Hidden True Crime - LORI DAYBELL TRIAL RECAP DAY 2 | 4/08/2025

Episode Date: April 9, 2025

Lauren is here to break down everything from day 2 of the Lori Daybell trial. 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 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, ui and c e.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Hello, hidden jens. It is another nightly court recap. I am in court during the Charles Vallow trial. I am there every day. Lori Vallow, who is actually on trial.

She is charged with murdering her late husband, Charles Vallow, Justice for Charles, here at Hidden True Crime. And we are going to start first off with how I think that Lori Vallow is doing in court. And then we're going to get to everything. I did a shorter live today at lunch. I actually did a pre-recorded one, so I guess it technically wasn't live.

And the reason why is because I was on law and crime with Angie Net Levy and Gigi McElvey, my good friend over at Pretty Lies and Alibis, both good friends, both amazing ladies. And we talked about my thoughts and then we're going to jump into it. So take a listen. I know you have somebody with you. And I'm really excited to talk with her because I was like, we've got to get Lauren on when covering this trial. So take it away, Gigi. This is my good friend Laura Matthias. We were in the trenches in Boise, Idaho for six solid weeks during Lori's Idaho trial.

And I'm just so happy that she's here with us today. She has a wealth of knowledge on this case. So we're lucky to have her here with us. Lauren, what do you think so far? You know, the journalist in me has to admit that she's doing better than I anticipated and she's holding her own in there. You know, the person who attended her. other trial with you doesn't like saying that. And so I want to, you know, I'm sitting there trying

to say, nah, you know, don't you know what she's convicted of? Don't you know what she did? And, you know, how can she be acting the way she's acting when we know what she's been convicted of, which is killing her two kids and her, and, you know, killing Tammy DeBow. But she is holding her own in there. I do notice, though, that when the jury is in the courtroom, she's, She behaves a little bit more, it's better. She's a little bit more passive, where when they leave and she's arguing her motions and the jury is not in the courtroom, she gets feistyre, which, you know, it's fair. She's her own defense attorney, but she's certainly showing more of her true colors. I think when the jury isn't there when she's saying this is a, you know, evidence violation of what she sort of was claiming today.

she gets forceful, which she doesn't do as much in cross-exam with witnesses in front of the jury. Exactly. And that's one thing I've noticed is Lori seems to project her voice louder. And it's almost like if she talks loud enough, she'll make her point better, although it's really just part of her personality, but she really does have this amazing ability to switch it off and on like a light switch when that jury's in the room and when they're not. just with this last motion that we argued after the jury was sent out for lunch, you started to hear kind of that loudness in her voice to where when the jury's in the room

and she's cross-examining a witness is this very soft, you know, just very muffled voice. And she wants to almost seem like a little librarian and this innocent woman while she's talking to the jury when it's hard for all of us in the back to know, knowing what we know and what she's done and what she's capable of to see really what I think is a performance, but it's a performance that may serve her well coming across as a lot more subdued in front of that jury. If she were to start yelling like we've seen in these motion hearings, it may make things worse for her. So so far, you know, as much as we are all kind of rooting for her not to do well, I mean, look, we're not at Daryl Brooks level, nowhere in the same zip code as that yet.

No, definitely not. All right. Well, I thought that was like a great just start to how Gigi feels, how I feel, what we're seeing in there. We see this sweet, sweet voice come out of this woman that's been convicted of killing her two children. It's so hard to process, isn't it? So hard. And then we see someone who is, you know, puts herself out there and is a little bit feistier and stronger as a defense attorney when nobody is watching. when the jurors leave the room. Anyway, I'm going to start with court this morning because yesterday started with a juror being excused and it was shocking because we already know that there are only four alternate jurors, right? So you have the opportunity for four jurors to be excused.

Well, juror four was excused this morning after a juror yesterday was excused. There was no reason given as to why, but it was a female. Remember, there are very few females, only three. So we are now down to two females and 12 male jurors. And we need at least 12 jurors to last throughout this whole trial. So we were like, whoa, two down and two days. At this rate, we're going to have no jurors by the end of this trial if we keep up this

rate. And so then as we're all thinking that, the judge said jurors 16 would then be coming in for questioning. Fere 16 told the staff he now has a memory of the, the body cam footage that was shown yesterday on day one opening statements after he saw the video in court. He realized actually that he had seen it on YouTube once years ago because a friend had shown it to him. And he remembered that once the officer asked for Lori's driver's license, he had this visual memory of, oh my gosh, my friend has shown me this body cam footage before. Well, the state mentioned that there were no large portions with no audio. And the state asked the juror if you remembered any of the audio when the officer was talking to Alex or Lori because they muted a lot of the body camp footage yesterday.

And he said no. So only when he heard the officer ask for her driver's license is when he remembered he had seen it. So the defense did not have any follow-up questions. The judge and the state and the defense all decided to keep juror 16 on. Few, because if we lost two jurors on day two, I was worried. So now, again, there are only two females left on this jury, and we now have a total of 14, two alternate jurors. So then the state went on to get the continue with the witness from yesterday because he was

never cross-examined. And that is Scott Cowden from the Chandler Fire Department. And cross-examination began with Lori. Scott Cowden, if you recall from yesterday, his testimony is particularly important because he is the one who administered CPR to Charles after being shot by Alex. He also testified that there were no signs that Alex attempted to give Charles CPR, even though he was instructed to do so by the 911 dispatcher. Lori told the judge that she was just going to have a lot of questions for Cowden. So let's get into what happened during cross-examination. And Lori Begins, we didn't have that clip.

So I'll explain to you what happened. Lori begins by asking Cowden to go through what took place when he entered the home. He explained that he lifted Charles's shirt and he observed two gunshot wounds. And he also instructed his colleague to make sure that she didn't cut through the bullet holes of his shirt in case it needed to be saved as evidence. So Cowden testified that during CPR classes, you would explain what to expect and where to put your hands to help those with no CPR experience. experience. And these classes use curriculum from the American Heart Association and a video is played modeling what to do. So then Lori asks if it would be more difficult to explain how to do CPR over the phone versus showing someone in class. And Cowden said it's as simple as telling someone

someone to put their hands on the lower part of the chest. Lori pressed again, trying to make a point that it would be harder for someone not viewing an instructional video to know what to do. And he agreed that it may be more difficult depending on the person receiving the information. So if you could only tell them like over the phone, that might be difficult for them to know the correct placement of their hands if they've never done it before. I guess it depends on the instructions that the dispatcher gave. Ultimately, if I was telling somebody over the phone, you want to put your hands on their chest, on the lower part of the chest.

It's that kind of simple, so to speak. Okay, but without the video, if you were teaching a class and you didn't have the video, it might be difficult, right? For a bunch of first timers. Objection, speculation. Overruled. Does it mean an answer? Okay. Sorry.

Can you repeat the question? Yeah, so it might be difficult. If you didn't have the video, it might be difficult, you know, for a bunch of first timers to know exactly what to do if you just had to tell them the middle of the chest, lower chest. I mean, you could obviously show on a person. You could show on yourself. If you couldn't show them and you could only tell them, could it be difficult? I suppose it's possible depending on the person. Okay.

That's fair. So, interesting moment. At the end, again, it could be possible too. So Lori asks if doing chest compressions on someone. By the way, I saw a question as we were watching, Why is Lori asking these questions? She's one of the big pieces of evidence during Charles about this trial for Charles, justice for Charles, is that CPR was not done on Charles,

even though Alex Cox, who shot Charles, claimed that CPR was being done. That is why Lori is sort of doing this cross-examination of Cowden, because he's pretty much the one that did CPR. He is the one that did CPR as a first responder. And so Lori is questioning whether or not he could really tell if CPR had not been done. And so Lori asked if doing chest compressions on someone without gunshot wounds could cause more damage. And Cowden said that it ultimately doesn't matter because if somebody's heart isn't beating, you do it regardless.

That's training. And Lori circled back to the cracking feeling that Cowden described when you first start giving someone CPR. She asked if someone who didn't have experience and did know how to push may not produce the crack until the professionals came to take over and he conceded that that was possible. So he did say it was possible. I want to add that in this cross-exam, there was one specific moment that where Lori asks Cowden whether or not he reviewed the 911 call prior to testifying. And he said no. When she asked him what he did review, he mentioned. mentioned his testimony from Idaho as one of the things that he reviewed.

And this was an interesting moment because up until now, the jury hadn't heard a single thing about a trial in Idaho. So it does make me wonder if any of the jurors caught on to that. Nobody made mention of it the rest of court. It was just this moment of mentioning that some of the evidence that he mentioned was from evidence in Idaho. I wonder. So in redirect, prosecutor Trina K, prosecutor Trina asked Kowden, if 911 knows how to instruct people on how to give CPR.

And he said yes. He also testified again that in his opinion, he did not feel that anyone else had tried to give Charles CPR before his arrival. Take a listen. Is the whole point of CPR to make sure that blood is circulating to get oxygen to their brain? Yes. so that they don't go brain dead? Yes. And you said that ultimately it wouldn't matter

if you cause more injuries because if they're brain dead, who cares, right? Correct. In your assessment, did you feel that no one had performed CPR on Charles Vowell before you arrived? I had felt that. I do know in my testimony to Chantapedia

had stated that, or it's probably in my testimony that it was not efficient or something to those lines. But I felt like no, it had not. Okay. You felt like no, it had not been done. Correct. Thank you.

I have another questions. No further questions. The next witness on the stand was Ken Keller, who retired as fire captain with the Chandler Fire Department in 2022. And he testified that on the call, where they know a shooting has taken place on any call, where they know that a shooting has happened. They try to as little as disturb the scene as little as possible.

In other words, not disturb the scene while administering aid. And then they leave as soon as they're finished so that they don't interfere with the investigation. So in other words, they come, they give aid, they leave. So according to Keller, 911 dispatchers are trained on how to guide a layperson, also a lay person, the person calling on the phone saying, I need help. So they are trained to guide that person through doing CPR over the phone. And he said that on the way to the scene, they were informed of the instructions. The instructions were given and CPR was in progress as far as what he was relayed.

So he said that a patient receiving CPR before they get there is important because having oxygenated blood pushed around the body makes them more viable. It makes it so they have a chance. So you're telling me there's a chance despite a gunshot wound through your chest. CPR is going to help. And the state introduced photos showing the blood around Charles's sternum and collarbone area. Keller said that he noticed modeling and levidity beginning to form when they took off Charles's shirt, which another point, Charles's shirt was still pulled completely down, hadn't even been they pulled up. And he noticed lividity as he pulled Charles's shirt up.

Lividity takes much longer to form and happens when gravity drains the blood to the bottom of the body. stated that he would have expected more blood on Charles's chest and pooling underneath him if CPR had actually been given to him prior to their arrival. Based on his professional experience, he did not believe that anyone attempted to give Charles CPR before the fire department arrived. And this, again, is important evidence. During cross-examination, Lori asked about how long it takes for modeling and lividity to begin, and Keller said that he wasn't sure.

and it depends on the person. He also stated that he couldn't be 100% certain whether or not anyone else attempted CPR. And so on redirect, Trina asked, you know, it wasn't the best answers, I'll be honest. Like, it was a little bit of a win there for Lori. Like he's like, I don't know. I'm not sure.

I can't tell. But on redirect, the prosecutor, Trina asked if you see modeling or lividity in someone whose heart just stopped a few minutes prior. And Keller, Keller replied that it takes a lot. longer than that and is a sign of death. Lividity clearly is a sign of death.

We know this. And so here we can hear him describing again why he believes that nobody else gave Charles CPR. Take a listen. 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 scammer. 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 atora.com slash remove.

Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove. Now, is the only way to know if CPR has been given to be there with the person watching them? No. What else can tell you that CPR? was given to a patient? Well, PD on scene arriving would witness, the best way would be witness CPR. That's the best way.

Is there any other ways? Well, yes. Again, you would have an indentation in the chest. The sternum would likely have been cracked loose from the rib cage. And there would be, in the case of trauma, increased bleeding. You obviously you do CPR or CCR sometimes when there's not trauma, you know, cardiac. In this case, for other indicators, the blood that was pooling only at the neck and not spread out further?

Yes. The lack of pooling underneath the victim? Yes, and the mechanical action of decompressions with a gunshot wound right there would have spread blood in that area as well. It wouldn't just have gone where gravity is. So where you saw the blood pooling was where gravity, a low spot. That was my interpretation of it, yes. And you did not observe spread blood across his chest. Would ongoing CPR movement of the blood through the body have also limited the modeling you may have seen?

Perhaps. Ultimately, is it your opinion that it is unlikely that CPR was given to this patient prior to fire? arriving. Yes. Thank you. I have no other questions. Yeah, let's play a bit of the 911 call. The entire call is eight minutes. So let me pull it up here. We won't play the entire thing, but let's play it for a little bit so you guys can get an idea. Let's hear this. Let's see what this is like. And so we're doing a little bit of an intermission. We'll hear this 911 call and then we'll come back to what we're going to discuss. South. South four peaks.

5531 South four peaks in Chandler. Is that right? Yes. You need police or care. I'm in police and an ambulance. What's the emergency there? There's a, I got to fight with my brother-in-law and I shot him in self-defense. Is he alive or? Yeah, there's blood. He's not moving.

How long ago did this happen? A couple of minutes. Fire department, what is the address for the emergency? Five five, three one, shot four peaks. And is that a house in Chandler? Yes. And your phone number, please? 480-351-9-1-20.

And just repeat the address to confirm it. 5531, South Four Peaks. And what is the emergency? I shot my brother-in-law. Okay, what part of his body is injured? In the chest. I'm sorry, where? In the chest.

Okay, if he awake and responsive or unconscious? Unconscious. Is he breathing? I can't tell. Okay. Are you willing to go over to him and check? Sure. Okay, do you just let me know if you see his chest going up and down?

How old is he? It's not moving. He's 60. Okay, and are you wanting to start CPR? No, I don't know how to do that. I can walk you through it. Okay. And what I want to do is you're going to put one hand in the center of his chest.

The other hand's going to go right on top of it. on top of it. Okay. You're going to interlock your fingers, keeping your arms straight, and you're going to press down hard and fast into his chest. You're going to go two inches down and fairly quickly. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, making sure his chest goes up between each compression.

Where's the fun now? Okay. It's in the other room. PD, we're going to stage for you. Okay, thank you. They just keep going with those compressions. Petey, did you have any other questions? Yes.

What's your name, sir? My name is Alex. Last name is Cox. You like that? In the living room. It's in a bedroom. Okay. Well, there you go.

There you go. You can hear that whole call, but I'm going to guess that they are going to share that call later on. It is disturbing, as some of you said. He is giving CPR. You can hear him. giving CPR. So the jury has not heard this call yet, which, you know, a lot of people have said, oh, this is kind of a boring trial. There's not much that's been thrown out there yet. I think there's going to be a lot more. I can't imagine that this wouldn't be shared. Alex Cox claiming

that he's giving his deceased, his deceased brother-in-law that he just shot CPR, also saying that It only took him a couple of minutes to call 911. He says that a couple of minutes ago. This happened, but he waited over 40 minutes. We learned, and there was already levidity. So, clearly, there are lies in that 911 call, no matter what anybody says, right? There were a few questions from the jury, which was interesting. Again, this is a jury that is allowed to ask questions, and we hadn't heard questions from

them until today. So some of the questions they asked were protocol, was protocol for, was protocol for followed. They asked why medication wasn't given to restart the heart and why a doctor wasn't called in or if there was a doctor available. And Keller explained that the medication would not have work since Charles's heart stopped due to a gunshot and a doctor wasn't needed because he was already deceased. And then it was time for lunch or or was it time for lunch. That is that is the question. The jury was excused. And so then we all thought, lunch time. But before everyone was excused for lunch,

Prosecutor Trina, Kay, brings up the fact that Lori filed a motion claiming a discovery violation. So a motion claiming that the prosecution, the state has a discovery violation. This is a really big deal. Like this could cause a mistrial. Like she's saying that there is a violation with how they handed over evidence, discovery is evidence. And although Prosecutor Trina brings it up, Lori actually didn't seem ready to argue her motion, but nonetheless, she ended up arguing. We're just going to listen to the whole thing. Take a listen.

It was that the state disposed what it had available to it at the time, and advancements in technology may change what was able to be extracted, but that's different than the state was holding. Can you guys hear it okay? That was the state's reading of the affidavit. I think the other concern comes from the fact that back on March 18th when the state was filing motions to preclude Lonnie Dworkin, the court had a discussion with the defendant about this, about whether or not she wanted to waive time, to have time for her expert to do this. And at that time, the court asked her if there was any one device that she wanted to review, which was from the defendant's own mouth, Charles Vallo's phone.

So now we have a motion that was filed, mind you, seven days after they received the affidavit from their expert. So they held off on disclosing that while we weren't in trial, and then in the middle of trial, filed it asking for information on numerous other devices that are in various other police agencies' possession. So although I think ultimately, I mean, the big issue is clearly the state would object to any motion to dismiss. There is no exculpatory evidence.

There's no even discussion of exculpatory evidence in Mr. Dworkin's statement or their very minimally fact invasive motion, let alone any prosecutorial misconduct. But I think we're back to the issue of. of Mr. Dworkin and what he's going to be permitted to bring in or talk about at this point in this trial. All right. Did you want to argue that motion right now? Not right now. Well, when do you want to argue it? Well, the main problem, the main, do you want me to argue it right now? I'm not asking you to, but I indicated when I read your motion that it does appear not to be any discovery violation, but that the state turned over the evidence that it had at the time and advances in that software that maybe make more information

available upon an extraction than was available when they did the extraction isn't a discovery violation. I'm looking at this as more of a discovery request for additional information, which at this point in the game, I'll allow you to do your discovery request, but I don't know that any information that's discovered between now and the end of trial would be coming in because it's so late. In reading that affidavit, I would agree with you that that was my initial thought as well. The problem is that the problem that we have here is that that software was available and those things were available and they were not handed over from the state. They were never handed over from the state and they've had that information for years. So that's why we filed that motion is because,

because of our expert was able to download the one device that we got that he was able to see that the complete downloads were never given, that these are reports of downloads. When we know that the state had available the entire complete extraction in the first place, they just didn't give us the entire extraction. They gave us the reports of the extractions,

the ones that they wanted us to have. So those were available, according to the technology, they just didn't give them to us on all of the devices, but we only have proof of it on one device because that's the only device that we were able to do in our timely manner. All right, I want to clarify a little bit. They gave you the full extraction that was available to them

at the time. No, they pulled a report from the full extraction and gave us that. That's what they gave us. State one respond. Governor, when you extract data from a device like a cell phone it is put into a formula where it is not readable by anyone which is why then you use the celebrate technology to basically parse that data into areas that we can

read and view and review so is that what was given to the defense was given to the defense was the 2019 or 2020 version of the cell right technology that is used to take that extraction and put it into a reasonable form so that you can look at, for instance, not having to search through all this data to try to find out a text message, all going to put together with dates and times and people and locations. Your Honor, I would request that we can have a hearing on this so that I can bring in Lonnie Dworkin and he can explain that what they did not give us. Well, just reading his affidavit is what they gave you is what they had available to them at the time. There's no affirmative duty for them to every time a new software version comes out that makes maybe more data available to rerun all the information.

We're not claiming that it is. We're claiming that they had a full extraction and they gave us a report of that full extraction instead of the full extraction on all the devices. It's not what only was available to them. They did have that available. They just didn't give it to us. It's cherry picking. It's cherry picking is what we got. I don't read your own experts affidavit the same way you're reading it.

That's why I'd like him to be able to come in and explain it. Can we set that up? Well, we can set that up at some point. But again, this is all late and it's unlikely that anything that's happening would lead to him being allowed to testify. But maybe we'll do that this Friday or something. I don't know. We'll have to squeeze it in.

but I'm not going to make the jury wait to do that. Okay. We'll be at recess until 1.30. 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. All right, man. My favorite quote there is a judge saying, I don't read your experts affidavit the same way you do. I think we can say that about most anything with Lori Valdebel. I don't see the world the same way she does. And the judge does not read her experts affidavit the same. same way she does.

There's a big difference between an evidence request and an evidence violation. One is a violation, meaning they didn't turn over all of the evidence. The other is Lori requesting new evidence. Lonnie Dworkin, by the way, is well known in Jody Arias trial. He was the cell expert and the tech expert in the Jody Arias trial, so many people know his name. So what is Lori wanting? What evidence?

What extraction from a device is she wanting? We actually talked about this. This was lunchtime, and this was right before I jumped on Law and Crime with Gigi. Sue, I was actually asked this by Angenit Levy over in Long Crime. So just take a listen to what I shared about it here. Let's go back out now to Gigi and Lauren. Gigi, of course, it works with us here at Law and Crime, and is the host of the Pretty Lies and Alibis podcast.

And Lauren Matthias is the host of the Hidden True Crime YouTube. channel and podcast with her husband, Dr. John. So Lauren, this question is for you. What discovery are they talking about toward the end? And really, this is from Sharada Ramanathan. This was all about the cell phone evidence for Charles. Yeah, it's actually really interesting what she's asking for. First off, we don't know what's allegedly in Charles Vallo's phone, but Lori wants it and Lori thinks it's important and she has made this clear well before even trial began. There was a hearing. It was her last hearing before the trial started. And she said she wants one thing and one thing only pretty much. And it's Charles Vallow's phone. And she needed it from the police department who was

saving it as evidence. And she needed it right away because she needed her own extraction. And that's what she wanted to do. This almost caused a continuance. We know Lori. Lori does not want to waive her right to a speedy trial. And she hasn't. And she hasn't. And she's, she didn't. But it got to the point where one last time the judge said, you can ask for a continuance if you don't have Charles phone. Do you want to take that? She didn't. Anyway, this is what she wants is whatever is in her deceased husband's phone. She's been charged with murdering or conspiring to murder him. And his phone allegedly holds all the answers when it comes to Lori Nebel. And that was what she was arguing, this extraction. And she feels now that the

state has withheld evidence. The judge didn't agree. with her, but we'll find out really what happens with this and if it really is an evidence violation. But that is what she was saying that what she wants is an extraction from Charles Vallow's phone, text messages, maps. Who knows what it is exactly, but it's in there. You know, Lauren and Gigi, and I guess, you know, Lauren, obviously you're right there. So I'll ask you first off. I wonder if it has to do with what she's talking about and what she did talk about yesterday in her opening statement. She said that, you know, the evidence will show that Charles was sending her threatening text messages. Have we ever seen or heard of any actual legitimate

evidence of that? Because in January of 2019, he was trying to get her help. I mean, he was concerned. He was trying to get her committed, you know, briefly for a mental health evaluation. have we ever seen anything that was remotely threatening from Charles Vallow to Lori? We haven't seen anything. I have heard of threatening text messages. I have seen some text messages that may be alluding to that, but I have not seen anything threatening at all. Yeah, not necessarily threatening, but I was just going back over the case file that we have

before trial. And there are some days where they go back and forth for a very long time where Charles is like, you're going to pay, but not in a physical threatening way. You're going to pay for ruining families. You need help. It was more frustration text. It was not anything at all like, I'm going to beat you, I'm going to hurt you, I'm going to kill you. It was really just a man that was worn out with all of her shenanigans and her lies, finding out he is footing the bill for her to run around and have an affair.

He was more threatening to expose her to people like the stake president and the president. preparing a people group where they went to these conferences exposing her for being a hypocrite where she was accusing Charles of having an affair and that was her justification for leaving him when really it was Lori who was the one doing it so not threatening as in physical threatening as in I'm going to let people know who you are and that sort of thing but never anything physically threatening that I ever read in any of those text messages but a lot of frustration understandably so Exactly. Understandably so. So I agree with Gigi there and I agree that she is looking for those threatening text messages, whether or not they'll actually be threatening is to be determined. So lunch is over and after lunch, prosecutor Trina K. told the judge that she observed a member of the jury, we're back to jury issues, a member of the jury using their cell phone during testimony and then submitted a question. The same juror submitted a question for the witness. So that's a concern. And you're using your. phone and then you're asking a question.

So the juror explained that he was texting his daughter and not looking at anything pertaining to the case, but then was told to keep his phone off during trial. So Lori raised concerns about the state's witness Daniel Coons before Daniel Coons got on the stand. He's a retired detective with the Chandler Police Department. And Lori claimed that the issue that she had was regarding. him being an expert witness rather than just a witness because an expert witness for the court is able to relay their expert opinion. And she didn't like that, that he was going to be able to

give an opinion and that Daniel Coons, and she said this, she brought this up actually earlier at a hearing. Daniel Coons had always been just labeled as a witness, not an expert witness. So Lori is claiming that this was never resolved, that she brought this up in a hearing and there was never a conclusion to it. And actually, she did bring this up in a hearing. And the judge said that he will allow him in as an expert because Daniel Coon's testimony could help the jury in making a decision due to his knowledge and his expert knowledge on guns. And he also attended Charles's autopsy. So that is the judge's conclusion. He can be an expert witness. So as Daniel Coons took the bench, prosecutor Trina brought out a tote bag of items wrapped in plastic. Clearly

this is evidence. This is evidence wrapped in plastic. And Coons explained, that he has SWAT and sniper training, and eventually he became a sniper instructor. He's also certified at shooting, and he is a reconstruction expert. That means he analyzes a scene to determine what likely took place during a shooting. And he was assigned to make sure the scene of Charles' shooting was processed correctly, accurately, he was assigned to gather evidence, report his findings, so that then the lead agent

could decide how to proceed with this case. And he also helped create a diagram to reflect what the scene looked like when he arrived. The diagram indicated where in the home Charles's body was located, as well as yellow place cards where the pieces of evidence, like the baseball bat in the bullets and the casings as well as Charles's hat and some other items were found.

And we were seeing this all over. The big screen, by the way, sometimes you saw images. Sometimes you didn't while watching live because we were seeing Charles's lifeless body. And it was heartbreaking. And I'll say at one point, both of his sisters left the courtroom. It was a difficult day for many, especially those that love Charles. So Coons explained that they used a camera system at the scene called a lizard queue, and it creates a 360-degree photo of a scene. And it is cool.

They showed this. Using this lizard-Que system, Coons pulled up this 360 photo of the scene, and we were able to see Charles, who was lifeless on the floor in an entire 360-degree scene of the room on the house. And you could really see anything. because remember there's no furniture in this house. Lori had been renting it. Melanie Gibb was moving in and out. There was a lot of stuff in closets and duffel bags, but there is no furniture in this rental house.

So we see Charles very clearly. And he also explained that he used traditional photography to get other angles of the scene as well. And so we were going to go through all of these evidence photos. And again, this was the time that Kay Woodcock left the courtroom with a victim's advocate, as did Susan Vallow, Charles's sister. And again, these were graphic photos. It was difficult to see. And you can see, you know, Charles is fit. He is tan. He was 60 years old, but he looked so much younger. And it is, it is heartbreaking to think his life was cut so short. They were difficult. Coons also testified that he collected physical items of evidence in addition to photographs with help from the crime scene technician. And then prosecutor, Trina actually began

going over several of these photos, the first being this card, this yellow card next to Charles's hat. And by the way, the hat was like away from Charles. It was definitely a little suspicious to me. My first thought was how did the hat get over there? But Lori objected to these photos. By the way, right away, she said that they were repetitive. And she actually gave a good point. She's like, wait, is the prosecutor going to make sure that we can add these to evidence and I object? So the judge went over all of the photos and said, you know, no, they're. okay, I'm going to let these be evidence. And so the judge stated essentially that these are going to help the jury visualize where everything happened. And the first photo began on the outside of the

home where we could see Alex's truck and crime scene tape. And then the next few photos showed the front door and hat on the floor near the first room. So like the room right when you walk in. Like it's big. It's like an open living area. There's not a kitchen or anything, but it open. You walk in, you walk down a couple of stairs, and you're in a wide, open living area. Again, no furniture. And you could see the hat on the floor in that first room, and then the next photo shows Charles on the floor. Again, lifeless.

And there were also close-up shots of Charles's hat and a bullet lodged in the baseboard. And we saw a photo of the bat, and Coon stated that he did not see any biological evidence present present on the bat. That's interesting because if, well, we'll get to that. But yeah, he did not see any biological evidence on the bat, but they kept it. And it was actually in the courtroom in an evidence bag. Trina then pulled out the actual bat, bat wrapped in plastic, and then admitted it into evidence. And next we saw a photo of what looked like a full metal jacket projectile, like a deformed. It was deformed and located to the east of Charles. So you know, just more of what looked to be a leftover from shooting a gun.

And then it was located to the east of Charles. And then we were shown more photos, again, of Charles's body. And Coons did testify that he noticed blood on Charles's left hand and chest, but none on his extremities. And we were shown those photos. And we saw what looked like blood on Charles's left hand, meaning essentially that Charles was shot in the chest, took his hand, put it there, blood on his hand. And although his hands were to the side of him, but that's what they believe happened.

It's heartbreaking. The next photo was a shell casing that Coons said belonged to a 45 caliber automatic pistol, one that was owned by Alex Cox. and the next photo was a second shell casing that was located in the same location. Coons explained that they photographed the blood left behind after the medical examiner removed Charles's body. And after they cleaned up the pool of blood, they were able to see a defect in the wood. So they picked, they cleaned up Charles, they cleaned up the pool of blood underneath Charles. And then that's when they noticed the defect in the wood, like the wood flooring is what we're referring to.

It was in the wood floor and it was from a bullet. And they showed close up photos of this. And this floor is a hardwood floor, but it has some man-made indents in it. They kind of make it look rustic and old. So they asked, like, well, what's the difference between these man-made divots? They didn't say man-made, but what's the difference between these divots and this? And he explained, we found this under Charles. It clearly was, we found the case and we found everything.

This is a bullet hole. And we can actually watch a little. bit of that actually here. Let's watch that. 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.

Well, once the blood was cleared off, we could actually see a defect in the wooden floor that was consistent with the projectile strike. All right. I put up Exhibit 56. There's a placard number 13 there. Is that a far away so we can see the location of where that is in perspective to the room? Yes. Having seen Mr. Vallow's remains in the room and then having them removed,

were you able to determine approximately where this defect that we see marked 13 was located in relation to Mr. Valle's model? Yes, it would have been consistent with being under his left shoulder. Did you take closer up photos of that defect? Yes. I'm going to put up 59 that shows that. placard. Is this what you were talking about? That is correct. How did you, let me ask you this, did you get the rest of the floor to see if there were anything else that looked like that?

Yes, that was consideration, so we did look at the rest of the floor. So you went through that whole room to see if you found any similar type of defects on it? Correct. Did you? No. So this was the only one that looked like that? Yes. and I'm going to put up 58. So we see other defects in the ground. What made this different? The size of it, the directionality,

the fact that it was directly underneath the shoulder where we observed an exit wound, and the fact that there was a projectile found on the floor in proximity to this defect. Was it? Let me ask you this. As a person who has processed crime scenes, fired guns themselves, did it appear to you consistent with a bullet strike? Yes, it did. And what were you basing that on?

The way the indentation is and how it tapers up coming away from the body in the same direction that the projectile was located. Did you and other detectives remove that piece of wood? Yes, with great pain, yes. All right, putting up exhibit 60, is that to show the piece removed and exhibit 61 to show the actual piece? Correct. And did you write on it so that you would be able to later look at that piece and know how that fit into the puzzle? Yes, it was important to make sure to establish directionality on that piece. All right. So after showing the area of wood that was hit by the bullet, the court then actually had a quick brief recess during this recess, by the way, we're able to get up, we're able to stretch, we're able to use the restroom, walk outside. At lunch, we actually have to leave the courtroom, but during recess we have a choice. So I stayed, you know, and it's a time to sort of just, um,

take stretch though definitely. So we were able to see though after this recess some footage of Alex's gun that was located at the scene and let's actually listen to that too. footage of the pistol. We have the orange bag with what appears to be a gun box inside

and then we have the pistol and the three placards next to the pistol are specific for the pistol itself, the magazine from the pistol, and potentially the chambered round in the pistol. So 74, is that a

close up of that pistol? It is. What kind of fiscal was that? Pardon. What caliber was it? It's a 45. At the same caliber as the casings that you had found in the front room next to Charles.

Yes. Does this show another angle of that pistol in 75? Yes. Yes, looking at the top of the pistol. When the pistol, as we see, is picked up in 76, the individual's wearing gloves, why is that? Again, to help preserve the evidence in the event that DNA were to need to be done, we could articulate that we did not touch it with our bare hands to impart our DNA onto it.

Are you visually looking at this gun to see, and this is 77, if there is any visible biological evidence, blood on this gun? Yes, we do look at them to help determine that. And did you observe any biological evidence, any blood, or what appeared to be blood, on this handgun? No, ma'am. If you had observed that, would you have noted it and photographed it and documented it? Yes.

Now, when you got this gun, was it loaded? Yes. And in 78 and 79, is that photographs of the magazine in the gun? Correct. So when we talk about the magazine, and I'll go back to showing, at 76, where is that in this picture? So you can see the base of the magazine at the bottom of the grip, close to what would be the individual's left thumb. There's that black piece of plastic that extends horizontally across the base of the grip.

So Coons also testified that he didn't notice any other areas of blood throughout the house other than the room where Charles was found in a small amount on the kitchen faucet, which we saw. He explained that he noted where the injuries on Charles were located, which hit injuries on the abdomen, the sternum area, left of the spine, and left shoulder blade. He stated that since there were two casings and two bullet wounds, he originally thought that there were only two shots fired. Here is how they were able to come up with a theory of where the shooter was located in what took place the day Charles was killed. given the injuries to Mr. Vallow

and the projectiles and the location of this, were you able to determine any consistencies of where the shooter may have been when that occurred? Approximately location, yes. And how did you do that? Based on the wounds to Mr. Vallow, the location of where the projectile ended up and where the casings were.

The working theory at that point was that the firearm rejected the casings to the right, striking the wall, the wall work that has the curve there, and bounced back towards the west wall. The projectile would have continued on a relatively straight path and embedded itself in the baseboard at the other end of the room. So would that have put the shooter somewhere in this area?

Yes. And so that to you seemed consistent with one of the shots having gone through him and ended up what we see in exhibit 20 over here in the baseboard, Mr. Valo being somewhere over in this area. Correct. Okay. Given the information that you obtained, let me ask you this, given the information that you saw at the scene there, again, with the casings, the injuries to make. Mr. Valo both to the abdomen and the shoulder. And then after you cleaned up the blood, the damage to the floor underneath location

of his left shoulder. Were you able at that point to start, have any concept or have an idea of what would be consistent with where the shooter may have been and where Mr. Valo may have been for that shot? Yes. What did you base that on? Again, a lot of the,

the factors that have been discussed, the location of the projectile item number four, the defect in the floor that was underneath him, the location of the second casing. It was all consistent with the shooter, having been at the feet, not necessarily right upon the feet of Mr. Valo, but in that direction, close enough

so that the projectile could again bounce off that wall and land on the west wall. The projectile or the casing, sorry. When you were looking at this scene, I'm going to put 56 up. Obviously there's no exact, I'm going to move Mr. Valo this way just to kind of

be looking the same direction. Did this defect appear to be in the area of Mr. Valo's shoulder? Yes. Now Mr. Valo had been rolled a couple times by the time you cleaned that scene up. Yes. So you didn't like stick a rod through him there and see if that worked?

No, that would be inappropriate. Are you even allowed to do that? No. It's a medical examiner frown on that. Yes, the body is theirs by law. So you're basically able to look at where he was located and say that that is consistent with being underneath his left shoulder. Yes, and we did take measurements of the body

before it was moved. All right. So when you measured where the body was, and then you cleaned up that blood and measured where that projectile divot was, was that consistent with where his left shoulder was? Yes. Given that information that you had at that time, were you able to draw any conclusions as to whether or not the evidence was consistent with Charles Valo being laying on the ground when he was shot? Very much so in the position that you see him. He was the second shot that entered the abdomen would have been where he was lying. So Coons testified also that he attended Charles's autopsy and the medical examiner actually measured the length between entry and exit wounds and used bullet trajectory rods, which helped him determine that Charles was lying down when he was shot. in the abdomen. Clearly, if you're lying down, there's no need for self-defense. In other words,

he was lying down, according to his autopsy. Next was Lori's chance to cross-examine Daniel Coons, and he was definitely the lead expert witness today, and Lori was ready. He testified that after he and other detectives arrived at the scene, they debriefed and came up with a plan for the investigation. He said another detective at the station was asked to obtain a search warrant, and they waited until they received one at around 11, 45 a.m. to enter the home. And then after the crew began the process of taking photos using the lizard cube, making the diagram, taking measurements, gathering evidence until around 4.30 a.m. is what he shared during this cross-exam with Lori. And then Lori actually

transitioned into asking what takes place during a gun class. And she asked if it would be common for an instructor to tell someone to shoot center mass if they were being attacked. And Coon said yes. I mean, this was a very strange question. Would you as an instructor tell someone to shoot center mass if they were being attacked? Kuhn said yes. However, he said that if you were teaching a novice, he would teach them to shoot until the threat went away. It was a great comeback, I thought.

great answer for Lori's question. Lori then asked if a 45 caliber could shoot to the left. And Coons replied that the particular gun used in this case was set up to shoot to the right. So then Lori had some questions regarding where the shell casings were located. And you know what? Honestly, I did too. I had some questions about where the shell casings were located when I saw the photos in the room. It was confusing when they were saying,

where Alex was shooting the gun and the casings were found to the left of where Alex would have been shooting the gun. And Alex is right-handed and it just didn't make sense. So Lori actually asked a question that I had questioned, that I appreciated. So not that I'm appreciating anything Lori does, but this was a question. I wanted to hear Daniel Coon's answer and I appreciated him. Let's take a listen. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold, 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 atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove. In this particular case, when you said in your report that the shells bounced off the wall, they had gone to the right like they were supposed to. Is that correct? That is what I was operating off of, yes. And then they would have bounced to the left? Yes, because that makes sense. And they would have landed to the left of my husband. Is that where they were found?

Along the west wall. Okay. But how close to the wall were they found? The pictures show where they were found. They're relatively close to the wall, inches away. I was gonna say inches? Yes. Not feet, but inches? Correct.

And would that be a normal trajectory from hitting the wall to where they landed? I am not surprised by seeing that, yes. According to how fast they would be going. How fast does a casing come out of a gun? I don't really know. I've never chronographed a casing coming out of a gun. I've only chronographed bullets.

So I have no idea how fast a casing comes out. It doesn't come out with enough force to really hurt anybody. So there weren't any divvets in the wall or anything like that. There could be microscopic divvets, but it would be very difficult to find. And you didn't find any that were visible to the eye? Nothing that caught my eye, no. So I don't know about you, but I actually find it really strange that she keeps referring to Charles as her husband, rather than his name.

I mean, I get it. It was her husband at death, but they were strange and she remarried Chad. And so to her, to keep referring to him as my husband, my husband, admittedly, yes, it was her husband at the time of his death.

She is remarried. And she is demanding, remember, demanding to be called Lori Debao. That is her name. She is, she is adamant about being Lori Debel, not Lori Ballow. So it is hard to hear that. Regardless, she went on to ask where Coons would place the shooter standing in the room.

And he stated that the shooter would have been in the entry area of the hallway facing a northeasternly direction. And for the second shot, a northern, it would be northern with a slight deviation to the east. So Lori asked if he thought the shooter moved. And Coon said that he believes he just changed angles, but can't say if the shooter moved, which the shooter would be Alex, let's just call the shooter Alex. Can't say if Alex moved or not, given the location of the casings, he could only have moved a few feet, if that. So give or take. So he's suggesting that maybe Alex just moved his angle.

And then Lori asked questions about the autopsy. She asked that the medical examiner made any statements about stippling or stifling, excuse me, but Coons didn't recall. She asked if it was found and how far away the shooter would have been from the victim if it had been found and he said that he is not an expert so that that information would require a lab to determine. So he said, not my, not my field. he then asked, Laurie then asked if he would be surprised if the medical examiner gave an estimate of two to four feet. And Coon said that it's possible,

but there would need to be more testing done to determine how far away Alex was. At this point, the judge asked Lori if it was a good place to stop for the day. So I think we can assume that she will have more questions for Coons tomorrow. And actually, ironically, it wasn't the judge at that first.

Lori actually asked if it was a good place to stop. It was kind of a funny moment. And then the judge said, you can keep going. And then she said, no, I'm going to stop. So it was like a joint decision by Lori and the judge to stop at that moment. Clearly, I think she wants to sleep on some questions, think about some things, have a night to really continue to cross-examine the expert witness that she does not want to be an expert witness. So actually, I do want to show you this. So after, because then after we concluded, the judge, this was a great moment.

The judge, so, you know, courts, courts, do unto, the judge is like, oh, and by the way, by the way, we need to work on how you cross-examine witnesses and how you're questioning witnesses. Take a listen. Will you inform us in the morning of exhibits you anticipate that you might need. during the rest of your cross-examination prior to us starting because there are a lot of photographs to try to sift through to get the ones that you may need. You have a habit of when a witness answers, answers a question to add something on the end of their answer.

For example, during this witness, you said, I wasn't aware of that. Another time you said, I don't know much about guns on previous witnesses. you've said that's what I recall or I'm not really sure. When you say those types of things, it's a form of testimony, okay? So I'm gonna caution you to try to refrain

from doing that after the answer, just move on to your next question, okay? Sure. All right, anything else from the state? Yes, Your Honor. I received information that a couple appeared tomorrow. There was no phone number for them to follow.

to say they received their subpoena and they were asked to advise them if they need to come here but I'm happy to pass that along or I wasn't sure if they need to come here to mile or not. All right so I'm clear the defense subpoenaed a few detectives the the information in the subpoena says they need to appear tomorrow. Correct along with one civilian who also reached out to us to kill Okay, but was there, Detective Moffitt and no Congress of who had given a subpoena with no number to call and confirm just says to come here tomorrow. It was my understanding that the subpoenas were to say to call to check in beginning on the date tomorrow because we didn't know where we would be at this point in trial. Who do you want them to call to see when they actually need to be here?

Because obviously the case, the state's not going to finish their case this week, I don't think. Correct. Is it dense their numbers? I don't know how I just wanted, and obviously she wants them to come here and I'm telling that I just was asking that long as that is about this. So it sounds like the subpoena may have been missing some information of who they should check in with to make sure they report on the correct date and time. So who do you want them to call those witnesses? Your investigator?

Yes. And okay, so we don't need to put it on the record, but the, the state will pass the investigator's number along, name a number along to those witnesses and they'll call your investigator, but you're saying they don't need to report tomorrow, correct? Correct. I didn't get to see those subpoenas. They went straight from my paralegal to OPDS,

so I'm not quite sure what they said. Okay, so I'll direct the state to provide that information, contact information, and that those witnesses just need to stay in contact with the investigator. All right. and then we're in recess. I just want to end explaining, you know, how difficult it was to sit in the courtroom. And we saw a lot of photos today of Charles's body.

And it was very clear again, he was fit, he was in shape, and to think that he had athletic shoes on and Reeboks, athletic shorts, looked like he had just come from working out. He was coming to pick up his seven-year-old son to take him to school. He had just gone on a date the night before because he was living in a different state than his wife. And he saw that divorce was on its way and trying to meet new people and start fresh. And to see his life cut short, so short, while doing something that any good father would be doing, picking up his son to take him to school. It was hard.

And I mentioned that at one moment, his two sisters walked out of the courtroom. with the victim's advocate. It was a difficult day. And as always, I just want to say that this trial is about Charles and justice for Charles, the man who sounded the alarm, the man who was the last offense to JJ and Tiley, who then next lost their lives. So no matter the antics of Lori in the courtroom, I'm grateful for the humor in the chat, and I'm grateful for the emojis that we have, the trial emojis, and for the ability for us just a process at the end of difficult court days.

I love seeing all of you at lunch lives. And thank you, everyone, for your kindness. But as always, I just want to remind everyone, and we all know this. I just want to remember that this is about justice for Charles. And may justice be served. We'll see you guys. Bye-bye. 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 atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove.