Welcome and Guest Introductions

Guest [00:00:00] Foreign.

Gerardo Sumano [00:00:08] Hello everyone and welcome to another episode of Mormon Stories podcast. I'm your host, Gerardo Sumano. And today we're kicking off a new series that we are calling Money, Power and Mormonism where we're going to be covering the Lori Valo Daybell trial. I'm gonna be your main host for this series. It's my first time being a main host for Mormon Stories, so please be patient with me. And we, but we also are gonna have John as a, as a co host on this one. He's joining us from Florida and. Hey, John.

John Dehlin [00:00:50] Hey, Gerardo. This is so fun to see somebody else in the chair. I like it, I like it. I could get used to this.

Gerardo Sumano [00:00:57] Yeah, that's awesome. So, so as you know, we've covered on Mormon Stories. John has covered several times, you know, the, the Lori Valo Daybell's case and chat daybell. I think we have two or three episodes with, with Lauren from Hidden Truth Crime. We, we covered a book as well, uh, about the case and, and you know, I'm really interested in, in the court system in the United States. Being from Mexico, you know, it's, it's really interesting to me how this process has happened. And so I, I usually, I'm, I, I, I usually follow cases like this high profile, you know, and, and, and watch them.

Gerardo Sumano [00:01:43] And so this has not been h, this hasn't been an exception. So I've been following the, the trial and I found it super fascinating. So I proposed to John that we should be probably covering a summary of what's going on in the trial maybe once a week. So that's what this series is going to be about. And today we have also with us our guest, Lauren Matthias from Hidden Truth Crime. And Lauren, why don't you introduce yourself?

Lauren Matthias [00:02:13] Yes. Yeah. Lauren Matthias, Hidden A true crime podcast or hidden true crime YouTube channel. We've been following this case for over three years, since it, since I first saw the, the missing children come down in the AP wire. My husband's a forensic psychologist, Dr. John Matthias. And yeah, we've been on Mormon Stories a few times discussing this case and its Mormon elements because it is a, I would call it a Mormon crime, an absolute tragedy. And I'm, I'm here in Boise, Idaho attending the trial every day live, tweeting from the trial, sharing audio, streaming the audio in the evenings of the trial, being the eyes and ears reporting with News Nation in the evenings as well. So I am honored to be here on Mormon Stories today.

Gerardo Sumano [00:03:01] Yeah, thanks for, thanks for coming on. You're an expert on this case, you've been following, like you said, from the very beginning. So it'll be really interesting to have your perspective. We're going to be playing some audio clips from the trial and, and just giving you a summary of what happened with us. We also have Mindy Caldwell. She's a dear friend of the podcast, and she also has been attending some of the days in the trial. And Mindy, why don't you introduce yourself?

Mindy Caldwell [00:03:28] Hi, Gerardo. I'm so happy to be here today. Yes, I have been following this case from the very beginning. We covered or we. I guest hosted on a few episodes of Mormon Stories podcast about this case. And I was able to travel to Boise this week to attend three full days of the trial. And it's such a bizarre and tragic case. And I think it's important to, to talk about all of these elements. And I'm happy to be here today. So thank you for having me.

Gerardo Sumano [00:04:01] Yeah, thanks. Thanks for coming. And we also have one more guest, and he's my friend, Brenton Erickson. Brenton is an attorney who is currently. He used to reside in Utah. Now he moved to Oregon. And if I'm not wrong, but correct me if I'm wrong, Brenton. And yeah. Do you want to introduce yourself, Brenton?

Brenton Erickson [00:04:25] Sure. I'm Brenton Erickson. I'm a criminal defense attorney. I practiced for a couple years in Utah. I'm still licensed in Utah. I recently moved to Oregon, so I have a temporary practice license here in Oregon. And I'm mainly here to try to offer, like, commentary and opinion on what a lawyer in a trial like this might be thinking to try to fill in gaps. Often when there's objections or random issues going on, you know, a jury is not going to know what's going on. So I'll just try to fill in some of the gaps there with opinion.

Guest [00:04:54] Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [00:04:54] Awesome. And that's why I mainly wanted Branton. He, he provides great. Am I hearing some echo? I think we're good. But he, he provides some great insights and it will be really interesting to hear his opinions on how the lawyers, the prosecution and the defense are, are handling this case. And to start, let's, let's have Lauren and, and maybe Mindy, if you want to jump in as well. Just tell us a little bit about what's going on in, in the courthouse, like, or how many people are attending each day. Tell us a little bit about what you observed overall this. This week.

Inside the Courtroom: Setting the Scene

Lauren Matthias [00:05:40] Yes. I actually happened to sit next to Mindy the three days that she was in court. And so we were definitely comparing notes and talking, although not talking too much in court. If you make any noise, they'll kick you out and confiscate your phone if it beeps. But it is actually a very small courtroom in the ADA County Courthouse. And this is a place where I actually used to be a TV reporter. I've reported in the ADA County Courthouse years ago. This is a smaller courtroom in that courthouse, and on one side is, as you know, reserve seating for many of the victims. The peop.

Guest [00:06:18] The.

Lauren Matthias [00:06:19] The victims that are there are Kay and Larry Woodcock, who are the grandparents of J.J. valo. They gave J.J. valo up for adoption to Lori. To Lori and Charles Vallow. And then you have some aunts and uncles. You have the step or the. Excuse me, the half brothers of JJ and then on the other side, you have the public and the news. And there, I'll be honest, there really aren't that many people. For those that watch the Murdoch trial on tv, it was a much larger courtroom. Many more people there. I would. I would call this. And I'll see if Mindy agrees. More of an intimate setting.

Lauren Matthias [00:06:53] We sit right by the jury. We can. I can almost see their laptops as they're looking at the exhibits. We can see the exhibit. They show the public everything, including autopsy photos, which is. Was a really hard day. And then on the other side is Lori with the. With her, you know, her counsel to defense attorneys. And then you have the prosecution judge and witness stand.

Mindy Caldwell [00:07:15] It's.

Lauren Matthias [00:07:15] It's small, it's intimate. You. You can see and hear everything.

Gerardo Sumano [00:07:19] Wow. Mindy, what was your experience?

Mindy Caldwell [00:07:22] Yeah, that was my first experience ever being inside a courtroom. I've watched trials on tv, but I've never actually been inside a courtroom. It's just as. As Lauren described it was.

Guest [00:07:33] It's.

Mindy Caldwell [00:07:34] It's very. It's small. You have a great view of the witness stand and of the jury box. And, yeah, we were able to see and hear everything. They do like you to be very quiet. There were a few instances where. Where phones went off and they were confiscated, but, yeah, it's. It was. It was pretty surreal to be actually in there and to. To have such a firsthand look at the. At the proceedings.

Guest [00:08:06] Yeah.

Gerardo Sumano [00:08:07] Wow. Wow, that's really cool. So something I wanted to start with, and hopefully that's okay. I think. Lauren, Mindy, Brenton, you all saw the slides. Go ahead, Go ahead.

Why Boise? Venue and Case Background

John Dehlin [00:08:21] So why. I, I, this is probably really obvious, but, but Lauren or Brenton, whoever wants to answer this, why is this in Boise? Why isn't this in Rexburg?

Lauren Matthias [00:08:29] Right.

John Dehlin [00:08:30] Can you give us just a little bit of background of that? If we know anything about the judge, if there's anything interesting about the structure of the trial itself. Is it jury? Is it. Is it the judge? What can you tell us just about the structure of the trial?

Lauren Matthias [00:08:44] Do you want me to answer that Brenton? Or is. Or did you want to say something? So, so. Oh, go ahead, go ahead.

Brenton Erickson [00:08:50] No, you go ahead.

Mindy Caldwell [00:08:51] Okay.

Lauren Matthias [00:08:52] The, the. The crime. So the, this is a. The crimes the daybell Valo crime spree took. It was over multiple states. So we are specifically at trial now for only Lori Valow Dell, not Chad Dell, her co conspirator and for only the crimes and the murders that took place in or the alleged murders that took place in Idaho in Rexburg, Idaho which is about four or five, five hours from Boise in East Idaho where you know, BYU Idaho is. So JJ Valow, seven year old JJ Valow, 16 year old Tyler Ryan and then Chad D wife Tammy Daybell who died. Those are the three people that are specifically.

Lauren Matthias [00:09:41] This is, this is Lori's trial. When it comes to those cases they decided because Rexburg is so small, they decided to move the. The trial to Ada county which is Boise, you know, for to find a non biased jury. And, and I was actually at jury selection that was a whole week in itself. And and it. I will say it was really interesting what they asked the jury. They. I can say the jury really does not know about this case. They, they drilled the, you know, all of that, you know, home. They really were looking for a jury that did not have any idea about this case and they found them here in Ada County.

Lauren Matthias [00:10:17] I don't know if they would have found that as easily in Rexburg, Idaho and so they moved it over. Judge Boyce is from the Rexburg area. He's been over this case the whole time. Prosecutors are from the Rexburg area. Although one of the prosecutors is actually from. From the Midwest. But so, so yeah, most everyone in court is from the Rexburg area. And they, and they moved us over for to find that non, you know, prejudice jury.

John Dehlin [00:10:46] I know that. I know that justice is blind. Do we know if the judge, Judge Boyce is LDS or not?

Lauren Matthias [00:10:53] He is not practicing lds. It does look like he went to byu. He does not go to church and to what his status is in the church, I do not know but that is a question many are asking. He is not a practicing member of the LDS Church.

John Dehlin [00:11:06] And really quickly I don't know, Gerardo, if you're going to get to this, tell me. We'll put it off if you are. But there's been this report going around that the Mormon Church has sent out a memo telling Mormons never to talk or even participate in this case without sort of Bishop Sl. Kurt Monkey approval. Is that something you're going to talk about later, Gerardo? And if not, can any of you give us context about that? Because many have been super disturbed about that.

Gerardo Sumano [00:11:34] Right. I think it will be important. I think we should talk about it right now.

The Mormon Church Letter and Legal Involvement

John Dehlin [00:11:38] Okay.

Gerardo Sumano [00:11:39] Do you know anything about it, Lauren?

Lauren Matthias [00:11:41] I do. And I would love other people's views. You know, I, you know, the journalist in me saw it come down and, and when it came. No, I wish I had the dates. Me. It was towards the beginning of the trial. It did not specify the Day Bell case, the memo. I think that we can all infer that it had to do with that case. But I also wondered, you know, you've covered here on Mormon stories, John, the. The sexual abuse allegations and, and where bishops, you know, would testify in those cases. And this is. This is my opinion alone. When it came down, this memo, was it two years ago, year and a half ago, saying, yes, don't, don't.

Lauren Matthias [00:12:20] If you're about to testify in, you know, a case, you know, please talk to us first. I felt it had to do not just with the DBEL case, but with perhaps the sexual abuse allegations and bishops. That was my takeaway. I know now it's. It's more thought to be completely Dell centric, but th. Those are. That's what I feel. And I'd love other people's opinions because I know that right now in the news, it's sort of cycling again, and they're stating this was Daybell. But so.

Guest [00:12:51] So that's.

Lauren Matthias [00:12:51] Those are. Those are my thoughts on it right now.

John Dehlin [00:12:55] Okay, so you are. Am I hearing you say that you don't think that that memo was specifically targeted at this case?

Lauren Matthias [00:13:01] Lauren, I think there's a reason the memo came out, and I think the daybell case is one of those reasons. But I. I don't know if it was this case alone. I think, you know, this was the time when you were covering, you know, the. The allegations of. Of bishops not reporting sexual abuse allegations as well. So I wonder if it was multifaceted, that the Day Bell case was one reason.

Guest [00:13:27] Right.

Lauren Matthias [00:13:28] There were others.

John Dehlin [00:13:29] And Gerardo, if you want. Should. Should I just read it really quick, just so we know what we're talking about?

Gerardo Sumano [00:13:34] Yeah, yeah, please.

John Dehlin [00:13:36] So this is August 4th, 2020.

Mindy Caldwell [00:13:39] Okay.

John Dehlin [00:13:40] From the church, Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints, office of the first Presidency, to general authorities, general officers, everyone and their dog, bishops, stake high councils, and it says, dear brothers and sisters, involvement in legal proceedings. We remind leaders and members of a long standing policy that church leaders should not involve themselves in civil or criminal cases regarding members in their units, quorums or, or organizations without first consulting with church legal counsel. This same policy applies to leaders corresponding with court personnel on behalf of criminal defendants or others, including through email.

John Dehlin [00:14:17] However, well intentioned church leaders sharing information in legal proceedings can sometimes be misinterpreted and even damaging. Such sharing can be especially harmful to victims and their families. Following the church's policy also keeps the church from being inappropriately implicated in, in legal matters. If a leader believes he or she should testify or communicate in a legal matter, or if a leader is being required to do so by legal process, that leader must contact the office of General Counsel at church headquarters with the phone number and then it's signed Russell and Nelson Dallin Chokes and Henry B. Eyring. Okay, so one thing that's maybe slightly different than what I thought is it's talking about leaders, not members. There's nothing telling members not to participate. Mindy, you're nodding. Did you, did you have something to say about that, Mindy?

Mindy Caldwell [00:15:05] Yeah, that's one thing that I noticed as well in that rereading is that they're specifically talking to members. So I think that that kind of corroborates what Lauren was saying about maybe not this case specifically, but all of the, you know, legal cases that's, that have come up over the past couple of years.

Brenton Erickson [00:15:22] Could I comment on this real quick, please? So as you notice, John, it's an interesting statement because it starts out with we remind leaders and members, but then it says that leaders should not involve themselves in civil, in civil or criminal cases. And so it's a really carefully worded state. Like on the one hand it sounds like it's talking to leaders and members, but then it also specifically says just leaders should not involve themselves in certain cases without talking to the church. And so I think the wording in an interesting way tries to like make everyone feel cautious, but it's actually only directed at leaders.

Brenton Erickson [00:15:54] And, and the reasoning behind that is if a leader is acting in an official capacity for the church when they witness certain things and then they go into a trial and give information, they could be making the church liable with their statements. And so the Church as a corporation is basically, legally speaking, they're saying, like, sometimes you're working for us, and if you're about to testify about something you did while working for us, we have a right to become involved.

Brenton Erickson [00:16:20] It's kind of a dangerous statement when that wide net feeling of talking to members. You don't want to run into impressions of witness tampering. Right. It would not be appropriate for the Church to say that any member considering testifying in any case involving any other member has to talk to the Church like that. That would be highly inappropriate.

John Dehlin [00:16:39] And I wonder what the Church is worried about. Do we want to speculate what would be kind of with the Valo? I mean, when we've talked about like the Arizona or the West Virginia sexual abuse cases, it's clear we don't want bishops, you know, testifying in court in a way that could make the Church liable for settlements regarding sexual abuse. Does anyone have any speculation if the Church had the Valo Debel cases in mind when it issued this statement? I wonder if we have a speculation at all about kind of the worst case scenario of how a, let's say Daybell's bishop or Valo's bishop or church leaders could in some way damage the Church if they participated in this case. Or is that even speculation? Not worth doing. Are we getting into the weeds here? I'm curious if any of you have opinions about that.

Brenton Erickson [00:17:28] It sounds.

Lauren Matthias [00:17:29] Oh, go ahead.

Brenton Erickson [00:17:30] It would be highly speculative. I guess there could be a worst case scenario in which a bishop, during a confession or some other kind of situation, learned really detailed information and either didn't act on it or maybe like, gave the individual the impression that they approved. And that could potentially lead to like a wrongful death lawsuit involving, you know, the Church and not. So that would require really specific facts and like, you know, like, like really shocking facts dealing with a bishop or someone else that we just wouldn't know about.

Lauren Matthias [00:18:01] Can I ask the date again, John, of the. Of the letter?

John Dehlin [00:18:05] I thought it was August 2020, but let me pull it back up again.

Gerardo Sumano [00:18:10] Yeah, August.

Lauren Matthias [00:18:12] Okay. So if that's the case, you know, I just want to throw out some dates. As far as the Valo Daybell case goes, it was June 2020 that the Children's bodies were found in Chad Daybell's yard in Rexburg, Idaho.

Lauren Matthias [00:18:26] Chad Dable was not excommunicated until after the bodies were found. You know, I've seen that letter. It was definitely after the bodies were found that the Church has never talked about this case ever while you know, Right. We can. You know, as a corporation, you know, when this is a PR issue, I. I get it. I get it. But I've always stated, and I've stated on Mormon stories before, that it was very upsetting before the children's bodies were found that they refused to say anything because I. I related it to Elizabeth Smart. You know, I grew up in her neighborhood. I remember the day she went missing.

Lauren Matthias [00:19:04] So clearly. It was also the day I got my mission call. But I remember the day Elizabeth Smart went missing. I remember praying in the church building for her. I remember having our ward being used as a. A lawn for pr, you know, for. For daily news conferences and, you know, the family getting blessings from the top leaders of the church. And. And here is Tyler, a girl who is very similar age to Elizabeth, 16 years old, missing. No one knows where she is. She hasn't been found and, you know, yet. And no one's. And they're mute. No one's saying anything so much, you know, for. For being shepherds of the flock. So.

Mindy Caldwell [00:19:42] So it.

Lauren Matthias [00:19:43] I find it interesting that this did happen. If we're going to, you know, take the Day Bell case aspect of this letter, how that might have played a role in this letter. And again, yeah, they don't state any specific cases. I think that the moment the bodies are found, Chad Daybell's excommunicated, people are finally realizing who Chad Dabel is. You know, all these people that stood by him and didn't listen to the media. I think this was a very overwhelming time for Rexburg in general and probably also the time that leaders were going up to Rexburg. I know Dieter Uchtdorf went up there to sort of see what in the world was going on in the Rexburg area. I think this all might have played a part.

Gerardo Sumano [00:20:22] Yeah, that's all really interesting. John, do you want to say something?

Guest [00:20:25] No.

John Dehlin [00:20:26] That's it. I was. I was just curious what the church might be afraid of here. I mean, I guess it's the question of, like, inspiration. Why didn't they know sooner? Why didn't they detect problems with Valo or Debel earlier? And I guess the defense is probably going to be trying to loop in the church as much as possible, based on my limited interaction with Chad's attorney. It just looks like the church that. That Chad's defense attorney is going to be trying to loop the church in as much as possible. And if that's the case, the church certainly wouldn't want bishops participating in that. But we can keep going.

Gerardo Sumano [00:20:59] I do want to say that it doesn't look like that's the defense. I mean, I have a lot of opinions on the defense for Lori, and I think we're, we're gonna talk about it, but it doesn't look like they really have a strategy right now as to how they're gonna proceed with the, the. With the defense. Uh, it seemed there was a lot of talk about how Lori doesn't have to prove anything. She's the one being accused of, of doing something wrong, but she doesn't have to prove her innocence. And that they're just there to, you know, hear what the prosecution has to say. And when you listen to the questions that they're asking, asking in cross examination of the witnesses, I mean, I'm just shocked that they're not, you know, they're just so like you.

Gerardo Sumano [00:21:48] I don't know, they just don't have a lot of. I, I don't find a lot of reason to ask some questions. I don't find that they're really leading to somewhere. It seems like a little bit over the place, but. Lauren, what do you think about that?

Lauren Matthias [00:22:05] You know. Well, yeah, a couple things I think that you feel like a lot of people feel. Gerardo. I think one of the, the defenses, I think main goals, interestingly enough, has already been accomplished that the death penalty for Lori Balladavil has been taken off the table. That happened before trial started due to discovery being turned in late, you know, to, to the defense. And, and they said, look, we can't go over thousands and thousands of pages of evidence and interviews that you guys should have sent to us a year ago.

Lauren Matthias [00:22:37] We don't burn witches at the stake. And if you guys want to put this woman to death when we don't even have time to go over all this evidence, this isn't just. And, and so Judge Boyce did remove the death penalty from this case. And I think that was one of their major goals going in. So they've already accomplished it. I think that the defense's case, if you're going to ask me or their argument, and maybe it hasn't even fully come up yet, I think it's going to be that Lori Daybell, there's. There's some mental illness and that she was manipulated and convinced by other parties, specifically Chad Daybell. I think that's really probably the only, you know, the biggest defense they have, honestly.

Guest [00:23:26] Right.

Gerardo Sumano [00:23:27] Mindy, do you want to comment something about that?

Mindy Caldwell [00:23:30] Yeah, I agree with that. One thing I noticed while being in trial this week was that any chance that the defense had to remind the jury that, that Lori was, for example, when Tammy Dabel died, Lori was in Hawaii.

Gerardo Sumano [00:23:46] Right.

Mindy Caldwell [00:23:46] And so she wasn't there at the time that Tammy died. So I think that there's not, there's not a lot that they have to work with. And so far the evidence that the prosecution has, has submitted has just been pretty overwhelming. So I am interested to see where the defense is going to go from here.

Gerardo Sumano [00:24:04] Yeah.

Brenton Erickson [00:24:05] Can I give my defense attorney take on this?

Gerardo Sumano [00:24:07] Of course.

Brenton Erickson [00:24:09] So I'll have more specific comments as we go through the audio clips. But you can already see the defense's legal theory. They already clearly have their approach for the elements of the crime they hammered in their opening statement. The fact that the prosecution needs to prove that Lori aided and abetted, that she encouraged, that she commanded. So you can tell that their legal theory is that all the state has, to some extent they're going to claim that all the state has a circumstantial evidence. Right. And that, and you can convict someone and you can find certain element elements of a crime satisfied from circumstantial evidence.

Brenton Erickson [00:24:48] But sometimes your best case with a jury is to say it is just circumstantial evidence. Have they really shown that she aided in a better, that she encouraged? You know, in theory, the state could prove that Lori should have known or that she really did know that these murders were going to occur. They could prove that she knew the murders were going to occur. But unless they can convince the jury that she did one of those specific acts, the jury's not supposed to convict her. So that's going to be the legal theory of the defense.

Brenton Erickson [00:25:19] And then, you know, it sometimes is confusing in a trial. Cross examination is not often the place that you're making an argument. So just because the defense attorneys in cross exam aren't saying, you know, so what you really mean it? You know, so just because they're not getting argumentative doesn't mean that their questions don't have a purpose. You know, usually they're trying to establish that the witness is not credible, that something doesn't quite match up. And then later on in their own case or in their closing argument, they're going to get really specific and try to make that point.

Gerardo Sumano [00:25:47] Right.

Brenton Erickson [00:25:48] At least that's ideally what should happen.

Gerardo Sumano [00:25:50] Yeah, and that's kind of what I was expecting, you know, that they're not, not really debating with the people that they're cross examining or the witnesses. But, but, but, yeah, just. Are, are you gonna try to impeach them. You know, I, I, I, I was thinking like, oh, there's several ways that they could try that. And I, I, I'm, I'm just not seeing it yet. But, but yeah, we'll have to see. And maybe we should start diving into the, into the audio clips and then we can start commenting on it. John, do you, do you, do you have something you wanted to say?

Guest [00:26:21] No.

Key Players and Timeline of Events

Gerardo Sumano [00:26:22] Okay, cool. So first I wanted to share this slide. So this is an image that I got it ironically from ksl, but it's one of the best. I don't know what to call it, like a tree of the people involved in the case. Just so everyone, maybe those people that are not super familiarized with what's going on, who these people are, because we're going to be talking about all these names.

Gerardo Sumano [00:26:50] So I just thought maybe share this image and to just guide people through, like, who these people are. So right in the middle, and if you're, if you're just listening to the podcast, I'm just gonna try to describe it as much as possible so you can kind of understand what we're talking about. But so right in the middle we have Chad and Lori.

Gerardo Sumano [00:27:09] Lori Valo, she's the mother of the two kids that, that are deceased that were killed. JJ and Tylee. So Lori was married to her first husband. They didn't have any children. They got divorced. Then she got married a second time. And then with this second husband, she had, uh, a son. And this son is, uh, his name is Colby, uh, Colby Ryan. Um, and then later on, I'm, I'm, I believe that husband is deceased. I could be wrong. But then, but then, and any, Anyways, she ended up marrying a third time with she, she married Joe Ryan. Uh, that's her third husband. And she, uh, had a, her second children with Joe.

Gerardo Sumano [00:28:04] Uh, and her name is Tyler Ryan. Again, she's, she's one of the two children that, that were killed. And Joe Ryan, he, he did pass away. And then do we know, Lauren, how, how Joe passed away?

Lauren Matthias [00:28:22] His original autopsy stated that it was a heart attack. An investigation was reopened since this case broke and then closed again. So there will always be speculation, but it was deemed natural causes.

Gerardo Sumano [00:28:34] Okay, okay, so Joe Ryan again is, is deceased. And Lori Valo married a fourth time. She married Charles Vallow. And just to explain really quick, so the reason Tylee and Colby, those two children have the same last name is because, because Joe Ryan, when married to Lori, he ended up adopting Colby. Is that right, Lauren?

Lauren Matthias [00:29:00] He actually never did officially Adopt Colby. But Colby did take his last name. I've heard from friends that she wanted Lori Valadable, wanted everyone to sort of have the same last name on the pews at church. So they all became Ryan's, and Colby kept the last name.

Gerardo Sumano [00:29:14] Okay, thanks for the clarification. So then the fourth husband again names Charles Vallow. Charles has a sister named Kay Woodcock. And K has a husband, Larry Woodcock. And this again, Lauren mentioned that K and Larry both are part of the victims of the. Of this trial. K had a son who couldn't take care of. Of. Of newborn. Is that right, Lauren? That's kind of like when, uh, J.J. was born. Like Kay's son couldn't take care of him.

Lauren Matthias [00:29:54] Correct. So, so yeah, we've. We've actually interviewed the, The Woodcocks at our. At our home, and, and they explained this whole story. They. Their son, they got a call from the hospital. They didn't even know that their son's girlfriend was pregnant. She. She and her. Their son were unable to take care of J.J. and Kay and Larry actually took J.J. home from the hospital and raised him for the first two years of his life as his legal guardian.

Gerardo Sumano [00:30:17] Right. Okay, perfect. Yeah. And, and so Kate was going to be the primary care caregiver, but at some point she testified that Lori and Charles as being married, you know, they, they were. They. They had Tylee and Colby, two kids that they were already to. To, you know, children that they were already taking care of. Uh, but they offered to take care of of JJ and adopt him, so they ended up adopting jj. So that's how JJ becomes Lori and Charles kid. And then, then we have on this tree, we have Alex Cox, who is Lori's. Lori's brother, and he's now deceased as well. And his death has been deemed natural causes as well. Is that, is that right, Laurie?

Lauren Matthias [00:31:10] Yeah, it was deemed natural causes. Pulmonary embolism or a lung clot. Died December 12, 2020. Wait, 2019. Excuse me.

Gerardo Sumano [00:31:20] Okay. Alex Cox is the one that. I believe, the prosecution, you know, believes that. That he what? Well, they. They do name him as one of the conspirators of. Of the murders, but they believe that he was probably the one that executed the murders. Is that right?

Lauren Matthias [00:31:40] Okay. Yeah, that's absolutely right. That, that it looks like he might have been the one who did all the killings.

Gerardo Sumano [00:31:46] Okay, and then again, we have, we have. And then on the left we have Chad. Chad had a wife, Tammy Daybell, and with her he had five. Five children. And Tammy is now deceased. And her body was exhumed and they did an autopsy and they found that she, she was her, her death was due to homicide. Is that right? Sorry, I'm confirming everything.

Lauren Matthias [00:32:16] Yeah, no, right, well and that is something we only learned in trial. So. Yeah, I mean we did learn that they had exhumed her body months later because she never had an autopsy when she passed away in October of 2019. They exhumed her body on December 11th, 2019. Nobody's heard a word in trial. They did state that her cause of death is asphyxiation, but with the. By the hands of another and that Chad has been charged with first degree murder in her death. And, and Lori conspiracy in her death.

Gerardo Sumano [00:32:47] Yeah. So lots of people deceased natural causes and homicides on this, on this tree and but yeah, basically what Lori is being accused of is being a conspirator and, and also first degree murder on, on the deaths of JJ and Tyler. And then like Lauren just said, a conspirator on the death of Tammy Daybell, Chad's wife. And we'll, I think we'll have to wait because Charles Valo was also killed by Alex Cox. Originally he, you know they claim self defense but then there was an investigation and it seems like now they Arizona might want to you know, press charges on Lori on Charles Val's death as well. Is that right Lauren?

Lauren Matthias [00:33:35] Yes, yes, the Charles Val's death. There has been charges in Charles Val's homicide. Only Lori has been charged and not Chad. They said that he had evidence against Chad but didn't feel like they had enough to convict him. So they charged Lori and conspiring. Conspiring to convict kill Charles Vallow in Arizona. So we haven't even touched that yet.

Gerardo Sumano [00:33:56] Right, right.

Guest [00:33:57] Cool.

Gerardo Sumano [00:33:58] So if anyone has anything that they want to add. No, we can start by you know, playing some of the video clips. Audio clips. And just so you, so everyone knows the, the judge decided that there couldn't be cameras on the courthouse. So there's this, this, this trial is not being streamed but there are releasing the audios today after the, every day.

Guest [00:34:27] Right?

Gerardo Sumano [00:34:27] Like after the days completed at 3:30. I think it's, it's ending. Uh, the court is releasing or giving out the audios. I think they, they people have to buy it. Uh, and Lauren through her podcast Hidden True Crime on YouTube, she's releasing the audios of every day of the trial and we're going to be playing some of the, of the clips from the, from the trial. Lauren, when are you releasing these audios? Are you Releasing them by the end of the day or just so people know how to, how to find them.

Lauren Matthias [00:35:01] Yeah, no, great question. Because it, it is unique. It's not being streamed that televised, as you say. So we, everyone sort of goes into court. We sit there. You have to reserve a seat each day and get in it sort of like a really intense moment where you're setting alarms in the morning because it's like, you know, being in line for a Taylor Swift concert. Like if, you know, you don't get that within two minutes, you're. You're not seated. So you, you get your seat, you go in.

Lauren Matthias [00:35:25] We, all the reporters in there are live tweeting throughout the day, which is unique. Not every court allows, you know, you to have your electronics in there in live tweet, but we are allowed to do that. So all the reporters are live tweeting. I'm live tweeting@twitter.com hidden true crime and then as soon as it ends at 3:30, right, we, we end a little bit early, rush everyone rushes back to where they're staying. We have put in our FOIA requests for daily audio. And yes, we, we pay for it each day. And so what I do is I get on YouTube and I just wait for it to come down.

Lauren Matthias [00:35:58] And the moment it comes down, we download it and start live streaming it on our YouTube channel, YouTube.com hidden true crime. And we watch it together. So it starts around. It's been a variety. It's come down as early as, you know, 3, 340 and sometimes 4 30. And this is Mountain standard Time. But that's when everyone starts to get the audio is just after core ends, within about an hour.

John Dehlin [00:36:22] Okay, I have a super quick question.

Gerardo Sumano [00:36:25] Go ahead, Lauren.

John Dehlin [00:36:26] And Mindy, I'm curious, and maybe you've already touched on this. Is it a circus? Is there like a gazillion media outlets? There are crowds or throngs of people showing up? Are people getting turned away or is there relatively little interest? How would you describe just kind of like the circus of it all?

Lauren Matthias [00:36:46] I'll say a couple things, and I'd love Mindy's take too. You know, when she showed up. So there are two areas I forgot to mention. There's a remote viewing area. So the, the reservations for the courtroom are what, go very quickly. You have to get those very fast. And here's a great example. Mindy and I are standing at this, the place where I'm staying, and we have our alarm set to try to get our courtroom seats the next day. I am with Mindy. We have our alarm set for 8am she's on. I'm on both of our phones. She gets in. When I press submit, it's too late.

Lauren Matthias [00:37:20] 801. I did not get a seat. So Mindy got a seat. I didn't, of course. Then I threw myself on like a wait list, you know, and then I'm like calling everyone and talking to, you know, the people of the court. I know, saying, look, this just happened. Look at this Screenshot. It was 801. I was on it. You know, I really want this wait list. And so then later in the day when they're doing reservations for the remote viewing room, which actually is fairly nice, you have. They give you coffee, you can walk around. They have cushioned seats. It's like relief society chairs.

Lauren Matthias [00:37:49] You set the alarm to get those, and whoever is first in line to get the remote viewing seats, they'll be on the first wait list to get into the courtroom. So you just fingers crossed. That day. I did end up getting into the courtroom to sit by Mindy, luckily. But the, the remote viewing area is, is fairly empty. I mean, I would say there's more empty seats than taken seats. You have a lot of local news, Court tv, East Idaho News, News Nation again is there. But, you know, they have, you know, podcasters also reporting for them. You know, you know, I'm doing that for them.

Guest [00:38:28] Who else?

Lauren Matthias [00:38:28] Mindy, what, what are your thoughts when you came up?

Mindy Caldwell [00:38:32] Yeah, I didn't know what to expect. I think I expected maybe it to be a little bit more of a media circus. I mean, there's certainly evidence that, that something's going on. You know, there are a few tents set up outside the courtroom and a few of the familiar media faces that have followed this, this trial from the beginning. But I, I wouldn't, I wouldn't call it like a, like a total circus.

Mindy Caldwell [00:38:56] The courtroom was full every day. You know, like Lauren described it was. It was hard to get tickets to be in the actual courtroom. But so I never, I never did go to the overflow because I was fortunate to get a seat inside the courtroom for each of those three days. But, yeah, I mean, there's a lot, it seems to be a lot of interest, but I, I wouldn't call it just like, it like a, like a zoo out there. It's, it's, it's a little bit more tame than I anticipated.

Lauren Matthias [00:39:24] Local Salt Lake City news is there too. Mindy interviewed with the local news there, and yeah, so a lot of cameras and maybe Some tents set up outside. Long crime. But yeah, not, you know, what I think is surprising. And Leah Satilli, John, you know, and she was on your channel, the author of when the Moon Turns to Blood. She actually has been there as well, every day. And she tweeted out that she's shocked that her fellow print journalists haven't been writing more about this case because she feels it's so important to, you know, the political climate, to conspiracy theories, to religion. And it is true.

Lauren Matthias [00:40:03] You're not seeing the Washington Post and the New York Times and, you know, other, other bigger, you know, main outlets there, which is interesting. Not that they're maybe not reporting on it from a. From a, you know, different place and listening to the audio, but it is interesting that there are so few. Could it be one?

John Dehlin [00:40:21] And I'm bummed about that because I want national exposure. On the other hand, I love it that y' all are kind of, in some ways kind of leading the coverage on this. That makes me really happy.

Gerardo Sumano [00:40:32] Could it be that because it's not being streamed, some of this media outlets feel like there's not going to be as much interest. You know, listening to. To the audio only is a little bit more tedious than actually watching, you know, a stream. But I'm curious.

Mindy Caldwell [00:40:48] I think that's a good theory, Gerardo. I think that could be it. And also just the details of this case are so bizarre and, and there's so many players, so many people that are involved in this case. I've wondered if some. And maybe the religious elements, too. I'm not sure why. Why it's not getting as much national exposure as. As people might have anticipated.

Guest [00:41:09] Right.

Lauren Matthias [00:41:09] You know, yeah, I think. Yeah, I agree with both of you with Mindy and Gerardo. I, you know, News Nation did send their lead correspondent Brian Enten for jury selection to be out there, to be on location. And after a week, I think, you know, they cover so many things, they decided to put Brian elsewhere. And I think it was probably the. The streaming, the lack of tell, you know, televised viewing, which is honestly what I think the judge and the prosecution, the people in Rexburg wanted. People don't move to East Idaho for attention. You know, they want us to. To probably do things their own way and without all the media attention.

Lauren Matthias [00:41:50] And I also think what Mindy said, you know, Mindy and I have talked about this. I almost think that the ideas behind this trial are so far fet zombies and, you know, a lot of perhaps angels. Yeah. QAnon type, you know, conspiracy theories.

Lauren Matthias [00:42:08] I think sometimes I think in some ways maybe the larger media outlets did dismiss it. I mean, it was almost like pics or it didn't happen. Like there's no way this is true. And here we are sitting in trial and literally the, you know, the, the defense attorney John Thomas gets up and he goes, so now let's talk about zombies, you know, and then we end up talking about zombies for the next three hours, you know, being cross examined about zombies. I think you've never heard anything like this, I don't think in a courtroom. And it's almost like it's so surreal. I feel like people can't even believe it's happening. And I do wish that national news would cover a little bit more.

Gerardo Sumano [00:42:47] What are your thoughts, Benjin?

Brenton Erickson [00:42:49] I was gonna say as a public defender, you hear about things like belief and you know, you hear about psychosis and hallucinations all the time. I think in a high profile case like this, yes it is. The beliefs of the defendants are really out there for a high profile case. And I'm also, I'm interested in why the national media isn't covering it. I think it makes sense, the judge's decision to not broadcast it. I think there's just, there's been several recent high profile trials that have been broadcast lately and there's a lot of criticism that, that the broadcasting leads not just the attorneys, but sometimes even the judge to act in a way they wouldn't normally act. Like to, to kind of soil the trial process a bit, if that makes sense.

Gerardo Sumano [00:43:35] Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. Well, let's dive in. I, we are gonna start playing some audio clips finally. I know I've been promising for a bit. We're, we're done an introduction as 43 minutes, but that's what we do on Mormon Stories podcast.

Prosecution Opening Statements Begin

Gerardo Sumano [00:43:53] We're gonna start with the prosecution opening statements. And this was done Monday. So people that are not familiarized with how the court process is, usually at the beginning of the trial you have the prosecution, uh, standing up and talking to the jury and they're basically going to give a summary of what the case is about and what their main arguments that they want to prove are. And Brent is probably an expert on and explaining this better than me, but I'm just attempting to explain it for some people that may not understand. John, do you want to say something? Okay. And so we have, you have the prosecution and then you have the defense.

Gerardo Sumano [00:44:35] The defense are Lori's lawyers who are, you know, gonna again give a summary of what they believe. This case is going to be about. About what the evidence is going to show and what their main argument is going to be. So, yeah, let's. Let's start with the first audio clip.

Guest [00:45:02] Money, power and sex. That's what this case is about. The defendant, Lori Ballo Daybell, used money, power and sex, or the promise of those things to get what she wanted. What she wanted was money, power and sex. It didn't matter what obstacles she had to remove to get what she wanted. It didn't matter if the obstacle was a thing or a person. And if it was a person, it didn't matter who.

Gerardo Sumano [00:45:45] Yeah, I just want people to jump in. Our panel to jump in. I'm just gonna give my thoughts. When I heard that opening statement, you know, like, money, power and sex, I was like, wow. It kind of reminded me to. Some of the, you know, critics of, of the Mormon Church or the Mormon Church history, you know, sometimes claim that Joseph Smith or other leaders of, of other cults as well. You know, this is their main.

Mindy Caldwell [00:46:14] The.

Gerardo Sumano [00:46:15] The thing that drives them. Money, power and sex. And it was just really interesting that those three words were chosen and they were repeated several times by the prosecution. What did you think, Lauren, when you, when you heard that?

Lauren Matthias [00:46:29] I thought it was really interesting. I mean, and I'm excited to hear Brenton's thoughts on it because, you know, I'm sitting there as a journalist, fascinated that this is, you know, the prosecution's first words, right? This is. This is what they want to set the stage with, that that's what they're going to prove. And, you know, of course, you know, we call ourselves the Hidden True Crime Podcast because my husband's a forensic psychologist, and we delve into what are the hidden motives meaning, you know, I would call the dateline or the 2020 motives that we hear about is this, you know, money, sex, power, lust, occasional drugs.

Lauren Matthias [00:47:04] And so, you know, we delve into, like, probably the extreme beliefs and what created these people. So it makes sense that. But. But underneath it all. Yeah, that's what people have always said. This is. This is about a couple wanting to be together.

Lauren Matthias [00:47:21] This is about people wanting insurance money. This is about people wanting to feel powerful. I think the things that make it different, though, are they want to feel powerful, not because they. They, you know, want to be a CEO of a company or capitalism. They want to feel powerful by being exalted beings and, and leading, you know, the second coming of Christ. That they want to be together not just so that they can have their, you know, lustful Fantasy, but so that they can again be exalted beings and, and, you know, part of the 144,000 and gather the new Jerusalem. It's, you know, I guess at the base of it all, it is what she said.

Lauren Matthias [00:48:02] Sex, power, money. But then when you start to peel back the layers of the onions, it's fascinating. Exactly what that means. But yeah, I'd love to hear Brenton's thoughts on the, the opening statements.

Brenton Erickson [00:48:15] My first reaction was, so I actually just came out of a three day trial college, and that trial college is patterned after the national trial college. So you just learn a lot about trial theories, different approaches that people take. And I thought the prosecution's decision to open up with a narrative is really smart. Defense attorneys have been doing it for a long time. But you can see the prosecution is not going to just, they're not just sitting there and reviewing the cold, you know, facts like, you know, this person died on this date and Lori was here, and they want to turn this into a story because this is going to be a long trial.

Brenton Erickson [00:48:51] There's going to be a lot of speakers, a lot of details, and juries forget a lot of things. They zone out. And so when you make it a blockbuster, captivating story, they have a reason to pay attention and they have a reason to care. Right. If this were a trial in front of just a judge, what you call a bench trial, you can be a bit more cold and analytical because the judge is going to pay attention and they're going to apply the law. With a jury, you're dealing with laypeople and you're trying to get them to pay attention to all these details and then apply it to the law at the end of the case. And so they are really focusing on creating that story. I think it's a really smart move. And I agree with Lauren that

Mindy Caldwell [00:49:30] for

Brenton Erickson [00:49:30] those of us who have experience with Mormonism, we know that it's not just money, power and sex, it's money, power and sexual intertwined with the ideas involved in Mormonism. I mean, maybe they'll get into it in the trial, but I was already thinking about how for a lot of members of the LDS Church, real righteousness and real, like, holiness are often intertwined with financial success. Like, there's all these markers of, like, whether or not you're actually being successful both spiritually and temporally. And maybe the prosecutors are trying to keep it more surface level because I assume not all the jurors are Mormon. But yeah, it's not just money, power and sex. But that is by far the more, the more eye catching line.

Guest [00:50:13] Right, right.

Reactions to Money, Power, and Religion Framing

John Dehlin [00:50:15] Mindy, I am dying to hear as, as, let's just say as a Mormon mom or as a former Mormon mom, how much you like, you know, the reduction of this to money, power and sex. If you're kind of channeling your inner Lori Valo, if you're willing to do that.

Mindy Caldwell [00:50:34] I think that it was based on like what Brenton just explained and Lauren, it was probably good for it to be reduced down to those three things. In my mind, as a follower of the case, I saw the, the money and the power, or excuse me, the money and the sex. And then the power in my mind had like 50 like sub points underneath it because, you know, the background of, of the religious beliefs, which I think would probably fall mostly under the power, the power part of that, of that, of that opening statement. But yeah, I think as Brenton mentioned, the jury is completely new to this case and I think if they came out of the Gates talking about, you know, some of the bizarre religious stuff like right from the very beginning, it might have just been too overwhelming.

Mindy Caldwell [00:51:24] So I, I think it was probably a smart tactic to start, to start that way, just lay the foundation for what they're going to talk about.

Gerardo Sumano [00:51:33] Yeah, to me, I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but to me it seems like some of the more successful attorneys that deal with this type of cases and even in civil law that I've observed, they're, you know, they're very performative, they're very like theatrical on their arguments. And I think that's what we're seeing. I, I do remember listening to the audio. I, I could tell that she was reading from it from like an outline at least. And I wished it was not red. I wished it was more like performed. I thought it could have made it maybe more powerful. And I was not there. But it just listening to the audio, that, that's what I thought I saw you nodding. Lauren, did you. What, what do you think about that?

Lauren Matthias [00:52:18] Oh yeah. I was thinking my husband, my husband, Dr. John Matthias agrees with you. You know, he, he actually said that after he said, you know, people, attorneys should take some sort of. And maybe they do. Again, I haven't gone to law school like Bren has, but some sort of performance type classes or whatever because he actually did agree with you that maybe should have been a little bit more dramatic or a little bit more Right. Directed and said with some, to the, you know, the juror jury. So I just thought it was interesting that both you and My husband have the same takeaway. He told me the same thing.

Gerardo Sumano [00:52:52] Brenton, do you want to say something?

Brenton Erickson [00:52:54] I do. I'm gonna. I'm just going to assume that prosecutor, I bet, feels the exact same way that you do. I bet she wishes that she could have memorized it and been more performative. You know, a lot, A lot of the best trial lawyers are. They're not necessarily actors, but they are good at telling a story and they're good at performing. And not every lawyer has that skill. So sometimes you just have to make the best of what you have.

Brenton Erickson [00:53:16] And I will say in a case like this, when an opening statement is, you know, 30 minutes long or even longer, that that starts to get difficult to memorize a half hour statement or to just have it so ingrained in your mind that you can give it kind of on the spot. I also will say, these prosecutors have got to be so nervous in the next clip, which we'll hear. You know, there is a bit of pausing, there's a bit of, like, stuttering and. And they have to be so nervous generally, unless there's a mistrial or a hung jury. This is this, the prosecution's one shot in Idaho.

Brenton Erickson [00:53:52] If they. If they fail in this case and the jury comes back and gives a not guilty verdict, that is it. They've missed their shot. So this, It's a lot of pressure.

Lauren Matthias [00:54:03] I also want to add one more compliment to Lindsay Blake, who was stating she's a prosecutor that was sharing those opening statements on Wednesday, as Mindy explained. Well, Wednesday court was. It was just. We adjourned early. And the reason was because Lindsay Blake's dad unexpectedly passed away. And so we adjourned early and we will not have court on Monday because she'll be attending the funeral. But she was back on Thursday, the very next day. As you pointed out, Brenton, you have one chance. And I was really impressed with her, too. So I want to say that, like, she just came, put her game face on despite the tragedy happening in her family, and was there. And it was there Thursday and Friday doing her work, and she was. It was great. So I do want to share that, too, to compliment her there.

Gerardo Sumano [00:54:51] Yeah, thanks for mentioning that. John, do you want to say something?

John Dehlin [00:54:53] I. I was just gonna say, I don't know if I'm disagreeing with the panel, but I, I can see why the prosecution would want to reduce it to something like money, sex and power. I think those are all components to it.

John Dehlin [00:55:11] But I think this was also about spirituality. I think this was, you Know, when you, when you hear the clips, we'll probably play them later from Lori, where it's like, I'm either going to kill my husband or go to the temple. You know, there, there's, there's you sense in Laurie trying to be a good Mormon, trying to take prayer and Mormon doctrine and Mormon theology very, very seriously and trying to find her own meaning and purpose in the world.

John Dehlin [00:55:43] And, you know, whether it's Chad giving patriarchal blessings or blessings that we're going to talk about or all the what, what many would call goofy, wacky, you know, religious beliefs, this is, this is deeply, this is deeply. I think this is the reason why we're covering out a Mormon stories. I think this is deeply a Mormon story. It's deeply a religious and a spirituality story gone awry. But I can see why the prosecution would want to avoid that. Right, because there are all sorts of entanglements about, you know, First Amendment and religious freedom. And if you're trying to get someone convicted, I guess you don't want to be invoking any of that.

John Dehlin [00:56:22] And also, we know that Idaho's population, even Boise's population is going to be 10 or 20% Mormon, and that's my estimate. So if you're bringing Mormonism or religious beliefs into this, it probably feels like it could become a quagmire and could put your prosecution at risk. But I think to reduce this to money, sex and power, there's a practical benefit to that for the prosecution. But I think it's, it's. I think it's reductionistic in a way that doesn't explain it fully.

Gerardo Sumano [00:56:57] Well. It, I think it also has to do, John, with the fact that it might make Lori become a pious fraud if, if the, if the, you know, if they, if the prosecution tries to, you know, play into this narrative that she really believed all this stuff,

Mindy Caldwell [00:57:17] which

Gerardo Sumano [00:57:17] is, I remember, you know, I think one of the biggest criticisms that faithful Mormons have of Juan Brody's biography of Joseph Smith is that she kind of talks about Joseph Smith as if he didn't believe what he was teaching or saying and that he. There's not an exploration of his real feelings towards what he, what he was teaching other people.

Gerardo Sumano [00:57:45] And, you know, that that makes you feel a certain way as a reader when, and very different from like an approach like Dan Vogel, who, who, you know, introduced this new narrative of the pious fraud where, like, they believe some of it and then it makes you feel a little bit more maybe empathy towards the person because you're, you know, there's all this narrative of like, well, maybe they're actually believing some of this stuff, or maybe they were led astray by other people and they were gullible and that. That kind of stuff. But, yeah, those are my thoughts. Did you want to respond to that?

John Dehlin [00:58:22] I'm just curious if anybody else agree.

Guest [00:58:25] We.

John Dehlin [00:58:25] We can move on. I just, I. I think Chad Daybell is not involved in murders without Mormonism and without these religious beliefs that enable it. And I. I might even say Lori, too, in some sense. I think. I feel like it was religious belief and theology that. That made these murders possible, that. That otherwise it might have just been normal, run of the mill affairs if. If they happened at all. Mindy. Mindy, I want to hear what you think about that.

Mindy Caldwell [00:58:57] I validate what you're saying about feeling that the money, power, sex portion of the opening statements was rejectionary. And I had a moment where I'm like, oh, man, are they. Are they going to not talk about, you know, some of the religious stuff? Which I felt if you follow the case, then you know that it's a really huge part of it. But after being in the courtroom for three days, they are absolutely doing a deep dive into all of the religious elements. I think they just didn't want to overwhelm the jury on the first day in opening statements to.

Mindy Caldwell [00:59:27] To kind of go into all of that. I just think that might have just been like a turn off for what they were trying to accomplish. So I was initially worried that they wouldn't get into some of the details, but they absolutely have. And I think that as the trial unfolds, I think that we'll continue to hear about all of those elements that influence this case from the prosecution, too,

John Dehlin [00:59:49] not just the defense.

Mindy Caldwell [00:59:51] Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Cool.

John Dehlin [00:59:53] Cool. We can move on. I just wanted to throw that out there.

Gerardo Sumano [00:59:55] I think Brendan wanted to say something.

Brenton Erickson [00:59:58] Yeah, I was just going to say that the prosecution, I mean, as Mindy mentioned, the religious elements are. They're inevitably going to come out because they're part of the details of the story. You cannot avoid them. But when the prosecution focuses on money, sex, and power, and when they do that again and they're closing, in all likelihood, they're trying to probably inoculate Mormon members of the jury. So this is a story, and there's always a bunch of different angles from which you can tell the story. And I'm assuming that there's some Mormon members on the jury. And the concern for the prosecution is if you attach Laurie's motives too tightly to Mainstream Mormonism.

Brenton Erickson [01:00:39] You could turn off the Mormon jurors like you need. If there are Mormon jurors or if there's people on the jury who are friends with Mormons, you need them to understand that you're saying Laurie's motives and her horrible actions are in a class of their own. Even if they're religious, they're in a religious class of their own. If you tie it too directly to mainstream Mormonism, you risk losing a conviction. Right. In order to tell that story.

Guest [01:01:05] Right.

Gerardo Sumano [01:01:06] Lauren, do you want to say something?

Lauren Matthias [01:01:07] Yeah, I just want to say one other thing. Although it wasn't like the opening, opening sentence, I do want to say that both the prosecution and defense did, in the opening statements bring up extreme beliefs. And the defense especially did. The defense introduced themselves, Jim Archibald, and then explained that Lori had always had these deep religious beliefs. So although, you know, it was more about that opening line, I do just want to state that there was mention of extreme beliefs, but I think I tend to agree with John Dehlin, too. I, I just think, I mean, of course I'm biased because I've been covering this for three years into the deeper spiritual religious beliefs, but I also understand what Brenton is saying and why they probably. It makes more sense to do that for, for the jury.

Guest [01:01:55] Right.

Guest [01:01:56] Right.

Gerardo Sumano [01:01:57] Well, let's go ahead and play the.

Guest [01:02:02] You will hear that the defendant was in Hawaii at the time Tammy died. And you will also hear that less than three weeks later, 17 days to be exact, the defendant and Chad Dabel were back in Hawaii. They were getting married on a sunny beach in Hawaii, dancing and celebrating their life together, while Tyler and JJ were cold in the ground in shallow graves and while Tammy had just barely been laid to rest in the Springville, Utah cemetery, her hometown.

Gerardo Sumano [01:02:38] That was an interesting clip, and I think part of it. I'm not sure I included this, but you big. But you mentioned it, Lauren. That big part of the defense strategy is going to say it's going to be to, to claim that Lori was not probably present at any of these murders. You know, like, for example, when Tammy, Chad's wife, was killed, Lori was in Hawaii. And here you have the prosecution, you know, giving a, a nod to, like, to this and saying, yeah, she was in Hawaii, but, like, two of her kids were already dead. And then she went back to Hawaii to, to marry Chad just very soon after, after Tammy was, you know, had just died.

Lauren Matthias [01:03:24] And.

Gerardo Sumano [01:03:26] Yeah. So I wanted to hear, Lauren, what you, what you thought about that.

Lauren Matthias [01:03:30] Well, I'll, I'll say one thing. That is interesting. A little inside information or what I'm. I'm kind of speculating on. Lori's alibi came out right before the trial, what her alibi is going to be and her alibi when it comes to the children. She was in Hawaii with Tammy's. Tammy when Tammy Dabel died, although they've already shared some damning evidence showing that she was involved in understanding what was going on. But with the children, her alibi is that she was at her townhouse in Rexburg with her friends Melanie Gibb and David Warwick and. And. Or Chad. And that's specifically how it's written.

Guest [01:04:10] And.

Lauren Matthias [01:04:10] Or Chad, when J.J. and Tyler died. And I actually have speculated and seem to think that she's actually going to state that the children died on the same day when Melanie Gibb and David Warwick were in town. This would actually be the. The time JJ died. They were. They were not around when Tyler was last seen.

Lauren Matthias [01:04:32] And. And they're really pushing proof of life in the trial. Like, when was the last date people saw Tyler? When was the last people saw jj? The prosecution is doing this, really pushing down the last proof of life. And I think it's because Lori's alibi is going to be pretty out there. When it comes to the children, I think it's very clear that they died, that they were killed weeks apart, that Tyler died first. And so I think that's gonna. I just want to throw that out out there, that it's going to be a really, I think, bizarre part of the trial if this is where it's going, where I think it is.

Lauren Matthias [01:05:04] But I think that the best thing, you know, Lori has going for. Right. Is that she was in Hawaii when Tammy. And that sounds terrible. The best thing, I'm just thinking as a defense, I mean, may justice be served. So when I state the best thing, please know that this is just horrible. But, you know, I'm thinking as. As her defense, but I think.

Lauren Matthias [01:05:26] I think that what the prosecution is going to drill home is that whether or not she was there, this was about conspiring. This was about knowledge. And I don't know how well her alibi is going to play, obviously, in court. I would love Mindy's thoughts, too, though, watching.

Gerardo Sumano [01:05:49] Right, Mindy?

Mindy Caldwell [01:05:52] Yeah, I. I feel like the prosecution is doing a very good job so far at bolstering the conspiracy charges. I think that they will continue to. The defense will continue to hammer down on that. She wasn't maybe physically present in all of these places. But. But there's just so Many text messages, emails that they have presented in, in the courtroom so far that are indicating that she was very well connected to all of the goings on in this, in this case leading up to the deaths of all the people involved.

Prosecution Evidence and Autopsy Testimony

Gerardo Sumano [01:06:32] Yeah yeah, well let me, let's just play the next one and then we can all comment. This is I, I believe the last clip from the proxy prosecution.

Guest [01:06:47] On December 11th of 2019, Tammy was removed from her restful from a resting place to be examined. And it was determined by the office of the Utah Medical examiner that Tammy died at the hands of another and that the cause of her death was asphyxiation. You will hear how around the time of Tammy's exhumation, Alex Cox made a statement along the lines of I hope I'm not their fault guy.

Gerardo Sumano [01:07:24] That was, that that clip was interesting to me because you know the, the prosecution is introducing this, this part of Alex Cox, you know, being part of, of the conspiracy, maybe the murders, him saying like uh, like making the statement of being uh, the, the fall guy for, for Chad and, and, and Lori's doing. But I'm interested to hear what what you guys have have have to say about it.

Lauren Matthias [01:07:57] Lauren in in the probable cause documents when they were charging Chad in Tammy Debel's first degree murder charges, they did state that despite Lori being in Hawaii, they did state that Alex Cox was, was parked that evening in a church parking lot. I think it was about a mile and a half. Don't quote me on that. You know, it wasn't right next door to the house that evening.

Lauren Matthias [01:08:24] So everyone, nobody really knows who killed Tammy Dale. So one thing I thought was interesting was that right after they shared this, this shocking information, no one had had until that moment that, that she had died at the hands of another asphyxiation, that they then stated they jumped to Alex Cox you that we'll hear testimony of Alex Cox saying that he hopes he's not their fall guy, which we did hear about later in the trial. We did hear that from Zulema, his wife of two weeks before he died. So I thought that was really interesting that right after sharing this, really dropping this news about Tammy's cause of death, they jumped to Alex Cox being a ball guy really kind of implying that Alex might have been the person that did these murders.

Gerardo Sumano [01:09:15] Yeah, I also kind of wondered well if Alex would would have known that maybe like if Chad was the one killing Tammy, which is got what what I personally believe Alex saying because this is a conversation that they were having. I believe know when When Chad and Lori were in Hawaii, and they're call and then they're informing Alex that Tammy's body is going to be exhumed. And then this al Alex's statement of like, I hope I'm not their fall guy. Like, maybe being like, well, I maybe was involved in the other murders, but not on this one. And then. But because I was involved in the other ones, maybe they're. They're gonna blame me for the Tammy murder as well. You know, I don't know. It could be, but it's really interesting. Brent, do you have anything to say?

Brenton Erickson [01:10:07] I just. I expect them to use that statement as often as they can throughout the trial. That that is just like the golden. The golden key to their conspiracy theory that Alex is involved and that he would say something like that, like, I hope I'm not there, fall guy. When you connect those with the defenses, you know, the defense's use of the alibi. Alibi is not a complete defense to conspiracy. If you're being charged with conspiracy, you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were not present during any of the crimes. And it doesn't matter. This prosecution can still convince the jury that you are a member of the conspiracy. So that statement from Alex is like, in my mind, one of the most important pieces of evidence in the entire case.

Guest [01:10:56] Right.

Gerardo Sumano [01:10:57] Mindy, do you have any thoughts? No. Okay, cool. I think we can play I was wrong. There was one more prosecution opening statement clip. So let's listen to that.

Guest [01:11:11] And circling back. When Tyler was found, as we talked about all that was found with his charred remains, Tyler's hands are gone. When JJ was found, his hands were bound and duct taped in front of his body. When Tammy was found, those hands, she was described as a computer whiz, never going to do anything on a computer again. And the defendant and Chad Dabel getting married on a beach in Hawaii, starting their life together, all obstacles gone.

Gerardo Sumano [01:11:54] I heard that this was a very powerful. This is by the end of the. Of the opening statement from the prosecution. And I heard that this was really powerful because they showed pictures of. Of the autopsies of the kids and what their hands look like or the. The remains of. Of. Of what would have been their hands.

Guest [01:12:16] And.

Gerardo Sumano [01:12:16] And then they showed, you know, Tammy's picture and then. And then they showed at the end when she's talking about the hands and, you know, Chad getting married to Lori, they showed a picture of. Of the rings, you know, them. Them getting married. So I heard that this was a really powerful part of the of the opening statement. And maybe, Lauren, that you, you experienced it. I would like to hear what your thoughts were.

Lauren Matthias [01:12:44] Yeah, it was powerful. I was surprised that on day one, they, they brought out autopsy photos. Of course, it was actually day two where we saw even more of them and might have been. It was probably, it may be the most emotional day of all of trial the following day. But, yes, this was a very powerful part of the opening statement. It's clear that they're going to. To drive this home. And what this is at the heart of it all is, you know, three people were murdered, two of them children. This is brutal. No matter, no matter what, you know, the defense says, no matter what any reasoning is at the heart of it all, three innocent people lost their lives in the most horrendous of ways. And that was driven home in those opening statements.

Guest [01:13:35] Yeah, Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:13:38] I have a quick question. Will any of these images be made public? Have they been made public, and will they be made public, or are they forbidden from being made public? The more graphic images I'm speaking of specifically, no.

Lauren Matthias [01:13:56] No video will ever be saved from trial. There will be no archival video ever. It'll only be audio. So I imagine. I mean, that's a great question. That's actually maybe a question for Brenton. Would that be in court evidence after, like, trial evidence after? I don't know, but that's a good question. But as of right now, all I know is that only those in the trial see, and I've also heard that at the Murdoch trial, you know, that these autopsy photos at the Murdoch trial were not shown to the, the whole courtroom, only to the jury. So it was interesting that they were even showing them in the remote viewing room as well as, you know, in the courtroom. And I, I am curious what's normal and what isn't from, from Brenton, I

Brenton Erickson [01:14:45] would say in regards to trial evidence, they're definitely going to be, I assume they're going to be introduced as exhibits at some point. And when something is introduced as an exhibit, it goes into the trial record. So when, if there's any appeal issues in this case, the appeal, the appellate courts will be able to see everything.

Brenton Erickson [01:15:02] And that it's very common for autopsy photos and those kinds of photos to be heavily restricted. So like you mentioned, in some trials, they don't even show it to everyone in the courtroom. Every state has different laws about protecting the dignity of deceased persons and the emotions of their relatives. So I think at some point in the future, like when it's been a long enough time down the road, maybe even when everyone involved in this case is deceased, you know, those could become part of something a bit more public. But in general, it's not, it's not common to. It's so sensitive. It's not common to widely publicize those kinds of things.

Gerardo Sumano [01:15:40] Right, right. Yeah, really interesting. So, yeah. What, what, what's, what are your thoughts, Brent? Is it just like a court decision of whether the public sees these pictures, the people that are present, versus showing it just to the, to the jury? Is that up to the judge? Is it like, depending on the state, it, it's largely.

Brenton Erickson [01:16:02] Well, there will be state laws that control what the judge can do, and then the judge usually has discretion, you know, within those laws. So I assume the laws allow the judge to show it to the whole courtroom, and if the families or the state wanted to limit it, they would then make a motion to the judge and the judge could have restricted it even more.

Brenton Erickson [01:16:20] And I was just. This is slightly separate, but just in regards to that last part of the opening statement. The most important thing is that it humanizes the victims. But it was, in my mind, it's a brilliant way to make those three murders, one murder, to show. To refer to and show the hands of each victim. So you make those three murders, one horrific giant crime, and then tie it directly to the hand. I mean, it's just, It's a brilliant rhetorical and visual move. Studies show that jurors remember visuals way more effectively and for far longer than anything else. So the prosecutor is trying to imprint that on the minds of the jurors.

John Dehlin [01:17:01] Yeah.

Guest [01:17:02] Wow.

Gerardo Sumano [01:17:02] Really interesting. So let's, let's start listening to now the defense. The defense clips. So we have a couple of those, and then we're just going to discuss our thoughts on that.

Defense Opening Statement and Juror Dynamics

Guest [01:17:18] I've been assigned to 27 murder cases over the course of my career. Career. And they're difficult. They're difficult cases. I was assigned to this case. I'm paid by the taxpayers, and so thank you for paying your taxes. I, I've had a general practice where I, I do a little bit of everything. And, and then I, I get about one of these difficult cases a year assigned to me. And, and we do what, what we can. What does a defense lawyer do? We make sure that our clients constitutional rights are protected. We make sure that the government does its job. We make sure that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is in place before there's a. Before there's a decision.

Gerardo Sumano [01:18:19] Wow. So when I was listening to.

John Dehlin [01:18:24] What the heck was that? I want to hear Britain's view on what the heck that was.

Gerardo Sumano [01:18:28] Well, let me, let me start just by saying what I was thinking when I was listening to, to his voice. I thought I was listening to like a general authority. Reminded me of Richard G's God. Like, very paused and very, very calm and like, and, you know, is it really soft voice. So kind of, kind of weird for a. The. If you're trying to defend and kind of like your client and you're trying to show why all this evidence is, is kind of, it shouldn't be, you know, considered to convict your client and you, and you're talking very monotonous. And then the worst, the word choice that you're using, I mean, we're going to be talking about that. But yeah, I was, I was a little bit shocked

John Dehlin [01:19:15] if, if, if it's okay. I mean, well, this is the first time I've heard this, so I'm, I'm reacting live in the media. But it almost sounds like he's saying, I'm not a bad guy, don't judge me. I normally do this, he said was assigned to me. And so I'm just, I'm doing my constitutional duty. Everyone deserves a defense. But that almost sounds like a profession of guilt. Just through the, just through all the disclaimers. There's like a mountain of disclaimers there. Britain, what's going on? Help us out. What was that?

Brenton Erickson [01:19:50] I was really, really surprised to hear him frame everything that way. Like he said, he's done a lot of murder cases, so maybe he's talked to a lot of jurors after these cases and has found out that a lot of them, right from the get go, cannot believe someone would even defend someone accused of murder. And they want to hear an explanation from the defense lawyer. But I would not be surprised if there is some kind of claim from Lori after this, you know, about her lawyer like kind of throwing her under the bus in an implied. He's not directly throwing under the bus. But all I can say is most defense lawyers, they would just not approach that question this way.

Brenton Erickson [01:20:27] They would when he keeps saying, you know, this is a difficult case. And I do a difficult case like this once every year. Your job is to separate your client from what's difficult about this. Right? So in a case like this, no one is disputing that these murders happened. No one is disputing that these murders were horrific. And so you cannot pretend to the jury like these horrible murders didn't happen. But your job is to, is to acknowledge that these Horrific murders happened, then jump into your passionate, you know, conviction. Your story about why your client is not responsible. Does that make sense? So it's just strange for.

Brenton Erickson [01:21:08] It felt like that. That long statement was a really long way of being like, you know, I have to do this. It's my job. There's all these checks and balances before you guys get to make a decision. He should have said, these are horrific, horrific murders. My clothes. Client is not responsible, and then shared his story. I. It was most defense attorneys.

John Dehlin [01:21:27] It's just.

Brenton Erickson [01:21:27] No, I just. I was very surprised you just would not go that route.

John Dehlin [01:21:31] Briton. You know how you mentioned that sometimes it's discovered that judges, the way they comport themselves, could be affected by the fact that it's a. A televised or videoed trial. I wonder if the fact that this is a. An international news story is going to be affecting how the defense defends Laurie. That's probably an obvious point, but that's the first thing that came to my mind.

Brenton Erickson [01:21:57] And it shouldn't affect the way they defend because if you're going to get to the lawyer's job, his job is to do his very best in front of this jury. Right. So his job should be, how do I convince this jury that my client is innocent? He should not be thinking about what the national media might be thinking. But that. So I'm curious. Maybe this is an opening he gives in every murder case. I would be surprised.

Brenton Erickson [01:22:21] Again, he does have a theory. I think he's going to put on a decent case. He has a theory. I just. That way of starting his opening statement, to me, it just seems really risky. And you risk having jurors look at you and say.

Brenton Erickson [01:22:35] Kind of feel like you're winking at them and saying, like, we all know this is an awful case, and I don't even want to be here. And, like, that's. That's just a really risky move to make.

Gerardo Sumano [01:22:45] What did you think?

John Dehlin [01:22:47] I'm trying to hear, what if Lauren and Mindy have a reaction to that? They may not, but you're about to go there.

Lauren Matthias [01:22:53] I'm actually trying to process what's wrong with me because I hear everything you guys are saying, and I. I'm, like, agreeing. I'm like, yeah, you guys have convinced me this probably shouldn't have been said. But I have to be honest. My feelings and emotions hearing it were kind of comforted. I mean, amaz. So I'm trying to, like, wonder why. So I'm sitting here, like, trying to process my own thoughts because, I mean, Maybe it's because I already know how horrendous this case is because I've been looking at it for three years. Or maybe it's because when I watch trials, you know, on tv, if I don't like the defense attorney, it makes me even angrier.

Lauren Matthias [01:23:26] I mean, maybe that's it, you know? So, you know, if he's a little bit more, like, human, maybe I can listen to him a little bit more. I don't know. I don't know. But for some reason, I was like, okay, I appreciate it. He later kind of said that his. His office had been bombed before because, you know, people don't like what he does, but he's. He's here doing his duty. I. I mean, yeah, I don't know how a jury would take it versus me, a reporter, like I said, who's been. I already have all of my opinions set on this, on this case. You know, I'm trying to set them aside for trial, but I do.

Lauren Matthias [01:23:59] And so I'm trying to wonder. I'm like, why. Why did it make me feel good? But, you know, and. Because I. I hear what you guys are saying, but for some reason, maybe it just made Archibald a little bit more human to me. Like, I'll be willing to listen to him a little bit more. I don't know.

John Dehlin [01:24:14] I love that feedback. Mindy. Mindy, what do you think? Let me.

Mindy Caldwell [01:24:21] Yeah, I was not in the courtroom during that time, so I only heard the audio. I. I think what Lauren mentioned earlier about Archibald and Thomas came into this having already accomplished a big thing, which was getting the death penalty off the table for Lori.

Mindy Caldwell [01:24:39] So, yeah, it was an interesting. It was an interesting opening statement. I didn't have a lot of strong feelings about it. I'm not sure what I expected. One thing that's been surprising to me is that maybe, Lauren, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that Archibald has said a word since the opening statement. I think everything that I saw was the other attorney, Mr. Thomas, who has done all of the cross examination and objections and all of the things. So, yeah, it was a little bit. It was a little bit sleepy. It was an interesting opening statement. Maybe I was expecting more. I just didn't know what to expect.

John Dehlin [01:25:21] I'll just share one comment from a viewer. Irene writes, just me. I don't want to hear a defense attorney say things like that he should be fighting hard for her, even if I won't, if I want her convicted. And I think that's reflecting what, what? Britain also shared Brenton. But I just wanted to share one of our viewers reactions. But I like what you said, Lauren. Like you're like, I hope maybe emotionally you were hoping for some disclaimers because for you this, maybe for you, Lauren, this feels like an open and shut case a little bit.

Lauren Matthias [01:25:54] Yeah. I mean, in my mind, yeah, there, there are defense attorneys like O.J. simpsons who, who go in there saying, I don't care whether he did it or not, I'm gonna make sure the jury finds my client innocent. And I think there are other defense attorneys that say, you know, what happened, really happened. I'm not going to deny that, but I'm gonna do my constitutional duty and get my client the best that they deserve because they, you know, and fight for them in that sense. And maybe he's taking that route. You can't, you can't like not acknowledge that these murders didn't happen. And you can't acknowledge that two children being murdered aren't, isn't horrendous.

Lauren Matthias [01:26:31] And maybe he's sort of just like admitting that right now, like, look, this happened, this is real. But I, I'm here for my client and you know, we'll, we'll, we'll try to fight for what might be best for her. We already got the death penalty off the table for her, so I, we're doing a fairly good job. But I, I do also want to reiterate what Mindy said. It is true. This is the only thing that Jim Archibald has said during trial and then John Thomas has done everything else. And I'm curious too about if that's normal or, or what.

John Dehlin [01:27:05] Really quick, Brinton, just really quick, tell, tell us. Let's say you're an attorney for a con, for, for someone who's been charged with murder and you've reviewed the evidence and you really think your client is guilty. Is it your job to, how do you manage that as a defense attorney? Do you just fake it and act like you, you know, that it's that he's been fault he or she's been falsely charged? Do you try and sell it that you know they're innocent even if internally you believe that they're guilty? And, and I don't want to get sidetracked, but I'm dying to know how that even works, if that makes sense.

Gerardo Sumano [01:27:45] Yeah.

Brenton Erickson [01:27:46] This is why defense attorneys have therapists. And I think there's two sides to this coin. This is also why prosecutors have therapists. There are sometimes really difficult cases. And for whatever reason, the prosecutor thinks they have a good enough case. But there's always doubts, and sometimes you're bringing really, really horrendous consequences to someone, and you're always going to wonder, you know, and that.

Brenton Erickson [01:28:05] So criminal law is just a difficult area of practice, I think, for both sides. So, but just to make it quick, if you've reviewed the evidence and if you're being a good lawyer, you should understand why the prosecutor has a case. You should see all the evidence that allowed the prosecutor to even get to trial. Right. So you know why there's good reason to think that your client is guilty. And your job is to find the story that shows that your client is not guilty and to believe in it enough. And sometimes even, first of all, some of my clients, a lot of people are innocent.

Brenton Erickson [01:28:41] So sometimes as a defense attorney, you really do sincerely believe they're innocent. But even in the cases where you don't quite know, your job is to find the story that shows that they are innocent and bring yourself to believe in it enough and for long enough to get through that trial and to be convincing, because it's your constitutional responsibility. And if you don't do that, that person is going to be convicted. I would argue illegally. Right. So that, yeah, it's just a. It's an interesting job.

Gerardo Sumano [01:29:13] Yeah. I did wanted to ask Brenton about this comment he made about the taxes, because that if I was part of the jury, that wouldn't make me feel good. The fact he's saying, oh, by the way, I'm being paid with your taxes. Thanks for paying your taxes. I wanted to. To hear what Brenton thought about that comment.

Brenton Erickson [01:29:35] That could have been a side jab at the prosecution for failing to succeed on the death penalty charges. Death penalty cases are shockingly expensive for taxpayers, and when the prosecution fails, that is wasted money, you know? Right. So up until the moment that this no longer was a death penalty case, this case was far more expensive than any other average murder case. And the taxpayers just wasted all that money because the prosecutor failed because the defense attorney succeeded. So I do want to point out, as Lauren and Mindy has said, this defense attorney has already had a major victory in this case. When death is on the table, you're almost just, you know, laser focused on getting the death penalty off the table, and then you kind of move on to trial.

Brenton Erickson [01:30:17] But when it comes to the jury. Yes, that, that is another weird thing that was said. I do think there's a bit of a risk that some jurors will actually think lesser of your client if they know that your client has a public defender. We as public defenders, sometimes our clients look at us and say, I want to talk to a real lawyer. And you know, you're looking at them like, I am a real lawyer and I'm actually really good at this because this is all I do, you know, but, but jurors often have the same assumptions that our clients have. And so if you let the jury know that you're a punishment public defender, that could hurt your client. So I just, I know. I'm not sure what the point was.

Guest [01:30:52] Right, right.

Gerardo Sumano [01:30:54] Well, let's listen to the, to the next clip.

Guest [01:31:01] The evidence will show that Lori was a dutiful wife to Charles Vallow. They both worked hard, he at the office and she at home. She was a kind and loving mother to her children. The evidence will show she had a particular interest in religion. In the end of times, you will recognize the quote, unquote, end of times as something spoken of in the Holy Bible, the New Testament. Most of you will understand when I say that some people could care less about biblical prophecies. Some people care a lot about it. Thankfully, in this country, we get to worship how we choose. The evidence will show that once Lori and her friends met Chad Daybell, an author on religious subjects, her beliefs began to morph and to change.

Gerardo Sumano [01:32:09] Yeah, so this clip was interesting because that this here is where he is introducing, you know, the particular or rare religious beliefs and basically saying, well, we all have our right to believe that. I, I did thought, think it was interesting that he framed it into this context of end of world biblical prophecies when a lot of what we've heard so far doesn't have a lot to do with end of world, but more with demons and possessions and castings and that kind of stuff. But I'm curious to hear what, what you guys think. Lauren, do you want to go first?

Lauren Matthias [01:32:48] Yeah. I actually appreciate that, you know, they brought up extreme religious beliefs and the book of Revelation. I know that Leah Satali mentioned the book of Revelation a lot in her book. I think I was glad they did bring up these extreme religious beliefs in the end in opening statements. I think again that this is going to be the defense's main point, that Lori has always had these extreme religious beliefs and she has, well, she has always had extreme religious beliefs. Not the beliefs in zombies, but she has always had some extreme religious belief beliefs as far as we can tell from reading documents from older custody battles.

Lauren Matthias [01:33:31] And that that would make her, you know, prime to be taken advantage of by a False prophet. Whether or not she was taken advantage of. I'm not stating. I'm just stating as far as the defense goes, bringing up these extreme religious beliefs in Lori's history and her obsession with the end times and sitting. You know, some of us aren't interested in these end times, but other people are.

Lauren Matthias [01:33:56] I think it's kind of showing who Lori is and how she might be taken advantage by someone with a belief system like Chad's. I'm not excusing it, believe me. Everyone knows how I feel about this case. It makes me so angry. But why the defense would be pointing these out?

Guest [01:34:18] Right, Right.

Gerardo Sumano [01:34:20] Mindy, do you have any thoughts?

Mindy Caldwell [01:34:23] Yeah, I think that, as you said, Gerardo, they do mention a lot about the zombies and the casting outs and stuff, but. But the. This group did very heavily believe in end times events. And I think that that was a big motivation for a lot of the things that they talked about. And I think that it's important to remember that Chad and Lori didn't meet.

Mindy Caldwell [01:34:48] They. They. There was a history there before Lori ever met Chad. She had been interested in end times prophecies and scriptural references, and she had been reading Chad's books for at least a couple of years, I think. And so she was already kind of in that. In that realm in her mind and had already been attending events that talked about these end time preparation and end time things. So she already had an idea of. Of what Chad believed in and what he professed, the powers and the visions that he professed to have long before she actually met him. And so there was a foundation there for them to have this really major thing in common.

Mindy Caldwell [01:35:33] It wasn't just something that just. They stumbled into each other and started believing these things. If there was a. There was a foundation in a history there based on end time beliefs.

Guest [01:35:45] Right, right.

Gerardo Sumano [01:35:46] Brenton, do you want to comment on this just quickly?

Brenton Erickson [01:35:51] It's smart of him to bring up the First Amendment. I think one of the only things the defense, or, you know, there's just. There's only so many tools they have and something they can do in this case is try to make jurors feel guilty for judging Laurie for her religious beliefs. They can make the jurors like, pause before judging her for her religious beliefs. Even if we understand in this case that those beliefs ended up being deadly. And you also, at the end there, you can see, I think he's foreshadowing that the defense is going to make Chad the clear villain in this case. Yeah, that. I think that's One of the best motion.

Gerardo Sumano [01:36:29] Yeah. And, and the next clip is, is kind of interesting because here is where the defense attorney kind of hints at this idea that you, that, that Lori has a version of the story of what happened which, you know, she believes she's not guilty. And, and then, you know, he, he, he kind of talks about some conversations that happened between prosecution and defense early on before the trial where they couldn't agree on what actually happened. So let's play the clip and then we can comment on it.

Guest [01:37:14] And that's where you come into this story because this, the story is diverse, so we haven't been able to agree on what happened and we need you to decide it. So what happened? How did these children die? Who was involved? When did it happen? Where did it happen? Why? Why did it happen? The judge has read to you the allegations, the charges, and so you, they were read to you two weeks ago when you showed up to fill out your questionnaire. They were read again today and I'm going to read parts of them again because I think it's important to see what she's charged with. You don't have to write the,

Gerardo Sumano [01:38:14] yeah, this part. I, I also would like Brendan to comment on, on this part where he's reading the charges, even though they've read, they have been read three times or two or three times already. But, but yeah, I, I'm curious to know if you guys have any thoughts. Brenton

Brenton Erickson [01:38:36] so, you know, I wasn't able to hear the whole opening statement, so I don't know if his opening statement already kind of went into Laurie's version of the story, but it's a pretty typical move to tell the jurors that they're about to hear two different versions of a story and they need to, you know, think about which one is more probable. For a defense attorney, it's often better to emphasize that the state loses their case if there is any version of the story other than the state's version that is still reasonable. Does that, if that makes sense, like that you want to put, you want to emphasize over and over again how much the burden is on the state.

Brenton Erickson [01:39:12] And then when he read the charging document again, he wants to point out to the jurors, he wants them to think that four words matter, that she has to have either aided and abetted or encouraged or commanded. Right. Those are the words in the indictment about conditions, conspiracy for first degree murder. And I don't know what his version of her story is yet, but to me, that's going to be the conclusion that even if the jurors think that she put her children in an incredibly dangerous situation and had really weird beliefs about her children, and even if the jurors think that, honestly, even if they think that she knew that they were dead and still stole from their Social Security, all these horrible things, if the state can't convince the jurors that she, she aided and abetted or encouraged the murders or commanded them or assisted, then they're not supposed to convict her for conspiracy for first degree murder. So that's why he reviewed those specific parts of the indictment.

Guest [01:40:11] Right. Right. What?

Gerardo Sumano [01:40:14] Yeah.

John Dehlin [01:40:14] I'm just going to jump in super quick. And just as kind of a public service announcement, I want to thank everyone who's donating through the super chat feature on YouTube. We try and pay her, you know, we try to. Your, your financial contributions are really helpful to keep everything alive here. And those of you who are donating through the Super Chat feature of, of YouTube, thank you so much. Also, it while everyone can, we've got a great audience here. Please take a minute to subscribe to our YouTube channel that helps us with our algorithms. And while you're doing that, jump over to hidden true crime YouTube channel and subscribe to Lauren and John as well, because they're such an important voice in this community.

John Dehlin [01:40:54] And I'll give it back to you, Gerardo. I guess I'll just say one more thing. Mary Cat writes, Gerardo is doing a good job and I would agree Gerardo and all these panelists are doing an amazing job. So keep, keep doing, keep, keep, keep up the great work, everybody.

Gerardo Sumano [01:41:08] Thanks, John. Yeah. So I'm curious to hear what Lauren thinks. It seems.

Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.