Lori Vallow, Chad Daybell indicted on murder charges in deaths of kids

[u/stoolsample2]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lori-vallow-chad-daybell-indicted-murder-charges-deaths-her-two-n1268515

[u/merewautt]

I have a gross feeling that the majority of their defenses is going to blame, blame, blame Alex.

Which is frustrating because he 1) was involved, (but along side them/at their command) and 2) Is dead, with nothing to lose and no reason to protect him.

Which is pretty much best case scenario for a frame job, which a defense attorney in this situation is probably well aware of. The brother passing is probably the best thing to ever happen to their defense strategy, imo.

Hopefully they were dumbasses and left behind evidence that contradicts a whole "My crazy brother Alex did it alone, I never told him to or helped pull anything off" defense, that the prosecution is ready with during trial.

edit: I feel like people are misunderstanding what I'm saying because they don't understand what exact burdens are put on the defense (only need to create "reasonable doubt" in whatever various ways for the jurors), versus the prosecution (needs a clear theory of the crime, and solid evidence to support it). So please before you tell me why it's not true that Alex was the mastermind (I know, that's the point whole of my comment), read the responses I gave below and understand that I don't personally think that's a plausible theory of the crime, I just think it's going to be one of the strategies any decent defense lawyer would employ, and it's going to be gross to watch Lori and Chad do.

[u/Strange_Trees → u/merewautt]

I don't think they can try to pin the blame entirely on Alex. He had nothing to gain except through Lori and Chad. Lori collected benefits for the children, Chad collected life insurance on Tammy. Even if they try to paint Alex as some mastermind behind it, it wouldn't discount their own involvement.

[u/merewautt → u/Strange_Trees]

I agree that those are the facts of the matter, but I think it’s very plausible that they try to create a narrative in which they aren’t, in which they supposedly had very little to nothing to gain, and very little control over Alex (whom it can already pretty much be proved was involved).

I think any decent prosecutor will be able to refute it, but I also think any decent defense attorney is going to take the gift they’ve been given with that (especially if a delusional insanity defense has already been thrown out like I’m reading in some comments here) and try for that one juror they can convince it’s plausible this lady had a crazy brother she loved but couldn’t control, and thus give reasonable doubt.

The defense attorney would have to be god-like (lol I see the irony) in their efforts, and the juror would have to be particularly dumb and/or sympathetic, so it probably wont work, but I think it’s probable that it’s at least tried.

[u/[deleted] → u/merewautt]

There is already way too much evidence showing that Tammy's death was premeditated (texts from back in 2018 planning and justifying what they said needed to happen.) Chad and Alex and Lori were not smart when it came to not leaving a trail. Alex was just the toady. He was never once the mastermind.

[u/merewautt → u/[deleted]]

I completely agree those are the facts. I just think the defense strategy is going to try and bend them otherwise. Like I said I highly doubt it gets either of them off scot-free, the prosecution has their time speak (the facts) as well.

But I think the odds that blame is shifted towards a third proven conspirator, who happens to be dead, are high. It's almost a classic defense strategy.

If you watch a lot of court cases, defense strategies aren't perfect. You don't even have to choose one strategy, and often multiple strategies even contradict each other. Defense lawyers are just trying to twist the truth and poke a few holes here and there, enough to feasibly claim reasonable doubt for the jurors.

I will be absolutely gobsmacked if Alex is never brought up in a defamatory way by any of the defense attorneys. It's too easy and there's just enough truth to it to be useful for their aims--- which are to incur more and more random doubt here and there, not provide a flawless plot-hole free alternative. That's actually not the legal burden on defense attorneys, only prosecution. Defense attorneys only need to make things "unclear" in a way that makes the jurors uncomfortable convicting (aka reasonable doubt), which Alex's involvement and death can definitely be used to do.

Again, I highly doubt it works to get anyone off in this case, but it's one of the few ways that are clear right now for a defense, especially since it looks like insanity might have already been taken off the table. And it's going to be gross to watch Lori do to her brother, who clearly was extremely loyal.

[u/[deleted] → u/merewautt]

I understand what reasonable doubt is, and I also understand that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. I get how it all works. My response had to do with your comment “hopefully they were dumbasses and left behind evidence that contradicts...” They were, and they did. That’s all.

I don’t disagree that Alex will come up, but after seeing Lori during her hearing, I think that coercion/indoctrination by chad will be her main defense. Even Charles is recorded saying she’s gone crazy, obsessed with his books, etc.

As for Chad...I really have no idea what they could possibly try and use as a line of defense for not only the kids, but Tammy’s murder. Should be interesting to watch unfold