Lori Returns to Idaho

 We pull back the curtain on the Idaho cult. Things are closing in on Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell  Join us for this gripping episode where we recount Lori's first courtroom appearance in Idaho.  Discover the intricate web of lies and diabolical crimes committed by Lori and Chad, as well as Lori's return to Idaho and the reduction of her bond from $5 million to $1 million.

As we uncover the sinister story, we also examine the importance of the presumption of innocence in Lori's case.  We discuss the charges she faces, including desertion, and how they are ordinarily handled under the Child Protection Act. Considering Lori's history of consistent long-term residence and employment, we question if she truly poses a flight risk despite the intense media attention and scrutiny her case has received.

Finally, we delve into the mysterious events leading up to Lori Vallow's trial, such as Chad Daybell's application for a permit for a mobile home! We also touch on the suspicious death of Stacy Lynn Cope. We hear from Steve Cope about his wife's visit to Arizona in May 2019 and the chilling events of Christmas Eve 2019. Don't miss this jaw-dropping episode as we unveil the shocking truth behind the Idaho cult.

Thanks for listening. Please consider giving me a 5-star rating and leave a review.
#LoriVallow #ChadDaybell #ZulemaPastenes #TyleeRyan #JJVallow #CharlesVallow #TammyDaybell #alexcox, #MelaniBoudreaux
#MelaniPawlowski

Theme music by Dan Lebowitz

Considering donating to my show via any of these links:

Monthly supporter:

via PayPal at  www.PayPal.me/katfshh 

Via cash app at 

Cash.app/$afterglowkathy

Or at

By me a coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/Afterglow

No donation is too small.

Sources for this episode
Nate Eaton, East Idaho News
Justin Lum, Fox 10 Phoenix
Annie Cushing Annielytics.com
Fox 13 Salt Lake
KHON2 Hawaii News Now

The clips and media in this podcast are considered fair use.
Fair use refers to the right to reproduce, use and share copyrighted works of cultural production without direct permission from or payment to the original copyright holders. It is a designation that is assigned to projects that use copyrighted materials for purposes that include research, criticism, news reporting, and teaching.
  The material is presented for entirely non-profit educational purposes. There is no reason to believe that the featured media clips will in any way negatively affect the market value of the copyrighted works. For these reasons, we believe that the podcast is clearly covered under current fair use copyright laws.
For additional information on copyright law and fair use, please visit http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html.

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Please note that this podcast contains information regarding sensitive events, including domestic violence, assault and abuse, as well as other triggering events such as murder. This podcast is intended for mature audiences. When Alice jumped down the rabbit hole, she immediately regretted her decision. A rabbit hole is a metaphor for something that transports someone into a troubling, surreal state or situation. Welcome to Afterglow, the unveiling of the Idaho Cult. This podcast will take you down the deepest of rabbit holes. As it unfolds, the story is so compelling, so bizarre and so genius. It's impossible to look the other way. Chad DeBell and Lori Vallow were dedicated in the most horrible way, to an ideology that should only be fiction. Instead, their ideology put them behind bars. Join us as we explore the lives, lies and diabolical crimes of Lori Vallow and Chad DeBell. I'm your host, kathy Brooks. Please follow and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. Hello and welcome to Afterglow. Unveiling the Idaho Cult.

Speaker 1: 1:12

Season 2, episode 16, lori's Back in Idaho For everyone returning. thank you so much for being here. I really appreciate the comments and the reviews on my podcast. Please share it where you can so it can get out there a little more. Before I begin with this episode, i just wanted to let you know that I did go to the last week of Lori's trial and it was really interesting and I am so glad I was able to be there. I was there for the verdict, i was in the courtroom. We will definitely get to that later, but I just want to let you know that that is why I have not made an episode lately, because I was up in Idaho, in Boise, for over a week and then getting back to real life at my job.

Speaker 1: 1:59

Here we go with Episode 16 on Season 2, lori's Back in Idaho. So on February 29, 2020, chad Debelle returned to Rexburg and then on March 5, 2020, lori returns to Rexburg, idaho, where she arrives via plane with her security and people in the airport have gotten little pictures of her walking across the tarmac And Lori just looks like Lori, just like just another day, with handcuffs, on walking around an airport, changing planes, coming back from Hawaii, with a posse of people, you know, just looking at her and then being in court. It just blows my mind how gone she is truly gone, like gone, like she's right, everyone else is wrong. It's bizarre. You'd have to see it to understand it, but I'm sure we all kind of get the gist of that at this point, lori is then scheduled for her reignment on March 6, 2020 in Rexburg On March 6, 2020,.

Speaker 1: 3:15

Here is the audio from that hearing, where her bond does get reduced from 5 million to 1 million. It's interesting when you watch Lori's face. The judge said she's going to reduce the bond. Lori looks very intrigued. And then the judge says it's 1 million and Lori's eyes sort of shut like you've got to be kidding me. So we'll play that right now so you can hear that entire hearing As you're watching it. it is really interesting to see Kay and Larry come in. They sit down. Chad is there he sits down. Colby is there, he sits down. They watch the whole thing. Lori turns around at one point to look back, right before it gets started, and at the end, when Colby walks out, he gives Chad just the most death stare that you could imagine. So let's play that right now.

Speaker 2: 4:20

Alright, thank you. This is the Court of District of Asia and now the Senate. The Honorable Karen Devenece-Guy, thank you. Please be seated Alright. Alright, before we get started, i'm going to review one thing for the audience here today regarding disruptive behavior. Any activity or behavior which is considered disruptive by the court will result in removal from the courtroom. Any spectator who creates a visual or auditory disturbance of the court proceedings may be removed from the courtroom and or the building at any time, at the discretion of me or court security. We'll now call the case. Madison County Magistrate Division of the District Court, cr 3320-302, state of Idaho versus Lori Noreen-Vallo. Council for Miss Vallo appears at the defense table. We have Miss Elcox, mr Webb and Mr Means. Council for the state is Mr Wood and Mr Ramel. This is the date and time set for an initial appearance. The defendant is also present here in the courtroom Council for defense. In the court pleadings it designates Miss Vallo, aka Miss Debell. How would your client like to be referred to by the court?

Speaker 3: 6:19

Mrs Debell, please be on it.

Speaker 2: 6:24

Miss Debell, do you read, speak and understand the English language? Miss Debell, did you fill out a notification of rights form with your counsel prior to the hearing here today? Do you understand your legal rights here today? Do you have any questions about the form that you filled out or your rights? We'll proceed forward then. Miss Debell, it's my understanding that you've hired these three attorneys that are with you here today and that's your position, that you'd like to retain your own private counsel. Is that correct?

Speaker 3: 6:57

Yes.

Speaker 2: 7:00

Did you get a copy of the criminal complaint, as well as the arrest warrant that has been issued in this matter?

Speaker 3: 7:06

Yes.

Speaker 2: 7:08

Miss Debell, i can read the criminal complaint in its entirety or we can summarize it going through each of the charges. Which would you prefer?

Speaker 3: 7:18

We will weigh the formal reading here on it.

Speaker 2: 7:20

We'll just go through the counts then one by one, as well as the penalties.

Speaker 2: 7:25

This criminal complaint was filed here in Madison County on February 18, 2020. It is state of Idaho versus Lorraine Valo, aka Lorraine Debell. It charges the defendant with five different counts. The first count is desertion and non-support of children or spouse. That count is a felony under Idaho law, idaho Code 18-401, section 1. The punishment is up to a four-year maximum imprisonment in the state penitentiary and or up to a $500 fine. It designates or alleges that the defendant, lorraine Valo, aka Lorraine Debell, on or between the 23rd of September 2019 and the 18th day of February 2020, in the county of Madison, state of Idaho, did desert a child under the age of 18, to wit, jv date of birth 525-12, who was dependent upon the defendant for care, education or support, with the intent to abandon JV. Miss Debell, do you understand what count one alleges, as well as the maximum penalties? Yes, under count two, it is that same charge desertion and non-support of children or spouse. It's also a felony under Idaho Code 18-401, Subsection 1. It is punishable by up to 14 years in the state penitentiary and up to and or up to a $500 fine. It alleges that the defendant, lorraine Lorraine Valo, aka Lorraine Debell, on or between the 8th day of September 2019 and the 18th day of February 2020, in the county of Madison State of Idaho, did desert a child under the age of 18, to wit, tr, with a date of birth of 9-24-2002, who was dependent on the defendant for care, education or support, with the intent to abandon TR. Miss Debell, do you understand what's been charged in count two, as well as the maximum penalties? Yes, miss Debell.

Speaker 2: 9:36

Count three is a misdemeanor under Idaho law. It's the charge of resisting and or obstructing an officer, a violation of Idaho Code 18-705. It's punishable by up to one year in the county jail and up to a $1,000 fine. It alleges that the defendant, lorraine Lorraine Valo, aka Lorraine Debell, on or about the 26th day of November 2019, in the county of Madison, state of Idaho, did willfully delay and or obstruct a public officer to Lieutenant Ron Ball of the Rexburg Police Department in the discharge of his office by giving false information regarding the whereabouts of a child, jv, date of birth 5-25-2012, and thereby delaying the search for JV. Miss Debell, do you understand the charge in count three, as well as the maximum penalties? Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2: 10:34

Count four is also a misdemeanor. It's a charge of solicitation. It carries with it up to six months in the county jail and a $500 fine. It's a violation of Idaho Code 18-2001. It alleges that the defendant, lori Noreen-Vallo, aka Lori Noreen-Debel, on or about the 26 day of November 2019 in the county of Madison State of Idaho, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of a crime, encouraged and or requested Melanie Gibb to engage in conduct which would constitute the crime of resisting and or obstructing an officer by requesting and or encouraging Melanie Gibb to give false information to law enforcement regarding the whereabouts of a child JV. Date of birth 5, 25, 2012.

Speaker 2: 11:26

Ms Debel, do you understand the charge of count four as well as the maximum penalty? Yes, the last count is count five. It's a misdemeanor under Idaho law. It's a charge of contempt, a violation of Idaho Code 18-1801, subsection four. It's punishable by up to six months in the county jail and up to a $1,000 fine. It alleges that the defendant, lori Noreen-Vallo, aka Lori Noreen-Debel, on or about the 30th day of January 2020 in the county of Madison State of Idaho, did willfully disobey a lawful court order in Madison County, case number CV3320-45, by failing to physically produce minor children JV and TR to the Rexburg Police Department and or Idaho Department of Health and Welfare within five days of service of the order. Ms Debel, do you understand what's been alleged in count five, as well as the maximum penalty? I understand. Ms Debel, do you understand that all of those charges and their maximum penalties could run consecutively, one after the other, or they could run concurrently, meaning at the same time? Do you understand that, in addition to the rights form that you've already filled out pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule five, i'm also going to give you the following rights Number one you are not required to make a statement that any statement made by you today can be used against you in court.

Speaker 2: 13:07

Number two you're entitled to know the nature of the charges that have been brought against you, which we've already gone through. Number three you are entitled to bail. Get a right to bail. Number four you have the right to be represented by counsel.

Speaker 2: 13:23

Number five you have a right to a preliminary hearing. That preliminary hearing must be set within 14 days if you're incarcerated. It can be set within 21 days if you're not incarcerated. That preliminary hearing is a probable cause hearing, where the state will have the burden of showing probable cause that the two felonies have been committed in order for you to be bound over to the district court. You also have the right to communicate with counsel and immediate family, and that reasonable means will be provided for you to do so. Do you understand those legal rights, ms Debell? All right, ms Debell, now we'll schedule the preliminary hearing. I've met with counsel in chambers prior to coming out here and there's a few dates that I believe did work. Mr Wood, on behalf of the state, you designated that the state needs approximately two weeks to be ready. Is that correct?

Speaker 4: 14:20

Yes, Your Honor.

Speaker 2: 14:21

And you also designated that the state needed two days for the preliminary hearing to take place. Is that correct?

Speaker 4: 14:28

Yes.

Speaker 2: 14:30

Does the defense want to comment as far as how much time they need to be ready, as well as how much time the preliminary hearing will take?

Speaker 3: 14:39

Your Honor. I think two weeks is more than sufficient and I agree with the proposed two-day setting.

Speaker 2: 14:46

All right, the court has available March 18th and 19th. Does that work for counsel for the defense?

Speaker 3: 14:52

We'll make it work, Your Honor.

Speaker 4: 14:56

Your Honor, the state may have an issue getting one of our witnesses over here from Hawaii on the 18th. We had asked previously that it be set for the 19th and 20th and we could continue that request.

Speaker 2: 15:09

Mr Wood, if we made some arrangements so that if your witness could only be here by the 19th, that we allowed that witness to testify on the 19th, would that appease your concern?

Speaker 4: 15:22

Yes, Your Honor.

Speaker 2: 15:23

Does the defense have any objection to that, to moving things around a little bit so that that witness can testify on the 19th and not on the 18th?

Speaker 3: 15:30

No, Your Honor.

Speaker 2: 15:31

All right, we'll schedule then the preliminary hearing for March 18th and 19th here at the Madison County Courthouse. We'll schedule that right at 9 am. The court notes that there was a motion for a bond reduction that was filed by the defense in this matter approximately two days ago. As the prosecution received a copy of that motion to reduce bond.

Speaker 4: 15:59

Yes, Your Honor.

Speaker 2: 16:00

Mr Wood, is the prosecution objecting to that being heard here today?

Speaker 4: 16:05

No, your Honor. No, we're not Your Honor.

Speaker 2: 16:08

We'll hear the motion to reduce bond then today. Ms Elcox, are you going to be arguing that? Yes, your Honor, you may proceed with your argument. I want you to know that I have reviewed your motion. I've also reviewed Title 19, chapter 29, and Idaho Criminal Rule 46.

Speaker 3: 16:23

Thank, you, your Honor, your Honor, we are asking that the court today set bail in the amount of $10,000, consistent with what Lori's attorney in Hawaii requested. In the event that the court is not inclined to set bond in the amount of $10,000, we are asking that the court consider setting a bond no higher than $50,000. In this case, lori is presumed innocent as she stands before the court today. The fact that she is presumed innocent is not a loose guideline. It's a foundational principle of the American criminal justice system. Under both the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, section 6 of the Idaho Constitution, excessive bail is prohibited. Judge, you are the gatekeeper in this case. You're the guardian of the presumption of innocence and the constitutional rights afforded to Lori. This is not a court of public opinion. This is a court of law. And are we going to let our citizens' rights be dictated by what appears in the media? Bail must be set in an amount that assures Lori's appearance in court and is commiserate with the charges that she is actually facing today in court. A $5 million bond is unreasonable. It's astronomically excessive and is the functional equivalent of holding Lori without bond. This is a violation of Lori's constitutional rights. I can tell the court that in my almost decade of practicing law, as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney, i have never seen the crime of desertion charged. This is because abandonment issues are generally dealt with under the Child Protection Act, not the criminal code, but even under the desertion criminal statute, which Lori has been charged with and faces these charges here today. The maximum fine, as your Honor said today in court, that can be ordered is $500. Yet her fine, excuse me, her bail, is set at $5 million, 10,000 times the maximum fine in this case. In a recent Madison County murder case the bond was set at $1 million. In the five counts the court read today charged in the criminal case, there is not one allegation of a crime of violence. A bond set this high denies Lori due process and fundamentally deprives her of her ability to mainly participate in the defense of these allegations she faces.

Speaker 3: 19:08

It is clear that the government just needed to find a charge that would fit in this case. Because of all of the media attention surrounding this matter. The last thing that should happen is to allow this case to be tried in the media and to allow public opinion and rampant speculation to dictate how this case proceeds through the judicial system, considering the purpose of purpose of bail to which Lori is entitled as a matter of right. Idaho criminal rule 46, as your honor reference, lists the factors that the court should consider when determining the appropriate bail amount to set in this case. Pursuant to those factors, lori's bond should simply be reduced in the amount requested because she has no criminal history whatsoever. In fact, lori took the initiative while she was in Hawaii to contact law enforcement and say in the event that I warrant issues, she will voluntarily turn herself in. Police did not afford her that opportunity to do so. They created a spectacle out of the situation. When they knew that Lori had contacted law enforcement and indicated that she would turn herself in, she waived extradition. In this case, she did not fight returning to Idaho. She has hired three criminal defense attorneys from two different law firms and she is dedicated to vigorously defending against these allegations. She, as her attorneys, also agreed to assure Lori's presence in court.

Speaker 3: 20:41

Chad, lori's husband has returned to Idaho to his home of his own volition, and Lori and Chad maintain a residence locally. That home was purchased over five years ago, or approximately five years ago. Chad, their children, their children's spouses and grandchildren are all located locally. Furthermore, lori's passport is expired. She is no flight risk whatsoever.

Speaker 3: 21:07

This assertion that when this investigation began, when there was initial law enforcement contact, that she fled to Hawaii is unequivocally false. That was a planned move. We believe that the evidence will show that will establish that It was a planned move to a place that she had previously lived, and she moved to the exact same neighborhood in which she previously resided. Furthermore, lori's history demonstrates that she has a consistency in her residences. She lived in Austin, texas, for almost 20 years, worked at the same salon for 15 years. She then moved to Chandler, arizona, where she resided for five years in the same house. She worked as the director for Broadway Kids, an organization that puts on summer camps for children, and she also taught group fitness. Between 2014 and 2018, she lived in Kauai until she returned there this fall. Lori's history demonstrates that she has consistent long-term residence and a long-term employment in those places that she's lived.

Speaker 3: 22:15

Further, your Honor, there is probably no greater assurance that Lori will appear before this court and any other court assigned to preside over this case, because of the droves of people that she has following her every move, even before she was charged. She has TV cameras in her face. She has people following her. It is built in pre-trial monitoring to a level I have never seen before. It's more effective than any sort of surveillance that law enforcement could put on her. She cannot go anywhere without cameras and people scrutinizing her every single move. She poses no flight risk whatsoever.

Speaker 3: 22:57

She is intent on defending against these allegations and proving that she is innocent, despite the fact it's the state's burden to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the intent of the high bond as originally set in this case was to ensure that Lori was transported back to Idaho, she is back. As I stated, she is eager to defend against these charges, regardless as to whether she has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion here today. Lori is innocent. Lori will absolutely abide by any pre-trial release conditions, any sort of monitoring that the court requires. But there is simply no basis for a bond this high and it must be reduced given the charges that she is facing. For those reasons, we would ask that you grant the defendant's request to reduce bond.

Speaker 2: 23:52

Ms Halcox, just so I'm clear. if your client were to bond out, i don't need her address, but where would be her expected place of residence fee?

Speaker 3: 24:05

She'll be residing locally. Your Honor, I can provide that address to the court under seal if the court would like to do so, but given the media attention, I would rather not put that on the record.

Speaker 2: 24:16

I understand. Thank you, Mr Wood. Do you wish to be heard? Yes, Your Honor.

Speaker 4: 24:24

All address counsel's comments. First on how we got here and why the bond was set and what it's at. This case didn't start as a criminal case, your Honor. It started as a report to missing children who were still missing Over 25th Rexburg police late in the day. You'll notice that this young child is missing Within 24 hours. They respond. When they respond, they're given verifiably false information by the defendant.

Speaker 4: 25:00

And so the next day they obtain the warrants to search the residence for the child. At that point the defendant is gone. Now they say it's a planned move. Maybe they did plan to move to Hawaii. However, they clearly left very quickly as soon as they were contacted by law enforcement. The vast majority of their belongings were still in that apartment And so the investigation continued.

Speaker 4: 25:28

A child protection act was filed and an order was given for the defendant to produce the children, which she did not do. I'll address this issue that she informed law enforcement that she would turn herself in. It's kind of hard to trust someone to turn themselves in on a warrant when a simple welfare check caused that person to leave. Your Honor as counsel stated. Idaho Criminal Rule 46 lists the factors to be considered at setting bell, so we'll go down through those. The defendant's employment status and history. As far as we're aware, she's not presently employed. No argument can be made that she's at a risk of losing employment. Their financial condition we are aware that the defendant's new husband received a substantial sum of life insurance proceeds from the death of his wife last October. Obviously, those funds provide them with the ability to relocate quickly and to stay away from Idaho, which we believe they've already done The nature and extent of the defendant's family relationships. The defendant's only family here is her new husband And it's important for the court to consider that. At a bell reduction hearing in Hawaii very recently, the defendant's attorney represented to the court that her husband lived in Hawaii, not in Idaho. Now we understand the defendant does have a house here close to here. However, the fact that the defendant represented to a Hawaii court that they lived in Hawaii shows that they consider their ties not in Idaho but in Hawaii. In terms of her past residences, if we go back to the last year it gets a little more concerning In regards to since this last summer the defendant has lived in Arizona, idaho and Hawaii And, quite frankly, the circumstances under which she left Arizona, which was soon after the killing of her estranged husband by her brother, and the circumstances in which she left Idaho, which was the same night Rexburg police did a welfare check on her give the state serious concern that she is a flight risk At.

Speaker 4: 27:41

Factor four is a defendant's character and reputation. Since this last summer there's been a clear and alarming pattern in the defendant's life. There are literally three active investigations of suspicious deaths that she is related to And I want to be clear, your Honor, we're not saying she's been charged in those And we're not saying the court should treat her as such. However, she is related to each of those deaths and it is alarming to the state, as we've said before, your Honor the defendant has. the defendant tried to mislead Rexburg law enforcement about the whereabouts of her children. In furtherance of that, she tried to convince a family friend to tell the Rexburg police the children were with her in Arizona, even though they want, and that, your Honor the defendant, has a history of defying court orders. In the child protection case associated with this case, she refused to produce her children as ordered.

Speaker 4: 28:29

In a 2009 child custody case in Travis County, texas, the defendant was found guilty of seven different counts of civil contempt. Factor five the person who agreed to assist the defendant in attending the court at the proper time. Again, your Honor, that's pretty much limited to her new husband And, due to the fact that he and the defendant left so abruptly before, we don't have a lot of assurance from that. Factor six the nature of the current charge in any mitigating or aggravating factors that may bear on the likelihood of conviction and the possible penalty. In regard to those factors, your Honor, the state would first point out the language of Idaho Code 18401, which states that it is a felony for anyone having a child under the age of 18 years dependent upon him or her for care, education or support Who deserts such child in any manner whatever with intent to abandon. It is a felony in any manner whatever. That's a broad statute, your Honor. It's broad because it deals with protecting children. So the aggravating factors bearing on the likelihood of conviction in this case include the following The defendant established a residence in Madison County, idaho, with two minor children.

Speaker 4: 29:44

Those children ended up being reported as missing and the defendant left the state without them. The defendant defied a court order produced those children. One of those minor children is only seven years old and has special needs which require medication and medical attention. Both of the minor children received social security benefits and the defendant continued collecting these children's social security benefits into her own account, both after the last known sightings of the children in Madison County and continuing into Hawaii. And it's important to note that case law related to the desertion of a minor child in Idaho Code 19302 make it clear that this court has jurisdiction over acts of desertion, both in here in Madison County and continuing into Hawaii. And the most aggravating factor here, your Honor, one is quite frankly heartbreaking and is the reason why there's so much media attention is that the children are still missing and the defendant has not only misled law enforcement in their efforts to find the children, but she has completely and utterly refused to aid in any attempts to find the children, even before charges were filed. Another factor bearing on the likelihood of conviction is the Idaho Code. 18403 and 18405 in case law related to the statute under which she was charged make it clear that proving abandonment or desertion is prima facie evidence that the desertion was willful, which makes it easier for the state to obtain a conviction.

Speaker 4: 31:08

In regards to the sentence, should the defendant be convicted and we believe she will the defendant could face up to 30 years in prison, which is certainly motive to flee. As far as the defendant's prior criminal record, your Honor, we aren't aware of any criminal history. However, as we discussed earlier, she does have a history of defying court orders. Any factor, number eight, any facts indicating the possibility of violations of law, if the defendant is released without restrictions and, your Honor, we would just say past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. She's already disobeyed this court's order and so we have no reason to believe that if she were released, she would continue. Unlawful behavior. Factor nine any other facts tending to indicate that the defendant has strong ties with the community and is not likely to flee the jurisdiction.

Speaker 4: 31:57

At this point, your Honor, with her two children missing, the defendant's only local ties with her husband who, again as of a couple of weeks ago, claimed she claimed that he lived in Hawaii Fact or 10,. What reasonable restrictions, conditions and prohibitions should be placed on the defendant's activities, movements, associations and residences? Your Honor, should the bail be lowered or should the defendant be able to make bail? We would ask for the following restrictions that she be limited to living in Madison or Fremont County, idaho. That she be required to wear some sort of GPS location device, and we're aware that those can be attained from a bond smite. I mean the defendant. If she does have a passport, that she surrender it to the court. In conclusion, your Honor, the defendant established through her own behavior that she cannot be trusted to obey a court order or to appear at future court hearings. The state believes that bail should be confirmed where it is. We have no confidence that the defendant will stay in the area and appear for future hearings should she be released.

Speaker 2: 32:53

Thank you, mr Wood. Ms Elcox, this is your motion. I'll give you the last word if you'd like it. Thank you, your Honor.

Speaker 3: 32:59

As I indicated, lori is more than willing to abide by any restriction that the court puts on her, if the court still chooses to do so.

Speaker 3: 33:09

The prosecutor stated that past behavior is essentially the best predictor of future behavior. I would point to the fact that Lori, in all of the decades she has been alive, does not have a single criminal law violation whatsoever. It goes without saying that she also does not have any failure to appear in any criminal case. The prosecutor referenced the specific code language that she is charged with. I would note that this statute doesn't have a definition for abandon. However, the Child Protective Act does, and in those statutes the prima facia evidence of abandonment is established when there hasn't been a parental relationship, hasn't been maintained for a year, pursuant to the charging language and the time period that the state chose to charge. In this case, lori isn't even at half that time.

Speaker 3: 34:19

So I respectfully disagree with the prosecutor's assertion that Lori will be convicted of these charges. I've represented to the court, as I have a duty of candor to the tribunal, that Lori will be residing locally And, as I indicated, i'm happy to provide that address to your honor under seal to protect Lori. In this case, she, the prosecutor, has gone through a litany of allegations for which she is not facing any sort of criminal charges whatsoever and not criminal charges in this case. Those should not be considered by the court for purposes of this case and setting bond pursuant to Idaho the factors listed in Idaho criminal rule 46. We would ask that you grant the defendant's request and set bail, as requested in this matter.

Speaker 2: 35:16

Thank you, ms Elcox. Court has listened carefully to the argument of both the state and the defense. The court has reviewed in detail and in full rule 46 of the Idaho criminal rules. The court has also reviewed the Idaho bail act, title 19, chapter 29,. Specifically under 19, 2904. It designates that the court may release a person on his own reconnaissance or set an amount of bail and may impose any conditions of release. In making these determinations, the court shall consider the following objectives Number one, ensuring the appearance of the defendant. Number two, ensuring the integrity of the court process, including the right of the defendant to bail, as constitutionally provided. Number three, ensuring the protection of victims and witnesses. And number four, ensuring public safety. The court has taken all four of those factors into consideration, as well as all 10 factors in under subsection C under the Idaho criminal rules 46. And based upon the argument that I've heard here today, the court is going to reduce bail. I'm going to reduce bail to the amount of $1 million. I recognize all of the factors that have been looked at here. One specific thing that the court notes in setting such a high bail amount is that there is a pending court order And, to my knowledge, there has been nothing set forth regarding obedience to that court order pertaining to lining the court out with information on where the two children are, at the Department of Health and Welfare or at the Rexburg Police Department. So with that, bail will be set at $1 million.

Speaker 2: 37:08

If bail is posted, there will also be the following conditions that are ordered.

Speaker 2: 37:13

Number one there will need to be a waiver of extradition, signed from any and all jurisdictions, to be brought back here before the court. Number two I'm going to require that Ms Debell not leave Bonneville, jefferson, madison and Fremont counties. If she were to leave any of those counties while this case is pending without permission or authorization from the court, that would be a violation of the terms of bond and release. I'm also going to order that there be an ankle monitor that is placed on the defendant. That will need to be all lined out before she's eligible to bail out. It will be monitoring 24 hours a day, seven days a week, as to where the defendant is. And then, lastly, i'm going to order, as a term of any release or bail, that the defendant appear for all court appearances, that she maintain contact with her counsel and that she abide by all the laws of this state, this country, this county and the city. Mr Wood, do you have any questions about my ruling regarding the reduction of that bail?

Speaker 4: 38:30

No, your Honor, Ms Elcox.

Speaker 3: 38:32

Just briefly, Your Honor, does the court have a specific form for the waiver of extradition you would like us to use?

Speaker 2: 38:39

I think the jail has one. Does the jail have a form that they have? If you'll communicate with the jail, I think they do have a form. If not, why don't you submit the one after you've gotten approval from Mr Wood? You can submit that after she signed it in the court review to make sure it meets my satisfaction.

Speaker 3: 38:58

Yes, your Honor, and would you like us to coordinate setting up the ankle monitor through the jail, or do you have a specific agency you'd like us to use?

Speaker 2: 39:07

You can coordinate with the jail and or the sheriff's office. They'll know that information. They may have someone that they usually use. I'm not sure of that. If you have a preference, you could provide that information to them And if there's an issue, it can be brought before me. Thank you.

Speaker 3: 39:24

Any other questions? No, thank you.

Speaker 2: 39:27

I believe that takes care of everything that we're here for today. In a moment I'm going to leave. When I do that, the audience is going to be asked to rise. I'm going to leave the courtroom. After I leave, i'm instructing everybody to be seated again. There will be the removal of the defendant from the courtroom and then everybody will be excused, row by row, pursuant to court personnel here today. With that, we'll be in recess, all rise.

Speaker 1: 40:15

By March 11, 2020, mark means, lori's former attorney. He files to have the magistrate, judge Eden's removed from the case. On March 13, 2020, lori has a hearing via Zoom and they make some decisions. Magistrate Judge Farron Eden's agrees to reschedule Lori's preliminary hearing to May 7, the May 8 of 2020. Eden's approves Mark's means to request to disqualify himself and withdraws from the case, and Lori's attorney, brian Webb, announces he plans to file a motion to withdraw from the case, and her other attorney, edwina Elcox, who works with Webb's law firm, will also withdraw from the case. So when Lori was in that hearing she had three attorneys. At this point she's down only to Mark means. So then Michelle Radford, on March 13, 2020, is the new magistrate, the new judge, over the preliminary hearings that are coming up on May 7, the 8.

Speaker 1: 41:21

Justin Lum has been really on top of this case with Fox 10 Phoenix And around this time, which would have been about March 24, 2020, detective Nathan Moffat with the Chandler Police Department does reach out to Justin Lum and let him know that they are confident they're getting closer to indicting Lori for her involvement in the shooting of Charles Vallow. Justin Lum posts this on Facebook March 24, 2020. I'm not sure what is meant by this email. We will continue to work on Charles's case And are confident we are getting closer to getting Lori indicted for her involvement in Charles's death. My phone is always on and I'm here to answer any questions or discuss any concerns you may have. Thanks, nathan. So that was to Justin Lum. So they were ensuring the media that, yes, this stuff is moving forward with Charles, which was good, good news. Now, this was really really super interesting and no one knew what was happening at the time or why, but it was a huge clue about where these bodies were going to be found.

Speaker 1: 42:33

On March 27, 2020, chad DeBow applied for a permit to put a mobile home a trailer on his property. I'm sure he had planned to put it right in the middle of that pet cemetery. Justin Lum reported on March 31. Chad DeBow is interested in putting a manufactured home on his Salem, idaho property this spring. Per source, DeBow inquired about the mobile home last Friday, march 27, and said his financing is moving along well. The phone number he used checks out as the same as he registered in Kauai.

Speaker 1: 43:16

So there's a document regarding Melanie Boudreau-Pelowski, and Melanie Boudreau-Pelowski decided that Brandon was gay at some point when she wanted her divorce. She had all these lorriesms in her head and she tells her father that she got a revelation by some meter that she had a vision about in the temple that showed her the letter G. So Stephen Cope, her dad, was interviewed by the police officers in this investigation. So as they're doing this investigation and they're realizing that people like Melanie, nisse, Melanie and other people have had some weird stuff going on including Brandon, her husband, ex-husband, getting shot at they started talking to extended family. Detective Piller, with the Gilbert Police Department, interviewed Stephen Wollentine Cope, who is Melanie Boudreau-Pelowski's father, and he wanted to clarify some things. He had talked to him once before. But it says here on March 28, 2020, i was assigned by Commander Candler to contact Stephen Wollentine Cope to see if he knew the details of his ex-wife, stacy Lynn Cope's death, cox, because now her death sound a little suspicious too And many of us are still very suspicious about Stacy's death. It seems awful weird Rabbit Hole we will go down eventually. But it says say I was able to leave a message for Mr Cope on his cell phone, believed to be issued to his wife, christine Cope, and requested a callback. So Steve Cope calls him back. It says, on March 28, 2020, at 1354, so 1.54 pm, i received a callback from Stephen. Stephen provided the following information, which is summarized as I was unable to record the call.

Speaker 1: 45:20

At the time, stephen confirmed he is the father of Melanie Boudreau and the ex-husband of Stacy Lynn Cope. Stephen was divorced from Stacy at the time. Stacy became ill and passed away. He had custody of Melanie following the divorce. He explained that when he asked Stacy's father, barry Cox, for her hand in marriage, barry made an odd comment. Barry told him he needed to know before he married Stacy that Stacy had a 50% chance of ending up with the same blank he was diagnosed as having. I believe he has a mental health diagnosis. Former committee says schizophrenia. I don't know for a fact, so that is just speculation and I don't know. He did tell Steve that Stacy had a 50% chance of having whatever this disorder is. Barry explained that he was diagnosed as blank. Stephen was surprised by the statement and married Stacy because he loved her. Stephen believed he and Stacy could make it through anything.

Speaker 1: 46:25

In 1995, stephen divorced Stacy and obtained full custody of Melanie. Stephen described it as. One year later, however, stacy passed away. In 1998, stephen said he was notified that Stacy went into blank blank. He learned that the rest of the family was in Hawaii on vacation and Alex was home in Austin, texas, with his sister Stacy. Stacy was taken to a hospital and was later transferred to a hospice facility. He responded with Melanie so he could say goodbye to her mother. Stephen was told by Alex he could not go in the room but Melanie could. He told Alex his daughter was not going in the room without him. Stephen was eventually allowed to go in the room And Melanie tucked a handwritten note in Stacy's hand. That was the last time they saw Stacy. Stephen noted that Janice Cox, lori and Stacy's mom, janice. Her brother, jason Connor, was at the hospice at the time. Stephen said Jason was frustrated because Stacy's family was not leaving Hawaii to take care of Stacy's arrangement. Jason told Stephen the response was we're trying. It was Stephen's belief that the Cox family never came back for Stacy's death.

Speaker 1: 47:43

Stephen told me the coroner believed Stacy's death was caused by blank, blank, blank. Stephen told me that was not true. As Stacy was a blank, he believed these two things damaged her beyond repair. So what has been said out there was that Stacy had a complication. To put it simply, she had a complication because she was a diabetic, but the rumor says that Stacy speculation and rumor says that Stacy was anorexic, so it really could have been either of those two things. They both could be life threatening. Obviously Should be noted that the investigator has been unable to find documents such as police reports or coroner reports related to Stacy's death.

Speaker 1: 48:36

I asked Stephen if he remained in contact with his daughter, melanie. He said he has. He said everything was fine until the spring of 2019. He observed a change in Melanie's demeanor at that time. He described her as taking religious. He described her as talking religious all of the time.

Speaker 1: 48:54

By the summer of 2019, Melanie asked her husband, brandon Boudreau, for a divorce. Brandon told Stephen he was caught off guard by Melanie and did not understand why she wanted a divorce. He described Melanie's relationship with her aunt Lori as a friendship. He stated that Melanie was hanging out with Alex Cox. Stephen did not trust Alex. Stephen was disappointed when he found out Melanie had abandoned her children's belongings out in front of her house when she moved to Rexburg. Stephen stated he had regular communication with Melanie up until December 24th 2019. He received a call from Melanie around 10.30pm. She told him she wanted to come over and come inside. She stated she had Christmas presents. When Melanie arrived, he asked where are blank and blank and who shot at Brandon? Brandon said that Melanie refused to answer him and then cut off contact with him. Stephen was recently contacted by Melanie when she wished him a happy birthday on and then a redacted date.

Speaker 1: 49:59

Stephen thought it was important to note that Melanie was upset with Charles Vallow for a juice business that failed approximately two years ago. Brandon went into partnership with Charles Vallow and Lori Vallow and the business was in Hawaii. Melanie was upset that Charles never paid them back. Stephen briefly spoke about Alex Cox, stating that Alex would do anything for Lori and was her protector. Stephen had information that Alex got a girl pregnant when he was 19 years old. Stephen believed it happened back east somewhere. Alex would not take responsibility for the child and left the woman. Furthermore, stephen stated Alex had racked up $17,000 on Stacey's credit cards following her death. The fraud was never reported to the police.

Speaker 1: 50:49

Stephen told me he will stand behind the truth and not so much whether his daughter is innocent or guilty. He is aware his daughter could be in serious trouble and if he finds out she's responsible for some of these incidents. He will support her. Even if she has to serve time, he will be there for her. Stephen thanked me for all that is being done to try to find JJ and Tylee. This concluded my conversation with Stephen, but then there's actually more.

Speaker 1: 51:20

They interviewed Steven a second time In this interview that took place on April 6, 2020 at 2.17 pm. It says I received a call from Steven W Cope, melanie Boudreau-Pelowski's biological father. I had asked for clarification about the location Melanie was at when she told him she wanted a divorce from Brandon. Steven called back with the details. The call was not recorded. The following is a summary of what Steven told me.

Speaker 1: 51:54

Melanie and Brandon were at his house in Salem, utah. Melanie and Brandon were visiting. He believes it was June 27, 2019 at 0200, so 2 AM. Brandon, who was in the house at the time, called Steven's cell phone and asked him to come downstairs. Melanie told her father she wanted a divorce from Brandon. Brandon was in shock and he didn't understand. Steven spoke with them both separately.

Speaker 1: 52:21

While Steven was speaking with Melanie, she showed him a video and said Brandon was gay. The video was of Brandon on a work trip in Atlanta, georgia. The video depicted another male dancing with Brandon along with several other people partying. She based this information off the video and a vision she had at the temple in Arizona. Steven questioned Melanie about how she knew this was the truth. Melanie told him she was praying about it in the temple when she had a vision. The vision was of a meter M-E-T-E-R. The meter went from zero to G G meaning gay. Melanie described how she saw the meter go all the way to G and that is how she knew. Steven questioned the validity of this information. Melanie cut him off from discussing the issue further by saying I had my revelation. You get your own. Steven spoke with Brandon. Brandon described the video as a work trip. Brandon was the designated driver for the group. Brandon said it was a work-related get-together and that he is not gay. This concluded the information about the conversations between Steve, melanie and Brandon about the divorce.

Speaker 1: 53:37

Steve wanted to clarify some dates he had given me because when he spoke from before, steve and Stacy Lincope, melanie's biological mother, were divorced on June 26, 1996. Melanie was six years old at the time and there was a brief separation of he and Melanie prior to the divorce, when Stacy took Melanie to stay with Janice and Barry Cox in Rialto, california. The separation lasted for approximately six months and Steve feels Lori may have been there as well during that time. I asked Steve how he obtained custody of Melanie and Steve believes incidents involved with blank and blank and violence was the reason why he was awarded custody. Melanie was their only child in common.

Speaker 1: 54:21

I asked Steve if he could provide examples of the change in Melanie's behavior in the spring of 2019. Steve described Melanie as changing in mood flat. So I guess she became very flat affect. Her affect became flat. That's what I'm understanding here. Melanie used terms light spirits and dark spirits. Now, remember, this is the spring of 2019. This is right when Aunt Lori is all getting into it and right after Charles started getting all. Help me, help me, my wife thinks I'm a zombie, all right. In this period of time, melanie used terms light and dark spirits. Melanie referred to the term warrior often and spoke of the second coming. Steve described her as different than she was in the past. When Steve would try to question Melanie about what was going on, she would say I got my revelation, you get your own.

Speaker 1: 55:15

Steve spoke of a trip his wife, kristie Cope, took to Arizona in May of 2019. Kristie would visit to see everyone and help Brandon and Melanie out. Kristie visited every year, but this trip had noticeable differences, steve said. Kristie told him the house was filthy and unkept. There were holes in the wall. Kristie had never seen the house like this. She spent the entire trip trying to clean the house up. Everyone in the house was on electronic devices, including Brandon. Melanie was constantly on her phone and would announce she was leaving for a couple hours to go to the temple. Kristie reported this happened every day she was visiting. Now we're moving on for him to clarify what happened on Christmas Eve of 2019. Steve clarified the information about Melanie's visit.

Speaker 1: 56:02

On December 24, 2019 at 2230 hours, melanie called him and asked him to visit. He found out she was sitting out in front of his house. Melanie told Steve she was about four minutes away, so Melanie's like I'm four minutes away. I'm on my way to your house, but Steve was able to notice that she was actually sitting out in front of the house. Steve suspected Melanie thought her children were being hidden there at Steve's house. Steve believes Melanie was sitting outside because she wanted to see if someone would leave with her children prior to her arrival. Now, remember Brandon had the kids and he kept the kids in hiding during this time because that was after they attempted shooting a Brandon. This was, after all this light and dark spirits that Tylee and JJ are missing, and thank God he did that, because what we know now, melanie was probably going to off her kids too with Alex. I really believe that.

Speaker 1: 57:01

So Melanie arrived at the house with Ian. She told Steve she was there because she had Christmas presents. Steve believed she was there looking for her children. Steve saw Ian, but had no interaction with them. He wanted to question his daughter about Tylee and JJ, as well as who shot at Brandon. When he asked about Tylee and JJ, melanie refused to answer about them. Steve asked who shot Brandon and Melanie responded How do you know Brandon didn't shoot his own vehicle. How do you know one of his work buddies didn't shoot at him? Steve tried to emphasize how the world was looking for Tylee and JJ.

Speaker 1: 57:41

Steve told Melanie he felt Alex and Lori were cold-blooded murderers. So even Steve at that time and this is December, right after everybody's hit in the news about the missing kids Steve is already saying that he thinks Lori and Alex are cold-blooded murderers. It was during this conversation that Melanie cried about the mention of Alex Cox, who was dead by this time Remember, alex died 12-12, 2019, and Lori Bellow. Steve could not understand why his daughter was crying over these people whom he felt did horrible things. Melanie changed topics and asked to go to the basement where her siblings were. Steve was shocked by this request but told her to go ahead. Melanie spoke to her siblings for approximately five minutes, came back upstairs and left. Steve believes Melanie went into the basement looking for her four children. Steve believes Melanie was there for approximately 45 minutes. Following this contact, melanie cut him off from communicating with her. I concluded my conversation with Steve and told him if he needed anything to call me. This information has been forwarded to the case agent, detective Piller and violent crimes, sergeant R Savoy. Conclusion this concludes my activity in this manner, and so that was really interesting.

Speaker 1: 58:58

Now that we know what's happened, we're in the timeline at the moment when these people are being interviewed. The kids are missing. It really hasn't hit a lot of mainstream media. It's starting to, and Steve Cope, melanie's father, is already super suspicious that something horrible has happened to the children, and in fact, he was correct. So I'm going to end this right there today and we will continue. I have some interviews that are coming up in April of 2020 that are really fascinating, with the people that Lori was in the circle, with the people she was doing castings with, and I will start putting them in the next episodes because they fit right in the timeline where we are now.

Speaker 1: 59:45

And, if you don't mind everyone, please rate my podcast, give me five stars, write a little blurb if you're enjoying it And, of course, if you'd like to help support the show. There are links in the show notes below. All the support I can get right now is from donations to help support the show, and I really appreciate those of you that have donated, and no donation is too small. I will be back soon. Stay safe, stay well And thank you for listening to Afterglow unveiling the Idaho Cult. This is Kali Brooks. Bye, bye.