Hidden True Crime - Is Lori Daybell Trying to Blame Tylee Again?! | Full Hearing Breakdown

Episode Date: March 13, 2025

This week, Lauren gives you the latest in the ongoing Lori Daybell saga after a morning in the courtroom. 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. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime Read less Our Sponsors:* Check out Acorns: https://acorns.com/HIDDENTRUECRIME* Check out Acorns: https://acorns.com/HIDDENTRUECRIME* Check out Armoire and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://www.armoire.style* Check out Effecty and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://www.effecty.com* Check out Happy Mammoth and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://happymammoth.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/hidden-a-true-crime-podcast1836/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy 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-e-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. I'm joined now by Lauren Matthias. She was in that courtroom today sitting just a few chairs away from Lori Vallow. I don't know if your head was exploding like mine was. But describe the courtroom today.

Describe Lori in her demeanor, everything in that courtroom today. Oh, you know, she was really dumb up, I want to point out, too. Her hair was curled with a curling iron, not the little braids you see the night before. She had lipstick on. She had mascara on. She had eyeliner on. She smiled at the gallery. And then my favorite, my favorite thing, Ashley, her prison jumps through, you know,

she's not in street clothes today, right? Her prison jumps up with to the side. It was down below her shoulder, sort of you could see a little strap. And I'm telling you, I think she did it on purpose. So I'm with you. I find it very fascinating that she is not wanting cameras in the courtroom and arguing against them when she came, really assuming that we were all looking at her and really making sure that she looked sure that she looked at her best. Let me ask that double question here as we look at this picture with the off the shoulder number going on. I get it.

Lori is handcuffed. Even if she's going to play lawyer, she still has to be handcuffed because she's still inmate. But at the beginning of the hearing, the clothing is up on her shoulder, and as the hearing went on, the bra is showing,

and it's an off-the-shoulder number. Is it an accident? And again, I will give her this deference in that she is shackled at the feet and she is shackled at the hand. So it's not like she can adjust her wardrobe that easily. But what was your read on that?

Fair enough, fair enough. absolutely think she could have adjusted this. I mean, also, I think she probably had to even rip that or cut that in the back. I mean, have you seen a neck that large? Do you think they're going to make necks that large in prison? I don't know. Look, we'll never know. But to wear that matching strap, too, I have my suspicions. Okay. Next question, there was a dig from the prosecutors. I don't know the exact wording, but it seemed as though they mentioned something about needing a real lawyer, meaning whatever she was arguing, the state seemed like it might have been a little exhausted by all of this and the fact that the lady over there is not a real lawyer. Can you describe

how that actually went down and how the state put that dig on the record? Yeah, it happened multiple times what we would probably call almost shade towards Lori Valo, or Lori Dayball, excuse me, where they sort of said, look, we're going to need longer for this trial. We said, we said, a couple weeks. And if it were a regular defense attorney, we'd have a couple of weeks. But we don't have a regular defense attorney. We have, we have this, we have her over here. Take a look. And so we're going to need twice as long, three times as long. There are multiple comments like that over and over. We don't have a real defense attorney. We have the defendant in, we just, look, if it was me, we could get this done, but this is going to take a long time.

Okay, 10 seconds, and that's it. Was she different today? Is she actually doing well as an attorney? Is she aggressive? Give her a grade, one to ten. Aggressive, defiant. I would give her a five. I think she was maybe a six last time.

I was kind of impressed last time. She came off a lot more aggressive today. Not a good look. What about knowledgeable? One to ten. Six, seven, better than I thought. Is that fair? All right.

Yeah. All right. Well, I'm going to have to keep you grading this because this is fascinating stuff. And lucky for you and me, we'll have the cameras and we can do that. Thank you, Lauren Matthias. Thanks, Ash. My name is Lauren Matthias. I am a former broadcaster and investigative journalist covering the Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell case. And I have been covering that case since 2019 with my husband and co-host, Forensic psychologist, Dr. John Matthias.

We are hidden true crime where we delve deep into the hidden motives of. of unimaginable crimes. And today I was in court in Maricopa County in Arizona attending a hearing for Lori Vallow-Daybell. Technically, Lori Daybell, formerly known as Lori Vallow. Now, Lori Daybell. I have my notes here. I'm going to take a look at these,

but we are going to go over everything that happened in court today because trust me, you are going to want to know. So here is a full recap. Really quickly, just so you know Lori's next trial, where she is being tried for the murder of her husband, Charles Vallow. It is rapidly approaching. Lori is set to represent in that trial that is slated to start at the end of this month, March 2025. And again, today was a final hearing with a lot of logistics in a actually some really important issues at hand. The hearing started at 8.30 and it began with everyone announcing

their appearances. Trina K for the state, Pamela Hicks as advisory counsel to Lori DeBow, and none other than Lori Daybill representing herself for the defense. The first issue at hand was cameras in the courtroom. I produced an episode on this recently. By the way, I'm going to put a link to that in the description of this episode, but Lori filed a motion because she did not want specifically court TV cameras in the courtroom. And I did wonder, did she just, not want court TV or did she not want cameras? She has always specified she has an issue with court TV. Well, this morning court TV sent attorney Matthew Kelly on behalf of the outlet and Matthew acknowledges court TV would like to be pool camera for the courtroom. Pool is actually

the media that covers it for all of the other media outlets because you can only have one camera really in the courtroom. So pool means they distribute it to all other outlets in the courtroom. And Matthew said that technically court TV does have two cameras that they would like to have in a courtroom, but one would just be fine. And they said that the camera they use is even smaller than the one that they had in court today. And it can be operated remotely, meaning it would be less distraction. He acknowledged that if court TV were pool, they would distribute the feed to all the other networks and have the capability to distribute to 30 or 40 different networks and outlets. Lori, of course, confirmed her opposition, citing case law Shepard v. Maxwell, which is a case where media in the courtroom may have impacted juror views, which essentially denies a defendant affair trial. Well, after Lori's objection, Judge Boreski went on to say he is inclined to only have one pool camera in the courtroom and that he would be issuing an order either later today or tomorrow with further instructions, but that there would be, of course, no cameras during jury.

selection, which makes sense. Matthew Kelly raised the question, though, of live streaming the trial in real time. And the judge asked if a one to two minute delay would be okay. And Matthew said that they absolutely can do that, a one to two minute delay, meaning not live, but that when they share the footage to those other outlets, they aren't able to delay it for all the other outlets. So the judge's order would need to specify the delay for all the other media outlets receiving that. video feed. And I want to say I am very happy about this news. My concern was that there might be an hour delay or two hour delay when I attended the Lori Ballo trial when she was convicted of murdering Tiley J.J. and Tammy Daybell, there was only audio and they did not release that audio

until after court was done. So this would be a good thing to only have a one to two minute delay. That works. That means I'll be in the courtroom. I'll be in there during the the trial, bringing you the latest, and it'll be like future Lauren. Again, I'll be one to two minutes ahead. When the judge asked if anyone had anything else to say about this issue, as we would all expect, Lori definitely had something to say. Take a listen. Your Honor, could I just add that we want to make sure that the camera's not going to be zooming in at any level to get to our notes and the things that are going to be on the table. I also, previously, what has happened before

is that they just have the camera on my face the entire trial. So I think when the judge is speaking, the judge needs to be on the camera. When the state is speaking, they need to be on camera. If we can add that to the order, I think it would need to. All right, well, my draft already includes that there'll be no zooming in on council table, anything on council table, or anything being handled notes or that sort of thing.

handled by any of the parties or the attorneys. As far as what they focus on, they'll be limited to focusing on the parties, myself, the witness, depending on the witness, I need to ask the state about that in a second, but they won't be allowed to broadcast any image of any juror. Next, the judge touched on witnesses and protective orders. The state acknowledged that Kay Woodcock is a legal victim in this trial and that she's going to be testifying on the stand. Charles Vallow was Kay Woodcock's brother. And for everyone, for a reminder to everyone who is new to following this case, J.J. Valo, seven-year-old J.J. Valo that was murdered.

The Lori is convicted of killing her adopted son. That is Kay Valo's biological grandson. So Kay Valo will be testifying. And just think about this for a second. Lori Valo will be representing herself questioning Kay on the stand. The woman convicted of killing her grand. grandson. The state did state that despite K being a legal victim and testifying on the stand, they do not plan on seeking a protective order for her. And then we got into how long this trial will

last. The state was initially asking jurors to be screened for two to three weeks for a trial that lasts two to three weeks. But now that Lori is representing herself, get this, the state now wants to screen for six weeks. However, the judge responded that he would like to just screen jurors for a five week trial at this time. As for where the trial will be held, and we know it's going to be held here in Maricopa County, what I mean is courtroom. Well, the state was asking for a bigger courtroom for this trial. The judge said that that is not available, and they will plan for the jury selection to be held in a larger courtroom, but then the actual trial was going to be held in a smaller courtroom, and by that, I mean the courtroom that we were all sitting today. And it is small guys.

where we were sitting, I counted 36 seats total. And that's being generous. That's if two people can squeeze into some of the larger seats. We have a space for 36 people on the prosecution side where we all had to sit, if we're not there for the defense, 18 seats available. He also discussed having some rooms for witnesses where they would be able to be until they testified. And this brought us then to the topic of jury selection. The plan is that the first 200 juror questionnaires will be e-questionnaires,

meaning that they're going to just go out online and that they will come back the 24th and 27th of March. And from the 28th to the 31st of March, they can then start narrowing down their choices for jurors. And Lori's advisory team plans on going to the Australia unit at the jail where she is going to help go through all. of these juror questionnaires. Yes, Lori DeBal going through these juror questionnaires. And on the afternoon of the 31st, March 31st, everyone will meet to discuss who will need to be let go as far as potential jurors. Anyone who is not let go, they will come the next day to court and any walk-in jurors who do not fill out the questionnaire online. They can then fill that out in person on the 31st when they go to the courthouse.

And if needed, 200 more questionnaires will go out, and another 100 can go out on the third of April. The judge acknowledged that he does anticipate losing quite a few to the high media coverage of the case, and he is inclined to put Lori Vallo's name on the e-questionaire so they can know if people have heard about or have formed an opinion on this case.

It's just kind of like, look, rather than leaving it a mystery, what case these jurors might be screened for, why not just put Lori Balladebel's name on the initial questionnaire? Well, here are Lori's thoughts on this. Does anyone have an issue with that, State? No, Your Honor, I think that that's a good idea.

That's going to be at least one of the initial reasons to strike a lot of jurors. My only issue with it, Your Honor, is that it could be bad both ways, if you put the name in there, if you don't put the name in there. It's been my experience that people will say they haven't heard when they know who that really is, and there's people that will want to be on this jury just for this purpose. Well, it's going to be complicated.

All the research indicates that these e-questionnaires, people are more likely to give honest, candid answers than if they're in a group of people and they feel sort of that pure pressure of what's a good answer and what's a bad answer. Your name is going to come up sooner or later, so I would prefer to just get it out in front of the potential jurors to begin with. My e-questionaire is going to be fairly basic.

It's going to focus on qualifications, the charges, the witnesses, and then obviously whether they have an opinion about you or this case. For the people that make it past that level, we'll question them more thoroughly in person. And like you were saying, as far as group kind of voir dire, in my experience, we went through 1900 jurors in my last trial. So it would be good to do individual voir dire if we can in group voir dire because they learn things just in the voir dire and it disqualifies a lot of jurors. I'm not opposed to that, but that's going to be sort of a day of. play it by ear sort of situation, whether we do small panels or just go a single person. If we go a single person, our jury selection could extend into the next week.

But if we're able to seat a jury, I would expect opening statements on April 7th, somewhere around there. When you finally find your thing, you want the whole world to know about that thing. So you use a thing called Canva to make a thing. it an even bigger and better thing. Whether you want to create flyers for that thing, make presentations for that thing, or design merch for that thing, you can do anything. So people can see your thing, feel your thing, love your thing. The next thing you know, it's a thing. Canva, the thing that makes anything a thing. When making financial decisions, one of the most important things to me is knowing exactly where my money is going when it comes to

saving and investing. And Acorns allows me to have that clarity. Acorns makes it easy to start that process. You don't need a lot of money or expertise to invest with Acorns. In fact, you can get started with just your spare change. Acorns recommends an expert built portfolio that fits you and your money goals, then automatically invest your money for you. Getting set up with Acorns is something you can do in as little as five minutes, meaning you aren't spending hours trying to figure out how to invest. Sign up now and join over 13 million all-time customers who have already saved and invested over $22 billion with Acorns. Head to Acorns.com slash hidden true crime or download the Acorns app to get started. Paid non-client endorsement. Compensation provides incentive to

positively promote Acorns. Investing involves risk. Acorn advisors, LLC, and SEC registered investment advisor. Few important disclosures at Acorns.com slash hidden true crime. Hormonal changes are so hard to see the least. Hot flashes, anyone else, add in the thousands of hormone disruptors that are in our environment and it is even worse. From our water, food, the air we breathe and the clothes we wear, they are everywhere. But the good news is that when hormone harmony enters the picture, it can help reduce hormonal symptoms in women of all ages. Hormone harmony is a supplement that contains science-backed herbal extracts called adaptogens. The best thing about adaptogens, they help the body adapt to any stressors like chaotic hormonal changes that happen naturally

throughout a woman's life. Hormone Harmony is actually part of my personal 2024 playbook. Hormone Harmony makes no compromises when it comes to quality and it shows. For a limited time, you can get 15% off your entire first order at happy mammoth.com. That's happy H-A-P-P-P-Y-M-M-A-M-M-M-O-T-H.com. Just use the code Hidden True Crime at checkout. That's Code hidden true crime. Use that with Happy Mammoth.com for 15% off today. Step into the world of power, loyalty, and luck. I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse.

With family, canoles, and spins mean everything. Now, you want to get mixed up in the family business. Introducing the godfather at chumpacasino.com. Test your luck in the shadowy world of the godfather's slots. Someday, I will call upon you to do a service for me. Play the godfather. Now at chumpacasino. Welcome to the family.

Since the judge makes the questionnaire, the juror questionnaire, he checked with the state on whether or not they would be showing autopsy and crime scene photos. Their response was yes. So he said he would add a question about that on the questionnaire in case there are potential jurors who do not want to see those types of photos. Next was Lori's motion for specific discovery in which she is requesting interview footage that she calls. claims she doesn't have. What she stated she doesn't have is interesting. So before Charles Valla was killed, there was an issue going on in their marriage. Lori was stealing Charles's car and allegedly stealing his money was a filing for divorce. There was locking Charles out of the house. And there was Charles being very concerned for Lori's mental

help that she was claiming to be married to Mormon prophet ancient, Mormon prophet Maroni, and that she was best friends with Jesus and all sorts of concerns where Charles finally was able to say that he wanted her to get a psych eval at a center to make sure that she was saying. Well, Lori then went to, after locking Charles out of, his car, Lori went to the police department with her daughter, Tiley, before Tiley's murder, and her best buddy, Melanie Gibb. And on body camp footage, we have seen this encounter. It was January 2019. It was six months before Charles's murder. And in this, you sort of see Lori manipulate police and say that she needs her purse back, that she's saying that she does not need

this evaluation and police actually essentially help her get out of this evaluation it's it's actually kind of heart wrenching to watch but lorry is saying that while she has body camp footage of this time in the police department she does not have the interview like the interrogation camera that she claims is available online i have found the body camp footage she mentioned of this time in the police department. I don't know if I've ever seen the camera that is up on the ceiling recording the entire moment. Maybe some of you have. Maybe my mind is going blank. But this is what Lori is requesting. It's this moment, January, 2019. But here's the thing is I don't know and I'm not going to take sides. But just talking to

you, I mean, I don't see you being a danger to yourself or anybody else. You get your kids to school. Right. I don't know. But I'm not going to place that. I'm just going to let you know that we are required if you're here, that we will, even against with force if we have to, if you're still here when it's approved, we'll have to take you to CBI.

And what is it called to us? Community Bridges. That's where we take you. Now, I don't know who he went through to get the order. were taken care of. That's not saying, how do you even get that? He got that in the middle of the night. How do you get something in the middle of the night? It's family members can do it for other ones who have like drug dependency or not in health. Mental health issues. Yeah, but how would he had to come here? Isn't it stuff closed? It's not, it's not here. There are places you can go.

So, how would you think of something? I don't know. It's called community bridges. Is that what I'm just going to write it down? I'm going to, they'll be looking for me. That's the whole thing. Like that's what. We, we, don't bust down doors to get you, but we will knock. So if you see police officers knocking, talk to them, talk to them through the door if you really don't want to them. Okay. If you want a free medical evaluation, psychological evaluation. I was going to say I haven't gotten any sleep in about three days if they have good facilities. They do actually, from what I understand.

You're in a gym where I could work out. Yeah. So like I said, we'll be okay about your mom? You are going to get a padded room in. So officers don't kick down. doors to serve these. They're civil orders. They're for your safety. It's not illegal. If it was because you're a danger to yourself, it's not illegal or it's not illegal to so we don't go busting down doors. But if we make contact with you, there's nothing separating us at that point. We know it's you. You can just say anything you want about someone and get a mental health order against it.

So if it's a family member and depending on what he told the doctors, they may, usually they'll do it just to be safe. The state claims they sent Lori what she is asking for. She claims again that while she has body camp footage of this moment, she does not have the camera that recorded the entire thing from the ceiling. And then the next issue was a moment in court. Lori brought up statements, both Alex Cox's statements.

That's Lori's brother, who shot and killed Charles Vallow and Tiley Ryan's statements. That is that is Lori's daughter, who she is convicted of murdering. They both made statements and had interviews with police after Charles's death. And she brought up those statements. Here is Lori's argument. Take a listen to this. All right.

So let me ask the defendant, generally any out of hearsay is defined as any out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted the state is referencing what are definitely out-of-court statements. Obviously, there's some exceptions to the hearsay rule, and there are other things that are characterized as non-hearsay. So how do you think, let's first talk about Alex Cox. How do you think the statements fit into either one of those exceptions or non-hearsay? I feel like the state is blanketing that whole thing and obviously it's like a case-by-case basis, right, on these statements.

So there is the police interview of Alex Cox that I did not think falls under hearsay. Why not? Why does it not fall under hearsay? Because we're not using it for the truth of the matter asserted. We're using it in cooperation of the circumstances. Everyone came in and told their same story that corroborates different facts in there, not for the whole truth of the matter. Aren't you arguing that what he said was true? I can't say whether another person says that it's true or not, but I'm saying what he said and what my daughter said and what I said in those three police interviews

determined what the police said, how the police acted, what they did after that, their next steps, how they treated the entire case like it was self. defense, all of those are relevant to the defense that it was self-defense. So yes, I think they're for that purpose. But I also think that Alex's statements also have a lot of the exceptions apply. 803, 804. There's a lot of exceptions that also apply to some of his statements and not all of his statements. Such as what? Which statements do you think they apply to?

Specifically, his statements made on body cam to police in the driveway, specifically his... I don't know what the statements are, so that's what I'm asking. What specific statements do you think are allowed to come in under the rules of evidence? I think under 8031, the present sense impression, his statements made to police officers at the house. A present sense impression is where you're actually observing something and you're talking about

it as you see it happened. Isn't he saying, again, I don't know what the statements are, but is he saying what happened prior? Or is he saying something that he's... Correct. Correct. Correct. So it's not a present sense impression. Okay.

What else? Then I think it falls under 803-2, excited utterance. He was under the stress. of the whole situation when he made those statements. What was his demeanor when he made those statements? Upset. What's the specific statement? I shot my brother-in-law on self-defense.

I got hit in the head with the bat. There was an altercation. I don't know what all the statements are, but... How long after the incident did he make these statements? Immediately after, as far as I know. Well, immediately to some people means two seconds to other people. It means 30 minutes. Tell me what immediately means to you.

As soon as the police arrived. I don't know what, did they arrive 30 minutes after the incident? 10 minutes an hour? I was not there. I do not know what time they arrived. All right. Let me, so you're asserting acceptance. cited utterance some of these statements come in. What else? 8.33, the mental, emotional and physical condition, because it shows his state of mind, which was scared at the time.

Any others? Yes. 8035B, the recorded recollection. I know that in the states, in the states reply to my response, they did not think that 805 applied because A.B. B and C, but I did not see an and after A, so my assumption was that B and C, since there's an and after B, were what needed to be put together. So B was made or adopted by this witness when the matter was fresh in the witness's memory and accurately reflects the witness's knowledge. So I felt like 803B, 5B, the recorded recollection of his police interview and the body cam footage applies under that exception. Generally, 8035 is a recorded recollection being it's something they wrote down or maybe they recorded their voice saying something. Let me ask the state to respond. We're just talking about the Alex Cox statements. Your Honor.

Let me, maybe I should start with. Does the state intend on introducing any statements from Alex Cox? Your Honor, I haven't decided if we will at this point. We would, I can say with 100% certainty, we will not be admitting his interview by police that was done it after 10 o'clock in the morning. We don't. Are you referencing what time he was interviewed versus the time of the incident? Let me, I guess let me say it this way.

So this, the state has laid out in its motion, the timeline. So that is actually in our motion. We show that when... 8.30 a.m. roughly. It's when the 911 call was made. So we have soon after that, the police arrived and there's body cam video from that, that interview. Then Alex Cox is later brought to the police. and there is a in-depth interview with detectives at a little after 10 o'clock in the morning.

So you may or may not be attempting to introduce statements at a... 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 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 at ORA.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove. Around the time that the police responded. Correct, Your Honor. If we do, those would be brought in as co-conspirator statements against a party interest.

So obviously the state can bring in statements that are hearsay. against a party. Right. But I guess is the state intending on introducing any statements of Tiley? No, Your Honor. Tiley made no statements at the scene other than giving her general biographical information on body cam. Her entire statements were made at the police station again after 10 in the morning. All right. So on your response as it relates to Tiley, you say, again, present sense impression. I don't think it's a present sense impression. You also argue excited utterance.

What else? 8033, which is mental, emotional, and physical condition with the same thing, her state of mind, then being scared. And also, 8043 statement against interest. They use that statement in the indictment, where Tiley says, that Charles says, if you hit me with that bat, you're going to jail. That's the part where she's nervous in her interview saying she's scared to tell the police that she's the one that brought in the bat. So state of mind and the statement against interest both apply to Tiley's police interview. All right. Anything else? Does the state want to be heard further on that?

Your Honor, the only further thing I think that the state will bring in is that obviously the defendant has been found guilty of killing both. highly, other individuals, but in this case, the defendant cannot benefit from killing a witness and then later try to bring in their statements for their benefits. So in addition to none of her statements being admissible under the rules of evidence, as any of the exceptions that the defendant has done, we also believe that it would be improper for her to be allowed to bring them in under that theory. In other words, there's been a judicial final. finding that the reason Tiley's unavailable as a witness is because of the defendant's actions. Correct, Your Honor. There has been a jury trial and she has been convicted of that.

The judge decided that he would be precluding any statements from Tiley unless a door was opened and then at that point, Lori could bring it up outside of the jury's presence. This moment arguing to use Tiley's statements in court for the trial was was big. it was shocking to me. So let's all remember that Lori Daybell uses Tiley as a scapegoat, worse than a scapegoat. This is a 16-year-old girl that was murdered. Her mother and Chad Daybell have both been convicted of killing 16-year-old Tiley Ryan in the most horrendous way, her own mother. And now Lori is claiming in court, take a listen to this, that Tiley was afraid to tell police what really happened to Charles Vallow,

the day Charles Vallow was killed because she was afraid of police and she didn't want to say that she brought the baseball bat out. That was then used by Charles to hit Alex Cox. Okay. To me, my bells and alarms were going off at this moment because I realized that Lori is going to try to blame Tiley. And Tiley is not here to defend herself or claim what she was thinking or what she was feeling or what she knew or what she didn't know or what really happened.

And my heart was pounding honestly, listening to Lori even argue this. As for Alex, the judge said that it would be a statement by statement basis. However, the judge is not inclined to use any of the interview of Alex in the interrogation room. And then we got into expert witnesses. Lori said that she was working on an addendum to add one witness to her expert witness list. The expert witness, well, is Lonnie.

Dworkin, who is a phone and digital expert, but Judge Breske said that all expert reports are due 30 days before trial, usually. So technically, it is late. He told her that if Lori is planning on using this witness, then it needed to be disclosed right away and that he may have to take this up with the state, to which the state responded that maybe they should come in for a hearing next week to discuss this expert witness. And more on that hearing later. Next on the agenda war timelines. The state asked if they still plan, on doing another trial. Yes, this is the third trial and it is not the last. They are now asking if the fourth trial, which is for the attempted murder of her ex-nephew-in-law, Brandon Boudreau,

is still going to happen right after this trial. And regardless of the outcome of this trial, to which they said yes and that they were requesting to be at least 30 days out so they could gather witnesses and handle all the subpoenas for witnesses. Well, Lori had quite the argument about this timeline and the upcoming trial for the attempted murder of Brandon Boudreau. Take a listen. Your Honor, I'd like to remind the court that the last day is May 11th. Well, I'll probably exclude some time based on the fact that you can't do two trials at once. The state could combine the trials and do two trials at once, but they don't want to do two trials at once. So it really violates my speedy trial rights if they do not give me a speedy trial by May 11th for both cases.

Not to mention that they did combine all the discovery into one case. They didn't give me two different separate discoveries for two different cases, which would be much more convenient considering the voluminous amount of discovery that they piled onto us. The state wanted to combine both cases. Your Honor, if the court gave us a little time to work it out and the defendant wants to join them, I mean, obviously... I don't know that... A normal defense attorney, and I don't mean that in any way.

Normally they would be... Crockatory? Severed? Severeed because you don't want one jury to know about the other... Correct. Two separate charges and have a harmful rub-off effect of one... The evidence in one case affecting the evidence in another case. Correct, Your Honor. That's why they were filed separately.

But if the defendant wants them together, the state would have to request this be pushed back slightly so that we could then get all the witnesses from... that trial together since they were not subpoenaed for this trial. But if that's what the defendant wants to join them, and she understands that prejudice and that she's then going to be waiving that prejudice with that, then the state is certainly willing to do that, but we would then have to request to have that trial, or this trial, they moved back to allow us to get the other witnesses lined up.

Yeah, that's not what I was saying to combine them. I'm just saying, give me my second trial by May 11th. So the court can figure that out. All right. Well, I'm going to waive some time on that second trial over the defendant's objection. Primarily, again, the defendant can't try both cases at the same time. Secondly, I'm not sure how much actual prejudice there is with a time violation in the sense that you wouldn't be relieved. from custody anyway and thirdly the rule for time violations under rule 8 I

think it's 6 is 8.6 is that any violation should be a dismissal without prejudice unless there's an actual prejudice shown in which case the state could just refile the charge regardless I think in some time is warranted to be excluded because primarily you can't try two cases at once What if we set a start date for May 12th? I realize that's a quick, could potentially be a quick turnaround, but again, I don't think this case is going to take six weeks. Your Honor.

We can adjust that as necessary. I, again, I'm going to ask for a longer time. I believe this will go through the beginning of May, and to have the state try to get those witnesses lined up and subpoenaed while in trial, I don't believe is. Well, if I push it out any further, the parties need to be aware that I won't be trying the case. I don't think I would be anyway.

I'm rotating it the end of June. And given some of the trainings I have to attend in June, I don't think we could get it done. Well, both parties could send out subpoenas now for that second date for May 12th, correct? Well, that's assuming we're done by about May 1st, probably, in this case, the first case. There was no real resolution to this issue, but there will be another hearing next week on the 18th. Again, I mentioned that, where they plan to discuss this further.

And they will also be getting Lori's fingerprints and hamprints and at the request of the state. Now, the final thing that was brought up right before this hearing, hearing ended was about how Lori was going to question witnesses or how she was going to be able to approach the stand when witnesses are there or approach the desk or she's going to have to stay seated. Anything else from the defendant? Yes, Your Honor. I have one kind of housekeeping matter that I wanted to ask you about. I know that MCSO has some security restraints, the things that I have to wear during trial. And I wanted to ask about that. As far as, am I going to be able to stand at the podium to talk to witnesses, to question my witnesses, and to cross-examine, or am I going to be able to move about with the leg thing and the shock vest and all that?

You can, you're going to stick to your table and you can go to the podium. Okay. When you're giving your opening statement and closing argument, you'll stay by the podium. Okay. And if you need to hand a witness and exhibit your advisory council will do that. Okay. Or my paralegal can do that. Well, is your paralegal going to be present here designated as your, I guess they can be present?

I'd prefer advisory council to be the one that approaches witnesses if you need to hand an exhibit or something like that. Okay, so I'm going to be standing there. And if she's sitting here, she's going to come get. something from me and go walk it over to the witness and then come back? Correct. Just the logistics of it. Yeah, and there'll be a table or a cart here that'll have all the exhibits on it within reach of the podium.

Okay. None of us had even known about the shock vest. We did not know about the shock vest, but I guess Lori has a shock fest. It was an interesting hearing to say the least. I will say that I was not expecting Lori to be so defiant. When she suggested the state was hiding something, I will be bringing you the very latest from this trial. Hit subscribe, hit notifications, because the days of Lori Valo DeBal are not over. We will be hearing much more from her.

And we will be streaming this trial to you here from Hidden True Crime. 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 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 view. 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 at Aura.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove.