Hidden True Crime - TRIAL DAY 6 | Lori's Lies Are Being EXPOSED to the Jurors! | Lori Vallow Daybell

Episode Date: April 16, 2025

Day 6 of the Lori Vallow Daybell trial was a BIG day in the courtroom! About Hidden True Crime: What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime 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. What a day in court. I always say that, but it's because it's true. I'll just have you know. I always come back each night going, wow, what just happened?

And today is no exception. Wow. Lori's lies exposed. Before we begin, I have all my notes down here. By request, by popular demand, we have new trial merch, limited edition trial merch. Honestly, I think this is so cute, nonchalant. There are three different styles. I love it, and we are going to get more into that.

If you are new to my channel, I'm Lauren Matthias. I am a investigative journalist. We are recapping every day of the Lori Valladabelle trial and bringing you our favorite insider trial merchandise. So if you don't know what nonchalot means, never fear. We're going to get into it today. So just stick with me. That's good merch, I have to say.

So the day started off actually a little rocky for Lori. If you recall, there was an issue yesterday with Lori's team sending Charles's brother, Bobby Vallow, a subpoena, even though he is considered a protected victim as next of kin. Well, prosecutor Trina raised the same issue today because apparently Larry Woodcock, Kay Woodcock's husband, was also sent a subpoena by Lori's team. and Lori is not supposed to have access to these individuals, their addresses or their contact information or any of this personal information. But yet, despite that, she signed off on all of these subpoenas. Her name is signed at the bottom of each one, which is a clear violation of victims' rights.

Lori tried to say that it was just a clerical oversight, even though she's the one who signs the documents. She actually said she was sorry. I am so sorry. So let's hear then, what Judge Boreski had to say. Check on that, Your Honor, but not that we're aware of. As to the extent that you have subpoenas for next of can on either of your cases, you need to coordinate the service of those subpoenas through the county attorney's office. They can facilitate in that and getting those people served if they are indeed witnesses that have relevant information in these cases.

And both of those people, Your Honor, Robert Vallow and Larry Woodcock were not on my list and were not intended to be subpoenaed. So it was an oversight. So I don't know how OPDS got that information to serve them subpoenaed. So someone on your team needs to double check with OPDS that the correct people are being subpoenaed. And Your Honor, they are signed by the defendant. So she is the one who's signing those subpoenas. She is the one acting those subpoena. She is the one acting. as counsel. So she is the one asking to send those out. So how was it an oversight? I didn't I just signed them all and we got them prepared and I signed them all and I did not check

them. It's my own fault. But I apologize to the families. Are there so do you know the names of all the people you subpoenaed or you just signed a stack of subpoenas? I did sign the stack, but I thought I was aware of all that that they were the ones that that I had asked to subpoena. For this trial or for the next one as well? Just for this one. We haven't done our subpoenas yet for the next trial. That's right.

And for the next trial, I need you to be more diligent in what you're signing. And if there is a subpoena for someone who is a next of kin or a victim under the Victims Bill of Rights, the subpoena that needs to be coordinated through County Attorney's Office or is there a victim representative attorney, I haven't had one yet. There is not a victim representative attorney, so it would come through us, Your Honor.

Okay. I actually think the judge is being rather kind to Lori, but we did just hear the judge tell Lori that she needs to be much more diligent for her next trial. The next trial is the trial where she faces charges in the attempted murder of Brandon Udrow. It'll be her third trial. And I have a feeling that the judge may not be so lenient then. And obviously, Lori's not an attorney.

although she is a plain one for all of us on YouTube. And there is a lot to learn when it comes to the law. But you have to wonder if these types of mistakes were really unintentional because we know Lori. And so I have to just simply wonder if this is perhaps a way of getting under Charles's family member's skin. There were a few more motions regarding some additional defense witnesses that Lori's investigator was not able to locate to serve a subpoena. And Judge Breske basically told Lori that she is. is out of time. I mean, yes, the prosecution might rest this week. I would suggest she is out of time. And he pretty much told her it is too late to get them on the defense witness list. And once Judge Boreski was done reprimanding Lori, the jury was brought in and we immediately jumped back into cross exam with Detective Cassandra Inclan.

To remind everyone, Detective Inclan interviewed Lori and Tiley at the police station the day that Charles was shot and killed. And Lori, well, let's just say that she either wasn't paying attention yesterday during Inclan's testimony, a possibility, or she slept on things while in her cell and woke up deciding that she had nothing to lose and just really wanted to hear herself talk. Also a possibility. Because Lori immediately jumped into Cross with questions about Charles' cell phone again. questions she has already received answers to yesterday and other days, like the chain of custody of the phone, how Charles's phone went from Charles to Lori to Inclan to other law enforcement, or whether Inclan ever opened Charles's phone, which Inclan testified in direct examination

yesterday, no, that she did not open his phone. And then Lori seemed to shift her questioning, and when I say questioning, aka testifying, over to how cooperative she was that day, July 11th, 2019, but then still continued about the phone. Let's take a listen. Yesterday we watched the clip of my interview with you and we discussed the threatening text messages. Is that correct? Correct. You told me about them. And you stated that I did not show them to you. Is that correct? You did not show them to me, no. And did you ask me to them to you? I did not. Had I been cooperative all that day? Yes. Do you think I would have shown

them to you if you would have asked me? Objection speculation. Sustained. Was Tiley also cooperative that day? I believe so. Was Alex cooperative that day? I don't know. I did not have contact with Alex. At all? I did not interview him or talk to him now. Did I in fact inform you during that interview that I would have to show you with them to explain them? I believe so. But you never asked me to show you, showed them to you? I did not. Did you ever request that I turned my phone over to you? I did not.

Did you ever request that Tiley turned her phone over to you? I did not. In the course of your investigation, did you ever, in fact, see those threatening messages from Charles to me? I did not. I did not look at any of the downloads of any of the phones. Or in the reports or anything? No. You never came across those?

I did not review those reports or do it. any of the downloads of any of the phones. You didn't review any of Detective Duncan's reports? No. None of Detective Moffitt's reports? No. Okay. Were you aware of the reason why I had two phones at the time?

I was not. Did you ask me? No, I wasn't aware you had two phones. In the course of your investigation, did you ever learn that Charles had stolen my phone so I had to replace it? I would have checked to testifying and move to strike? Sustained.

Your Honor, it's all part of the investigation. I'm going to object to. Sustained its testimony. The form of the question was testimony. Were you aware that after he gave it back to me that I kept both homes? I'm going to be an object. Sustained.

Detective, in the course of your investigation, did you learn that Charles had a $2 million life insurance policy on me? I knew there was a life insurance policy. I don't know the amount. Did you ever see it in any of the reports or? I did not review and I was not part of that portion of the investigation. And you never saw that on any kind of Bates numbers. I'm going to object again to ask and answer.

I'll allow it. Go ahead. Go ahead. You didn't see it on any kind of Bates numbers? No, Bates would be. what the county attorney does. That's after me. So I didn't review that portion of the report. Okay. Afterwards, Lori shifted back to the interview she had with Detective Inclan on July 11th, 2019. Inklinkling confirmed that all three of them, meaning Lori, Alex, and Tiley were interviewed

in three separate rooms. Lori seemed to want to drive a point home that the detectives doing the interviews were not supervising each other's interviews. And Inclan explained that because they weren't being interviewed as suspects, only witnesses, there really was no additional supervision beyond cameras in the room recording the exchanges. Well, Lori asked about the press release then that police sent to media after the shooting. And then once again, seemed as if she was trying to show the jury that Lori was a trustworthy person. Because, yeah, let's try to say that. Take a listen. Are you aware of the press release that was issued by Channel?

police department later that day i am not you never read it i don't you never heard about it in the course of your investigation the press release yeah uh no you never discussed it with any of the other detect she's asked and answered sustain would the case agent have to be the one who would authorize that at the time uh it depends um as a case agent we would like to have input or influence on what a press release is or states, but occasionally they're published by our PIO, our press information officer. So you don't do you know if Detective Moffitt was the case agent at the time, is that correct? He was. And so do you know if he talked to the PIO and put that out or if he didn't know?

Actions speculation. Sustain. Do you know if the PIO agent just put it out? objection she doesn't know about this do you know i have no idea detected inkland yesterday the prosecutor asked you several times why didn't lorry just give the phone back is that correct that's correct did you learn in your investigation that the entire altercation only lasted a few minutes that'd be a fair fair assessment because we discussed that in our interview is that correct we did So from the time Tyler came out with the bat and I ran outside is maybe less than two minutes.

We discussed that, is that correct? We discussed that it probably happened in a short amount of time. I don't think we gave a specific time amount to what happened, but that it happened in a relatively short amount of time. We didn't say that was like one to two minutes. Like that was our discussion, yes.

Yeah, that was our discussion. Okay. So we would not have been arguing for a very long time. Is that correct? I think it's relative as to how long you've been arguing or how long the altercation took. Detective, in the course of your investigation, did you learn that JJ was outside in the car? I did. Did you learn that the car was still running?

I don't know. Did you learn that DJ was in fact in the front seat? I know that you had articulated he was put into the car, but I'm not. I don't remember if you specifically said the front seat, but he was in the car. Did you learn in the course of your investigation that JJ had autism? Yes, you told me about that.

Did you verify that at his school? I did speak with his school, yes. When did you speak with the school? During the course of the investigation, I had contact with the school in reference to when he attended and generally kind of the services the school provides. Do you remember who you spoke to at the school at all? The director of the school and then subsequently there were a couple teachers that provided some information.

And how long after July 11th was that first communication with the school? It was just several months later. But during the course of this investigation, the Chandler Police Department did verify, I guess, that next day that that was, in fact, his school and he did attend there. Is that correct? I believe so. During this investigation, did you verify that we did, in fact, go through Burger King? I did not, but it was verified. Did you, were you aware of what we ordered at Burger King? You told me it was chicken fries and sprite.

Had you seen, you hadn't seen that received? I had not. Okay. I guess that was in fact in the portion of one of the interviews that we watched yesterday. Is that correct? Correct. You told me that in the interview. So you weren't, were you aware that we also ordered two bottles of water? I was not aware, no. And in your experience with people in stressful situations, when adrenaline kicks in, does it make you incredibly thirsty? I object to speculation or knowledge. If she knows, she can answer. It can. And when you're in front of, I don't object to speculation or knowledge. If she knows, she can answer. It can. And when you're in fight or flight mode, does your adrenaline kick in your experience? I'm going to object here to knowledge and foundation as to our knowledge of this. I'll sustain the objection. Did you offer Tiley and I apple juice at the Chandler Police Station?

I think I offered you something to drink and what we typically would have there. Did you offer that for the purpose that adrenaline makes you thirsty? No, I usually do it to people I interview if they'd like something to drink while they're there. Detective Inklund, have you ever seen me not calm? I don't object to maybe foundation as to when. All right, sustain, lay more foundation on when she has, what occasions she has had to observe you. Well, yesterday you spoke. often of my calm demeanor, my nonchalantness.

Is that correct? Correct. So has there ever been an occasion when you have seen me when I was not calm? Again, foundation as to when she has seen her on July 11th? Please clarify the timeframe you're referring to where she had an opportunity to observe you. Any other time, Your Honor?

For example, how many hours? on July. Can we have a sidebar? I can ask you a question. 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 brokers, sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price

competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today. atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove. So let's just all take a moment to remind Lori just how nonchalant she is and how nonchalant she probably shouldn't be.

And let's all wear her favorite word. We have new merch. And we'll all enjoy drinking our two bottles of water in our nonchalant here. Anyway, yeah, she loves that. word, doesn't she? That's she. Well, after a sidebar, Lori returned to finish her cross-exam with Detective Inclin. And Inclin, well, she seems to return Lori's energy right back at her.

Take a listen with it to this. Detective Inclan, did you discover in your investigation that I had run outside without shoes? Yes, kind of. And did you learn in that investigation that we had stopped at Walgreens and I did purchase two pairs of flip flops. Yeah, you told me that. I mean, and that was verified later. It was by a different detective. Okay, you didn't verify that at Walgreens or at Burger King. Is that correct? I did not. That was a different detective. Okay. And as part of your investigation, did you view the video of me going into the Walgreens to purchase the flip-flops? I did not. Okay. And how hot was it that day on July 11th, 2019? Warm. Like, in the

the hundreds July in Arizona. I'd say it was probably warm. Would it have been difficult to walk JJ to his class on the cement with no shoes on, do you think? Jackson relevance. Sustained. I think the jury can draw their own conclusions about the temperature in Arizona in mid-July. Detective, did you learn in your investigation that after taking JJ to his classroom that Tiley and I headed straight back to the house? I believe so. and that we met with police. Is that correct? Correct.

As soon as we drove up, first contact was with... Officer Krauthheim. Yes, Crowthheim. Kratheim. Okay, thank you. Detective, is it your understanding that we fully cooperated with the police? You were cooperative with interviews with me. That we did as we were instructed.

You, with me in your interview, you were cooperative. And Tiley was cooperative with you as well. Correct. I believe so. And that you had said yesterday that we were voluntarily interviewed by the police, is that correct? Correct, you were not in custody. Did we know that? I believe so.

When we were placed in those interview rooms, did we know that we could just walk out and leave any time? Was that explained to us, is my question. You can ask that. Can you say it again? Was it explained to us at any time that we could just walk out of those interview rooms and leave if we had wanted to?

No. Did I in fact ask you at one point if I could go to the ladies room? I believe so. Detective, did we answer all the questions asked to us by the police that day? By me, yes, I believe so. And we were dropped off at home by the police. Is that correct? Correct. I drove you back to the house. And we were given no further instructions. Is that correct?

Just that we would be in touch with you at the conclusion of the search warrant. Is it also correct that we voluntarily handed over Charles' phone to you when you asked for it? Yes. Did we delay in that or just do it immediately? No, you gave it to me when I asked. Was there any time, detective, on July 11th, 2019, that we did not comply or cooperate fully with the police in their investigation? In my interaction with you, you were cooperative. Thank you. That's all I have, Your Honor.

I love how she kept saying in the interaction with me, you are cooperative. I also loved the little eye roll that Detective Inklink gave when Lori couldn't remember Krauthan's name. Well, once Lori concluded her cross, prosecutor Trina Kay was back up for redirect and she came in with some Xeners. Let's watch. I asked a lot about her demeanor that day. both when you first interacted with her taking her over to the van, correct?

Correct. Did Lori Valo's behavior stand out to you? It did. Why? So based on what was going on that we had a homicide, her husband had been shot and killed, her brother was the one who shot and killed her husband, It was inside her home.

Her children were at least partially present to this event. Her demeanor seemed odd, given what was going on at the house that day. So throughout this time, you're just noting her demeanor, right? Correct. You were asked about whether or not you were calm at the scene. Do you recall being asked that on crime? I believe so. Had you just seen your husband get shot?

No. Inside your own home? No. By your brother? No. You were asked if the other officers at the scene were calm. You were calling asked that? I do.

Were you aware of any of them having just seen their significant others being shot? No. By a family member? No. Inside their own home? No. With their children present? No.

So would it be difficult to compare the demeanor of the office and yourself with that of, say, Alex or Tiley or the defendant? It would be difficult comparison. Not the same situation. No. You were asked a lot about Tiley's demeanor as well. Did you ever see her appearing to be panicked? No.

Overwhelmed with emotions? No. Was there anything about her demeanor or your interactions with her that made you feel she needed any type of medical treatment or medication or anything? No. Well, prosecutor Trina seemed to focus on the timeline of July 11th a bit more in her rededict, in her redirect with Detective Inkling, asking about what Inkling knew time-wise from the moment that she arrived at the crime scene that day.

Inkling testified that initially she did think that, that the 911 call came in right after the shooting. Like, why wouldn't you think that? Not realizing, though, that the 911 call was placed by Alex nearly 45 minutes after Charles was shot. And remember how much Lori focused on getting apple juice and water bottles? Well, prosecutor Trina had questions prepared for that, too.

Take a listen. When you were interviewing the defendant, Is it normal for you to offer drinks to people when they're being interviewed? Absolutely. Normal for you to allow them to use the restroom? Yes. And you did that here just like you normally would? I did.

Nothing different or unusual in that. No. Detective, when you were interviewing the defendant on July 11th, did the defendant tell you that she and Charles, argued about the phone prior to Tiley ever becoming involved. Correct. Did she tell you that she had initially obtained Charles' phone, and when he asked for it back, she said no.

Correct. This is before Tiley's there. That's right. Does she tell you that she then, in fact, confronts Charles about who he's texting? Correct. And that's again before Charles is out there. before Tyley was there. Before Tyley is there.

And she advised you that she still wouldn't give him back his phone, even though he demanded it then. Correct. Did she tell you that she was walking away with Charles' phone prior to Tyley coming out while he is still demanding his phone back? Correct. So there were multiple occasions that she told you about prior to any bat or gun being involved

that she could have just handed the phone back over. That's correct. And she did not. That's correct. In terms of your interview with the defendant, did you understand all the facts of the case when you interviewed the defendant? No.

Did you, you told us you didn't understand the timeline yet in terms of when the shooting occurred versus when the 911 call occurred, right? Correct. So you were unaware of that 47-minute lapse in time. Correct. If you had known that, would you have asked about that? I would have asked about that, yes. When you were interviewing the defendant,

you were unaware that she had Charles' phone, correct? Correct. If you had known that, would you have asked? asked about that? I would have asked about that, yes. When the defendant was talking to you at one point, she told you that she knew her brother was texting with, or that Charles was testing with her brother, Adam. Do you recall that? Yes, she told me that. Understanding now that she had Charles's phone, would you have asked her how she learned about that? I would have asked her about that, yes. So when you're doing an interview with her at nine or ten in the morning, you didn't

know that she'd had time to look into Charles' phone? Correct. You learned later that she had the password to get into his phone, right? Correct. So when she's telling you things, you're unaware that she has already potentially had the ability to access those. That's true. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. 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.

after redirect, a couple questions from the jury were asked. In fact, there were more juror questions following Detective Inclin's testimony than any other thus far. All of a sudden, the jurors had questions, and a lot of them, they included, number one, was Charles's rental car searched? Inclin said that she did not believe so, but wasn't sure. And I do want to make a correction in my lunch live. I initially thought she had believed that it had been searched, which is actually what many heard on the media row from inside the courtroom.

So I will clarify that now. She said she did not believe so. Inklund, we confirmed, said she did not believe the car had been searched. Number two, if the defendant and the daughter were interviewed as witnesses, why were they left with a victim advocate? Were they considered victims or witnesses? Inklin gave a long-winded answer about how, although they weren't classified as victims at the time, victim services were still available to them and could be of service. Juror question number three, did Lori express concerns about police talking with Tiley at the time of the interview? Inclin stated, no, very quickly.

She was just like, nope, not at all. And juror question number four, does law enforcement have to advise interviews that they are being audio or video recorded. Eklan explained that no, they do not, as there is no exception of privacy inside a police station. And I will be honest. I shared this during my lunch live outside the courtroom today, that these juror questions made me a bit nervous, rather than asking where Tiley is or who JJ is with currently, two questions that could really get the jurors to understand information and perhaps open the

door to Lori being a convicted murderer, a convicted murderer of her own children. They instead asked questions about Lori's rights at the police station. At least that's what it felt like to me. I felt that perhaps the questions that they're asking, implied them questioning were Lori's rights violated and was the police investigation botched. It was a bit worrisome. But I did see, thank you, Steph, I believe it was Steph that sent that super chat that said, she disagrees with me. She actually thinks that they're on to Lori. and they are just clarifying some things. And I think that you could be right.

Sometimes I jump to conclusions with jurid questions and I get worried. So we continue on. The next witness to take the stand was Ariel Werther. Now, Werther also testified at Lori's Idaho trial in 20, 23, two years ago. He is a detective with the Chandler Police Department and works in the homicide and robbery unit. He's had extensive training and interpreting cell phone and GPS data for investigation. and has testified in court as an expert. In 2019, Werther was working in the special victims unit

and was shadowing officers in the homicide unit to learn and potentially make this his specialty. Well, he became aware of the shooting that occurred at Lori's residence and asked to come along to help on the call that July 11th, 2019. And after arriving, Werther initially observed and shadowed detective Coons, who was conducting the scene investigation. Well, he wasn't really given,

any of his own tasks to do on the case until the Neeks day on July 12th. That's when Werther became aware that nobody had gathered any contact information for seven-year-old JJ and Werther offered to reach out to get Lori to give him that information. And so he called Lori and she told him that she had taken JJ to Burger King that morning after the shooting and prior to dropping JJ off at school at Lauren's Life Academy. Wurther also learned that Lori had located Charles's hotel key for his room with a true Hilton in his wallet. He let her know that the case agent would be retrieving the wallet and key from her later that day.

Well, Wither offered to go to Burger King to see if he could obtain any video footage from when Lori stopped there for breakfast with J.G. and Tiley. He knew that the 911 call from Alex Cox had been placed at 836 a.m. And that police had arrived at the house at 841 a.m. Actually, pretty quickly. think about it. 911 call 836 and arriving at the house five minutes later at 841. Well, Lori and Tiley arrived back at the house a few minutes later around 848 a.m.

So further was considering these times before going to Burger King so he could have a general timeline in order to ask for the footage, right? So he's like, okay, got it. It's going to be just before the 911 call since Lori stated that she was at the house when the shooting occurred and she technically shouldn't have been at Burger King until sometime after 8.30. However, given the distance to Burger King and the fact that Lori was already back to the house by 848, Werther knew there was some discrepancy going on with the timeline, like obviously. So let's listen to how this thought process was working during this moment.

So when you went out there, were you aware of that, I guess when you went out to Burger King, were you also under an understanding that Lori Vallow had said she was at the house when Charles Vallow was shot? That was my understanding, yes. So did all of that play into when you would assume the timing of her arriving at Burger King? It did. So sometime after 836 is what you're expecting? To some extent. I was aware that there's a little bit of logistical difficulty in the question of how one could leave at 836 or. or at just after and then arrived back by 848, knowing the distances and knowing the city of Chandler like I do.

So because of that, knowing that it was clearly the case that she was there at 848 because she was on officer's body worn video, then I knew that there was some chance I would find that the video was in fact prior to the 911 call because otherwise the distances and the travel didn't seem quite right. So you see this 12 minute time from when 911 is called to when she arrives back and you're thinking that there's no way

to go to Burger King and drop a kid off at school and get back? Correct. One of the other things that I was trying to establish when I called her is where she had taken him to school and to confirm that we hadn't misunderstood about the Burger King event happening after the shooting because we hadn't misunderstood and then

learning where the school was, the school is approximately seven miles away from the house. So the idea that one could in 12 minutes go to a Burger King, get their order, drive seven miles one way, seven miles back, and arrive in that amount of time seemed very unlikely to me. Werther made his way to Burger King, closest to Lori's house, which was located on East Akatia Road in Chandler. He asked for the surveillance footage and saw Lori's Red Kea Serrento going through the drive-thru at 7.54 a.m. Since Alex did not place the 911 call until 836, Berther started to feel like something was going on.

And is one of the main reasons law enforcement decided to pursue the investigation further. So Werther, thank you for this work that you did. If Lori said that she left right after Charles was shot, but the Burger King wasn't at the Burger King until nearly 40 minutes, Before the 911 call, it became obvious that somebody was not telling the truth. And hopefully the jury sees that too. Later that afternoon, Detective Werther met with Lori at her house to retrieve Charles's hotel room key. He and Detective Moffat then made their way to the True Hilton to search Charles's hotel room.

Inside, they secured his belongings, including a backpack, two suitcases, and a laptop, and turned them in for impounding at the police station. Next, Werther testified that during the investigation, he was originally told that Lori went to a CVS the morning of the shooting. He's not sure if he misheard the information or if Lori accidentally misspoke, but he ended up going to seven different CVS's looking for footage of Lori and was completely unsuccessful, clearly, because after he reviewed the GPS data that was extracted from Charles' cell phone, which gets the times and coordinates of locations where the phone has been. With that information, where they learned that Lori, who was in possession of Charles's cell phone, actually visited a Walgreens. And what time did she visit the Walgreens? At 8.15 a.m. Not CVS, as originally thought.

He was able to obtain the footage and receipt from Lori's purchase, which were, again, which it was two pairs of flip-flops. Wither explained that he created a PowerPoint of all the pertinent information that he found during the investigation, including surveillance. footage, receipts, GPS, cell phone records, and cell tower data for Lori, Charles, and Alex. On the PowerPoint, we were able to see a map which will show the approximate time and location of each person's cell phone. There were two phones for Lori being depicted in purple and blue, Charles's phone in red and Alex's phone in green. So we're talking color-coded now. That's when you know it's going to get complicated when things start becoming color-coded. So Charles's phone in red, Alex's in green, Lori's purple and blue, why? Because she has two phones.

On the next slide, we could see Charles's phone at the True Hilton Hotel at 7.16 AM. Between 716 and 731, Charles's phone moves from the hotel to Lori's house. Make sense, going to pick up his little boy for school. And the last outgoing communication from Charles's phone occurred at 7. 37 a.m. And his phone stayed at the house until 749 a.m. And then at 7.50, his phone leaves the house. And at 752, Alex calls Lori's phone. At 752 to 756, Charles's phone was at or near the Burger King. And we can see a video of Lori's car in the drive-thru here. Let's watch. Did you then utilize that video that we talked about to confirm that Charles Vallow's phone showing in this area appeared to match the SUV as well as Ms. Vallow being there? Yes, it appears to match this visit to the Burger King, which we are now seeing. This is the video that I recovered from the Burger King. So this was a video that so you could identify the vehicle and at least see the license plate on that.

that. Correct. And as you watched it, this one doesn't depict the, or you can't see the driver in on this video, right? Right. There's another view coming up. So this one just shows us hands going in and out. It does. It shows the view showing the vehicle. This is one of the views that they have of their drive-through. So if we forward to the next slide, yes. We will see from the inside, the service of. Correct. So this is their drive-through window view, again at 7-54. And so did this appear to match the receipt that you had received? This did appear to match the receipt. And this, I was told as well in that document was associated with this transaction. Can we also just talk about how just cruel it is that nobody called 911 and Lori had left to go to Berging, but they called each other.

It gets despicable that nobody's calling 911, but they have the time to call each other. Alex is calling Lori. So anyway, next, we could see Charles and Lori's phones moving north between 756 and 806. At 806, Alex called Lori again as she headed to the Walgreens. She arrived at Walgreens at 817, which we can see a video of here. The infamous Walgreens visit. I knew about investing, but I really didn't. know how to go about it.

Meet Corey, a Walthfront client. With Wealthfront, it could put money in, and it would automatically distribute it into a diversified portfolio. Then it starts to compound. The compounding compounds on the compounding. Just let it wrong, and it's great. Over 1 million clients trust Wealthfront. Get started at Wealthfront.com.

Client was paid $1,000 for their testimonial, creating a conflict of interest. Outcomes vary. Investment management and advisory services provided by Wealthfront Advisors LLC and SEC registered investment advisor. Investing involves risk to principle regardless of the strategy used. Task performance does not guarantee future results. Walgreens after you confirmed and you obtained video from them. That's right.

And this is the video. This is the video. You can see the timestamp at 816 as she walks in. And then I think we can advance to the next. These are just multiple views that they had. The video at the door was motion activated so I don't control when it starts or ends. Those are the clips that they had. So she's pying two pairs of flip-clops.

As indicated in the receipt. So you'll see on their timestamp, we're now up to 820. and the transaction is completed. Well, Lori, Tiley, J.G, and Charles' cell phones then headed toward JJ's school and arrived at Lauren's Life Academy at 8.33 a.m. And that's where they were when Alex finally made the 911 call at 835 a.m.

Lastly, Lori, Tiley, and Charles's phone arrived back at the house at 8.49 a.m. And the next thing we were shown on the PowerPoint was body cam footage of Lori and Tiley walking up to the scene wearing their new sandals. Werther continued tracking phones for the remainder of the day. And all of the phones were near Lori's house between 849 and 9 a.m. And then advanced to the Chandler Police Department between 1213 and 1236.

Lori Alex and Charles' phones traveled to Alex's house in Santan between 142 and 207. Lori made a call to Detective Inclean and she requested, that's when she requested Lori to return to the scene and then at 2.18, Lori made another call to the Valley of the Sun mortuary. She was on top of it. Just later that day, calling the Valley of the Sun Mortuary. And at 311, she arrived back at her house or the scene of the shooting as requested by Detective Inclean. At that point, Lori handed Charles' phone over to Detective Inclean and it was given to the forensic unit for data extraction. Take a listen to Werther as he sums up his complete findings right here. So ultimately your what you determined was that the timeline of Lori

Valo leaving when the 911 call was and returning back was not accurate. Yes as I understood based on again the multiple different ways now that we're able to corroborate location not only of devices that are relevant because we knew at this point that she had Charles's phone we knew numbers for her phones we have video of her at various places. It led to the inescapable conclusion that either the shooting did not happen that close in time to the 911 call or that she wasn't there for the shooting. I could not see a third way of interpreting that data. Thank you. I have another questions for this witness. So if that was a little hard to follow, it's basically confirming and mapping

out what we already know timewise from July 11th and backing it up with surveillance video, backing it up with cell tower and GPS data. That is important to have the evidence, to have the receipts, to back up what we know. And then up next was Lori's turn to question Detective Werther. And she started off by asking about his report that he submitted for his case in December of 2019. She asked him, if he remembered writing in his report, the Charles sent Lori daily text messages expressing his love and devotion for Lori. Wither said that he did not remember writing that, but what he did remember, well, he remembered noting that Charles texted other women who he was attempting to date.

Zine. That was a good one. Here we can see Lori trying her best to paint Charles in an unfavorable light, but Trina Kaye wasn't having it. Detective, whether in your report on Bates page 103, you indicate that Charles went to the airport to meet Florence Hughes and found that she never boarded. Is that correct?

Hold on. Chapter relevance. What's the relevance of that? It's just in his report, Your Honor, and I was just going over it to see you. Well, everything in a police report isn't necessarily relevant. What has the relevant to this case?

It's relevant to show what was going on in this, right before this happened. This events happened within June and July. All right, it's the objection sustained. Did you learn who Florence Hughes was? I'm going to object again to relevance. Sustained. In your report, Detective, you find evidence

that Charles did in fact send someone $1,000. Now I object to relevance again. Sustained. I would object to relevance to all of these types. two questions. When you had, what was your role in going through the data from the phone, from my husband's phone? So primarily I went through the location data

because of the concerns we had about timeline. I know I went through other data associated with other accounts, but I don't believe I specifically went through the phone extraction outside of the location data. Okay, but in your report, you made a lot of notes to these things, but that wasn't what you. were looking for, you just happened upon it?

How did that happen? So there are things found, I think many of those may be related to a Google account. And yes, as certain things were being accomplished, as a team, sometimes you'll task out and say, would you look through this to see what you find that may be relevant? And it isn't always clear up front in investigation

what's going to be relevant. So when I see communications between people without knowing the full story, particularly when I'm not the primary case, agent. I may note things because I want to make sure the case agent knows of them so he or she can decide if that's a thing that needs to be pursued further. And if they think it is, then they can ask me or someone else or they can do it themselves. But that would be why some of those things are documented. Okay. And you wrote them in your report because you thought they might be

relevant? Yes, not knowing the full case. I noted things like that that may be relevant. And that we need to go to the case agent so he could decide if those were relevant or not as well. Correct. The case agent has much fuller information, particularly as a long-term investigation goes on. As somebody who's just helping out with certain tasks, it's not always obvious to you what things are going to be relevant to the person who knows the entirety of the case. So you mentioned in your report that on July 10th, there was a scheduled phone date with Nancy Johancock. Is that correct? I think I did indicate that in my report, yes. Okay. And then on the next, next day there was another date scheduled with a Jennifer Gilbert at 12 o'clock. That sounds correct. And then the next day there was another date scheduled with a

Juliet at 10 a.m. And obviously trying to smear the victim. All right. The objection sustained. Detective, did you find searches for these dates for my husband back to hold on, hold on, hold on. Sustained. This is a different question, Your Honor. Whether he went on dates or had dates scheduled is not relevant to this case. Ask another question. You can ask about the date of the person that testified the night before because that person was in here and had some relevant information. But other than that, any of these other questions are not relevant. Yikes.

By the way, I don't think this is working for the men painting Charles in a bad light, like the idea that he's a cheater. I think that if I was the jury, I'd be like, well, it makes sense. She's cheating on him. She's calling him Ned. She thinks she's translated. lucky that guy was attempting to move on and maybe it adds to the motive. But I don't know. I don't know. Clearly she's trying to paint Charles in a bad lie.

Lori transitioned into asking about the items that Werther and Detective Moffitt found in Charles's hotel room, including a laptop, iPad, and suitcase. After taking the items to the police station, Werther testified that he did not personally go through the items himself. Lori asked if Werther became aware of the $2 million life insurance policy that Charles had on her. Well, and Werther testified that he wasn't aware and asked if he ever came across, and then Lori asked, excuse me, Lori asked if Werther ever came across threatening text messages to her

from Charles. And Werther answered that he was only responsible for looking into location data, so he did not see any messages like that. And just a little side note, I love this. So I don't know if anybody else is noticing. But every time, and I mean every time that Lori mentions anything to do with math or has to estimate numbers, she gets it wrong and it is hilarious. She gets it wrong every single time.

And look, trust me, I am bad with math myself. But here is one example from today, but there has been several throughout this trial. And I think someone should definitely make a compilation of all of the time. She has completely miscalculated something and has said it so confidently. But your report goes from, I guess, beats page 88 to 105. So about eight pages worth of data, yeah. I'm not sure. Is that a question?

Or maybe it was even longer. 8, 17, same, same, right? Close. Like, you know, 8, 17. At least they're close. No, at least according to Lori. They are. Lori had a few more general questions pertaining to Werther's role in the investigation,

like if Werther visited Lauren's Life Academy, if he could see JJ in the footage of Burger King, all of which really didn't seem to have that much relevance. She ended her cross-exam also pretty abruptly. And then strangely, she did not ask any questions pertaining to the cell phone mapping because I guess the evidence speaks for itself, although Lori typically doesn't like evidence. as we know, she thinks the prison walls are going to crumble and she's going to be on dancing with the stars sooner than we know it. So evidence really isn't Lori's forte, but she did not ask any questions about the cell phone mapping. And evidence did speak for what that was. Well,

during redirect, Trina asked if whether ever reviewed anything from Charles's laptop that was taken from the hotel. And he stated that he did eventually go over some data from the laptop, but it wasn't anything that he used in his PowerPoint presentation regarding locations and time. When asked why he only looked for data for July 11th, which is the date that Charles was killed, further stated that it was because the timeline that they were originally told appeared to be inaccurate. And they needed to have evidence that either supported or refuted that timeline. They had to figure it out, either support it or refute it, but it is not.

the timeline was not biving. And it was also important to determine if 911 had actually been called right after the shooting occurred or if it had been called 45 minutes later, which we, I think, have seen the evidence that it was. And based on the evidence, again, clearly not the case. It was called 911 was called well after Charles Vallet was shot. So let's listen to this final clip of how Werther interpreted those findings? My understanding specifically was because we were looking at the very significant to us, fact that the timelines that we had been told appeared to be inaccurate. The purpose of what I looked at was to examine whether that inaccuracy was supported by

or refuted by various different types of location data, video data, other evidence. And again, that's specifically what I looked at is, does it appear that this device, as I had been told, was actually traveling with Ms. Vallow, or does it not appear to be the case? And it doesn't matter to me what the outcome was, but as you can see, there are indications that it was. Beyond that, if someone had asked me,

oh, well, now there's some relevant question we want you to look at an expanded timeline for, I would have been happy to do so. But I was not asked to do that in this case. So were you trying to determine whether or not it was accurate if you had not or been advised that the shooting occurred just before 911 was called? Correct. And did what you learned match up with that? No.

Again, as I said, I will say that the devices clearly departed the scene well before the 911 call. call and does not return until after the 911 call. The distances make it entirely implausible that the device went all that way, that quickly, plus the timestamps are logged prior to the event. And so again, I could see only two possible interpretations. Either the shooting happened much earlier than we were told

or the device and the person bearing it, which I understand to be Ms. Valo, left well before the shooting occurred. I don't see a third option. Thank you. No other questions. Well, Detective Nathan Duncan was actually supposed to be our final witness of the day, who is a very important witness. And actually, he's been at trial every day.

He sits with the state. And he was supposed to be our final witness for the day. But prosecutor, Trina, let Judge Breski know that he's been sick and was sent home again today. She thinks that we should be able to hear from him tomorrow. tomorrow, but that did mean the court wrapped up a little earlier than usual. So again, Detective Duncan is actually someone that testified at Chad DeBel's trial. He's actually been sitting again throughout this entire trial with this state. And what he testified about at Chad DeVos trial, let me explain is he also explained

the patriarchal blessing that Chad gave. I remember that he came in and he actually had said, Detective Duncan explained that he had been raised LDS, was no longer LDS, and actually explained a lot of the LDS church doctrine to the jurors. So I do wonder what he's going to share, though, about this investigation. We have three witnesses left now with the prosecution. They suggested yesterday that they were going to rest on Thursday. The three witnesses we have left are as Nathan Duncan. We also have Nathan Moffat. Nathan Moffitt was on a couple of Dateline episodes. So it's early on in the case.

He actually, I remember him explaining in the Dateline episode, get this, the Lori was being a little nonchalant. Surprise. And then we also have Jason Hunsaker. All three of the witnesses left are law enforcement. So when it comes to what they're going to cover, I think a lot of the questions we have, are they going to show this? Are they going to show that?

Remember Charles's body cam footage? We haven't seen his body can footage. Remember the 911 call? We haven't heard the 911 call from Alex claim. me that he called 911 right after the shooting. I think that what prosecutor Trina K does is show at the very end. And I'm suspecting that her closing arguments even are going to be a mic drop. Let's hope.

So, yeah, we will see if Summer and her mother testified. We will see if Lori has any witnesses probably next week. But until then, we're also going to find out if the prosecution will rest. If they will rest this Thursday, like anticipated yesterday, or with Detective Duncan, Nathan Duncan being sick, perhaps they now don't rest until Monday, until after the Easter weekend. We will see. All right, guys, thank you so much. Have a great night.

And as I always conclude during our trials, may justice be served. We're here for you, Charles. 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 aura.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at ora.com slash remove.