140: Chad Daybell Trial: Week 1 Recap | Triple Murder Driven by Thirst for Sex, Love & Power?
55:19 Share

COVID-19 and flu viruses disguise themselves to fool your immune system. That's why COVID-19 and flu vaccines are updated to protect you. Stay up to date on COVID-19 and flu vaccinations. Sponsored by Champions for Vaccine Education, Equity and Progress. Hey, true crime besties. Welcome back to an all new episode of Serialistly.

Hello, hello, hello. Welcome back to an all new bonus episode of Serialistly special live from Idaho edition. So you may have heard me mention on one of our earlier episodes this week that one of our team members is live in Idaho at Chad Daybell's trial being

being a correspondent, looking at Chad, making eye contact with his grubby-ass face, listening to all of the evidence that's presented, all of the testimony, and is giving us a play-by-play of everything. Not only giving us the play-by-play here in-house daily, but giving you guys a play-by-play on Twitter, on everything, and we are doing these bonus episodes as the trial goes on week-to-week where we can just let you know the full rundown of what has gone down this week during trial because, honestly,

I know it's difficult to watch hours and hours of footage on Court TV or whomever is streaming it. So we did this with the Lori Vallow trial. We had a team member go to that one as well. And we also covered Letitia Stouck. We weren't there at court, but we did these trial recaps every week.

And so many of you said that you found them to be incredibly helpful because we summarized high level what went down so that you could keep up week to week as the trial continues. And I think the trial is currently slated to be around eight weeks before going to deliberation. So, I mean, there's going to be a lot to be caught up on and already just in week one.

not even a full week I should say it's actually only been a couple days because opening statements didn't start until Wednesday and there's already been new bombshells that have dropped that we didn't hear about in the Lori trial so like I said we're going to be dropping these episodes every single Friday giving you the full rundown of what went on this week during trial now if you're watching the video version of this you are watching it a day later than it was released

As you know, YouTube can be very finicky with uploading. So it's easier for me to upload the audio on the podcast first, then get YouTube's approval. And then that's why it goes live the following day. So if you are watching this on YouTube and you're a regular YouTube user and you're not a podcast listener, I

I highly suggest checking out the podcast, at least for the trial footage. That way you get the information as soon as it drops in real time. Otherwise, you'll have to wait until YouTube does its thing and lets me post it over there, which sometimes they don't at all because they like to be jerks. But anyways, so we'll be doing this every single Friday. It'll be live from court, and I will have our correspondent, Lindsay, answering all of our burning questions and giving us the full rundown of what's going on in the courtroom and what's

if she disintegrates when she makes eye contact with Chad Daybell, who in my opinion is like the evil scum of the universe. He looks like this frog, like Pete the Frog, you know that character, with a cross between Peter Griffin, with a cross between, or Griffith, with a cross between like the scummiest sleazebag known to man.

But anyways, I digress. So Chad Daybell's opening statements started on Wednesday this week. Now the prosecution went first. So Rob Wood for the prosecution gave the opening statements. And I'm going to play a small little clip and then we're going to come back over here and break it down a little bit more. Two dead children buried in the defendant Chad Daybell's backyard in September of 2019. The next month, his wife is found dead in their marital bed.

Seventeen days after the death of his wife, Tammy Daybell, this defendant is photographed laughing and dancing on a beach in Hawaii at his wedding to Lori Vallow, a woman who was his mistress and the mother of the children buried in the graves on his property. Three dead bodies. This defendant believed he had a right beyond the ordinary.

When he had a chance at what he considered his rightful destiny, he made sure that no person or no law would stand in his way. His desire for sex, money, and power led him to pursue those ambitions. And this pursuit led to the deaths of his wife and Lori's two innocent children. Chad Daybell is an author who wrote books about the apocalypse. During this trial, you will hear a story more troubling when the story is real.

Chapter 1: The defendant was a seemingly ordinary man. You'll see that he craved significance. He worked in journalism, and he worked as a sexton in a graveyard. He married his wife Tammy in 1990 after meeting at Brigham Young University, and they settled in Utah. As a full-time homemaker and mother, Tammy's love for her family was boundless. Together, Tammy and the defendant started a small publishing company, which Tammy supported in many ways.

They had five children together. They moved to Idaho, where Tammy became a beloved school librarian. She was devoted to service, her community, and her faith. But for this defendant, that ordinary existence was not enough. Chapter Two: Lori Vallow was a homemaker from Arizona. She was married to her fourth husband, Charles Vallow, and she was the mother to Tylee Ryan and JJ Vallow. Tylee was a normal, vibrant teenage girl

She loved her friends. You'll hear that she loved her Jeep. She loved Chipotle. She loved her little brother, JJ. JJ was a seven-year-old boy on the autism spectrum. He required extensive special care need. He loved his sister. You'll hear about a pivotal date that set in motion the deaths of Tammy, Eileen, and JJ. October 26, 2018. That was the day when Chad Nagle and Lori Vallow met at a religious conference in St. George, Illinois.

where they were introduced by a mutual acquaintance. At this time, both still married to other spouses. That introduction set in motion the reality you're going to hear about. We know what happened next in the defendant's own words. You'll hear, "Though both married, Chad and Lori began to have an affair." You will hear excerpts from the defendant's extended text messages to Lori that reveal his mindset and his motivations.

In his thirst for sex, power, and money, Chad created an alternate reality where they called themselves James and Elena, names that Chad claimed were from past lives they had put together. The defendant's text messages reveal their story of lust and their plan for a future together. Chad Dayville wrote that upon meeting Lori Vallow, he experienced a happiness unmatched by anything else in his 50 years. He was captivated by her appearance.

So much so, he said she was out of his feet. You will hear evidence of his own words, how he was taken by her beauty and spoke about their sexual encounters on many occasions. More than anything else, Chad's obsession with Lori was rooted in her adoration for him. She was the mirror flecking the grandeur he saw in himself. He called her an exalted goddess. He told her in writing that she had returned to Earth to perform a special mission.

Part of that mission included being with him. They soon came together and turned their dreams into a plan for the future. One, three, and what they called obstacles. And those obstacles were Tylee, JJ, and Kim.

Rob Wood did a really great job of outlining everything and also just setting up the scene for the jurors for what this case is all about and for what to expect. Now, this is obviously a very, very complicated case, guys, with a lot of different people, a lot of different backstories and situations, especially for the jurors who haven't heard or seen much about this case before.

So next, Chad's attorney, John Pryor, makes me want to vomit. Sorry, I know I'm being petty, but I just really fucking hate that guy. So he gave his opening statement. Now, we have long suspected that the plan was going to be to throw Lori and Alex under the bus. But hearing exactly what he said was honestly so freaking insane.

So now the biggest question is, will the jury actually believe him? Take a listen, and then we're going to talk with Lindsay about everything else that went down this week. Chad would write these books, and he would write these books about his religious experiences. In his faith, he had certain beliefs, faith that he practiced, you know, when he went on his mission, when he, uh, uh, uh,

read his interpretation of the books that he used for his faith, he started writing books about things that were consistent with his faith. Things like premonitions. We've all heard of premonitions, about being able to predict things, about being able to see maybe when things happen. And some people believe in that, some people don't. Some people have personally experienced that, or I've been here before.

But he writes about his premonitions. He writes about good and evil and what it means to be good, what it means to be evil. He writes about dark and light. He writes about subjects that are a little darker, like death.

and maybe the coming of the end of things and when his savior in his mind is going to come back and maybe there'll be some kind of redemption of some sort. But his books covered a lot of subjects like that, and they were all based on fiction. In other words, he was writing these books about theories and things that came into his head, and he would write these stories. But he also wrote children's books. In about October of 2018,

Chad was going out and he was invited by one of the witnesses that you'll hear in this case to speak about his books. And this was not uncommon. He would travel and he would be asked to say, well, come and talk about some of the things that you believe in. You've talked about these premonitions, life experiences. You're going to hear testimony about that. And he was invited on one particular occasion in late October.

And he attended this. And while he was there trying to sell his books, and like most of us who are business people, the focus of these meetings really was for Chad to try to get his books published because that's how he made a living. And he was there in one of his booths trying to promote his books. He laid them out there. And this beautifully stunning woman named Lori Vallow comes up and she starts getting a lot of attention and she pursued him.

And she encouraged him. You'll hear testimony that she went so far as to grab behind the booth and sort of help him in trying to sell some of his books. She obviously had an interest, and maybe she felt that he was this publisher, or maybe she had an opinion. You'll hear testimony about that. He'd been married to Tammy for some 29 years.

has no remarkable background of any kind. I think the testimony we offer will show you that. I think he had a speeding ticket in 2005. But Lori Vallow was a different story. Lori Vallow was someone who right out of high school married her first husband. You'll hear testimony about this. That marriage was very short-lived, very short-lived. She then married husband number two a few years later. And again, very short-lived marriage.

And there's some testimony indication that there were some problems with the marriage that caused the breakup. But the concern seems to be, the theme seems to be that Lori's brother, Alex, and you're going to hear about Alex Cox. Alex Cox was Lori's protector. Alex Cox would do anything and everything to protect, aid, and assist Lori Vallon in whatever her endeavors. Without unbridled question, anything.

And if Alex Cox even perceived that there was a problem, Alex Cox reacted. You're going to hear testimony that in 2007, I believe it was in August of 2007, Lori Vallow had finished up going through her third marriage with Joseph Ryan. It was a tumultuous, you'll hear testimony that it was a tumultuous marriage, a terrible marriage. Lori Vallow made accusations against Joseph Ryan of abusing their child, Tylee. Yes, the same Tylee.

And during one of the visits in 2007, folks, I want to tell you in your testimony that in 2007, Chad Daybell didn't even know Lori Vallow existed. But Alex Cox, after one of the exchanges and the visitations with Tyree, Alex Cox approached Joseph Ryan and shot him with a taser and assaulted him, was eventually charged with that related assault, was eventually put in jail and had this on his record. And there was representation, the facts would suggest that

At the time, Joseph Ryan feared for his life. This was a serious situation. But it set the pattern for what we're dealing with with Alex Cox. Whenever there was a problem or a threat to Lori Vallow, you'll hear testimony that Alex Cox came to the rescue. But Alex Cox would run without even questioning, do whatever was necessary to solve Lori Vallow's problems. We're going to fast forward then to 2019. Lori Vallow is still married to Charles Vallow.

And the prosecuting attorney mentioned this. Yes, Chad Daigle at that point, coming in January and February, started to have communications with Lori Mallow. And yes, folks, it turned into an inappropriate relationship in 2019 and forward. And yes, he was engaging in discussions. He was engaging in contact with her. All of the things that the prosecutor talked about in terms of a relationship.

But subsequent to the seriousness of this relationship getting rolling, Alex Cox was at a visitation in 2019 with Charles Vallow. And Lori Vallow was there. Tylee Ryan was there. JJ was there. They were all present. And during that altercation and that supposed visit, much like with Joseph Ryan, Alex Cox took out a gun and shot Charles Vallow. And then after calling 911,

He then finished the job and walked up to him in close range, finished him off. Now, you're going to hear testimony that in some way Chad Daybell is implicated in that. And you're going to hear further testimony that he was not. You're going to hear testimony and see documentation that suggests that the prosecuting attorney on review of this indicated that there is no likelihood of conviction of Chad Daybell. You'll hear testimony that Chad Daybell had nothing to do

with the execution by Alex Cox, Charles Vallow. And the same for Brandon Boudreau. You will hear that Chad Daybell is not being pursued for any involvement in the Brandon Boudreau attempted murder. Those occurred, and those are separate, as well as the Charles Vallow. So what we have is we have a situation where someone who's 29 years old, Chad Daybell, 29 years of marriage with Tammy Daybell, no

discernible issues in his life. And then Lori Vallow comes in the picture, Miss Texas, you'll hear testimony about this beautiful vivacious woman, very sexual person and very manipulative. And she knows how to get what she wants. And she drew Chad Daybell into a relationship and an unfortunate relationship, you know, that Chad fell into. You're going to hear testimony from the Daybell children, from the children themselves.

four of the five children, three or four of the five children. They're going to talk about their mother's health struggles. They're going to talk about their mother's use of various medicinal treatments that she would use, oils that she would put on her leg, medicine and different herbs that she would take and that her mother was suffering from, that their mother was suffering from a number of maladies and that she would refuse to go see a doctor or get it treated.

And Dr. Raven is going to enlighten you a little bit about some of the circumstances regarding Tammy Daybell. Okay, Lindsay. So first of all, thank you so, so much for being boots on the ground, checking out this trial, being in the courtroom bright and early every single morning because you know we have got so many burning questions. So I want to start with after opening statements, okay? After opening statements, I know that you had time to speak with other people who were also there at the trial, people who are there covering it, spectators, judges,

news outlets, family members, all sorts of people. So what were everyone's biggest takeaways?

Everyone was stunned when we heard that four out of five of Chad's kids were going to testify about Tammy's health. From Lori's trial, we heard testimony that Tammy was very healthy. She did Zumba. She was taking a clogging class. She was also training for a marathon. So it's a pretty stark contrast from what Chad's kids are supposed to say, especially since the person who said all that was Tammy's sister, who talked to her on the phone constantly.

The other thing is that everyone that was in the courtroom was livid about this afterwards. As far as Laurie and Alex, you know, John Pryor saying that Laurie and Alex have a history of killing, implying that Joe Ryan was found dead after Alex shot him with a taser for Laurie. Not right then, but, you know, later. Then Alex killed Charles for Laurie. It's really not a bad argument, except for when you get to the part that Laurie and Alex weren't the ones to come up with a zombie plot.

They didn't claim to be the prophet. They didn't claim to be able to tell who was a dark spirit and who wasn't and gave them all the ratings. They didn't do any of that. Chad is the one that did. He said that he was supposed to bring in the new Jerusalem. All of that was his ideas, his thinking, his everything. So for Chad to be portraying Lori to be this psycho, manipulative, domineering sex kitten who gets what she wants...

And let's also not forget that Lori still believes all of this. She's still in her delusion about this. So we saw that when at her sentencing with her bizarre statement that I will never forget. And now you have Chad who's like, yeah, you know, I wrote some books based on some of my premonitions, but a lot of it was fiction.

Um, no, I'm not buying it at all. And not only that, Chad is the one with a history of telling women that he was married to them in a past life as a way to seduce them. One woman we know he's done this to was Audrey, who testified at Lori's trial, and

That Lori threatened to cut her up and put her in plastic bags and that nobody would ever be able to find her. Which I just want to note that according to Chad's own trust scale, Audrey was a 100. So I know a lot of people believe her out there. Personally, I don't. But just to say that Chad was just this innocent bystander, give me a break. He was clearly the one coming up with all this nonsense to begin with.

but it's interesting because, you know, we know so much about this case. We talk about it all the time, whereas the jurors don't. So just hearing that on all the facts alone without any other knowledge about the case, I do think that painting Lori and Alex as these crazy killers wasn't the worst argument. Truthfully, I don't, as much as it like pains me to say that. And a lot of people that I talked to after the opening statements totally agreed. You know, everyone was like,

You know, I hate to admit it, but he did good for what he could do in his position. Speaking of John Pryor, which I know you don't like him, you're never going to guess what I heard, and I can't believe that I didn't know this before. I don't want to get any of this wrong, so I'm just going to read this to you. And this was published on September 13th, 2012. Okay, it says, An attorney accused of assaulting a woman at his Nampa law office is facing trial this week. Prosecutors claim John Pryor, 50,

of Meridian tried to have sex with a woman who rebuffed his advances during a May 31, 2011 incident.

During a trial that started Tuesday, Pryor's attorney countered that Pryor and the woman engaged in consensual sexual activity and that the woman's story has changed at times. The alleged victim, a 20-year-old woman, told jurors that Pryor offered her money, employment, and assistance in a legal case if she would have sex with him. She testified that when she rejected his advances, he attempted to force himself on her.

The deputy attorney, Jessica Smith, opened her arguments by saying he had something else in mind, and that was sex. And then she goes on to say that John Pryor took the woman into a conference room, left to retrieve some paperwork, but instead returned with a condom. And then when he did that, he took the woman's clothes off, forced himself on top of her, and a

attempted to rape her and the prosecutor also told jurors that she would present dna evidence that would show that he unlawfully touched her the article also says the defense said it's no you got it all wrong this is a totally different story saying that the woman was in a dire financial crisis and agreed to have sex with him for money but then lied about it to her family her boyfriend and to police

And the defense said that in the arguments, they would show jurors video surveillance from the law office and evidence of a $200 bank deposit made by the woman. So $200 to have sex with John Pryor. Okay. Well, apparently...

He ended up during like mid-trial taking a plea agreement. And this is another article five days later. It says, faced with the possibility of a maximum 20-year prison sentence if he had been found guilty of felony battery for allegedly forcing himself on a woman, he has taken a mid-trial plea to misdemeanor battery. He will now face a maximum of six months in jail and a thousand dollar fine when he's sentenced. But he actually did not get that. According to the Idaho Press, he...

pled guilty to a reduced charge of misdemeanor battery, and he was sentenced to 120 days in jail, 100 days suspended, and 30 days discretionary and fined $137.50. So I don't know if he actually spent time in jail, but that's what the Idaho Press reported. And this is real. It's crazy.

Okay, I knew that that guy was a slime ball. I mean, I didn't know to this degree, so I really appreciate you sharing that. But like, wow. I mean, I guess the expression is birds of a feather, right? But wow, wow, wow, wow, wow. Dirt bags stick together.

I have to say it kind of always baffles me when I see so many family members or children stick by suspected, alleged, or even convicted murderers. I don't know if it's a component of them trying to grapple with the grief and not wanting to lose two parents. I don't know if they're in denial. I don't know if they truly do believe that that person is innocent, but hearing his kid's

truly believe that he was just fooled by Lori and taken for a ride and that he was framed and all of these things. It just kind of is unbelievable, but it...

Also, I have to, I hate to say it's kind of compelling in a sense that I feel like John Pryor did a pretty good job. And I mean, the fact that you're saying people thought that as well, it just makes me wonder if the jury's going to believe any of this. And I'm curious, we know that Chad's kids are sticking by him. And I believe it's what four out of five of them believe that he is innocent. So were any of Chad's kids there? And what about Lori's family?

No, the only people I saw there as far as family were Larry and Kay Woodcock, obviously, and then Tammy's aunt, Vicky Hoban. Okay, so that's interesting. And have you heard anything about the kids, like what they're thinking or anything else like that, aside from sticking by Chad? So for Chad's kids, pretty much their beliefs since the dateline they did where they said they believe Chad was framed by Lori and Alex is exactly what they still think.

Now, this is despite all the testimony that has come out in Lori's trial. And I really, I don't know. I haven't really heard how much they've looked into or how much they know about the facts that were presented. But it does seem from what I'm hearing, like that, that wouldn't even change anything for them, even if they did look like it seems like they're just truly of the mindset of, I want to believe my dad and I'm literally not going to believe black and white what's in front of me. So it's really, really crazy. Yeah.

Alright, okay, that totally makes sense. So I do want to know this, since you were also at the Lori trial, and you covered that fully, and you saw her face to face, and you saw her expressions and her demeanor, what was Chad's behavior like in court compared to how Lori was acting?

Chad is acting very serious. So he's not laughing, cutting up, or acting like it's his social hour like Lori did. Not at all. He's actually been very attentive to everything. You know, he's looking all over the room. He's watching the prosecutor talk. He's watching his attorney. But other than that, he's pretty much emotionless. You can't really read anything on his face. He just has that like exact same face. Very similar to, I know the court camera is kind of

I feel like that's kind of a stark difference because it didn't seem like Lori really paid that much attention. I mean, she never really made eye contact. Even when people were testifying, she looked down. She didn't really make eye contact.

So to hear that Chad is paying close attention and his eyes are moving about the room, I feel like that's at least a different demeanor, right? But I mean, I guess the emotions is pretty much in line. I do always think back to how pissed off Lori was even at the end of her trial when she was mad that people were going to be going after Chad and she's still stuck by his side. I wonder what she's thinking now that he is just completely throwing her skanky ass under the bus. Sorry, I know that's petty, guys, but like I just hate her. I hate her. I hate her.

So, Lindsay, tell us, what is the jury like? Is it mostly women? Is it mostly men? What's the breakdown? So, the jury is 10 men and 8 women, but I do think

think that this jury overall is younger than Lori's? Like that's just my guess. Obviously I don't know the ages of them, but judging from last time it seemed like on average I think the age was higher on Lori's than on Chad's. Not to say that it's super super young, but regardless just like in Lori's trial, all of them are taking notes. All of them are completely engaged and they're paying really close attention to everything, which is obviously what you would want, right? This is a really complicated case.

Okay, so that seems, I mean, like a pretty good split. So I want to get into detective testimony because he was the first witness that the state called. We obviously heard a lot more objections this time around versus Lori's, which kind of surprised me, but apparently some people expected that. But for those at home, listen to all of these objections. Officer, you previously testified that you, I don't want to put words in your mouth, that you staged certain items. Is that a fair assessment?

Correct. And some of the items that you staged, or that I mean, when I did stage, did you remove those from packages or boxes and you laid them out to take pictures? Is that correct? That's correct. Did you take pictures of all the items in the garage or are these just selected pictures that you've decided to show today? We took photographs of the items.

in the garage anything that we thought was evidentiary value

We did programs. OK. So the question is-- or excuse me, the answer is then that you did not take pictures of everything that was in the garage. Is that fair? No, Judge. This is across, not-- it doesn't go to the foundation of these items. But it is the same. We need to get on the arrow issue of foundation for admission or not. And we need to be allowed to cross later, of course, . So the question is that when I hear previously that you took items out of a package,

and you took pictures of select items. Did you take all of these items out of some sort of packaging and take select pictures of these as well? Yes, we took these out of tubs that were in the garage. So when you were there in present going through the garage, and I don't know how big this garage is because you don't know, you couldn't see these in plain sight when you went through them, correct?

That's correct. So you don't know what was in the garage and what wasn't? These were staged by someone else who took pictures, is that correct? We took these out of tubs and took photographs of them. Who took them out of the tubs? I couldn't tell you what officer took them out of the tubs. When did they take them out of the tubs? Are you asking for a time, sir? I'm asking for a time, yeah. Roughly 10 to 12, I would say. In the afternoon, in the morning, when...

So, Lindsey, what was that like hearing that?

Yeah, so he's definitely doing a lot more lawyering than we saw in Lori's. And again, he's not doing the worst job by creating doubt for the jurors, even through his objections. Like he's getting those little tidbits in through his speaking suggestions. And I mean, again, like if I didn't know anything about the case, I would be like, oh, okay. You know, he's not, you know, he's doing his job as annoying as it is for him to interrupt every two seconds. It's what he has to do. So I just keep telling myself that. But yeah, it's, it's a lot.

Yeah, I mean, I hate to say it again, but they are actually putting up a defense, and one that some could argue is compelling. Not to me, but maybe to some. Okay, so on Thursday morning, we know that Detective was on the stand, and the testimony was about the terrifying discovery of the kids in Chad's yard, and the jury was shown some pretty graphic pictures. So as we started to excavate down further, some of the top of...

the mass of burnt flesh wasn't really attached to anything. And so when we would start to dig away towards the sides, it would kind of come apart. It wasn't part of that original mass. And so what you're looking at on this blue tarp is burnt flesh still attached to some bone. The upper left part of that

that section that you're looking at is part of the hip bone, but it still has burnt flesh attached to it and dirt and yeah, just fatty burn tissue. So once we removed that mass and put it on blue tarp, there was still some wet soil underneath. So we dug down even further to make sure that we could excavate everything we needed.

So what you're looking at, you can see the tarps in the back kind of being put up. You can see the hand, some of the hand tools that we used just to the right of that pole. But that's what you're looking at is just after we got that mass out, the wet soil. So these were part of a tiley that kind of broke apart when we tried to lift it out of the ground.

There's pieces of charred bone, there's parts of a skull on the bottom left covered in dirt and there's still burnt rotting flesh still attached to the bone. So that's what you're looking at that one. These were the pieces that broke off. And what did you observe happening during that autopsy? One of his team members brought out the body bag and I recognized it to be the same body bag that we took.

from defendant Davo's backyard that day because it still had dirt on it. It still had the same block. And at that point they opened the body bag and revealed the same black plastic and small body that appeared to be in the black plastic. Dr. Warren and his team cut down the middle of the black plastic to open up what was inside

At that time I observed a small child with duct tape on his head from his chin to his forehead area, tightly wrapped around his head. He had red pajama pants on, red pajama shirt. He had his arms folded this way across his body.

And there was duct tape from elbow all the way around to his other elbow. He had his angles also bound with duct tape. He was still wearing his nighttime pull-up diaper. And he had black socks with board sketchers and orange. I could tell that he...

Now, when all of these pictures were shown, what were the jurors' reactions? So Thursday morning was rough.

We heard the graphic testimony about the remains of JJ and Tylee. The jurors were shown extremely graphic pictures, and I know for sure that I personally saw at least three of the jurors get a little emotional, and it was two women and one man, and they were just wiping their tears away. You know, no one was sobbing or, you know, uncontrollably crying, but

I feel like that's definitely a human response, and what was Chad doing during all of this?

So Chad, during all the graphic pictures and stuff, so there was a screen right on his table where he can see. But even before that, before the pictures were about to be shown, the prosecution gave him over to the defense for him to look through to say, yes, OK, no objection. They can be published.

Well, Chad was looking at them and he had this look of like, I don't even know how to describe it, but I guess the best way to say it would be like, you know, so John Pryor's like flipping through each picture and as each one's going, Chad's looking at it and towards like, I'm assuming which would probably be the very worst ones towards the back. I don't really know, but that's what it seemed like. He shook his head and that kind of like,

ugh, like acted surprised. Like, ugh, like who would do that? I don't know. It just seemed like a micro expression. Like he was trying to, it didn't come off as genuine. That's what I'm trying to say. And then also whenever the kids' pictures were being shown, personally, I didn't see this. I mean, I was watching Chad the whole time, don't get me wrong, but I didn't get this vibe. But people I talked to after were saying that it kind of felt like Chad was trying to make himself cry. To me, his face didn't even move that

that much to come up with that. I didn't really see that in my opinion, but a lot of people said it seemed like he was trying to force emotion, but he never did is the main point. I mean, honestly, the nerve of this guy to be like shaking his head and just not really emotional. I just, I hate, hate, hate him. So, okay. So then John Pryor did cross-examination. We're going to assume this person did this and we're going to build our case around

prosecuting that person. That would be inappropriate, wouldn't it? Right. Your role is actually to look at all the evidence, consider all the evidence, and once you've gathered all the evidence that you think is relevant to a case, what do you do with that evidence? We follow the evidence.

Okay. And then once you follow the evidence, you've established a report or you've come to concluding your investigation, what do you do with that evidence that you've concluded with? We put a case together. Okay. And then do you provide it to someone? We provide it to the prosecutors. Okay. And then at that point, only at that point, do you provide it to the prosecuting attorney and they make a determination as to whether or not

They will pursue charges against you understand is that the way you understand the process is supposed to work. Yes. Okay. And if you were not to follow that process. If you were not to follow what I just described, that wouldn't be appropriate. There's there's protocols. You agree with that, right? Yes. Okay. And you should never.

blend the roles of a police officer with the role of a private with the role of a prosecuting attorney. You would agree with that, right?

Explain what you mean by blend the roles. Well, I mean, it's not a prosecutor's role to show up at an investigation when you're conducting an investigation and engage in part of the process of interviewing witnesses. You'd agree with that, right? Because if you're doing an investigation and you're really remaining neutral as part of that investigation, right? You're not supposed to make judgments, correct? Correct. You're supposed to look at the evidence, gather all the evidence,

and then make a determination of what evidence you want to submit to a prosecuting attorney, right? Correct. Do you ever get involved in the process of deciding whether someone should be charged or not?

What do you mean by that, sir? Well, after the evidence is all gathered, and after you've done your report as a police officer, and put together all of the information, do you ever go over to the prosecutor's office and say, you know what, I put this evidence together, and you know what, I want to have a discussion with you about whether or not we want to charge this person. That wouldn't be appropriate, would it? I don't know, Jeff. Does that already matter to you?

But would it be appropriate for a prosecutor to interview witnesses and inject their personal opinion in those processes of interviewing witnesses? Would that be proper under any circumstances? To interject their personal opinion? Yeah. I would say probably not. Okay. So if you're engaging in name-calling or making references to a person's character in a case, that would clearly be an inappropriate act, would it not?

You spoke a little bit about this body camber and

You said that it was a policy that there's only one body cam among seven of ten of you as detectives. Is that right? No, sir. I never once said it was a policy. I just said there was only one body cam among seven detectives. So, in other words, you share a body cam. It's not a policy within the department. Correct. Okay. Is there a policy in the department about reporting or trying to preserve a record when you're interviewing witnesses? Yes. Okay. What's that policy, sir?

When we interview and conduct interviews in the police department? Yeah. Those interviews are recorded. Okay. Now, what about if you're out in the field and you're conducting an interview? Is that to be recorded as well? There's no policy that says it has to be recorded. Okay. Do you carry a microphone as well, officer, other than a body cam? No, not on my person. I don't. Okay. Do you carry a cell phone while you're doing that that's issued by the county?

Do I keep this cell phone in my car? Yes, I didn't ask you that. I said, do you carry a cell phone when you go out in the field? On my person or in my vehicle? Either one. In my vehicle. Okay. And does that cell phone have the technology that allows you to record or photograph and videotape images? Yes, it does. Okay. So what I understand is on November 26, 2019...

you were directed or you directed your folks to go out to the Lori Vallow residence, is that right? That's correct. Okay, and you said that you were with a couple of, you were with Ron Ball, is that who you said you were with? At one time, yes, I was with a couple different officers that day. Oh, so tell me who you were with on that day, remind me. Detective Dave Holt. Okay. Detective David Stubbs. Okay. And Lieutenant Ron Ball.

So there were four of you who went out there to locate or find out some information about what again? Remind me. About the whereabouts of JJ Bell. Okay, and this was a concern that you had because you were contacted by another law enforcement agency expressing concern about the safety of a young child, right? No, sir. Okay, tell me what was the purpose? It was a single effort welfare check. Okay.

And you went out on this welfare check and there were, if my map is correct, please correct me, did all four of you detectives and lieutenants go out at the same time? No, sir. You went out at different times? Myself and Dave Ho went out initially. Okay, and then when did the other two officers show up? When I called them based on the lies that I had been told. Okay. And these lies that you've been told,

At that point, you and Detective O'Neill decided to bring a video camera, right? That's correct. And neither of you decided to wear a recorder to record any of the incidents that took place about these so-called lives, right? That's correct. And nobody took out their phone and recorded it or made a video or audio recording of the discussion with Mr. Daybell or Mr. Cox on November 26, 2019, right? Right.

Let's hear it. And even after you said these so-called lies, even after you discovered that, you know, Mr. Daybell apparently told you something that you didn't think was true, at that point, did you instruct

Any of the officers who are coming to aid you? Maybe it's a good idea we should bring an audio or a video camera with us, or a mic to record some of these statements because I have some concerns. We did that, sir. Hold on. I'm going to go back. There was an objection. I'm sustaining the objection. So let's start at the answer. You can ask another question, Mr. Fryer.

And it was Detective Stubbs who had the video cam, is that right? That's correct. And that was when you video cammed Ms. Vallow? When you had contact eventually with Ms. Vallow, was that with the video camera that you're talking about? I didn't have contact with Ms. Vallow. Now, I'm a little confused about something, and maybe you can clear this up. You said that you asked Mr. Daybell first,

about whether he had laurie valo's phone number correct no sir i didn't contact mr day wheel until after i contacted alex cox okay at some point did you ask for laurie valo's phone number for mr david yes i did okay and at no point did you ever make a threat to him saying you're going to turn this phone number over to us right no sir at no point did any other officer walk up to him and say if you don't turn this phone number over

you're going to get yourself in a lot of trouble. That never took place to your knowledge, right? That's true. Okay. But then after that, you're saying, at first he said, I'm not going to give you the phone number. And then out of the blue, he decides to give you the phone number. Objection, mistakes, the facts, and evidence. Okay. Then subsequent to that, he decides. Well, there's an objection from the rule on it before you launch into another question. So the objection is sustained.

subsequent to that he decides to give you the phone number is that right can you repeat the question please i'll go back over the uh the analysis here thank you your your testimony is that mr daybell refused to give you the phone number first correct that's correct and he and that was an adamant refusal he said no i don't know what her phone number is right that's correct and then without any further prompting by the police officers or any encouragement by law enforcement

He shows back up and gives you the phone number later, right? Objection. He's missing the fax and the address. I'm trying to establish the fax, Judge. The objection is overruled. Does the witness have an answer? You may answer. You say he showed back up. He never left when I originally asked him. Okay. I had to ask him twice to give the phone number. Okay. And how much time passed between the first request and the second request? Roughly a minute. Okay. So without any prompting by the police...

He asked him for the phone number, he denied, and then within 60 seconds he said, "Oh, here's the phone number." Is that what your testimony is? When Detective Hogue started walking towards us and I re-asked him again, that's when he gave me the number. So you had to ask him twice, is that what you're saying? That's correct.

Now, it's obvious that John and the detective don't really like each other, of course, right? So what was it like being there and seeing that tension? Oh, yes, it is so awkward. And also some of his questions are insinuating that he's a dirty cop or that this investigation was botched or that, you know, everyone investigating just had their eyes on Chad Daybell just to go out and, you know, frame him.

That's pretty insane to me that he would have the gall and the nerve to try to paint him as a dirty cop. Like, I get it. You're trying to put up a defense for your client, but it just kind of blows my mind. And that kind of parlays us into the paintball gun situation. I want to talk about that for a second. It seemed like John Pryor was totally trying to act like this wasn't an attempt to kill Tammy in any way. Right.

You don't believe that Tammy Daybell was shot at with anything other than a paintball gun, do you? Objection, Your Honor. You don't believe that Tammy Daybell was shot with anything other than a paintball gun, do you? Yes, I do, sir. Okay. What do you base that on? The evidence through our investigation. Okay. And part of your investigation is you, did you look at the Tammy Daybell evidence that she provided to your office? Yes.

To my office or Fremont County? Fremont County. I did. Okay. And one of the pieces of evidence is exhibit number 16. And I would represent to you that this is an email from Tammy Daybell to her friends in the Salem Third Ward of her church. Okay? And would you start with the word something and read the email to me? Something really weird just happened. I want you to know so you can watch out.

I had gotten home and parked in our front driveway. As I was getting stuff out of the backseat, a guy wearing his ski mask suddenly standing at the back of my car with a paintball gun. He shot at me several times, although I don't think it was loaded. I yelled for Chad and he ran around the back of the house. I have no idea what his motive was and he never spoke, even after I asked him several times what he thought. But this email doesn't say that

She was shot with a gun. There's even a mention of a gun. The email talks about a paintball. So when this all went down, what were people's reaction in the courtroom? What did people think about that? Yeah, so we heard about that before lunch, the lunch break. And during the lunch break, I talked to several people who were like, you know, Chad is the one that threw that.

in Tammy's head about the paintball gun. She didn't just come up with this on her own. She's not a paintball gun expert. She has no idea what she's looking at. Obviously, she was scared in the 911 call, so it kind of seems like Chad was the one that probably said, oh, it was probably just a paintball gun, you know, just relax when...

You know, so the fact that he was arguing like, oh, Tammy just thought it was a paintball gun. Yeah, because of Chad. So that was the major vibe of everyone after we were just kind of annoyed that he was making it seem so insignificant. I mean, yeah, Tammy was obviously scared on that 911 call. Who calls 911 because they think somebody has a paintball gun? I mean, maybe if you think they're being reckless, but she thought her life was in danger. It's just unbelievable. Yeah.

So what was the jury like during the rest of the testimony? During the rest of the testimony, the jury was paying attention very closely all day, just watching everyone talk. Their heads were constantly moving like they were watching a tennis match, just back, forth, back, forth. So it's really great to see them that engaged. Wow. And what was Chad's behavior like while John Pryor was asking questions? He was watching back and forth too. Like his head was moving like he was watching a tennis match, just back, forth, back, forth. And

and he was sitting up pretty tall. It seemed like he was impressed with John's ability to cross-examine. I don't know if that's just the best way I can describe it, but he seemed like a crowd or something, and obviously that's just my take on it. I have no idea what was going through his head, but that's how it came off.

It seemed like Chad was like giving like a nod of approval that like, yeah, you need to ask the cops about this. Like, yes, this is the right direction. Like I was framed. Chad's kids are even now going as far to say like, yeah, Lori and Chad not only framed my dad, but also like the Rexburg police is on it. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So Chad's kids also think that he was framed?

Yeah, so it's really interesting that the kids, they straight up think it's just this huge big conspiracy, which is actually pretty crazy. I mean, this is all really interesting, and we're only a couple days in. So it feels like overall we're seeing a completely different trial than Lori's.

It's definitely going to be interesting to see what the next few weeks unfold and look like. I mean, for sure, it's going to be wild. I have a feeling we're going to hear and see a lot more than we saw in Lori's, and a lot of our questions are going to be answered. Oh, yeah. Okay, and before you go, Lindsay, is there anything else you want to share? Any tea, anything else you've noticed, anything I didn't ask you questions about, just any insights?

Overall, I think that this trial is just going to be so much different than what we saw with Lori's and we're already seeing it. So I'm really curious what else is going to come out. What else John Pryor is going to say? Why do they think that the Rexford police would frame Chad? That makes no sense. Chad's a nobody. He's always been a nobody. So I just it's crazy. So it'll be really, really interesting to see how this progresses.

Awesome. Thank you so, so much. And for providing us with all of these updates and for all of these recaps. It is so insightful. Everybody who's listening, if there are any specific questions you have for Lindsay about this case, about things you want her to pay close attention to in the courtroom, any burning questions you have about things,

make sure to let us know over on the Q&A section on Spotify or even in the Apple review section. But as a reminder, we will be doing these recaps week to week. You can also follow along on TikTok, on Twitter, on Instagram. All the handles are at underscore Annie Elise. And Lindsay is going to be posting live updates there from the courthouse. So thank you so much again, Lindsay. This was fantastic.

All right, guys, don't forget on your way out to double check that you are following the podcast so that you don't miss any of these updates. And I will be back on the mic with you first thing Monday morning with a brand new case and a full deep dive on it. All right, guys, thanks so much. And I am signing off. Take care. Bye.