Hidden True Crime - TRIAL DAY 5 | Graphic Autopsy Pics, Life Insurance Calls, & Objections Galore | Lori Vallow Daybell

Episode Date: April 15, 2025

What a bust day in court... From the medical examiner, to the life insurance, and even ending with a fiery cross exam with Lori...Lauren is here to break it all down for you. About Hidden True Crime: What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

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

uses premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, q-u-in-c-com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Hello, hidden gems. It was a big day in court today and we are going to go through everything right now. I want to begin. The line was very long to get into court this morning. Not all of the public who arrived to watch day five of the Lori Day Bell trial were able to get a seat in the courtroom.

But when it came to the surviving victims, the victims who sit in the front row, fewer were actually there this morning. While Colby Ryan, he attended his second day in court today, K. Woodcock and her siblings, Charles Vallow's siblings, Susan and Jerry, they were notably missing from court today. And it's always an ominous clue in criminal trials when multiple victims affected by the crime are absent. It always usually means it's going to be a difficult day inside the courtroom. And that ominous clue proved to be true when the first witness appeared on the stand. He was Dr. Derek Baumgartner. He works for the Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office. He's a medical examiner. A board certified in anatomic pathology, clinical pathology, and

forensic pathology. His job includes performing opopsies, running toxicology reports, and determining cause and manner of death for people who pass away in the Maricopa jurisdiction. Well, Dr. Baumgartner began by explaining that an autopsy is an examination of the external and internal aspects of the body to determine how a person died. On July 13, 2019, two days after Charles Vallow was shot and killed, Dr. Bromgarner was tasked with performing Charles Vallow's autopsy after he was again tragically shot and killed. Prosecutor Trina K then moved to admit several photos taken from the autopsy into evidence and to go over with Dr. Baumgartner. And that first photo displayed was a close-up of Charles's face, which was taken for

identification purposes. It was a heartbreaking way to start the day. Baumgartner said that Charles was just under six feet tall and weighed just a little over 200 pounds. There were no injuries, abrasions, or contusions on his head or face. And next, we saw Charles on the autopsy photo. Again, I think we're beginning to learn why Charles's siblings were not in court this morning. There were visible bullet wounds on the sternal chest and left abdomen.

Prosecutor Trina zoomed in on the wound and Dr. Baumgartner pointed to an area near the center of Charles's chest. He stated that the wounds were made perimortem, which means that they were around or at the time of death. Colby Ryan at this point, again, that's Lori Ballow's only surviving child. He did look very emotional in the front row as we witnessed these graphic images of his deceased stepfather. And I did note a victim's advocate making sure that Colby was okay. Jurors remained stoic during this difficult time. They took notes while Lori Daybell viewed the photos of her deceased husband on a large computer screen placed at her death. Next, we saw photos of Charles's hands.

Dr. Baumgartner stated that it's standard to examine a person's hands for injuries during an autopsy. And in this case, there was a slight abrasion in Charles's left hand in fingers. And there was apparent blood transfer on his left hand as well, but not on his right hand. Dr. Baumgartner explained that the deceased person is usually wearing the same clothes and jewelry that they died in by the time they get to the medical examiners. And in the next photo, we saw a watch that Charles was wearing when he was shot, which did not appear to be damaged at all. Next, we saw a photo of Charles's legs, which had abrasions on both knees. It was an interesting photo to see. I had never seen that or known that before, that he had abrasions on both knees.

Dr. Baumgartner stated that these appeared to have also been perimortem, meaning that they occurred at or near the time of death, usually just before death. And in the next photo, we could see what Trina referred to as a defect on Charles's chest that Dr. Baumgartner classified as an entrance gunshot wound. He described it as being oval in shape and having a peripheral rim of abrasion, which is consistent with entrance wounds. In a close-up shot of the wound, we could see red abrasions around the bullet hole. In here, look, we can listen to Dr. Baumgartner describing what that indicates. There is a red abrasion around the defect or the hole. And it's a little bit eccentric if you think of it as a clock face from about the 8 o'clock to 12 o'clock positions.

That indicates that the projectile was coming in at an angle and it kind of scrapes away the skin as it enters. There are also abrasions on the opposite side. They are much smaller and look almost like pinpricks. That could be consistent with what's known as stippling, which is when gunpowder strikes the skin after a gun is fired. Next, prosecutor Trina asked him to explain the difference between suit and stippling. Baumgartner stated that suit is combusted gunpowder that appears as a black powder on the skin,

rest stippling is caused by burned gunpowder that hits the skin at a high velocity causing an abrasion. Even though this was seen in the photograph, Dr. Baumgartner said that he typically doesn't call it stippling in his autopsy reports. He just describes what he sees. And next, Trina asked if the presence of stippling could give any indication on how far away the muzzle of a gun was from the gunshot wound. Baumgarner answered that typically a gun needs to be test fired to be able to determine

in distance. However, for a handgun, it can be anywhere from an inch to four feet. Baumgartner also said that the closer the muzzle is to the person, the more stippling and suit there would be. Given the small amount of stippling and lack of suit in this case, Baumgartner estimated that the gun was anywhere from two to four feet away from Charles. Next, Baumgartner stated that he did not locate any projectiles in the body from this gunshot wound because why? Well, there was an exit wound. And we saw a photo of this exit wound, which was located on Charles Thoracic or Midback. And Baumgartner testified that exit wounds are typically not round-like entrance wounds and are usually larger slit-like wounds. He explained that he takes

measurements and tries to determine the wound path of a gunshot. Let's listen to what he found in this case. Do you try, do you, when you are performing an autopsy, do you advise what a, the wound path is? Yes. What do you mean by wound path? The wound path is what the projectile encounters as it passes through the body. What was the wound path for this gunshot wound that entered Charles's chest and exited his back? So I passed through the skin of the chest, the sternum, which is the breastbone. the paracardium, which is a sac that surrounds the heart.

It then hit two chambers of the heart, the right atrium, and the left ventricle. And then it passed through the ninth thoracic vertebral body and exited the soft tissue and skin of the left back. So for lay people, it went through Charles's heart. Yes. Was that wound immediately fatal? Not immediately, no.

Immediately, no. Could Charles have lived for some period of time after this? A short period of time, but yes. Are you able to say when someone is struck in the heart, could they live from seconds up to minutes? Seconds up to a very few minutes, yes. Up to have you testified previously or indicated previously in an interview that it could be up to maybe two minutes? Yes. So basically, to put this bluntly in blunt terms, the first gunshot essentially killed Charles. It went directly through his heart.

But that doesn't mean that Charles died immediately. Baumgardner explained that Charles could have been alive for a few minutes after he was shot. He also said that Charles could have even been speaking as he put his hand up to his chest and covered his wound with his hand. He testified that the injuries to his legs indicate that Charles, likely fell to his knees after he was shot, which is just a heartbreaking scene to imagine. And next, Dr. Baumgartner discussed the trajectory rods that he used during the autopsy to demonstrate the wound path. We could see a photo of this trajectory rod that went through the ninth thoracic vertebral body, which is part of the spine. Dr. Baumgartner testified that

the trajectory would have been front to back, right to left, and slightly downward. He said, that this could have happened from the shooter either holding the gun at a downward angle, their arm moving up or down, or a height difference between the shooter and victim. Next, Trina transitioned into discussing the second gunshot to the left abdomen, the second gunshot. So heartbreaking, so unnecessary, so telling. In a photo, we could see the second gunshot wound, which was above and to the side of Charles's belly button. So we were all looking at the photo. And Dr. Baumgartner described this as an entrance wound as well, but this one did not have any stippling or suit.

This led Baumgartner to believe that the shooter was most likely further than four to five feet away from Charles. We could see a photo of the exit wound, which was on the back of the left shoulder. So right back here, that's the big difference. That's pretty far away from your belly button, where. which is where it entered. Dr. Baumgartner stated that this wound was a little atypical and had characteristics of a short exit wound. And this is a term that we have heard several times last week

and happens when the body is up against a hard surface. It creates tearing around the skin of an exit wound because the bullet cannot continue to go forward. Dr. Baumgartner stated that this could happen if the victim was lying on the floor when they were shot. He stated that he has never seen a short wound occur from someone simply wearing a t-shirt, bamboo or not, like Lori tried to insinuate last week in court, the old bamboo shirt theory. But like the other wound, Dr. Baumgartner determined the wound path for this shot as well.

Let's take a listen. What was the wound path for this shot? So the bullet passed through these skin and soft tissues of the left abdomen. It then hit the left lung. It then hit the back part of the left fourth rib and then exited the soft tissue and skin of the left shoulder. So to be clear, the left fourth rib,

is that in the front of him or his back? Where is that located? In this case, it struck the posterior or the back part of the left fourth rib. Is that sort of in the location where we see the exit wound right there? The exit wound is a little bit above the fourth rib. You talked about sort of the soft tissue.

So when this bullet was exiting, did it sort of hit both the rib and the connective tissue between the ribs? Yes. The trajectory of this wound was front to back, right to left, and in an upward direction. And next, Dr. Baumgartner described doing a Y incision on Charles's chest and back. in order to view the inside of Charles's body. And regarding the gunshot that entered Charles's abdomen and exited his shoulder, Dr. Baumgartner testified that the shooter was likely standing near Charles's feet as he was lying on the floor. He also testified that a bullet strike on the floor under Charles's shoulder would strengthen this theory.

After stating that Charles's cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds, the state had no further questions. Next up, Lori's turn to cross-examine Dr. Baumgartner, the man who did her husband's autopsy. She started off by asking if he completed a toxicology report in this case, and he stated that he had sent off blood samples to test for 16 different substances, including common recreational and therapeutic drugs and alcohol. Lori asked if medications for blood pressure, testosterone, and human growth hormone would be tested for, and the doctor said they would not. And I'm going to throw in that I speculate Lori was attempting to do that to suggest that Charles was taking testosterone, which many older men do, and thus maybe he was even on steroids. She was certainly, I think, trying to get the jurors to think that steroids rage. I don't think it got past the jurors at all. Not at all.

And you have. So let's keep going. Next, Lori asked if the abrasions on Charles's knees and hands could have technically been caused during a scuffer. before the shooting. And Dr. Baumgartner agreed that was possible. Lori then had questions about how the short wound could have occurred, and her bamboo fabric theory was up again for review. And let's, you know what, let's listen to a little bit of that cross. Take a listen.

I know that the state asked you if it was consistent with him, um, with this second shot, the, uh, the shot to the abdomen, that it was, was possible that he could have been shot on the floor, is that correct? Correct. But would it also be possible that he could have been falling when that shot happened as well? And then hit the floor? Not really. If he was falling and still passing through air, not yet having hit the ground, that would not have caused a short wound.

So if he had hit the ground and bounced on the ground from the first shot, as the second shot was traveling, that could not be possible that he hit the ground when that shot was exiting the shoulder? He would have had to have been on a firm surface to create that shored wound. And it could not be caused by tight clothing? Tight clothing and short wounds is typically like a supportive garment, like a belt or a bra. In my experience, I've never seen it with like a, you know, a t-shirt or anything like that.

Are you familiar with bamboo clothing? I am not, no. Or how tough that material would be? I am not. Okay. That was Lori's last question, and I will say after the weekend. she does seem to be in a much better mood. She was much softer with Dr. Baumgartner and didn't really push the possibility of the

bamboo shirt causing a short wound nearly as hard as she did last week. Or maybe she's just giving up, but giving up really isn't Lori's M.O. So I suspect she might have been counseled to be a little bit less hostile. During redirect, Trina made a good point that if a bamboo shirt theoretically could cause a short wound, it would have occurred in both exits. And if you recall, only one of the wounds was short. And Dr. Baumgartner agreed. He also stated that there was no evidence in the toxicology or anything else other than the gunshot wounds that caused Charles' death. The next witness on the stand was Special Agent Mark Sari, who investigates crimes and fraud associated with Social Security

for the Inspector General's office. Sari explained that survivor benefits are given to recipients after a family member has passed away such as children when their parents pass away. And when the child turns 18, they no longer receive those benefits. If a parent like a mother is married to the father when he passes away, the survivor benefit would also go to the mother until when or if she remarries. Sari was asked to look into survivor benefits for Lori's children, J.J. Vallow and Tiley Ryan. And while during his investigation, he learned that Tiley began receiving survivor benefits in June 2018 after the death of her father, who was Lori's husband before Charles Valo.

That's Joe Ryan. And she was receiving $1,859 a month. And Lori was Tiley's representative paying meaning that Lori was receiving the money in her bank account. On August 12, 2019, Lori went to a meeting at the Social Security Office to try to procure survivor benefits for herself and JHA after Charles's death. And during the meeting, Lori stated that she and Charles were, living together at the time of his death. Well, this is important to determine if someone is eligible to receive the benefit because as we know, Lori and Charles were actually split up and separated.

They were not living together. They were not parenting together. They were not in the same state. Regardless, JJ began receiving $1,951 a month and $3,902 in back pay from the date of Charles' death. Since he and Lori were still legally married, she personally received that same amount in survivor benefits as well. During his investigation, Sari also learned that Lori married Chad Daybell on November 5, 2019, which we also learned, by the way, mystery solved, that that is when she officially became Lori Debel and not Lori Vallow.

But she failed to report this marriage to the Social Security office. Well, during cross-exam, Lori asked Sari if a surviving spouse could get social security benefits even if they don't have any children. He answered yes, as long as the couple was married for at least 10 years. Lori started pitching hypothetical scenarios about how she might have been confused about the type of benefit she was applying for. But Sari said that wasn't really possible. He said that Lori went in person to the social security office and filled out specific forms so there would have been no confusion. We know that Lori likes to ask the same question over and over and over again.

It's one of one of her things here as she represents herself. So I'll just play a little bit of one of those moments here. So, but a spousal benefit, if you've been married for over 10 years and you didn't have any children, you would still be entitled to that. Isn't that correct? My extent, I have to be a certain age to get that benefit, to be a certain age to apply for that. In this situation here, due to the decedent Charles dying, there was a benefit for the child only that was receiving as well as child in care. So only two benefits were received for a child, also child in care as well. So my question is, how is that determined by the employee, like if it's spousal benefit or if it's a mother and care benefit? It would be up to the applicant to apply for the benefits.

So if you applied for the spousal benefit and they gave you the mother and care benefit instead, how would you know the difference? You just know that that was the monthly amount you were getting? You would receive a letter to the mail. You also would be at the appointment very clearly told what you were applying for. It should not be in a confusion at all what you're applying for at that appointment. Okay. So if you were told that you were getting the spousal benefit,

Yes, it's sustained. If an employee told a recipient that they were getting a spousal benefit, I'll allow him to answer that hypothetical if he knows. If an employee were to tell someone they were getting a spousal benefit and they received a letter in the mail saying it was a mother and care benefit, should they call the Social Security Office? us and clear that up? It would be up to the applicant. If they see the letter to the mail to correct contact the whole security and say, hey,

this is the wrong benefit I'm receiving. So it would be up to the applicant to let us know, let Social Security know that benefit is not correct. So if the employee put it in as something other than they told the recipient, then it would just be up to the recipient to correct that, is that correct? Social Security goes off of information that's provided to the agency by the applicant. That makes sense. So it's up to the applicant to be truthful and provide

the right information to the agency. So do you have a copy of my application for either of these benefits? You'd have to, I'd have to ask the prosecutor for that information. Okay. Have you ever seen one to your knowledge that you remember? Yes. You've seen my applications? Yes, I have. And were they for mother in care? It was for survivors for JJ as well as for mother child in care. as well. So the application that I filled out was not for spousal benefit. Is that what you're saying? Well, I'm sorry. He can answer if he knows if he recalls the answer. Would be the question, please? I'm saying so of the records that you saw, I did not have a spousal survivor benefit application. The records I saw were an application for survivors benefits for JJ as well as for child and care as well,

for two different benefits that you were receiving. During redirect, Sari looked over a letter that Lori received, which clarified the type of benefits she would be receiving. He stated that Social Security doesn't just decide which benefits a person may want to receive, and Lori would have applied for any that she received. As soon as she remarried Chad, her child and care benefits would have stopped,

but she would have continued receiving the benefits for JJ, and the jury had a few questions. for Agent Sari as well. He testified that after his investigation, the payments to Lori stopped. One juror asked if Lori was the one who notified the Social Security Office if she remarried, and Sari said she did not.

Lori was able to redirect based off of those juror questions and asked if he was aware that she did notify the Social Security Office in Hawaii that she remarried. The state objected and the judge sustained the objection and told her that she is not allowed to testify while she's asking questions. She's been told that before and again and again and again. So one more time, Lori, you are not allowed to testify while you ask questions. It's clear she keeps trying to sneak in these little bits

of her own testimony while phrasing them as questions, but the judge is doing his best to not allow it. Regardless, Sari stated that he had access to the entire Social Security database and saw no record of her trying to report her new marriage. Well, the next witness on the stand, we got through a lot of witnesses today. And the next witness we heard from was Robin Smith Scott, who works as a claims representative for banner life insurance. Dun dun, dun, yes, that little life insurance bit. Whenever there's a murder, there is often life insurance. Follow the life insurance. Well, Scott stated that people can either go through an agent or apply for life insurance. insurance online. She went on to explain the difference between a policy owner and an insured

person. The policy covers the insured person's life in the event of their death and the benefit would be paid to the beneficiary. The policy owner owns the policy and can make the changes to the amount, the beneficiary, pays payments into the policy, etc. And the policy owner and the insured aren't always necessarily the same person and the insured cannot change the beneficiaries. Well, Scott stated that Banner Life Insurance keeps record of any and all changes to someone's policy. So if that was confusing, Banner Life Insurance is saying, don't worry about it. We will keep record of everything. And if someone calls to make changes, these calls are recorded.

We are going to keep record of everything. So prior to February 26, 2019, Lori was Charles' beneficiary for his $1 million life insurance policy. One million dollars. And if he would have passed away before that date, she actually, before that February 26th date, she actually would have received that money. However, as we all know now, Charles changed the beneficiary of his life insurance to his sister, Kay Woodcock. And at this point, dun dun dun, court broke for lunch.

Well, and after, I want you to know that Kay Woodcock was back in the courtroom along with Charles's sister, Susan Vallow. So they certainly took the morning off, understandably, so they could avoid those graphic photos of their beloved brother. And we're back in court after lunch. And afterwards, after court, there was also some brief housekeeping before the jury was brought back in. And we're going to listen to the questions that the judge had for Lori here.

So again, this is before the jury was brought back in. 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 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.orga.com slash remove. I guess here's the issue is I don't know to what extent you might have intended on crossing police officers about why you weren't arrested that day or why your brother was arrested that day or what why it took however long for charges to be submitted are those types of things were those things you were planning on questioning anyone about not exactly in those terms In what terms then? Asking those specific questions. Those are not on my list. However, it will become apparent that we were not arrested that day. So I don't foresee it being a problem.

I'm not trying to go into detail on that. The timing of what was happening, how the investigation unfolded as far as timing, who was charged, who wasn't charged, would not be relevant. And I think that's what the state's motion is toward because I think one of the witnesses, one of the first witnesses in the case,

there was a question about why you or your brother weren't arrested that day, which again isn't relevant because if you go down that path, you could foreseeably open a door into, there's a lot of rules. reasons why the investigation probably took quite a while that the jury doesn't really need to know about, nor is it relevant for them to determine what did or didn't happen

on that particular day that you've been charged with. But I'm just kind of giving you a heads up that I don't think it's relevant. If you think it's relevant and we get to cross of this witness today and you think you have a question regarding the timing or who was there, wasn't arrested, ask if we can take a break, all right? Okay, sure.

Then we have, well, let me ask the defendant, does you subpoenaed Robert Bobby Ballo apparently was sent that subpoena or served that subpoena for a date that's already passed. Is this, again, someone that you believe has relevant information to your case? No, Your Honor, that was just. just an oversight, that was a mix up of clerical error.

So we apologize to him or his family or any distress that caused that was not, that was mixed up with an exhibit. His name was mixed up with an exhibit. It's very difficult on the phone at the jail when they cut me off every 20 minutes and sometimes the notifications that get to my paralegal and my investigator do not come through clearly.

All right. The court will find that that subpoena, first of all, wasn't effective in the way that it was served out of state on an out of state witness. It sounds like the defendant's withdrawing that subpoena. Can we say that? Absolutely. You can crush it. So that one's withdrawn. Are there other? Your Honor, just I know you filed the state's email. I did have attachments of that on there. If those are part of the record, can we seal that as well? Because obviously it still has Bobby Valo's information.

I've only sealed your email and I've sealed the actual two subpoenas that we discussed this morning. Thank you. Was there another Mr. Boudreau was served with a subpoena for this case? Is that correct? That is my understanding, Your Honor. All right. Those subpoenas were sent out from OPDS. We turned them into OPDS before you struck that witness, Your Honor. Okay. So. So that subpoena is effectively quashed.

And as I said, that one would be filed under seal as well. Then we have, let me just check the time here, 123. The motion, limni regarding the testimony of the video observed by Janice Cox and Summer Schifflet, have you had a chance to review that and discuss it? I haven't had a chance to discuss that with advisory council and I would like the opportunity to do that, Your Honor. All right, that's fine. I don't think that's imminent for today.

No. And then I think we can also take up the state's third motion to preclude later today or sometime tomorrow. So as we could all hear, the judge was again, again, if it says on the word again, the judge was again warning Lori about questions that could lead to the jury potentially learning about the other investigations that were going on in her life. At this point, we can only assume that the jury does not know her children went missing or that they were actually murdered. Or we can assume that the jury doesn't know about Chad's wife Tammy Daybell being murdered. And so I think the judge is actually just trying to help Lori not open any prejudicial doors. And after this, we picked right back up with testimony from Robin Smith Scott. Scott stated that Charles had contingent beneficiaries in the event that Kay Woodcock was no longer alive to receive his life insurance benefit.

So these contingent beneficiaries, if Kay Woodcock was no longer alive, were Nicholas and Zachary Valo. Those are Charles's son from another marriage before Lori. And on July 15, 2019, Lori called Banner Life Insurance to make a death claim because they do not inform, people when they've been removed as a beneficiary. And Charles clearly didn't tell her. We were then able to hear the recording off of this call and let's listen now. Claims department, this is Robin. May I have the policy number? Sure. Yes. Okay, one moment, please. May I have the name of the insured? L. Charles Vallow. I'm speaking with.

This is Lori Vallow. And your relationship to the insured? He's my husband. Okay, one moment. Okay, ma'am, I'm just going to need to ask you a few questions so that I can open the claim and then I can go up the claim procedure with you and answer any questions that you may have afterwards. That would be great. Okay.

First of all, may I have your daytime phone number, please? Sure. And what was the date of Mr. Val was passing? Um, July 11th. And what was the cause of his passing? Well, he was shot. So I don't know how I want to put that. Okay. All right. Um, and I hate to ask, um, but is it, you can just say yes or no.

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

Okay. Are you aware of who the primary beneficiary of the policy is? It's me. Yes, yes. And may I have your, I'm sorry, one moment on my computer just went away for a second. Okay. May I have your current mailing address? Sure.

It's 558-25244. that is all the information I need to open the claim. What we will do now is review the policy on the file to confirm the beneficiary information and determine the claim requirements that we will need to settle this particular claim. Once we have completed our review we will prepare a claim packet to send to the main beneficiary once that has been confirmed and the claim packet can either be mailed or emails or fax. How would you like to receive a correspondence? email would be great. Okay, and what is your email address? It's Lori L-O-R-I. All right, so you should

receive an email from our office within the next three to five business days or sooner. It will have the instructions listed once you receive the information. If you have any questions whatsoever, please don't hesitate to give our office a call and then we can go from there. Okay, is there anything I can help you with at this time? That's it, I think. Okay, ma'am. Well, I'm very sorry for your loss. You take care of yourself.

Thank you. Okay. Bye-bye. So in the call, let's go back to the call. In the call, Lori tells Scott that she is still under the assumption that she is Charles's beneficiary. And when Scott asks if his cause of death was homicide, Lori replied, as we all heard there, that it was an accident. After reviewing the policy, Scott realized after the call that the beneficiary had been changed, and an email was sent to notify Lori of this change.

Well, Lori called back to speak to Scott, and we were also able to listen to that second call here. It's a doozy. Take a listen. You have the policy pulled up. Who am I speaking with? This is Lori Valo. I'm returning your call. Yeah, I'm a student. Okay, no problem.

Let me just get all of this information up. Okay, so in your voicemail, you stated that you had something that stated you are the beneficiary of the policy? Right. So I have the original policy where I was the beneficiary, the sole beneficiary, and then we changed the policy to where I was 80%, and we added two people, the porches who invested in our company for each 10%. And that's the last one I have. That's the last update that I have.

So can you tell me when that was changed again? I mean, I know my husband is the agent on record so he can, he can change it. He's the owner. Okay, I don't see anything regarding the second change that you said. I don't, with those percentages, I don't see anything at all with you as 80% at any time. Okay, so that's something he just told him he was going to do. That's just a handwritten copy I have that I found.

Okay. So I can't, I mean, I really can't give too much information, but I can tell you that the beneficiary was changed in March of this year. Okay. Okay. I'm trying to figure out what he was doing since we have five kids and we've been married for 15 years. I'm sorry. So I know he owes a lot of people money and I didn't. I was worried if I got money, they'd be coming after me for money.

Right. No, I understand that. them. But now I will be with none. So did he change it to one person or was it several? Unfortunately, I can't release that. I'm sorry. Okay. No, I know you can't tell. We're in the business. My husband is the agent.

Okay. Got it. Okay. We deal with this business all the time. Okay. I kind of know how it works, but I'm completely surprised. Right. We have our seven-year-old with option that we adopted together. So I'm surprised that he would do that without telling me.

I'm so sorry. So, I mean, there's nothing you can do about that, even though it's community. No. No, this is a contract that we have with the insured, exactly. So he's able to make any changes, you know, during the lifetime of the policy. Well, can I check? I mean, I have a policy, a $2 million policy on me. And since he's the agent, would he have been able to change the beneficiary on my policy?

Not if he was the agent. He would have had to own the policy, but I can certainly check. But if he would have signed my name, if he had done that, I wonder. I mean, I don't, you know, I would hope that wouldn't happen. But let me just pull up. Okay, let me just take a look and see what I can find on you. It's under Lori Valo. What would be?

If we have a $2 million policy on me, but I'm not even sure it's with center-like. Yeah, I'm not showing that it's with us. It might be life of the Southwest. We work with several companies. Right. I could call them and I'm just asking the question, like, I can call them and ask them and make sure the beneficiary is who I say. I mean, I mean, I would.

I mean, if you have a concern of that nature, I certainly would call and check on your own policies if you, you know, have concern if something may have happened. Well, and I would have to change it anyway because he was the beneficiary as far as I know on the policy. Right. So you would definitely want to update that at this point. And what happens? Like if something happened to me, say today, today, and it's under him and he needs to see what happens to that policy? Well, if there's not a, well, every contract's different, but I mean, more than likely, if there was not a contingent beneficiary named, it would go to your

state. Yeah. But if there's, you know, if there's a contingent beneficiary name, then it would go to that person. Right. Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Okay. Well, thank you. I just needed that information. Okay, no, not a problem. All right, you take care. Okay. Bye-bye. So obviously, Lori was not very happy about Charles changing the beneficiary. and to remind you, yes, claiming five children was a stretch. Charles had two children. Lori had two children. They adopted JJ, but there were only two minors in the home at that time.

And ultimately, the money was paid to Charles's sister, Kay Woodcock, who at this moment is sitting in the courtroom in the front row. And Lori surprisingly had no questions, so we were able to move on to the next witness. Can you imagine that? After that nice long phone call she had five and a half years ago, six years ago, so long ago, yeah, six years ago, nearly six years ago. She had no further questions for the woman she spoke to. Up next was Jeff Moberg on the stand. And who was Jeff? Well, he is a forensic scientist with an Arizona Department of Public Safety and Firearms and Toolmark Unit.

Moberg stated that when a person fires a semi-automatic handgun. There are identifying toolmarks that are left behind on the projectile or bullet. Let's listen to him explain this. Take a listen. When a person fires a semi-automatic handgun, are there any sort of identifying tool marks that might be left on the projectile or the bullet? Absolutely. All of that pressure that builds up and is pushing the cartridge case back, It is resting against what we call the breach face. The breach face has a hole in it where the firing pin comes through and it strikes the primer. Primer is just that little button in the center of the cartridge.

It's actually a very volatile compound that ignites the powder charge instantly. So all of that pressure builds up and presses against that breach face. This being a semi-automatic, as it cycles back, the barrel has to unlock. So it moves slightly back, but then as it unlocks, it drops. down and as it drops down that cartridge case is scratching up against the surface of that breach face imparting all kinds of marks that we use for comparison purposes when the projectile itself is fired out the barrel are there any tool marks left on that yes so when the when the bullet is being pushed out of the barrel all of that pressure is

pushing it through. A barrel is rifled. Now rifling is a pattern of lands and grooves that are in a rotational pattern that impart the spin on there. All of that pressure causes the back end of that projectile to expand and to fill that void. So as it's going through, it's dragging along the inside of the barrel, picking up any of the imperfections from the manufacturing process

that are there, similar to a fingerprint. So when it comes out, we're able to look around there and you can see the pattern of the rifling all the way around the bullet, and the individual striations or scratches on the surface coming from the inside of the barrel. 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. Again, ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at ORA.com slash remove.

Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove. Trina asked Moberg if he was provided with casings and projectiles, and if he was, would he be able to determine if those were fired from a specific gun? Well, Moberg stated that they would do a test fire with that particular firearm and collect the bullets and projectiles to compare under a might. microscope, and each gun barrel makes very unique markings that they can use for comparison purposes. We've done this before at other trials we've covered, including Richard Allen's in Delphi, Indiana. But in this case, Moberg test fired the gun that was used in Charles's shooting,

a Springfield Armory XDM-45 caliber, semi-automatic pistol. It was also provided with casings and bullets located at the scene. Moberg was able to determine the cartridge casings were fired from the gun that police collected from Lori's house. The gun, Alex said that he used to shoot Charles Vallow. Next was Lori's turn to cross-examine Jeff Moberg. She had some logistical questions about the tests he used primarily regarding if the casing stayed in the same general location after he shot the gun. And I actually honestly had some of the same questions.

So why don't we just take a listen to a little of that here? And what's your distance at that point? Oh, approximately a foot. Oh, just a foot away into the water tank? Into the water. Okay. And then did all of the casings go into the exact same place, like close to the same place? So around the inlet tube for work that we shoot into, we have a big net that catches the cartridge cases.

So you can't really tell her they land then, I guess, because the net catches them. Is that what you're saying? That's land as far as they kind of shoot out of the gun and then get caught by the net. Okay. So they don't land on the ground and roll to the close to it? other okay but you kind of got a feel for this gun because you shot it right I did so if you were to shoot the gun straight and then move 40 degrees to the right and shoot it again do you think that the casings would end up in the same area

objection as to speculation without foundation of he shot the gun your honor I was asking his opinion hold on he can answer first of all if he understands the question if i may clarify sure so you're you're asking if i point a weapon say this way and then turn this way correct okay um i would ex i can't answer that but i would expect the cartridge case to be slightly different from the very first one but not much depending on what interacts with it in its flight path if did it bounce off of something what's the floor type what is or whatever it hits first, I couldn't say without knowing any of that. Okay. So would it be safe to say that the casings would end up in the same place if you

didn't move and you fired two shots? They should end up close to the same location. Again, it really depends on what is around because typically when a semi-automatic firearm is fired, the slide comes back and the cartridge case ejects up and to the right. So So if you moved slightly, you're changing that angle slightly. So it could be slightly different. It could be in the same location, depending on how they bounce and roll. Okay. So if you fired the gun and the casing ricocheted off the wall,

but then you move the gun and fired it again somewhere else, it could miss the ricocheting of the wall altogether, right? Again, without knowing the scene, I couldn't say. Okay. At the end, Moberg summarized again that his final, findings show that the bullets and projectiles found at the scene matched the gun that Alex said he used to shoot his brother-in-law, Charles Valla. In redirect, Trina asked Moberg to clarify which side the casings ejected from on Alex's gun. And this was a confusing part of this story

and the crime scene investigation to me because the casings, according to where the gun was shot, the casings were on this side. But it felt like they should have been on this. side. So I'm paying attention to this. And he stated that the ejection port was angled up and to the right. But even if you, even if you keep your arms as still as possible, the casings won't always necessarily land in the same place. And multiple factors like the flooring, the ground, and any intervening objects like walls moving your arm or angle of the gun, et cetera, will all affect where the casings land. They also asked what would happen if the shooter had the gun at an angle, and that would mean that the casings would go somewhere else. So a lot of describing why

casings might end in a place that's not so obvious. There was also no way to be able to determine which casing was fired first or second, only the general area where the shooter might have been standing. Well, if that wasn't enough, we've gone through a lot today. We've gone through a lot today, right? The state is going so fast through their witnesses. The last witness on the stand for today was Detective Inclan, a detective with the Chandler Police Department in the Robbery Homicide Unit. And many of us might recognize her from some of the early Dateline episodes. She has been working for the department for just shy of 24 years. She started in patrol and moved into a new unit for general investigations, which she described as entry-level detective cases. After that,

she moved to the family violence unit, then to narcotics and organized crime. And then in September of 2009, moved into the robbery and homicide unit and has been there ever since. Another place where you might recognize her is from the interviews of that took place on July 11th, 2019, because she is the law enforcement who interviewed Tiley and Lori. So she explained that there is one detective that is on call at all times, but depending, on the case, but sometimes call other detectives that come in. And on July 11th, 2019, she was actually driving to a community event in West Chandler, Arizona, when she was asked

instead to respond to the scene of a shooting. While she and several detectives were asked to go assist at the call. And when she arrived between 928 and 930 a.m., at that time, she did not have a body camp. She explained that they did not get those issued for the agency until a couple of years afterwards. But she said that when she arrived, she arrived on the north side of Charles Valla's residence. And I should say Lori's residence, but where Charles Vallow was shot and who Charles Vallow was paying for Lori to rent. There were other law enforcement members and there was already crime scene tape up by the time she arrived. There was also a care. unit, which was also there, which is a crisis unit. Inklund saw Alex Cox seated on the curb.

We've seen the body cam footage of Alex Cox sitting on the curb. That's where he was when she pulled up. And as she walked up to talk to a supervisor and officer Krauthheim was also there. She said Alex appeared normal and wasn't really agitated or upset. He had what looked like a paper towel or a Kleenex and at one point touched his head. We'll call it a little dab. Just a little dab with some Kleenex on the back of that head. We've seen the body cam footage. But she did not herself end up having any contact with Alex at the scene at this time. So she walked up and then ended up not talking to him. She then went into the procedure of arriving on the scene. So she talked to all of us in the courtroom, what happened once she arrived on the scene? Well, she explained that a triage

of what is going on is done. And that way, as people arrive, they can start assigning tasks. there is a case agent and signed as well as a separate scene agent. Ninklin explained that patrol officers are the first responders. They do the initial investigation, scene safety, first aid, until it is safe for the fire department to arrive. But in the event that the call may be a bit more serious or all of a sudden there needs to be more resources like search warrants being done, then you see detectives show up. And once the detectives arrive, the patrol officers are relieved from the same. scene. Incling said that at some point, she realized Lori and Tiley had arrived back on scene, and they were standing in the vicinity of Krauthheim within the crime scene. So she knew that

they were gone, and she knew that they had now arrived back. So at this time, she did not know exactly who they were. She was trying to figure it out and process it. And as for Lori's demeanor, Inklink said that Lori was standing in front of her parked car with Tiley next to her. She appeared to be having this, quote, ordinary interaction with Krauthheim, just kind of talking. She didn't really seem really animated or emotional. And in her words, quote, just kind of seemed ordinary or nonchalant, end quote. There's that word again that Lori likes, nonchalant. It's been it's been said a lot at this trial.

A lot of witnesses have used Lori's demeanor after Charles Valo was killed as nonchalant. And she doesn't really seem to like the word. Well, here it is one more time for you, Lori, nonchalant. So while at the scene, Inclin spoke to her sergeant about giving what they call a death notification. So she figured out who Lori and Tiley were, finally. She was informed. So then she realized, you know what, I need to give them a death notification to Lori. And she did not believe at this time that Lori knew that Lori knew.

that Charles had passed away because Lori wasn't again there when Inclean arrived on the scene. And from the way she was acting, no one could really tell that she knew that her husband had just died. But after talking with her sergeant, Inkling went to the care unit van where Lori and Tiley were sitting. She tried to have Lori come out so she could talk to her. She don't want Tiley to be there, right? Just, hey, Lori, will you come out? But Lori told Inkling, she already knew what happened to Charles. And why did she know? Well, because she was there. And they ended up having a conversation with Tiley there in the van. Inclin explained Lori's demeanor was the same as before, not really emotional, pretty calm, didn't seem overly affected. Those are a few of the terms and words

she used to describe Lori's emotion or the lack of her emotion after learning that her husband had died from a gunshot wound by her brother. When Trina, prosecutor Trina, this is the best part. So Inklund has already mentioned the word nonchalant in her testimony. And so as she's describing all these words again, emotional, pretty calm, didn't seem overly affected. Prosecutor Trina then again mentions nonchalant. Like you mean nonchalant?

And that is when Inclan says, yeah, that's a good word to describe it. And after that, Lori and Tiley were considered witnesses and needed to be interviewed. Inclan requested that Lori and Tiley come with them back to the station for some interviews in a more contained environment, which Inkling described as a recorded interview, someplace that would not be in the middle of everywhere, and in a middle of a crime scene essentially, and just sort of the safe space. and Lori never asked any questions about Alex or Charles before they got in the car and started heading for the police station for this interview. But while they were making this 20-minute drive to the police station,

Lori was in the front passenger seat while Tiley was behind her. And Inclan and Lori and Tiley, they all talked about Tiley and her schooling the majority of the drive. Can you imagine what these detectives were feeling? They've just informed a wife and a stepdaughter that Charles Vallow had been shot and killed, and Lori nonchalantly, is talking about Tiley and her schooling the majority of the drive. Detective Inclan said it was a little bit awkward. And in these situations, though, she explained, you try not to talk about what happened

until you can get back to where the talking can be recorded. So she wasn't really going to push the issue. Let's just keep talking about Tiley schooling. So Inklon took them to the FAC. The FAC is the Family Advocacy Center, and that's where they did the interview. And it's important to know that this is a section of the police station designed for victims of crime. They do not have uniform law enforcement members, and there are no custodial suspects. So no suspects at all, especially those in custody.

None of that is being done at this place. This is a safe spot. And while there, Lori did not offer to give. anyone her cell phone and Inklin did not ask for it. Again, this was a witness interview, not a suspect interview. Inclean also had no clue at that moment that Lori was actually in possession of Charles's phone at this very time because she had just assumed that Charles Valle's phone would be at the crime scene with her fellow officers. The state then begins showing portions of Lori's interview, beginning when Lori introduced herself.

She was giving her date of birth, phone number, and address. And when the video stopped, Trina asked Inklene if she read Lori her Miranda rights. And Inclan said, no. Essentially, she treated Lori as if she was just a witness again and not as if she was in custody, nor was she a suspect at the time. And I think, you know, not reading those Miranda rights is going to be something I'm going to, you know, Well, let's just keep reading. Trina decided to play another clip.

And Lori objected for the rule of completeness wanting the entire video played, not just segments. And this objection was overruled and the next clips were played with brief questioning between each clip played for court. And now let's take a listen. It's baseball, but so much more.

Go bananas for banana ball with ESPN on Disney Plus. The greatest show in sports? Are you kidding me? It's the phenomenon everyone's talking about. The Trick Plus. Catch the Savannah Bananas and other fan favorite teams all season long. With select games streaming with ESPN on Disney Plus.

Let's go! US residents, 18 Plus only. Select Banana Ball games available to all Disney Plus subscribers. Terms apply. Well, so we moved into this house three weeks ago because he offered to get me out here. all my family is from her in Houston. And so he's like, we had decided to separate or whatever.

So he's like, well, I'll pay for a house for you and for JJ and whatever. Because he's all about JJ. He's never about Tyler, but he's all about JJ. Because we adopted him together. He says, great, and we adopted him as a baby. So he was like a drug baby and having his problems. And so we adopted him as baby, and so we've been raising him together. And he travels all the time for business.

So he's used to just going back and forth. So he's always about like Monday through Friday. So he came when we first moved in and brought me stuff from Houston like a U-Haul. And then he hasn't been back. But it's all these threats on my phone all the time, you know, like whatever, all these things. And then he told me. What can you have to read them to do me? But he's always mad at me.

And he doesn't want a divorce, but I don't like him and don't want to do it. That's just how it is. And I didn't file anything or whatever. And then he filed something against me and said, I'm only going to get supervised visits because I'm crazy and blah, blah, well, you know, the story. And so I just didn't talk to him for like 30 days. And I didn't take care of him.

And I had to see what I've been here. After this moment, Judge Boreski called for an afternoon recess. But before recess started, he questioned Juror 15 about talking to jury 16 after the sidebar. So juror 15 and juror, juror 16 got talking to today. Apparently, juror 16, it told juror 15, the amount of Lori's Social Security payment was high. And juror 15 agreed, explaining that he had been trying to get a social security appointment for months and pointed to his tattoo that represented

his late wife. Heartbreaking. The juror admitted to the judge he is currently going through a social security concern. And then juror 16 was then brought in to corroborate. the story, which did happen. The stories matched. And both the prosecution and defense were asked if they had any issues or any other questions. They had a couple. And then the judge warned the jurors not to talk about any of the evidence within the case with any other jurors. After recess, we were played multiple clips with Lori objecting to every one of them. And once again, there was brief questioning between each clip, which Inklink mainly explained what could be heard in each of these clips. And we're going to listen to some of them now.

And I also just want to say before we listen. And we're going to listen to four in a row. As I have heard about prosecutor Trina, she first likes to tell and then she likes to show. And I suspect that today we're learning how she likes to show. Take a listen. So I said, I will look to a hotel nearby. What does he do? He works with teachers and their retirement plans, but he goes to them.

He also works in California. He kind of his macho attitude. And so he came this morning, I just getting into every. So he got in last night, but he wasn't at the house last night. Yeah, I didn't hear from him. Except he texted and said, I'll leave there at 7.30 to pick up chicken. Okay. So do you remember about what time we got there?

He said maybe there at 7.30, but it was more like 7. 40 is or 735 I don't know okay but I never thinking it looked at the coffee who has it at 730 and he's usually mr. yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah so you know he's just been difficult so yeah anyway um so I got jane and he was like well and he saw this about timing he's like I'm leaving in 20 minutes because it's like 15 minutes at school like you can't get there early they don't open the gates until at 820 or something like and I said well why don't you just go now I don't want to know my house and like

I just go now and take him to Burger King. He's also what he likes for breakfast. He's very regular about this. He wanted chicken fries on breakfast and this break. Like with him and I just go to the bus because if you don't get on the floor screen you, Jackie, it's going. And he's big and he's heavy and hard for me to handle that. Anyway, so I said, just go. And so he said, okay, so I gave him a backpack.

He got in the car. This is his MRI. He always leaves something in the house and comes back. He never leaves the first time. I always expect my husband put back at the house. Okay. So I guess he had left his phone on the counter. So he initially went off with the backpack and with JJ. And so he put it in the car.

Okay. In the driveway and then he came back in. Right. So I kissed JJ goodbye. He came back in and his son was on the counter and I had his phone. And he was like, giving me my phone and I was like, why don't you show me your text that you've been texting a while, you know, whatever. Because he's like acting really weird like he's flying something and just like, I'm like, why are you even here like what did you come here for you know you've been talking to my other

brother and my brother came into town at the same time and i haven't talked to my brother every while my other brother and i was like and so he was texting him on the phone when he first got to my house and i'm like why are you texting adam like do you even talk to him like my other brother's working okay um so this morning he comes back in and he comes back in i went giving this phone he's screaming at me to do him He was very worried about whatever was on his text that he did not want me to see. And so I was just holding it there and he was screaming at me. And I was kind of rocking towards around the house with it.

So he couldn't get it. He's like reaching bar it and stuff like that. Y'all, nonchalant is an understatement. Right? I mean, it is so hard to fathom how she is talking. and trust me, I think the jury is seeing it. Trina emphasized how Lori was essentially holding Charles' phone hostage and asked if Inclan ever asked Lori during this interview,

Lori just wouldn't just give the phone back to Charles. And I just want to stop and say, thank you. This is what I have always noticed in this interview. And in everything that Lori has said about this day, she took Charles's phone and she wouldn't give it back. And yet she's inviting her brother over to protect her because she feels like she's dangerous yet starting a fight with the person she's afraid of. It's never made sense.

It blows my mind. So prosecutor Trina bringing it home. Thank you. She asks, Inclin, during this testimony, why wouldn't Lori just give the phone back to Charles? Inclan unfortunately said that she did not ask Lori to explain why. I don't think she would have an answer as to why. And Lori never told her why she just wouldn't give Charles his phone back, that she was holding hostage. And then there were questions about Tiley coming out with a baseball bat.

Why Lori was inviting Alex over, right? Like, why? And to protect her and then start a fight, that was brought up. So help me out here. You invite someone over because you feel nervous and you're picking a fight. with someone that you think is dangerous and why Alex even had a gun at the house. Trina then said, so she told you she was afraid of Charles coming over, invited her brother to come protect her, and then she started a fight by refusing to give Charles his phone.

Inklin said, correct. And shortly after the next clip was played. Yeah, she was outside. And then what happened? Then he they got up from that and my brother had like stepped back I guess and then Charles was coming with me and yelling at me to give him his phone still because I had it in my hand. It was all really quickly and then when I went around kind of in the circle and my brother was there. When you said he when you were going around and he was coming at you with the bat, how was he holding the bat? Like backwards? Like he was swinging, like swinging it backwards. He would have like, he would have swing it backwards.

And then after this, we're just going to keep going. We played the rest of the last couple of clips, the final two. I got to get to the kids. And so I just went outside and to see if they were in there, okay, I didn't want them coming back in the house when all that was going on. And got you in the car. He was trying to come in. And Tyler was like looking at me.

like the crazy eyes like what just happened and I told her to get in the car and I went to do to school and I just left when you came back in and you saw him on the ground where was your brother did you see him where he was at yeah he was right in front of him okay yeah he had he was a professional male older okay so it wasn't a good idea I'm trying to get out of that probably not the I mean he's in my brother yeah yeah and then I was kind of turned around. The kids had been outside by that time and I heard the gunshot. Mm-hmm.

And so you've heard the shot? Mm-hmm. Do it? Did you actually see, see the shot or did you just hear it? I had gone around to the kitchen to get away from him and so back around. So I don't know if you went in the house. I didn't. So I'm like a little bit of a disadvantage.

Yeah. So I didn't see when. I didn't see the shot. I heard it and then I came back around and I saw that he was on the ground. Let me just say the jury was paying attention to these clips. They were listening and they were taking notes. And after playing all of these clips from that July 11th, 2019 interview right after her husband is gunned down by her brother, these clips are really, I think, so compelling.

They're going to affect the jury. Well, then Inklund testified that once the interviews with Lori and Tiley were complete that day at the police station, Inclan took a minivan from the victim service branch to take Alex, Lori, and Tiley all back to the house, the scene of the crime. And in the car was Inklin, Lori, Detective Moffat, Tiley, and Alex. Listen to how Inclan described Lori's behavior on the way back to the residence. Take a listen to this. So I obtained our victim services has a minivan because it just holds a lot of people. And we use the minivan to take everyone back to the scene instead of driving two different cars with people.

So I drove and Detective Moffat sat in the very back. Tiley was sitting up front with me and Lori and Alex were behind me. What was Lori's demeanor in the car with her brother and you and Moffitt? She was unaffected, not emotional. The best description I can give is that she chattered the whole way, basically, back to the house. not upset, almost not happy, but just really unaffected by everything that was going on. It was kind of striking. Striking.

It was a powerful moment. It was kind of striking. Rena asked if Lori ever mentioned talking about letting Charles' son know about Charles' death, and Inclin said that beyond referencing that she needed to call some people, no, she did not. Inclin said that Lori never specifically talked about giving additional death notifications to anyone, not, not the other family members, not Colby, not Zach, not Cole, nobody else needed death notifications, not even Kay Woodcock or any of his siblings or Adam. It just goes on and on. So after arriving back to the house, Lori and Tiley left in a rental car and Inclan went into the house

before leaving to head to work on a different case. But around 2 p.m., the detectives wanted Inglint to try and get in touch again with Lori or Alex to try to get them to come back in to walk the scene for a walkthrough and some additional investigation. So at that moment, she called Lori twice and left a message before she headed back to the scene briefly. And Alex, Lori and Tiley ended up coming back to the scene. And that was where the detectives, Coons and Duncan said that they could not find. Charles's phone. Like, wait a minute. Where is it? They're all looking for it. Inclin knew that Lori had been in possession of Charles's phone at some point because of that interview, her saying,

I had his phone. I wouldn't give it back. I wouldn't give it back. Here it is. I have it. So she went to the rental car and asked if they knew where Charles's phone was. That's where Lori was sitting and Tiley pulled it out of the cup holder and Lori gave Inclan the password, which it was all zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero and England took custody finally of Charles's phone. Inclin never tried to open the phone before handing it over to other law enforcement members. And so she never looked at it. But eventually Inclin submitted a request for a cell extraction and put the password 00000 on a sticky note.

And after all of that info, it was time for Lori to cross-examine Detective Inclin, and we are going to play this cross. 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 scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere.

That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at ORA.com slash remove.

Protect yourself now at ORA.com slash remove. Detective Inklund, who was the case agent on July 11th, 2018? That would have been Detective Moffitt, who's now Lieutenant Moffat. Okay. And then when did Detective Duncan, when did the switch happen from Detective? to Detective Duncan being the case agent. Do you know? When Detective Moffat was promoted to Sergeant Moffat,

once you're promoted, you go back to patrol as a supervisor. So when you leave the unit, we reassign case officer responsibility to a detective that's currently inside the unit. So if somebody retires or promotes that case agent, responsibility would shift over to someone else. Okay. Do you know when that was about? I don't.

Was it like sometime in that year of 2019 or much later? I don't know. Okay. You had talked about when you got the call to come and respond to the house on July 11th. About what time was that? It was probably about 10 or 15 minutes after the initial radio traffic. I just remember I was on the 202 going westbound and my phone rang. And when you showed up, you had stated that Alex was seated on the curb. Is that correct?

He was the first time I noticed him, yes. And you also stated that an adult female entirely were already across the street when you arrived? No. Oh, we weren't there yet. No. Okay. How long after you arrived did we arrive? I don't know when you arrived. I just became aware of you at some point. I didn't not see you arrive. You were not there when I got there, but at some point you got there

and I became aware of you outside. Okay, but you are in the house, correct? No. In the morning. So where were you that you didn't see us coming up at that, in between that time? I was in front of the house. And was your view obscured by

something? I don't believe so. So you didn't see us drive up, you just noticed us being there at some point? Correct. Okay. And when you first saw us, what were we doing? Were we talking to the officer? I believe so. Or waiting to talk to the officer? When I first saw you, Officer Kraatheim was standing with you and it appeared like you were all talking together. I couldn't hear you from where I was at. I just noticed you. Okay. So you saw him talking to us, but you didn't see us initially come up before when he told us to stay where we were. You didn't see that part. I just became aware of you standing there. Okay. And you talked about my demeanor, right?

Being ordinary. Is that what you said? Being ordinary? You said ordinary, non-emotional, nonchalant. Correct. What's your definition of nonchalant? Pretty almost detached, just calm, doesn't really matter, kind of not extraordinary. Do you have a degree in psychology?

I do not. Do you know what a person should act like if they're in a stressful situation? So there isn't one way to act. There's just behavior that is striking. Striking behavior? Correct. Okay. At some point when you came over to talk to me and my daughter, did we express to you that she needed her medications that were in the house? I believe so and that. And what did you instruct us about? At one point I advised the detectives that were inside of that request, but that a search warrant was happening inside the house.

So we would do our best to facilitate people getting things from the house. But the search warrant is going to take precedence to what's going on. Right, so basically that it's a crime scene and we can't really enter, but someone would try to get them for her? Correct. Okay, and did someone go and get them for her? At that point, we did not have to do. have a search warrant. We weren't going to be entering the house or removing any items from the house. We didn't have legal authority to go in and remove items about a search warrant. So nothing

was going to be removed from the house at that point. But you were aware that she needed her panic attack medicine? I was a question as to testifying and asked and answered. Sustane, you can ask her if she was aware that she knew that medication. You were aware that she needed her medication. I was aware you made a request for her medication. And it would have been non-emotional if I was trying to be calm for my daughter. I'm going to object to speculation. Sustain.

Were you being calm? I believe so. Was Officer Crouton time being calm? I think so. Are the firefighters being calm? I didn't see the firefighters or have any interaction with them. Were the other detectives being calm? I believe so.

The EMS guys were being calm. Again, I didn't see them and have any interaction with them. It was a pretty calm environment that day. Was it not? I don't know if I'd agree with that, but no one was running around his. hysterical, right? Correct. Okay. You as well. Stated that you had asked me to get out of the van. Is that correct? I was trying to get you to come. My intention was to get you to come out of the van and then you made a statement that you were there. You already knew. What did you say that made me say that I was already there? I was asking you to step out of the van and you said I was there. I already know. I already know what? that Charles had died. I was trying not to tell you in front of your daughter.

That would have been nice, but that wasn't the point. How did I know you were coming to give me a death notification? Can I reject a speculation? Sustain. Did you notify me that I'm going to give you a death notification? I don't want to do it in front of your daughter. What did you say? It would be slightly redundant to tell you I was doing a death notification if I didn't want to tell you in front of your daughter. Why would I say to you, I already know to...

Sustained, that's the form of the question calls for her to speculate about your state of mind. So did you speak to me telling, giving me a death notification, or was it Lockwood? Lockwack. Lockwood? Lockwood, sorry. Who spoke to us? We were both involved in the conversation. And what was said to us?

You said that you were there and you already knew. And at that point, shortly thereafter, I asked you if you and Tiley would come back to the station to do interviews so I could talk with you. You asked us if we would come or you said we're going to go down to the station and interview you. I asked you if you would come. It was a consensual contact. fact, it was a voluntary interview. And is this on body cam? I did not have a body cam at the time, no.

Did Lockwood have a body cam? He did not, and he was assigned to investigations. So we voluntarily went to the station, is that correct? Correct. And you drove, is that correct? I did. And it was a 20 or so minute drive. About that.

And we arrived at the station. and you separated us into two rooms. Is that correct? Correct. And did you ask me permission to speak to my minor daughter? I indicated to you that I wanted to interview both of you and that we would go do the interviews in the Family Advocacy Center.

And what is the protocol for interviewing a minor? It depends on the circumstances where you're interviewing them. Okay, and are you a certified forensic interview of children? I am. And so would that be something that you would ask the parent if you could interview the minor child? It depends on the circumstances. Okay, and did you ask me? I did not specifically ask your permission.

Did you ask Tiley if she wanted to be interviewed? I would object to hearsay. Well, the question, I'll overrule the objection. The question is, did you ask Tiley yes or no? I did at one point ask if I could speak with her. Did either of us know that we were being videotaped? I don't know. Were we told that we were being videotaped?

No. At that time, when we entered into the rooms, you left Tiley in there alone and came in to interview me. Is that correct? Correct. And how long was that interview that? you and I had. I think it's about

35, 40 minutes, maybe a little longer. And so that whole time, Tiley was in the room by herself. Correct. Not knowing she was being videoed. Correct. I don't know if she knew or not. And without her medication. Correct.

I don't know, but I believe so. And I was worried about her, if you recall. Is that correct? object to relevance. Sustain. Do you always wear your gun when you are doing a forensic interview of a child? The majority of the time now, yes, because my assignment's different. When my assignment was in our family violence unit and I was doing

forensic interviews of child victims, then no. Did you treat us like we were victims that day? Actually, yes. And did you think that wearing your gun might be intimidating to a child? No given her age, no. Is that your normal protocol? I object to Austin answered. She can answer.

Over. For which part? For wearing your gun doing a forensic interview of a child? So I wasn't doing a DFI of Tiley. I was doing an interview with a witness to a scene. If it was a DFI, it would be different. How would it be different? So a dedicated forensic interview of a child is much different.

It's structured much different. It's conducted much differently and they're typically done of victims of very specific allegations Physical child abuse sexual child abuse things along those lines the interview with Tiley was done basically as a as a witness interview I did defer some to almost like a victim status But her interview wasn't a DFI it wasn't done as a dedicated forensic interview she was a witness a witness and a witness and a potential witness to a homicide. How long did you interview Tiley for? I believe we talked for about similar amount of time, 30, 40 minutes.

At the time that day on July 11th, did you believe Tiley? I object. Sustain. With your experience in interviewing, forensically interviewing children, did you think Tiley's demeanor was genuine that day?

I'm going to object to speculation. Sustained. Did you have a reason to think that she might be making something up? I'm going to object again. Sestration. Sustained. Did you learn during Tiley's interview? I'm going to object right there to hearsay.

Sustain. Did you learn during my interview that Tiley came in with a bat? I did. And was that confirmed by Tiley? I'm going to object, Your Honor, pretrial ruling hearsay. Sustain. Your Honor, can we have a sidebar? No, that's hearsay.

It's sustained. The end of our interviews, Detective Inklund, where did you put us? You stayed in the Family Advoicing Center until we were ready to leave. So many things to say here, and you guys are bringing up a lot of good points as we watch this.

Can you believe that she is upset, first off, with a detective having a gun safely in their holster for an interview when Lori actually let her brother bring over a loaded gun to her house with JJ running around and acting so nonchalant to use her favorite word after her husband was killed with with JJ and Tiley and not seeming to care about what Tiley just went through but now she cares about a gun and a holster. I mean it is it is so mind blowing. It is so mind-blowing. I can't get to all of the things that were so upsetting about that cross.

There were so many, it's difficult to listen to. But one of the most shocking things was at that very end. You saw that she continued to try to bring up Tiley and what Tiley was feeling and what Tiley was thinking. And then she asked for a sidebar. And the judge was like, no, we talked about this. And it's because we did. This was in a hearing before trial.

I attended the hearing. And she wanted to bring up this interview with Tiley. Tyler's interview, sorry, this was Lori's interview we listened to today. But Tiley has her own police interview that day where Tiley talked and she's saying and she hummed for comfort. She cracked every knuckle in her body because of the anxiety that she was having during that moment because of what was going on. I can't even imagine.

Rest in peace, Tiley, Ryan. And Lori is now in court trying to bring up how Tiley was feeling. feeling, what she was thinking, what she was assuming, what she said. And she's being shut down. Objection, objection, objection. Because in this hearing, before trial even began, before jury selection even again, Judge Breske clearly told her, you can't have a witness that you've been convicted of murdering when they can't speak for themselves. You don't get to talk, in other words, to Tiley, beyond the grave for her and tell us, what she's thinking or what she's feeling or what she thought or why she said what she said.

You cannot do that if you have been convicted of murdering her. So for her to ask for a sidebar at that end, you could see the judge just being irritated. No, we've done this. We've talked about this and you know. Look, we're going to continue with Lori's cross with Detective Inclan tomorrow on day six. She's, she's not, she's not done. We actually stopped at that moment, uh, after cross. And we're going to continue with her tomorrow. We actually, before today, I just want you to know, only had nine state witnesses left. Well, we now have, have five or five and a half, I guess, because we're finishing, um, today's cross is going to be finished tomorrow. And then after, Detective Inklund, we only have five witnesses left with the state. And they did say at the beginning

of court today that they plan to rest on Thursday. If that's the case, this is certainly going a lot faster than anyone expected. I'm actually going to head. Until then, we'll see you all tomorrow in court. 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 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.com slash remove.

Protect yourself now atora.com slash remove.