the quality of the work you're doing and the depth. It's been amazing. So thank you for your tireless work. And for such excellent coverage. it's it's been really a pleasure to watch you know you really dive deep into these cases

and to really go places that a lot of other people are not going with this case so thank you for all your hard work thank you sweetheart thank you susan so much it's so kind dinner well we'll have a date night and someone's also mentioning you look great and green and I'd just like to say, but have you seen him in bamboo? The bamboo shirt is black, by the way. So I don't know what that means. I don't know if that means when I wear it, if I'm going to be designated as like, what's the highest on the rating scale?

Oh, light or dark? Yeah, dark. I'm going to be like a 5.6 dark on Chad's scale, I think. So with or without the shirt, but it definitely has, it definitely has it more of a Darth Vader feel to it. Yeah. That's sure. It's got. All right.

But I love it. Yeah. Everyone, thank you so much for your support. If anything else happens, I'll do a live tomorrow as well. We'll just talk about what's going on. And just thank you. Yeah, we will find out what's next soon. We'll bring you guys all the latest.

Thank you for everything. And thank you for subscribing. Thank you for notifications. And remember that you can also support us over at patreon.com slash hidden true crime or on our Apple subscription now. So glad to have that. Thank you, everyone. And have a great night.

We'll see you. Good night. Justice has been served. You can say that now. We'll see you. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent.

That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORRA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. Ora gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service.

Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove.