Hidden True Crime - LORI VALLOW DAYBELL TRIAL RECAP Day 3 | 4/9/2025

Episode Date: April 10, 2025

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, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Hello, hidden jens. Day three. What a day. what a day. Nancy Joe, if you're listening, Hidden Jems, we love you. What a day. What a day. So, you know, let's just go through it bit by bit. What happened. We have some great clips.

Thank you to everyone for your well wishes. I am not feeling very well today. So I missed a bit of court. I actually got there and even went in and then I realized I had to go. So thank you everyone for your kind wishes. but without further ado we also by the way we also have the missing audio from court there was a problem on the end of the of court TV it was not a hidden two crime issue as we streamed the live trial

and they did send the audio to all media and before court began let's start with that Lori filed requested a file to file a motion regarding the last witness we heard from yesterday and that's Daniel Coons Coons helped process the scene after Charles shot attended his autopsy and has experience as a shooting reconstruction expert. Thus, he is an expert witness. However, yesterday, Lori raised concern about him being considered an expert witness

because she didn't have an expert of her own to rebut his testimony. The judge ultimately allowed him in as an expert. This all happened yesterday, but Lori today is now asking for all of his testimony to be struck from the record and for the jury to ignore the things he said. She stated that she had a right to due process under the 14th Amendment. But when the judge asked Lori her rights and how her rights were being violated, Lori said that she didn't want to argue. Fascinating, right? You're an attorney.

You're arguing that it should. You are literally arguing, Lori. You are asking that his testimony to be struck. So it's obvious that Lori is not happy about Coons being allowed in as an expert. And her attitude definitely reflected that today. And it also shows that she is not. not giving up. Picking back up, though, with cross-examination, Lori then wanted to continue on the topic of stippling,

which is a pattern of gunshot residue that's burned into the skin when someone is shot at close range. And Coons testified that he did not recall seeing any on Charles's chest. However, Lori asked if he'd be surprised at a medical examiner claimed to have found it and estimated that the shooter was only two to four feet away from the victim. Coon said he wouldn't necessarily be surprised that the medical. medical examiner found some and it would still be consistent with his observations at the scene. After this next question, we see her pushing back on an objection, which was interesting because she hasn't really argued about any of the previous objections until today. Take a listen.

If someone very muscular like my husband were two to four feet away from you holding up a bat, would you consider that a threat? Can I object to speculation relevance? Your Honor, I'm asking for his opinion as a professional and as a firearms expert. He's not, okay. That goes to the ultimate decision. The objection is sustained and it calls for a legal conclusion. It calls for a legal conclusion? Yes, move on.

The judge, let's move on. It's sort of what he said she does. She responds after something is concluded. You're not supposed to do that. Well, as you can see, she is. is a little bit more fiery today. I was wondering how long it would take. Well, we now know, day three.

That's how long it took. Next, Lori Debel asked, if his opinion of what happened would be an educated guess, sorry, I mean Coons, asked if Coons' opinion of what happened would be an educated guess. And Coons replied that, no, his opinion is based on known facts. In other words, based on known evidence.

Lori then asked Coons to review his report that he wrote from the incident and explained the meeting of a shored wound. He explained that this would be created where the projectile is trained to exit the body, but the body is up against a firm surface or held in place by tight clothing like spandex. Lori asked Coons if he was aware that on the day of the shooting,

Charles was wearing a $200 bamboo workout shirt. And that bamboo is a heavy-duty fabric that doesn't easily rip or tear. And she also wondered if this type of fabric it could have caused the wound to be shored. Houn stated that he had no knowledge about bamboo fabric. And while it could theoretically be a contributor, it wouldn't be in this case

because Charles' body was on the floor. Lori pushed back on this, which we can listen to right here. So you just said in your report earlier that a shored wound could be caused by tight clothing. Is that correct? Correct. And you're saying that could not have.

have happened in this case? The shirt did not appear to be tight clothing to me. Well, it was made of bamboo as we established, right? Is that correct? I am taking your word for it. I do not know that it's a bamboo shirt. Okay. And you did not investigate that at all?

No, ma'am. But you had the shirt in your possession? It was seized as evidence, yes. And you never checked what kind of fabric it was. No, ma'am. And you never checked if that could be a possibility. No, ma'am. And you knew that spandex was kind of a material that would, could make that kind of short mark that you just mentioned, correct?

It would have to be super tight clothing. Super tight clothing? Yes. Or a fabric that's even stronger than the spandex that you mentioned? The strength of the fabric, I don't believe, has a huge play in it unless it is form fitting and compressing the skin, much like a hard surface or firm surface would. Okay. But what you said in your report was that held in place by tight clothing could cause a shored wound. As has been explained to me, yes.

Okay. Okay. Well, there were several minutes of Lori trying to get goons to say that Charles's shirt could have caused a shored wound. But each time it was objected because he said he didn't have knowledge of bamboo fabric. And his shirt wasn't tight like spandex. As you remember, he is an expert witness, which means that he has to testify in what he is an expert on, and it's not bamboo fabric. So moving on.

Next, Coons testified that the information from the autopsy, the trajectory rods, and the doctor's statements helped him to determine the bullet path and location of the body during the shooting. And then Lori then asked why there wasn't any test done to make sure that the bullet actually hit the floor, and Coon stated that the bullet was still intact and in the wood. It was actually in the wood. So testing wasn't necessary. Lori tried to get him to agree

that the divot in the floor could have technically been there prior to them moving in. In other words, it has a bullet in there, but you know, it just could happen to be there, not caused by the bullet. Coon said he didn't think that was possible. And here, we can see some footage

of Lori displaying the divot in the floor that Coons believes came from the bullet. In Exhibit 57, Detective. I'm looking. This where my pin is pointing? Yes, ma'am.

That's the defect that you're referring to where the bullet struck. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And this, these defects were already previously at the residence. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. And do they look that much significantly different than that to you?

Yes, they do. What do you think the measurement difference in that and that is in your professional opinion there is no skill in this photograph it would be difficult for me to give you an estimate so in your estimation this defect is much larger than this defect is that correct the second defect you're pointing to appears to be wood grain indentations the other is an actual defect in the board. Okay. Okay. She loves saying that. Okay. Here we're going to play one more clip of Coons explaining how Charles's body being against the floor would create what he is

referring to as a shored wound. So that's what you mean by a shored wound. It hit up against something. Is that correct? The terminology as it's been described to me, is the skin is against a firm surface. So in this particular case, the floor would be the firm surface. So as it's entering or exiting your husband and starting to try to enter the floor, the floor is forcing the bullet to kind of ricochet, but the body's still keeping it in place, so it's now deforming a little bit, and it's still expending its energy to escape from underneath the body. Okay.

Okay. And if my husband was, in fact, laying on the floor, how did he get out from under his body? Wouldn't it have gotten stuck under? That's my question. Just what? Could you explain that to me? I think I just did. So the bullet is a full metal jacket. It still has its energy. Until it starts striking things to cause resistance to it to slow it down, it's going to expend. its energy at a normal rate. I think I've just lost the mic, I'm not sure. When it starts striking firm objects, then it'll start bleeding the energy away. And in this particular case, as it's exiting your husband's body, it's impacting bone, it's impacting the flesh that's compressed against the floor, and it's impacting the floor now. So there is going to be a lot of resistance against that. Now, where it exited,

it's still not free to just fly like the one that went through his chest and not the back. It's still semi-trapped between your husband's body and the floor. So that's going to cause even more energy drain until it comes to rest. Okay. Let's the don't take a shot every time Lori says, okay, because it wouldn't be healthy. Also, hearing her refer to Charles as her husband is just grading. Next, Lori asked why Coons didn't look for any alternative because the possibilities, any alternative possibilities other than Charles laying down when the second shot was fired

and he stated that the information he gathered didn't lead to any other alternate possibilities. He also said that the information was given during the interview, the information given during the interviews did not match everything that he found at the scene. Lori tried to insinuate that since the floor and Charles's shirt weren't tested and since no one's hands were swabbed for gunshot residue that Coons came to a conclusion before properly investigating other alternative theories. And she also said that there are a lot of things that he still doesn't know, which we can listen to here. So you can't really tell me for sure who shot him, can you? Well, as we've established, I was not present when it happened. I can only go with the facts of what

people have said and what the evidence shows. Okay. You don't really know what time he was shot, do you? Actually, no, I don't. Okay. You don't really know if he was falling back or lying supine on the floor, do you? Yes, I do. You don't really know what time my husband actually passed away, do you? No, ma'am, I don't. Thank you. No more questions.

During redirect, prosecutor Trina K. Hadkins go back over all of his findings again. since many of Lori's questions kind of muddied the waters a bit, here he sums up again what he believes took place. Are you, if the physical evidence is what it is, are you trying to find a new way to make that work? No, I let the evidence speak for itself. So here the physical evidence is one bullet is in the baseboard, right? Yes, ma'am.

And so that had to come from, somewhere that makes sense for that trajectory, right? Yes. And then the other bullet is right next to Charles. Correct. And so again, you're looking at all the physical evidence and what, how that fits together? Yes. And in this case, in your opinion, the shot through Charles's chest that exited his back,

did the evidence support to you that he was standing up for this shot? Yes. And in your opinion, looking at all the physical evidence from the casings, the projectile, the injuries to Charles, was that consistent with the shooter? And now that you know, the stippling, with the shooter being still in that sort of kitchen hallwayish area when he fired that shot at Charles? Yes. And in your opinion, again, looking at the casings, the injuries to Charles, the location of the projectile as well as the shored wound, and the lack of stippling, does that support your opinion that Charles was on the ground when he was shot in the abdomen?

Yes, it does. I have no other questions, Your Honor. 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. The next witness on the stand? you ready? Nancy Joe Hancock. Nancy, we are here for your testimony. Nancy Joe Hancock. So who is Nancy Joe? She is who we know went on that date with Charles the day before he was killed on July 10th, 2019. Nancy Joe explained that she is divorced in Met Charles on an LDS dating website in July of 2019, the month that Charles was killed. Charles eventually asked her for her phone number and they began texting frequently and talking on the phone for hours. And during these conversations, Charles was very detailed

about the aspects of his lives, such as his children and why he was separating from his soon-to-be ex-wife Lori. Nancy Jo said that she found it strange how calm and kind Charles spoke about Lori. So Charles was kind to as soon to be ex-wife, even with all of the things they were going through and her new beliefs that went against their LDS or Mormon or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, their religion. He was still kind when speaking about her. However, Nancy decided to keep talking to him, despite him still being married, because despite everything going on, he was charming. And in her words, quote, seemed pretty awesome. next Nancy Joe explained that Charles and Nancy met for the first time on the night of July 10th again the night before he was shot and killed in July 10th after Charles slew in from Texas to Arizona she described Charles as as Charles being ecstatic to see his little boy JJ and picking up JJ for school the next day and he even choked up when describing him like a kid on Christmas morning so heartbreaking knowing

what happened to JJ. But the jury doesn't yet know. Charles also told Nancy Joe about his plans to go view a house in the area and meet with Lori's brother Adam. And they discussed seeing each other again the night after he finished all of his errands. Nancy Joe reiterated just how open Charles was with her throughout their conversations and even brought up changing his life insurance policy beneficiary from Lori to his sister Kay. Nancy stated that she, She suggested that Charles tell Lori about the change, especially because he expressed being concerned about his safety. He expressed this to Nancy Joe on the first day. He reportedly chuckled and told her that was probably a good idea. And the next day, Nancy reached out to Charles because they had those loose plans to meet up again, but she never heard back from him. She figured he had just decided to not talk to her anymore, and it wasn't until December that she saw the story on the news about him being shot. She spoke to police in April of 2022 to tell them what she knew about this case.

So Lori begins her cross-examination. Are you ready? She begins her cross-examination by immediately referring to Charles, once again, as her husband, which I have seen countless people, many of you in chat, pointing it out as well as online, that it's just such a dig. It's almost like she's doing it to seem closer to him in the eyes of the jury. I mean, maybe we ought to remind Lori that her actual husband is sitting on death row. Chad Daybell is on death row in Idaho.

But Charles Vallow, unfortunately, was her husband at the time of his murder, and she gets to call him her husband. And it is, it is so grating. So it does seem like she is doing it to seem closer to him in the eyes of the jury. And some people even think that the state should maybe object to her calling him that. Instead, maybe just referring to him as Charles. It also seemed a little snarky, the way she said it to the woman who had done. develop a connection with Charles while he and Lori were going through their separation, Nancy Joe Hancock.

Regardless, let's listen to a little bit of this back and forth with Lori trying to insinuate that they weren't actually going through a divorce. Take a listen. And you stated that your husband or my husband told you that he was going through a divorce. Is that correct? That's correct. And did you have any way to verify that? No, I didn't try to verify that.

Okay. So did it surprise you later to find out that we were not in the process of a divorce? Charles was in the process of a divorce. He was not in the process of a divorce. Did it surprise you to find that out? You've seen it all on TV where we're not getting divorced. Okay. So on the website that you met him, did he say he was divorced?

I'm not certain. Would you have gone on a date with him if he would have said he was married? If I would have realized how married he still was, maybe not. But I just met for dinner. I wasn't sleeping with him or anything. Do you go on dates with married men? Naturally? I'm going to all subject under 6-11 for harassment.

All right. I'll sustain the injection. Your Honor, do I not have a right to cross-examine this witness for what she has already testified to? You can cross-examine her about what she's testified to. So you did go on a date with married Ben. I went on a date with Charles. But you did not know he was married. I knew his divorce was not final.

His divorce was not started. Okay. And neither was your divorce started. Lori when you started having an affair with Chad Daybell. But moving on, there are, there were several more instances throughout where Lori is just sort of very nasty and accusatory towards Nancy Joe, like asking her if she usually goes on dates with married men. Again, pretty ironic coming from her considering what we know. And I don't think her speaking that way is going to go over well with the jury. At one point, Lori asked Nancy Joe to describe

some of the things she and Charles discussed on their date, which has one particular great moment that we can listen to here. I think this is going to go down in trial history is one of the better moments. Take a listen. Nancy Joe telling Lori not to flatter herself. With this type of sparring going back and forth, the judge called a sidebar after the state objected to Lori's questioning for harassment, actually. However, there were some technical difficulties with the court reporter being able to hear. So the jury was actually sent out. And we were able to listen to this sidebar. Of course, the state didn't have any objection to that, probably because what Nancy and Charles spoke about won't make Lori look very good.

And after the sidebar court let out for lunch and then resumed back with cross-examination of Nancy Joe. And for those that were wondering where I was during my lunch live on YouTube, forgive me for missing today. But I will be back tomorrow. I am doing much better. So we then after after lunch, it seems as though, well, first off, it seems as though Lori heated the judge's warning and decided to skip the question about what Nancy and Charles discussed about her in their text conversations. And she switched to asking about Nancy reaching out to Charles's sister Kay Woodcock after seeing the news story about the shooting. So Nancy explained that she made. messaged her on social media, message K, and they have continued to text here and there ever

since. And Nancy said that she wasn't sure if she was allowed to say what they discussed, and we can probably assume that it was regarding what happened to JJ entirely. So heartbreaking. And the other court cases is what we're going to assume was, I mean, it's what I assume was being talked about, all of which this jury, again, has no idea. Lori asked. if Nancy ever turned over her text messages to police, and she said that they retrieved them from Charles's cell phone. Lori then began asking how many times she spoke to prosecutor Trina K about this case and if she's ever communicated with her brother Adam. So Nancy said she did speak to Adam once, but only because they ran into each other at a pickleball tournament, and she recognized him from the media. And so just Adam had a DJ job for for many, many years.

So she recognized him. And a few moments later, Nancy actually remembered, though, that she had messaged Adam on a dating app. And in this clip, Lori accuses her of lying. So on a dating app, your brother's picture came up on my dating app. And I sent him a message and said, But he had a different name that he used, not Adam. And so I just sent him a message and said if he was going to use someone else's pictures, he should probably pick someone different than Adam Cox.

That's how I met him. That's how you met my brother, Adam? Correct. Do you know what perjury is? Absolutely. I object, Your Honor, that's question. Argumentative, arraignment. Argumentative.

How long was this? this conversation that you had with my brother at the pickleball tournament? A couple of minutes, maybe, less. And how many times had you communicated with him before that? Only that message on that dating up, besides that. One message, one time? I don't remember.

I think he messaged me back and it didn't continue. So just the one day then, maybe several messages in one day? I might have sent him one other messages, one other message, but it was just one interaction and there was nothing further. And you'd not schedule a date with him? I did not. Next, Lori asked Nancy, is she had ever spoke to Brandon Boudreau, Lori's niece, Melanie's ex-husband? Nancy said that they briefly met because he attends the same church as her daughter. Lori asked if Nancy knew that she wasn't aware of Charles being on dating websites, but the state objected.

She changed the question to ask if Charles had informed Nancy that Lori knew they were separating. And Nancy said, quote, well, he was under the assumption you were having an affair. So him moving on was a natural effect from that, end quote. Which was a pretty good line. There were a few more times and Lori was just very snarky towards Nancy. and even cut her off by saying, quote, that's enough in the middle of her answer, which I'm actually surprised wasn't objected to. But finally, after all of that, it was time for redirect.

Nancy testified that she was the one who reached out to police first after learning about Charles's death, which surprised her. It surprised Lori, since the police had his phone and could have seen their conversations the night before he died. Excuse me. It's a prize. Let me clarify it. Let me look back at my notes.

It surprised Nancy Joe that she had to reach out to police first since police had Charles's phone, forgive me, and would have seen their conversations the night before he died. And she clarified her interactions with Kay Woodcock, Brandon Boudreau, police in some of the things Charles told her. She stated that Charles let her know that he had met with an attorney to get the ball rolling for a divorce, but she would not have entertained a serious relationship with him until it was finalized. The last witness of the day was Christina Atwood. This is somebody else we've all been wanting to hear from. Christina was another one of Lori's friends and was part of some exorcisms.

Well, you know what? I'll just tell you about her testimony. Christina explained that she first met Lori and Charles at church and they became friends. After the Vallow's moved to Hawaii, Christina and her family went and visited them there in 2015. So pretty close. And then after they moved back to Arizona in 2018, she began spending time with Lori again. And at the beginning of 2019, Lori invited Christina to go with her to Hawaii again. But she couldn't recall why and ended up not being able to go at this time.

But during the same time, Lori began confiding in Christina about some things going on in her life, including her marriage. She said that she was upset with Charles and that they weren't living together anymore. She also knew that Lori had been going to Hawaii by herself and didn't want very many people to know. Christina stated that at this time, JJ was staying with Charles and then Tiley was staying with Alex. Christina testified that one of the main reasons Lori was upset with Charles is because he tried to get her temple recommend taken away. So she didn't want Charles knowing where she was. And when Lori got back to Arizona in the spring of 2019, she invited Christina to attend a group meeting.

The people at the meeting were Lori Zulema, Melanie Gibb, Nicole Earl, and Serena Sharp. At this meaning, Lori told the group that she was concerned that dark spirits were plaguing and possessing Charles. Christina said she was disturbed about what Lori and her brother Alex were saying about Charles and even another woman attending the meeting named Serena. We will hear from Serena. Christina confronted Lori about this and it became obvious that she began distancing herself. from Serena and Christina going forward. Moving forward,

that's when the distance started happening. And then just so everybody knows, this is actually where audio went out during trial. And it went out for everyone. It was a court TV mishap. Court TV is pool. They are streaming the trial for all of the media. And it went out for about 15 minutes,

but don't worry. We actually do have that on our YouTube channel. It's YouTube.com slash shouldn't chew crime. You can listen to it there. For those listening to the podcast, YouTube, that's where you can find it. And it's interesting. It's interesting.

So definitely take a listen to that. And then the prosecutor next after that, prosecutor Trina transitioned into asking Christina about where she learned that Charles had been killed. She stated that at first she didn't realize that Alex was the one who shot him. And then Trina asked if at any point did Lori say she was joking about Charles being possessed by evil spirits and Christina said no. after that, Lori stated that she didn't have any questions for cross-examination and court ended for the day.

And let me just say that was a wild moment and court ended earlier than anticipated because we were all expecting a cross. But Lori methodically decided that she was better off just leaving that testimony as is that it wasn't too damning, I guess. I'm just going to not, let's not stir the pot. Lori said, we'll leave the pot stirring to Nancy Johancock today. and she just kind of backed off, which was also interesting after sparring so much with Nancy Jo, she really just sort of walked away from this and said no further questions.

We are ready for day four tomorrow. I am feeling better, and I am so grateful for all of you. I do agree it was one of the smartest moves she made all day. Everyone, thank you so much for being here. I know that this is a little bit shorter stream tonight than typical. Thank you all for your well wishes. will be back tomorrow and I'll be back tomorrow with lunch lives as well. Thank you all for being

here and we'll see you tomorrow. May justice be served. 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 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. Again, Aura 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.