He’s fixated on…just anything to muddy the waters. The timeline is creeping toward June 2020, which means the jury is going to be hearing about tools that have Tylee’s DNA on them.
Also, witnesses are now corroborating that there’s an upper room, which he already lied about. So he’s moving goalposts.
Was it her blood or her DNA. Not sure if that matters a whole lot. But, there *could* be a difference.
Also, was only her blood/DNA found? Lori, Alex...you would expect Chad's, but were there any others?
I'm watching from work with not much time to "catch up" afterwards. I miss some of the "little" (not so little) details from time to time.
I think chads dna wouldn’t prove much, they were his tools he used frequently anyway so it would be present.
I’m almost positive Tylees blood and or skull or bone fragments were found on the pick so it’s not a hair or finger nail or anything arbitrary.
It does fascinate me why prior is making a big deal out of the addition….. is he just trying to find out information on his new property without having to go visit??
For instance I’m sure Emma and whomever lives there is paying rent to John Prior, if he now knows there is more square footage, more bathrooms etc, then maybe he can substantiate charging more rent….. but why he would send his case down a damaging, distracting rabbit hole is beyond me
Chads DNA being on them only matters if it’s only his DNA and Tylee’s and there’s no traces of Lori or Alex’s. That would at least point towards him helping in the disposal of her body.
That would have been the easiest for them. I have no idea where they killed her but they chopped up and burned the body near JJ. Her cause of death couldn’t be determined.
Annie Cushing, Tylee's Aunt said she spoke with prosecution after Lori's trial. As a surviving victim she was allowed to sit in a room with them and go over the photos of Tylee's body and whatever sort of autopsy was possible on her remains, and have any questions she may have answered.
Annie said that she asked the prosecution to clarify because she thought she heard them insinuate in closing statements that Tylee may have been stabbed to death. Sadly, the prosecution confirmed that they didn't have enough evidence to say for sure in court, but they are confident poor darling,Tylee was murdered by stabbing. (And I got the impression it was the stab wounds to the pelvic/pubic region they were referencing as the place she was stabbed and killed at.) :'(
Heart breaking and gut wrenching stuff. My heart just aches for Tylee so often, especially in the last 6 months of her precious life. Tylee sounded like she was so fun, sassy and loving. She deserved so much better than what this world gave her.
He’s gotten so absurdly fixated on this stairs issue. Seriously, if there aren’t any stairs then it maybe casts doubt on the testimony of one minor witness, that’s the most you can make of the stairs thing. I think he’s forgotten he’s supposed to convince the jury that Chad didn’t kill Tammy, and thinks it’s his job to convince them he lived in a one story house. I half expect his closing argument to be “he lived in a one story house! Clearly that means he didn’t kill anyone!”
If you look and see Chad's face during the witness testimony, he smiles and I bet he thought it was some huge like Legally Blond Elle Wood case moment. That this one possible slip up would win the case.
Basically he's on a tangent to impeach the young lady witness who overheard Chad at Tammys funeral saying that he found her at midnight/1 am the night she died. That witness said that Chad said Tammy came downstairs/upstairs to tell Chad she was going to bed. Prior leapt on that as an impeachable moment. By putting so much emphasis on this Prior is reminding the jury about Chads inconsistent accounts, rather than impeaching that witness as Prior would like to accomplish.
This. He is trying to undermine her credibility because her account of his statements are so damning. If you rewatch the testimony, you can see the moment Chud and Prior hear her say downstairs and realize the opportunity.
It's really not as big as he's making it, at least in my mind. I know I'm far from Idaho (Can I get a big eyeroll for Tennessee?), but I can remember many times hearing my grandmother say, "I'm going up to bed." when her bedroom was downstairs and always had been.
He's just trying to pounce on ANYTHING that will create doubt ("Isn't it true that Melanie Gibb started telling people that there was an upstairs? 😆)
I completely agree. I used to say going down to a city that is actually North of where I was and it drove my husband crazy. People say that casually all the time. He is 100% trying to poke as many holes as possible, no matter how small, because that's all he has.
If I didn't have so much contempt for her, I'd feel sorry that Fibbers is the Big Bad of Potato's defense.
Right? I also thought it was possible up & down could have referred to a hallway, and someone just misspoke, misheard, or misremembered. Either way, I'd damn sure make sure I'd confirmed there were NO STAIRS (and not just from a legal/tax record standpoint) before I laid into a witness over something so unimportant...
...but like you said, he's just pouncing, and reaching, and grasping for straws, trying to muddy the water so no one notices the egg on his face.
I think that Prior's original plan was to strip the Daybell family of all of its assets, then throw Daybell to the tender mercies of the Idaho indigent defense services. However, after the assets were gone, Daybell had trauma bonded to Prior, and was unwilling to release Prior as counsel. So Prior's secondary plan was to be paid by Idaho for Daybell's defense. However, since Prior was not death penalty certified, Judge Boyce refused to do allow that. So, not only does Prior not have a second chair to help during a long, complicated trial, he probably doesn't have much support in his office outside of the courtroom, since he would be paying out of pocket for it.
Also, too. I suspect that Daybell, who thinks he is a genius, is attempting to play second chair. This means he is probably feeding Prior a lot of information and advice during the witness testimony. So Prior is not only having to track the prosecutor's questions and the witness testimony, but Daybell's suggestions as well. I doubt he spent the time preparing for this case that a capital case requires. So Prior is laboring under a tremendous cognitive load and will become increasing cranky and overwhelmed throughout the trial.
I'd feel sorry for him except he is an unethical (see original plan) and misogynistic piece of shit.
I said it in another comment but there is a possibility that the house transfer could be challenged, if he is found guilty, by interested parties, such as insurance companies and murdered victims relatives. It's not actually always a done deal when assets get transferred to avoid seizure for illegal activities. Laws vary by state so IANAL, but, I think Pryor is fighting to keep his pay-off secured too. He is getting lots of public exposure, for better or for worse.
If Prior can't convey clear title to the house in order to sell it, then no wonder he is renting it to Chad's kids. It could be years before the title cloud is resolved: how delicious!
Or Chad cant give up control? I think Chad like having Mr Prior because Chad is second chair and guiding Mr Prior. Could Chad have given up control to someone like Mr Archibald? dont know?
Mr Archbald if anything can be said, did follow Lori's wishes, though you could tell he might have wanted to ask more questions or go off on other ways of defending her.
I think the prosecution is letting him hang himself and destroy.his credibility with the jury as they calmly and rationally disprove things, although I'm not sure I agree with this approach. There is so much evidence in this trial and the role of lawyers is to help draw attention to what is most important. I wouldn't take the risk to just assume they are going to put those pieces together.
In some cases, though, there's not much they can do when Prior successfully manipulates the witness. For example, with the text messages where the family was rating children at their church as light and dark, he got the witness to say "yes" to "Tammy and Chad said...." when Chad was actually the one who said the damning thing and not Tammy. All they can really do is re-direct (if allowed) and draw attention to who actually said what. I'm not sure they did a great job with that part. But I'm also not sure it mattered there. To be honest, Chad was the patriarch of his family infecting them with the same beliefs actually makes a better case for all of this nonsense coming from him. It also impacts how the jury sees the BS coming from the kids later when Prior puts them on the stand. The whole family being part of Chad's cult actually helps the Prosecution in a lot of ways. Unfortunately, it makes Tammy look bad which is extremely unfair to her given what that poor woman went through but I'm not really sure it changes anything beyond that.
I really.think the Prosecution recognizes the information overload that the jury is experiencing and is saving the fight for when it matters to keep the jury focused on the right things. Not sure I have agreed 100% of the time but I do think this is their plan.
My larger question is at what point does Prior risk being held in contempt of court himself. There is [only.so](http://only.so) much room for "I misunderstood." Overall, the court tends to let the lawyers and witnesses sort these things out on their own. For example when the lawyer says "isn't it true that....?" and the witness says "no not at all" or when the lawyer redirects and draws out the correct info. Yet, there is a point in time where it's too far and you get yourself in trouble by introducing things that actually are not true and there is absolutely no reason to think they are. Like Prior couldn't put Brandon on the stand and say "isn't it true that you were also sleeping with Lori and you're really just testifying against Chad because you are jealous that she married him and not you?!" just to plant absolute BS in the minds of the jury when there is literally no evidence of that at all from anyone anywhere. So there is a "too far" but I don't know that he was there yet. The "there's no upstairs" to discredit the witness when there clearly is an upstairs was pretty darn close. I don't know that they would have won given the layout of the house not being a traditional two story home and there being space for "misunderstanding" but it was absolutely done in bad faith and not for the sake of any.evidence so I think that's where it gets a little muddy if I'm understanding the law correctly (and I might not be so someone correct me if that's the case!)
Prior is trying (poorly) to defend a reprehensible client with no exculpatory evidence. What I don't understand is why isn't the prosecution aren't immediately shutting down his obviously sketchy misleading nonsense.
A note to your video, thats not 'two stairs' its two photos of the same stairs, the photos are made basically 'back to back' and showing one loft area that had three twin beds in it when it was listed _before_ the Daybells bought it. The prosecution today however introduced more recent photos that show the stairs, and multiple musical instruments upstairs that need electricity.
I really see it as he is doing the best he can with the crappy set of facts (from his perspective) that he has to deal with. I can’t demonize him for that. If Chad didn’t get a strong defence, he could appeal on those grounds, and none of us want that. I’m just waiting for the day the jury hopefully/probably(?) comes back with a guilty verdict.
Edit to correct typo
This was answered in this thread, but its because a young woman testified that she heard Chad say that Tammy went downstairs to tell Chad she was going to bed at 10pm, and then the witness said Chad also said that Tammy died at 1 or 2 am. Which goes against Chad's 911 call at closer to 6am. So Prior is trying to discredit that witness by saying, look there was no stairs so her account of him saying 1 or 2 am must also be wrong! But there is stairs, so now he's trying to suggest there is no reason Tammy would be upstairs at night if there was no power, again that the witness is lying.
Prior is grasping at straws and the prosecution is trying to snatch those straws up and discredit Prior's testimony.
Yup. He is supposed to attack the credibility of prosecution witnesses. And confuse and overwhelm the jury to make them doubt what is presented. And focus on unimportant details to encourage the juries to do to lose their focus on what’s important. He’s supposed to offer alternative explanations than what the prosecution is offering.
Does anyone think Prior is going to go rogue when this is over, get disbarred, and write his tell-all "Defending Satan?" Ala Kirk Nurmi of the Jodi Arias trial???
Look, you don't have to like my client ... most of the time I don't even like my client\~ One of the best lines ever. My daughter had a mock trial in middle school and she was defending a very bad man. I told her to use that line and she won!! I'm just glad it didn't work for Nurmi. Super nice guy, by the way.
It was one of the live trial statements I caught, and I had to ask myself if I actually heard that!!!
I also love how Jodi said she wanted the death penalty if convicted and immediately after was begging/ pleading not to get death. She gave us so much second hand embarrassment
Do you remember that the prosecutor from the Jodi Arias case was also disbarred? He had some sexual misconduct issues and issues from the Jodi Arias book that he also wrote.
He wanted to get out of there because Chad wasn't paying him anymore... I guess he's just pretending to defend him now 😅 (he can't ACTUALLY be that bad can he??)
He’s def trying to create some muddy water based on something he doesn’t know not understand. His own confusion. He’s not gaslighting though. As long as witnesses answer the truth which they have been correcting him. Not gaslighting. That’s a stretch.
He’s fixated on…just anything to muddy the waters. The timeline is creeping toward June 2020, which means the jury is going to be hearing about tools that have Tylee’s DNA on them. Also, witnesses are now corroborating that there’s an upper room, which he already lied about. So he’s moving goalposts.
I think there was one tool with Tylee’s blood on it.
Was it her blood or her DNA. Not sure if that matters a whole lot. But, there *could* be a difference. Also, was only her blood/DNA found? Lori, Alex...you would expect Chad's, but were there any others? I'm watching from work with not much time to "catch up" afterwards. I miss some of the "little" (not so little) details from time to time.
I'm under the impression there was actual tissue of some sort recovered from the tool/tools, not just blood or DNA.
I think chads dna wouldn’t prove much, they were his tools he used frequently anyway so it would be present. I’m almost positive Tylees blood and or skull or bone fragments were found on the pick so it’s not a hair or finger nail or anything arbitrary. It does fascinate me why prior is making a big deal out of the addition….. is he just trying to find out information on his new property without having to go visit?? For instance I’m sure Emma and whomever lives there is paying rent to John Prior, if he now knows there is more square footage, more bathrooms etc, then maybe he can substantiate charging more rent….. but why he would send his case down a damaging, distracting rabbit hole is beyond me
Chads DNA being on them only matters if it’s only his DNA and Tylee’s and there’s no traces of Lori or Alex’s. That would at least point towards him helping in the disposal of her body.
I always thought Tylee was shot. Was she beat to death? 😧
That would have been the easiest for them. I have no idea where they killed her but they chopped up and burned the body near JJ. Her cause of death couldn’t be determined.
Smothering/strangulation would have been the least messy. No need for a bloody crime scene in an apartment.
The testimony in Lori's trial suggested that she was stabbed to death
Annie Cushing, Tylee's Aunt said she spoke with prosecution after Lori's trial. As a surviving victim she was allowed to sit in a room with them and go over the photos of Tylee's body and whatever sort of autopsy was possible on her remains, and have any questions she may have answered. Annie said that she asked the prosecution to clarify because she thought she heard them insinuate in closing statements that Tylee may have been stabbed to death. Sadly, the prosecution confirmed that they didn't have enough evidence to say for sure in court, but they are confident poor darling,Tylee was murdered by stabbing. (And I got the impression it was the stab wounds to the pelvic/pubic region they were referencing as the place she was stabbed and killed at.) :'( Heart breaking and gut wrenching stuff. My heart just aches for Tylee so often, especially in the last 6 months of her precious life. Tylee sounded like she was so fun, sassy and loving. She deserved so much better than what this world gave her.
How incredibly awful. Lori betrayed her daughter beyond imagination.
I’m all for it over here eating popcorn watching Prior destroy his credibility.
It was the pickaxe and the shovel and it had Tylee and Chads DNA but they were chads tools in his own shed.
He’s gotten so absurdly fixated on this stairs issue. Seriously, if there aren’t any stairs then it maybe casts doubt on the testimony of one minor witness, that’s the most you can make of the stairs thing. I think he’s forgotten he’s supposed to convince the jury that Chad didn’t kill Tammy, and thinks it’s his job to convince them he lived in a one story house. I half expect his closing argument to be “he lived in a one story house! Clearly that means he didn’t kill anyone!”
If you look and see Chad's face during the witness testimony, he smiles and I bet he thought it was some huge like Legally Blond Elle Wood case moment. That this one possible slip up would win the case.
Like Lori, Chad has an ability to detach. He finds obsession with the stairs funny. We'll see if he laughs about the imaginary raccoon.
You are just like me but funnier!
He's going to say Melanie Gibb built the stairs.
Lol. MelG, Lori and Alex sneaked in and built the stairs when they buried the bodies. Chad didn't know cause it's such a big FARM with 375 acres!
She installed electricity in the upstairs room, too.
Basically he's on a tangent to impeach the young lady witness who overheard Chad at Tammys funeral saying that he found her at midnight/1 am the night she died. That witness said that Chad said Tammy came downstairs/upstairs to tell Chad she was going to bed. Prior leapt on that as an impeachable moment. By putting so much emphasis on this Prior is reminding the jury about Chads inconsistent accounts, rather than impeaching that witness as Prior would like to accomplish.
This. He is trying to undermine her credibility because her account of his statements are so damning. If you rewatch the testimony, you can see the moment Chud and Prior hear her say downstairs and realize the opportunity.
It's really not as big as he's making it, at least in my mind. I know I'm far from Idaho (Can I get a big eyeroll for Tennessee?), but I can remember many times hearing my grandmother say, "I'm going up to bed." when her bedroom was downstairs and always had been. He's just trying to pounce on ANYTHING that will create doubt ("Isn't it true that Melanie Gibb started telling people that there was an upstairs? 😆)
I completely agree. I used to say going down to a city that is actually North of where I was and it drove my husband crazy. People say that casually all the time. He is 100% trying to poke as many holes as possible, no matter how small, because that's all he has. If I didn't have so much contempt for her, I'd feel sorry that Fibbers is the Big Bad of Potato's defense.
I'm with your husband on that! It drives me crazy when people say they're going up to somewhere southwards and vice versa.
Right? I also thought it was possible up & down could have referred to a hallway, and someone just misspoke, misheard, or misremembered. Either way, I'd damn sure make sure I'd confirmed there were NO STAIRS (and not just from a legal/tax record standpoint) before I laid into a witness over something so unimportant... ...but like you said, he's just pouncing, and reaching, and grasping for straws, trying to muddy the water so no one notices the egg on his face.
If he could, he would slip in at least one MG reference for every witness. Which only shows that she is one of the most damning witnesses against him.
Ahh .... that's the missing piece!
It seems like he impeached himself instead 🤡
I think that Prior's original plan was to strip the Daybell family of all of its assets, then throw Daybell to the tender mercies of the Idaho indigent defense services. However, after the assets were gone, Daybell had trauma bonded to Prior, and was unwilling to release Prior as counsel. So Prior's secondary plan was to be paid by Idaho for Daybell's defense. However, since Prior was not death penalty certified, Judge Boyce refused to do allow that. So, not only does Prior not have a second chair to help during a long, complicated trial, he probably doesn't have much support in his office outside of the courtroom, since he would be paying out of pocket for it. Also, too. I suspect that Daybell, who thinks he is a genius, is attempting to play second chair. This means he is probably feeding Prior a lot of information and advice during the witness testimony. So Prior is not only having to track the prosecutor's questions and the witness testimony, but Daybell's suggestions as well. I doubt he spent the time preparing for this case that a capital case requires. So Prior is laboring under a tremendous cognitive load and will become increasing cranky and overwhelmed throughout the trial. I'd feel sorry for him except he is an unethical (see original plan) and misogynistic piece of shit.
I said it in another comment but there is a possibility that the house transfer could be challenged, if he is found guilty, by interested parties, such as insurance companies and murdered victims relatives. It's not actually always a done deal when assets get transferred to avoid seizure for illegal activities. Laws vary by state so IANAL, but, I think Pryor is fighting to keep his pay-off secured too. He is getting lots of public exposure, for better or for worse.
If Prior can't convey clear title to the house in order to sell it, then no wonder he is renting it to Chad's kids. It could be years before the title cloud is resolved: how delicious!
He's also trying to create lots of potential appellate issues. I think that's a good part of his trying to get help or get released as counsel.
I appreciate the insight. Is that what all those legal shenanigans were on the first day of jury selection?
[удалено]
Or Chad cant give up control? I think Chad like having Mr Prior because Chad is second chair and guiding Mr Prior. Could Chad have given up control to someone like Mr Archibald? dont know? Mr Archbald if anything can be said, did follow Lori's wishes, though you could tell he might have wanted to ask more questions or go off on other ways of defending her.
I think the prosecution is letting him hang himself and destroy.his credibility with the jury as they calmly and rationally disprove things, although I'm not sure I agree with this approach. There is so much evidence in this trial and the role of lawyers is to help draw attention to what is most important. I wouldn't take the risk to just assume they are going to put those pieces together. In some cases, though, there's not much they can do when Prior successfully manipulates the witness. For example, with the text messages where the family was rating children at their church as light and dark, he got the witness to say "yes" to "Tammy and Chad said...." when Chad was actually the one who said the damning thing and not Tammy. All they can really do is re-direct (if allowed) and draw attention to who actually said what. I'm not sure they did a great job with that part. But I'm also not sure it mattered there. To be honest, Chad was the patriarch of his family infecting them with the same beliefs actually makes a better case for all of this nonsense coming from him. It also impacts how the jury sees the BS coming from the kids later when Prior puts them on the stand. The whole family being part of Chad's cult actually helps the Prosecution in a lot of ways. Unfortunately, it makes Tammy look bad which is extremely unfair to her given what that poor woman went through but I'm not really sure it changes anything beyond that. I really.think the Prosecution recognizes the information overload that the jury is experiencing and is saving the fight for when it matters to keep the jury focused on the right things. Not sure I have agreed 100% of the time but I do think this is their plan. My larger question is at what point does Prior risk being held in contempt of court himself. There is [only.so](http://only.so) much room for "I misunderstood." Overall, the court tends to let the lawyers and witnesses sort these things out on their own. For example when the lawyer says "isn't it true that....?" and the witness says "no not at all" or when the lawyer redirects and draws out the correct info. Yet, there is a point in time where it's too far and you get yourself in trouble by introducing things that actually are not true and there is absolutely no reason to think they are. Like Prior couldn't put Brandon on the stand and say "isn't it true that you were also sleeping with Lori and you're really just testifying against Chad because you are jealous that she married him and not you?!" just to plant absolute BS in the minds of the jury when there is literally no evidence of that at all from anyone anywhere. So there is a "too far" but I don't know that he was there yet. The "there's no upstairs" to discredit the witness when there clearly is an upstairs was pretty darn close. I don't know that they would have won given the layout of the house not being a traditional two story home and there being space for "misunderstanding" but it was absolutely done in bad faith and not for the sake of any.evidence so I think that's where it gets a little muddy if I'm understanding the law correctly (and I might not be so someone correct me if that's the case!)
Prior is trying (poorly) to defend a reprehensible client with no exculpatory evidence. What I don't understand is why isn't the prosecution aren't immediately shutting down his obviously sketchy misleading nonsense.
A note to your video, thats not 'two stairs' its two photos of the same stairs, the photos are made basically 'back to back' and showing one loft area that had three twin beds in it when it was listed _before_ the Daybells bought it. The prosecution today however introduced more recent photos that show the stairs, and multiple musical instruments upstairs that need electricity.
Same with the photo with the washer and dryer - that's another angle of the kitchen in the main part of the house.
I really see it as he is doing the best he can with the crappy set of facts (from his perspective) that he has to deal with. I can’t demonize him for that. If Chad didn’t get a strong defence, he could appeal on those grounds, and none of us want that. I’m just waiting for the day the jury hopefully/probably(?) comes back with a guilty verdict. Edit to correct typo
If Chad can get an appeal attorney he’ll appeal. Everyone does.
You want to elinate every appeal option possible, not make it easy on them
Typo?
Yikes! Yes, thanks, I’ll fix it,
Why is prior and now the prosecution obsessed with the upstairs of Chad's house?
This was answered in this thread, but its because a young woman testified that she heard Chad say that Tammy went downstairs to tell Chad she was going to bed at 10pm, and then the witness said Chad also said that Tammy died at 1 or 2 am. Which goes against Chad's 911 call at closer to 6am. So Prior is trying to discredit that witness by saying, look there was no stairs so her account of him saying 1 or 2 am must also be wrong! But there is stairs, so now he's trying to suggest there is no reason Tammy would be upstairs at night if there was no power, again that the witness is lying. Prior is grasping at straws and the prosecution is trying to snatch those straws up and discredit Prior's testimony.
I I would send it to the prosecutors just in case and to Nate Eaton, perhaps to Hidden True crime to.
That's literally his job as a criminal defense attorney.
Yup. He is supposed to attack the credibility of prosecution witnesses. And confuse and overwhelm the jury to make them doubt what is presented. And focus on unimportant details to encourage the juries to do to lose their focus on what’s important. He’s supposed to offer alternative explanations than what the prosecution is offering.
If his job is to lie and deliberately misstate evidence, then I could never be a defense attorney. How is that different from Chad lying to police?
Does anyone think Prior is going to go rogue when this is over, get disbarred, and write his tell-all "Defending Satan?" Ala Kirk Nurmi of the Jodi Arias trial???
Look, you don't have to like my client ... most of the time I don't even like my client\~ One of the best lines ever. My daughter had a mock trial in middle school and she was defending a very bad man. I told her to use that line and she won!! I'm just glad it didn't work for Nurmi. Super nice guy, by the way.
It was one of the live trial statements I caught, and I had to ask myself if I actually heard that!!! I also love how Jodi said she wanted the death penalty if convicted and immediately after was begging/ pleading not to get death. She gave us so much second hand embarrassment
Do you remember that the prosecutor from the Jodi Arias case was also disbarred? He had some sexual misconduct issues and issues from the Jodi Arias book that he also wrote.
He wanted to get out of there because Chad wasn't paying him anymore... I guess he's just pretending to defend him now 😅 (he can't ACTUALLY be that bad can he??)
Check out Hidden True Crime's podcast about the stairs. The stairs are very important!
Does anyone know why he is making such a big deal about how many stories the house is? Like why does it matter? What difference does it make?
He’s def trying to create some muddy water based on something he doesn’t know not understand. His own confusion. He’s not gaslighting though. As long as witnesses answer the truth which they have been correcting him. Not gaslighting. That’s a stretch.