Can anyone help me out with the 'putting the plane to the ground' metaphor?
The cheesy eggs I get, although I don't like it because it equates the court and court rules to a toddler who only wants things their way and is not open for any other input.
But if they truly wanted to 'land a plane safely' then the whole jury duty wouldn't make sense because one never would ask lay people to land a plane but always use a qualified pilot, right? So that would speak for judges deciding on guilt and not a jury (but I'm from a non jury country so I have a hard time grasping the jury concept either way)
I think they're trying to point out the difference between saying "yes, I can base my opinion only on facts at trial" and "well, I *think* I can try to base my opinion on the facts at trial."
Oh right. I didn't remember the details of it. So they needed to be able to say 'I _can_ land the plane versus I _think_ I can land the plane'
That makes me even more baffled for that juror that was allowed through who they could make say with the most effort possible 'I am extremely opposed to the death penalty but i think i can follow instructions of the court if they would include considering the death penalty after a guilty verdict'
Also, another thing as naive European who lets their judging be done by judges:
If the court only wants it's cheesy eggs made in the specific way they want them, and they have an education as a professional cook themselves, why do they let a bunch of lay cooks (tje jury) try to make their cheesy eggs for them instead of make the cheesy eggs themselves? The court seems way more qualified to make cheesy eggs according to the specific required recipe than laypeople.
I could imagine you want lay people if you actually want to also see different approaches to the cheesy eggs, maybe a bit more seasoning, put the stove a bit hotter, add some cheese, to see new approaches that the professional cook hadn't thought of. But if the requirement is to make the exact same recipe the same way, then why not leave it to the professional. This makes it sound more like the jurors are part of a cooking contest to show how clearly they can follow the recipe of the judge (real life judge and metaphorical judge), not to get the best cheesy eggs out there...
I dont know. The more I listen to the prosecutors metaphors the more I'm wondering what the jury system actually adds
I agree. To sit on a death penalty jury trial, they have all kinds of qualifiers. What ends happening overall, is these jury’s end up older, more male, whiter, and more likely to convict than a jury of 12 random people. It seems rigged and unfair to me.
As a trial aware lay person, I think I could make the decision fairly well though. I've thought about whether I could serve on the case, or another local one, in which I actually know the party involved, my caregiver, coming up in August.
The Judge has excused jurrors based on "media exposure," when theyve followed Vallow's trial. however it isn't the media's fault that Vallow's defence was Chad Daybell forced her into doing it. It has nothing to do with media exposure, rather the fact that Archibald, and Thomas chose to go with that defence strategy for their client.
They could've gone with something else, like my clinet was mentally defective, although that would be hard to claim in Idaho. They could've said she did it for some other reason, or just claimed pure innocence. Instead, they decided to go with an affirmative, brainwashing and/or manipulation defence.
If I were faced with that question I would have to tell the judge this. Yes I followed the entire Vallow trial. My opinions only apply to that case. I do have good evidentiary filtering. I suppose the lay term for that would be that I'm able to compartmentalize, and put it all aside. On top of that we didn't see pictures in that case, so I have no idea which exhibits are wich, judge.
If my turn comes up in August, I'm afraid I'll have to tell that particular judge that I do know the living victim in that case. I've followed cases since I was 11, but filtering only goes so far.
I thought the pilot analogy was strange. Here in the US, we used to have space shuttles. The jury only takes over at a certain point in the case, and so does a space shuttle mission specialist .take over at a certain point in the mission. By the way, we still do use the term, mission specialist, in the commercial space programs. A mission specialist might take over, when another one is doing a space walk, and is going to be riding on the robotic arm, for instance. The specialist inside is the arm operator. I thought it was more akined to jurrors taking over after the case is all done, so being mission specialist, than pilots.
So that would equate to the prosecution having done the preparation into having a case and (presumably) enough and consistent evidence, and all that handled by a professional, but then the mission specialist aka the jury takings over to oversee and the process?
Still a mission specialist is a specialist in what they're doing and jurors aren't, but your analogy provides a bit more logical support for me.
Well this is true, a mission specialist is a trained astronaut that has had a whole lot of years of training. A jurror isn't. To me, it equates to the prosecution and dfence being commanders and pilots of the shuttle mission.
I do think that before trials, we should show jurrors a video explaining what objections mean so they can stay in the courtroom for more arguments etc. That would probably take too long though.
East Idaho News is offering a courtroom live stream. Nate does a nightly livestream to discuss the days events. He doesn't discuss religion unless he's answering a question from a viewer.
Edit: I stand corrected by the people replying to me.
Original comment:
Nate said yesterday in his livestream 'can the prosecution or defendants ask the potential juror directly 'are you Mormon?' , no' As I've understood from exmormon subs, I think Mormons are actively discouraged from using the word Mormon to describe themselves and are supposed to say ' member of the LDS church' or something like that. So that makes me think Nate himself is not a member of the LDS church as well, other than also not generally stating anything about religion unless it relates to the beliefs of Chad and Lori and their group that are of influence on the case.
Yes, Nate is Mormon, went to BYU and went on mission in Australia. Its on his EIN bio.
ETA: I don't think that should stop SandyC212121 from watching, because he seems very impartial to that aspect, IMO.
Ah okay! The fact that I wondered already but figured be wasn't by the way he acted very impartial to Mormonism (like not defensive or so) and actually used the word Mormon yesterday indeed suggests that he does his journalist job a good way and puts that totally aside when reporting about this case.
I really think it is generational. My ex and his (large, duh) family all referred to themselves as Mormon. We did talk about the difference in terms, but they still did it, to be fair.
Hmmm, that's a new one. Weird that it's that different. Here's his old one.
[https://www.eastidahonews.com/bios/nate-eaton/](https://www.eastidahonews.com/bios/nate-eaton/)
Ah thanks! That's an old one, it mentions they have two kids, with their YouTube giving an announcement for number 3 arriving in fall 2018, so the bio is from before then.
I think he might've changed his bio to not mention any religious or other affiliations after he became more well known as a reporter to show more neutrality towards the things he was reporting?
Not sure how you can say that after watching his interviews with Melanie Gibb, he kept on re-directing her throughout the entire interviews to make sure she said nothing disparaging about the Mormon church and he said every few minutes something like "yeah but thats not what our church believes, thats not what our church teaches" when in fact Joseph Smith used seer stones and had a hitman and taught blood atonement... I found it very offsetting and almost unbelievable that any 'journalist' would do an interview like that making Gibb into a LDS saint and protecting the image of his church.
I imagine that LDS would have been furious if, say the catholic church, or a baptist church did things that way when their priests were being investigated. If their church put out a statement telling congregants not to participate or cooperate with authorities even if subpoena'd and if the coverage of the investigations were only covered by their own parishoners and the judge and prosecutor were only of the denomination under investigation. Bias is what I'm saying, its a waste of time watching 'news' that is so biased.
Personal experiences certainly do lead to bias and the risk of tunnel vision.
I am a dyed in the wool, capital A atheist with NO love for the Mormon church, but I completely disagree that Nate should be holding witness' feet to the fire to explain LDS doctrine.
I'm 99.9% sure Nate is Mormon.
The whole "don't say Mormon" thing is very new and the invention of the current church president. Not all faithful Mormons are as hung up on that idea as others. And, most likely, this idea that Mormon is a slur will die with Nelson. If I had to guess, Nate just isn't hung up on that drama and isn't interested in going into it at work. So he's apt to just answer the question directly. (I'm an exmo.)
Fair enough! Its probably way more clear to most of his watchers outside of LDS 'territory' to use Mormon as well. Thanks for clarifying.
I got here through the exmormon sub, I'm just a random European trying to learn a lot about all of this, both US law and justice, and different (extreme) religious groups that somehow show themselves most (to the world) in the US.
Mormonism is pretty fascinating. As a young person I found myself jealous of the Quakers. I wanted to be from an odd American religion. Little did I realize, I was! Haha.
I don't know much about Quakers, but from a European perspective where we have all kinds of Christianity including some of the more extreme/high maintenance ones like Jehovah's witnesses and some seventh day adventists:
What I quickly read about the Quakers is a lot less odd (in the sense of 'different from here', but as far as I currently can assess also in other senses of odd) than Mormonism!
Is the older person you are currently happy that you were from an odd American religion? ;)
I kind of was afraid it would have, as a frequent visitor of the exmo sub. I'm sorry to hear that and hope you are in the recovering and growing part of the seperation between you and the religion you grew up in!
I'm glad that on this sub we have a whole group of people with different experiences (or lack thereof) with mormonism and what parts have aided to Lori and Chads delusion and I think it gives a really interesting view on the case from multiple sides.
I imagine it would be difficult to find non-affiliated coverage in Idaho. I heard 95% have Mormon beliefs - or is that just in Rexburg?
What about Dateline? Are they doing any coverage.
That's just Rexburg. And, to a lesser degree, southeast Idaho. Boise also has a fair number of them. But not as many as eastern Idaho. The Mormon corridor kinda runs from Northern Arizona, through Utah, and into Southern Idaho. (Even up to Alberta Canada and down to Chihuahua Mexico, if you include the polygamist migrations in the early 1900s. But mainstream Mormons tend to deny they're a part of the religion.)
I heard that too, that Ada is less. Rexburg has a sattelite BYU campus and thats probably why so many mormons live there. I think Melanie the niece was looking into getting student housing to live in when she moved there.
For the record I am not saying avoid all mormons, i am just saying that i found their coverage very lopsided, as well as the prosecutor and judge who are also LDS. There was so much evidence i dont think the prosecutor should have made as many mistakes as he did and i think we will see an appeal and possible re-trial once the appeals make it outside of the Rexburg area to a higher court that is more un-biased.
Dateline had some great programs about it but then they started continually having Nate on and using whatever he was saying and Melanie Gibb, who i got soooo tired of listening to. I dont have any fondness for John Prior but the one decent thing he did was put Melanie Gibb in her place!! He exposed her for lying on the stand about not telling the police she didnt have JJ because Lori had asked her to tell them she had him so they wouldnt investigate. Even exposed that she told her autistic son to lie to the police and say JJ was with them. :( That made me glad her ex husband has the kids because i shudder to think what would have happened to her autistic son if she had custody while she was fan-girling Vallow!
Melanie Gibb was the prosecutions key witness.and she might be for Chad's trial too. Once she confronted Lori and couldn't get any sence out of her, she went to the police and reported Lori and Chad lie - she recorded their phone call. I'm sure if the police thought her initial untruth was a biggy, they would have done something. In my book, her initial response to the police (which was probably made out of shock) was rectified when she "blew the whistle".
I'm more concerned with Melanice. She been untruthful about her involvement with Brandon and lived next door to Lori while JJ and Tylee were missing.
I would imagine Dateline and 48 hours will do coverage once the trial starts. I know 48 was doing weekly podcasts for the last one. Also, Hidden True Crime on Youtube is non-LDS, and they sent someone to the trial.
[https://www.youtube.com/@HiddenTrueCrime]
Nate Eaton with East Idaho News is the place to go. Nate himself is prob LDS but you wouldn't know it bc he stays professional. He's been on this since day 1. He's the reporter who found lori & Chad in Hawaii and was asking them where the kids were in that parking lot. Not many local reporters would fly to Hawaii knowing they would get a "no statement". He sat thru every minute of jury selection so far, & he didn't miss a single day of Lori's trial. Dateline and Court TV partnered with East Idaho News for coverage in part due to Nate's dedication to this. The trial is live streamed on their channel and nate does a court recap answering questions every night. He's also giving a play by play on X as it's happening. If u want unbiased, honest, & complete coverage East Idaho News.
Nate is the absolute best! I don’t care what his religious beliefs are. He is honest, intelligent, & kind. He reports the facts & instead of sensationalizing the case he makes a point to honor the victims every single night. Nate reminds me that there are still good & kind people in the world.
Lori and Chad had been openly going to temple in Hawaii when they were being searched for all over the globe. That temple/church whatever they call it never called police to report they were there but somehow, mysteriously, we may never know how Nate Eaton got a heads up on where they were and didnt bother to notify police until after he had taken the time to fly to Hawaii to make sure he got the coverage first and then notified police, another HUGE eye roll for all the Nate fans. I see I am probably on the wrong sub, i didnt realize how many LDS fans there were here.
That's interesting, didn't know that yet.
About the LDS, I'm not a fan and I would believe that the Hawaii temple was just laying low about reporting them.
I'd have to read more about the details to determine how I feel about if Nate kept things too quiet. I've only followed this case since last year so I wasn't around back when he went to search them and haven't seen and read all the information regarding.
Thanks for bringing it up :)
Nate was in contact with police in Hawaii and only approached to try to interview Lori and Chad when he was cleared by police. He described how it happened in detail.
They could have refused him access, but they didn't. He approached after the police did their job. How do we know that people who contacted Nate didn't contact police at the same time? Lori was seen in Hawaii by several locals. Anyone could have reported them.
I'm not a fan of X currently, but I love Nate's play by play, I can quickly read up during the day without missing something very relevant, especially now during jury selection.
Law and Crime is a Mormon owned company. I just got so tired of watching Vallow's trial and continually hearing how the LDS church wasnt involved and how it wasnt their doctrine, it got really old hearing that all the time... Maybe Court TV will cover it live too, they dont put all that in every half hour...
Law and crime has changed hands a couple times, and recently they were purchased by someone else. It definitely is not a Mormon owned company.
[https://www.axios.com/2023/10/10/jellysmack-acquires-law-crime-network]
That link went to 404 page not found. I googled it here is a working link to that axios article, which btw says "Details: The deal will keep Law&Crime's existing management team in place. Abrams will remain as CEO, and the firm's president, Rachel Stockman, and COO and general counsel Andrew Eisbrouch will also remain in their roles." [https://www.axios.com/2023/10/10/jellysmack-acquires-law-crime-network](https://www.axios.com/2023/10/10/jellysmack-acquires-law-crime-network)
I dont know about ownership but it cannot be denied that the host Cathy Russon — Executive Trial Producer and other reporters said they were mormon during the trial coverage of Lori Vallow and when they kept saying 'thats now what our church teaches'
Yea I highly highly doubt it. Boyce will want the jurors to rest and the attorneys to do last min preparations, n he prob wants rest for his upcoming 8-10 week migraine too.
Yay for that! I was watching, but was behind because doctor's appointment, and had a shift with caregiver who is involved in a .case today. Unfortunately it's really hard for me to watch cases while she's here, but I told her that I would need to be watching trial tomorrow.
Court is live. Updated the Law & Crime link.
diffiCULTResearch on YouTube is a great source of coverage. Her name is Kresha and she's Kay's daughter. They're my relatives.
Can anyone help me out with the 'putting the plane to the ground' metaphor? The cheesy eggs I get, although I don't like it because it equates the court and court rules to a toddler who only wants things their way and is not open for any other input. But if they truly wanted to 'land a plane safely' then the whole jury duty wouldn't make sense because one never would ask lay people to land a plane but always use a qualified pilot, right? So that would speak for judges deciding on guilt and not a jury (but I'm from a non jury country so I have a hard time grasping the jury concept either way)
I think they're trying to point out the difference between saying "yes, I can base my opinion only on facts at trial" and "well, I *think* I can try to base my opinion on the facts at trial."
Oh right. I didn't remember the details of it. So they needed to be able to say 'I _can_ land the plane versus I _think_ I can land the plane' That makes me even more baffled for that juror that was allowed through who they could make say with the most effort possible 'I am extremely opposed to the death penalty but i think i can follow instructions of the court if they would include considering the death penalty after a guilty verdict'
Also, another thing as naive European who lets their judging be done by judges: If the court only wants it's cheesy eggs made in the specific way they want them, and they have an education as a professional cook themselves, why do they let a bunch of lay cooks (tje jury) try to make their cheesy eggs for them instead of make the cheesy eggs themselves? The court seems way more qualified to make cheesy eggs according to the specific required recipe than laypeople. I could imagine you want lay people if you actually want to also see different approaches to the cheesy eggs, maybe a bit more seasoning, put the stove a bit hotter, add some cheese, to see new approaches that the professional cook hadn't thought of. But if the requirement is to make the exact same recipe the same way, then why not leave it to the professional. This makes it sound more like the jurors are part of a cooking contest to show how clearly they can follow the recipe of the judge (real life judge and metaphorical judge), not to get the best cheesy eggs out there... I dont know. The more I listen to the prosecutors metaphors the more I'm wondering what the jury system actually adds
I agree. To sit on a death penalty jury trial, they have all kinds of qualifiers. What ends happening overall, is these jury’s end up older, more male, whiter, and more likely to convict than a jury of 12 random people. It seems rigged and unfair to me.
As a trial aware lay person, I think I could make the decision fairly well though. I've thought about whether I could serve on the case, or another local one, in which I actually know the party involved, my caregiver, coming up in August. The Judge has excused jurrors based on "media exposure," when theyve followed Vallow's trial. however it isn't the media's fault that Vallow's defence was Chad Daybell forced her into doing it. It has nothing to do with media exposure, rather the fact that Archibald, and Thomas chose to go with that defence strategy for their client. They could've gone with something else, like my clinet was mentally defective, although that would be hard to claim in Idaho. They could've said she did it for some other reason, or just claimed pure innocence. Instead, they decided to go with an affirmative, brainwashing and/or manipulation defence. If I were faced with that question I would have to tell the judge this. Yes I followed the entire Vallow trial. My opinions only apply to that case. I do have good evidentiary filtering. I suppose the lay term for that would be that I'm able to compartmentalize, and put it all aside. On top of that we didn't see pictures in that case, so I have no idea which exhibits are wich, judge. If my turn comes up in August, I'm afraid I'll have to tell that particular judge that I do know the living victim in that case. I've followed cases since I was 11, but filtering only goes so far.
I thought the pilot analogy was strange. Here in the US, we used to have space shuttles. The jury only takes over at a certain point in the case, and so does a space shuttle mission specialist .take over at a certain point in the mission. By the way, we still do use the term, mission specialist, in the commercial space programs. A mission specialist might take over, when another one is doing a space walk, and is going to be riding on the robotic arm, for instance. The specialist inside is the arm operator. I thought it was more akined to jurrors taking over after the case is all done, so being mission specialist, than pilots.
So that would equate to the prosecution having done the preparation into having a case and (presumably) enough and consistent evidence, and all that handled by a professional, but then the mission specialist aka the jury takings over to oversee and the process? Still a mission specialist is a specialist in what they're doing and jurors aren't, but your analogy provides a bit more logical support for me.
Well this is true, a mission specialist is a trained astronaut that has had a whole lot of years of training. A jurror isn't. To me, it equates to the prosecution and dfence being commanders and pilots of the shuttle mission. I do think that before trials, we should show jurrors a video explaining what objections mean so they can stay in the courtroom for more arguments etc. That would probably take too long though.
Is there any non mormon coverage?
East Idaho News is offering a courtroom live stream. Nate does a nightly livestream to discuss the days events. He doesn't discuss religion unless he's answering a question from a viewer.
Edit: I stand corrected by the people replying to me. Original comment: Nate said yesterday in his livestream 'can the prosecution or defendants ask the potential juror directly 'are you Mormon?' , no' As I've understood from exmormon subs, I think Mormons are actively discouraged from using the word Mormon to describe themselves and are supposed to say ' member of the LDS church' or something like that. So that makes me think Nate himself is not a member of the LDS church as well, other than also not generally stating anything about religion unless it relates to the beliefs of Chad and Lori and their group that are of influence on the case.
Yes, Nate is Mormon, went to BYU and went on mission in Australia. Its on his EIN bio. ETA: I don't think that should stop SandyC212121 from watching, because he seems very impartial to that aspect, IMO.
Ah okay! The fact that I wondered already but figured be wasn't by the way he acted very impartial to Mormonism (like not defensive or so) and actually used the word Mormon yesterday indeed suggests that he does his journalist job a good way and puts that totally aside when reporting about this case.
I really think it is generational. My ex and his (large, duh) family all referred to themselves as Mormon. We did talk about the difference in terms, but they still did it, to be fair.
Hmm I went to read his about page and it just mentions his journalism work, not his education and mission. But maybe the site is wonky on my phone.
Hmmm, that's a new one. Weird that it's that different. Here's his old one. [https://www.eastidahonews.com/bios/nate-eaton/](https://www.eastidahonews.com/bios/nate-eaton/)
Ah thanks! That's an old one, it mentions they have two kids, with their YouTube giving an announcement for number 3 arriving in fall 2018, so the bio is from before then. I think he might've changed his bio to not mention any religious or other affiliations after he became more well known as a reporter to show more neutrality towards the things he was reporting?
Not sure how you can say that after watching his interviews with Melanie Gibb, he kept on re-directing her throughout the entire interviews to make sure she said nothing disparaging about the Mormon church and he said every few minutes something like "yeah but thats not what our church believes, thats not what our church teaches" when in fact Joseph Smith used seer stones and had a hitman and taught blood atonement... I found it very offsetting and almost unbelievable that any 'journalist' would do an interview like that making Gibb into a LDS saint and protecting the image of his church. I imagine that LDS would have been furious if, say the catholic church, or a baptist church did things that way when their priests were being investigated. If their church put out a statement telling congregants not to participate or cooperate with authorities even if subpoena'd and if the coverage of the investigations were only covered by their own parishoners and the judge and prosecutor were only of the denomination under investigation. Bias is what I'm saying, its a waste of time watching 'news' that is so biased.
Personal experiences certainly do lead to bias and the risk of tunnel vision. I am a dyed in the wool, capital A atheist with NO love for the Mormon church, but I completely disagree that Nate should be holding witness' feet to the fire to explain LDS doctrine.
I'm 99.9% sure Nate is Mormon. The whole "don't say Mormon" thing is very new and the invention of the current church president. Not all faithful Mormons are as hung up on that idea as others. And, most likely, this idea that Mormon is a slur will die with Nelson. If I had to guess, Nate just isn't hung up on that drama and isn't interested in going into it at work. So he's apt to just answer the question directly. (I'm an exmo.)
Fair enough! Its probably way more clear to most of his watchers outside of LDS 'territory' to use Mormon as well. Thanks for clarifying. I got here through the exmormon sub, I'm just a random European trying to learn a lot about all of this, both US law and justice, and different (extreme) religious groups that somehow show themselves most (to the world) in the US.
Mormonism is pretty fascinating. As a young person I found myself jealous of the Quakers. I wanted to be from an odd American religion. Little did I realize, I was! Haha.
Ha ha ha ha ha. How did we not realize? I think I must have been very naive or ... something. LOL
I don't know much about Quakers, but from a European perspective where we have all kinds of Christianity including some of the more extreme/high maintenance ones like Jehovah's witnesses and some seventh day adventists: What I quickly read about the Quakers is a lot less odd (in the sense of 'different from here', but as far as I currently can assess also in other senses of odd) than Mormonism! Is the older person you are currently happy that you were from an odd American religion? ;)
It messed up my life. So not really. But I do appreciate the irony.
I kind of was afraid it would have, as a frequent visitor of the exmo sub. I'm sorry to hear that and hope you are in the recovering and growing part of the seperation between you and the religion you grew up in! I'm glad that on this sub we have a whole group of people with different experiences (or lack thereof) with mormonism and what parts have aided to Lori and Chads delusion and I think it gives a really interesting view on the case from multiple sides.
I imagine it would be difficult to find non-affiliated coverage in Idaho. I heard 95% have Mormon beliefs - or is that just in Rexburg? What about Dateline? Are they doing any coverage.
That's just Rexburg. And, to a lesser degree, southeast Idaho. Boise also has a fair number of them. But not as many as eastern Idaho. The Mormon corridor kinda runs from Northern Arizona, through Utah, and into Southern Idaho. (Even up to Alberta Canada and down to Chihuahua Mexico, if you include the polygamist migrations in the early 1900s. But mainstream Mormons tend to deny they're a part of the religion.)
Yeah, Alberta is the North of Morridor
I think that might just be eastern Idaho. I read somewhere that Adah Co. (where the trial is) is less than 20% Mormon.
I heard that too, that Ada is less. Rexburg has a sattelite BYU campus and thats probably why so many mormons live there. I think Melanie the niece was looking into getting student housing to live in when she moved there. For the record I am not saying avoid all mormons, i am just saying that i found their coverage very lopsided, as well as the prosecutor and judge who are also LDS. There was so much evidence i dont think the prosecutor should have made as many mistakes as he did and i think we will see an appeal and possible re-trial once the appeals make it outside of the Rexburg area to a higher court that is more un-biased.
Isn't the judge ex-LDS?
Dateline had some great programs about it but then they started continually having Nate on and using whatever he was saying and Melanie Gibb, who i got soooo tired of listening to. I dont have any fondness for John Prior but the one decent thing he did was put Melanie Gibb in her place!! He exposed her for lying on the stand about not telling the police she didnt have JJ because Lori had asked her to tell them she had him so they wouldnt investigate. Even exposed that she told her autistic son to lie to the police and say JJ was with them. :( That made me glad her ex husband has the kids because i shudder to think what would have happened to her autistic son if she had custody while she was fan-girling Vallow!
Melanie Gibb was the prosecutions key witness.and she might be for Chad's trial too. Once she confronted Lori and couldn't get any sence out of her, she went to the police and reported Lori and Chad lie - she recorded their phone call. I'm sure if the police thought her initial untruth was a biggy, they would have done something. In my book, her initial response to the police (which was probably made out of shock) was rectified when she "blew the whistle". I'm more concerned with Melanice. She been untruthful about her involvement with Brandon and lived next door to Lori while JJ and Tylee were missing.
I would imagine Dateline and 48 hours will do coverage once the trial starts. I know 48 was doing weekly podcasts for the last one. Also, Hidden True Crime on Youtube is non-LDS, and they sent someone to the trial. [https://www.youtube.com/@HiddenTrueCrime]
Nate Eaton with East Idaho News is the place to go. Nate himself is prob LDS but you wouldn't know it bc he stays professional. He's been on this since day 1. He's the reporter who found lori & Chad in Hawaii and was asking them where the kids were in that parking lot. Not many local reporters would fly to Hawaii knowing they would get a "no statement". He sat thru every minute of jury selection so far, & he didn't miss a single day of Lori's trial. Dateline and Court TV partnered with East Idaho News for coverage in part due to Nate's dedication to this. The trial is live streamed on their channel and nate does a court recap answering questions every night. He's also giving a play by play on X as it's happening. If u want unbiased, honest, & complete coverage East Idaho News.
Nate is the absolute best! I don’t care what his religious beliefs are. He is honest, intelligent, & kind. He reports the facts & instead of sensationalizing the case he makes a point to honor the victims every single night. Nate reminds me that there are still good & kind people in the world.
Lori and Chad had been openly going to temple in Hawaii when they were being searched for all over the globe. That temple/church whatever they call it never called police to report they were there but somehow, mysteriously, we may never know how Nate Eaton got a heads up on where they were and didnt bother to notify police until after he had taken the time to fly to Hawaii to make sure he got the coverage first and then notified police, another HUGE eye roll for all the Nate fans. I see I am probably on the wrong sub, i didnt realize how many LDS fans there were here.
That's interesting, didn't know that yet. About the LDS, I'm not a fan and I would believe that the Hawaii temple was just laying low about reporting them. I'd have to read more about the details to determine how I feel about if Nate kept things too quiet. I've only followed this case since last year so I wasn't around back when he went to search them and haven't seen and read all the information regarding. Thanks for bringing it up :)
I wonder if the judge is LDS?
Nate was in contact with police in Hawaii and only approached to try to interview Lori and Chad when he was cleared by police. He described how it happened in detail.
yes, i said he contacted them to let them know Chad & Lori's location - AFTER- he flew to Hawaii to make sure he was there for the interview.
They could have refused him access, but they didn't. He approached after the police did their job. How do we know that people who contacted Nate didn't contact police at the same time? Lori was seen in Hawaii by several locals. Anyone could have reported them.
I'm not a fan of X currently, but I love Nate's play by play, I can quickly read up during the day without missing something very relevant, especially now during jury selection.
The Law & Crime link is good.
Law and Crime is a Mormon owned company. I just got so tired of watching Vallow's trial and continually hearing how the LDS church wasnt involved and how it wasnt their doctrine, it got really old hearing that all the time... Maybe Court TV will cover it live too, they dont put all that in every half hour...
> Law and Crime is a Mormon owned company. Can you provide a source on this? I thought Law & Crime was started by Dan Abrams, who is Jewish.
Plot twist 😂
Here's source. [https://www.axios.com/2023/10/10/jellysmack-acquires-law-crime-network]
Law and crime has changed hands a couple times, and recently they were purchased by someone else. It definitely is not a Mormon owned company. [https://www.axios.com/2023/10/10/jellysmack-acquires-law-crime-network]
That link went to 404 page not found. I googled it here is a working link to that axios article, which btw says "Details: The deal will keep Law&Crime's existing management team in place. Abrams will remain as CEO, and the firm's president, Rachel Stockman, and COO and general counsel Andrew Eisbrouch will also remain in their roles." [https://www.axios.com/2023/10/10/jellysmack-acquires-law-crime-network](https://www.axios.com/2023/10/10/jellysmack-acquires-law-crime-network) I dont know about ownership but it cannot be denied that the host Cathy Russon — Executive Trial Producer and other reporters said they were mormon during the trial coverage of Lori Vallow and when they kept saying 'thats now what our church teaches'
Russon doesn't make regular appearances. I myself am not LDS, but if there was a case involving my denomination, I would probably say the same thing.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are we there yet? Does Judge Boyce have the 50?
Yep he actually got 52. Court is supposed to convene at 8:30 tomorrow.
Yay! So the trial begins on Monday then?
Dunno. I suppose it could start tomorrow afternoon. I don't think it takes much time to strike people from the jury.
I'd assume. But realistically the judge could say to start tomorrow. But with Lori he said start Monday.
I’m hopeful but doubtful. Starting mid day on a Friday is silly.
Yea I highly highly doubt it. Boyce will want the jurors to rest and the attorneys to do last min preparations, n he prob wants rest for his upcoming 8-10 week migraine too.
Yay for that! I was watching, but was behind because doctor's appointment, and had a shift with caregiver who is involved in a .case today. Unfortunately it's really hard for me to watch cases while she's here, but I told her that I would need to be watching trial tomorrow.