The Lori Vallow Trial Vault: Detective Hermosillo Takes The Stand On Day 2 (3/19/25)

​In case number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of his white 2015 Hyundai Elantra, VIN: 5NPDH4AE6FH579860, conducted under a Pennsylvania search warrant. The defense contends that the warrant lacked probable cause, asserting that it was based on investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) techniques that they argue violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights. They claim that the affidavit supporting the warrant contained misleading information and omitted key details that could have been exculpatory, thereby rendering the search unconstitutional.to contact me:[email protected]:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-White-Hyundai.pdf

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger’s defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense’s strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho’s history.to contact  me:[email protected]:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger’s defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense’s strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho’s history.to contact  me:[email protected]:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

​On the second day of Lori Vallow Daybell's trial, Rexburg Police Detective Ray Hermosillo provided detailed testimony regarding the investigation into the disappearance of Vallow's children, JJ Vallow and Tylee Ryan. Detective Hermosillo recounted the events of June 9, 2020, when law enforcement executed a search warrant at Chad Daybell's residence. During the search, they discovered JJ's body wrapped in black plastic and duct tape in a shallow grave near a tree and pond on the property. Additionally, in a pet cemetery area, they uncovered charred human remains, later identified as Tylee, buried near a fire pit.Detective Hermosillo also described attending the autopsies of both children. He detailed that JJ was found wearing red pajamas, with his head wrapped in a white plastic bag secured by duct tape, and his wrists and ankles bound. Tylee's remains were so severely burned and dismembered that determining the cause of death was challenging. The courtroom was shown graphic photographs of the autopsy, leading to emotional reactions from attendees, including visible distress from JJ's grandfather, Larry Woodcock.to contact me:[email protected]

Lori Vallow’s relationship with her brother, Alex Cox, was notably unusual and deeply intertwined with the events leading up to the murders of her children, Tylee Ryan and JJ Vallow, as well as the killing of her fourth husband, Charles Vallow. Described as intensely loyal to Lori, Alex appeared to see himself as her protector, often acting as her enforcer in moments of conflict. He shot and killed Charles Vallow in July 2019, claiming self-defense, despite evidence suggesting premeditation. He was also believed to have played a direct role in the deaths of Tylee and JJ, with cell phone records placing him near the burial sites on Chad Daybell’s property around the time of their disappearances. Additionally, Alex married Zulema Pastenes, a close associate of Lori and Chad, in what many believe was a rushed, suspicious union orchestrated for legal protection. His unwavering commitment to Lori and his apparent willingness to eliminate perceived threats have led many to speculate that he was more than just a devoted brother—he was an active participant in a series of calculated crimes.The official narrative surrounding Alex Cox’s sudden death on December 12, 2019, has been met with significant skepticism. Authorities ruled his death as natural, attributing it to bilateral pulmonary thromboembolism (blood clots in the lungs), but the timing and circumstances raise questions. Alex had been a central figure in the deaths surrounding Lori and Chad, yet he conveniently died just days after Tammy Daybell’s body was exhumed for investigation. His widow, Zulema Pastenes, claimed he made ominous remarks in his final days, hinting that “he knew he was going to die soon.” Additionally, his sudden health decline does not align with any known history of severe medical issues. Given the growing legal scrutiny on Lori and Chad, many speculate whether Alex’s death was truly natural or if he was silenced to protect others involved. Some theorists even suggest poisoning or an assisted overdose—a convenient way to eliminate a key player in an unraveling criminal conspiracy.to contact me:[email protected]

From the archives: 5-24-23The news surrounding the trial of Bryan Kohberger and the investigation into the murders in Moscow continues to evolve at quick pace. With the recent grand jury news and then the indictment on all five counts that came in the aftermath, there has been plenty to try and keep up with.In this episode, we take a look at several different headlines, including the filing of the tort notice.(commercial at 9:32)to contact me:[email protected]:Idaho college murders update: Bryan Kohberger alleged victims’ families prepare to sue Moscow university | The Independent

From the archives: 1-6-23According to new reports by CNN, Bryan Kohberger was taking precautions to secure his DNA while at his parents. The source says that Bryan was wearing surgical gloves while out in front of his parents house and even tried to be sly by throwing trash in a neighbors bin in hopes to keep his DNA out of the hands of the authorities.Let's dive in and see what's up!(commercial at 9:10)to contact me:[email protected]:Idaho murders: Suspect in student killings was seen multiple times wearing gloves, also placing garbage bags outside Pennsylvania home, source says | CNN

From the archives: 1-6-23Now that the Affadavit has been released, we have learned a lot more about the way the investigators went about building the evidence against Bryan Koberger. Especially evidence of the digital variety.In this episode, we hear how Bryan Kohberger's phone pinged to the house where he allegedly murdered Kaylee, Madison, Ethan and Xana 12 times previously, going all the way back to August of last year. Not only that, he returned to the scene of the crime, according to cell phone data, the next morning at around 9 am where he lurked for roughly ten minutes before leaving.Let's unpack it.(commercial at 6:50)to contact me:[email protected]:Bryan Kohberger's phone pinged at Idaho murder scene hours after killings,12 times prior: investigators | Fox News

From the archives: 6-29-23Bryan Kohberger is facing the death penalty. This news was announced recently when the prosecution filed the notice with the court, alerting Kohberger, the court and the rest of the world that they plan on proving in front of a jury, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, that Bryan Kohberger killed four people in their home during the early morning hours of November 13th.In this episode, we take a look at the case against Bryan Kohberger and at the strength of the case against him.(commercial at 13:40)to contact me:[email protected]:The Case Against Bryan Kohberger (newsweek.com)

In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense has filed Motion in Limine #1 to exclude inflammatory evidence in the trial of Bryan Kohberger. The motion argues that certain evidence may unfairly prejudice the jury, inflaming emotions rather than contributing to a fair and impartial evaluation of the facts. The defense contends that such evidence lacks probative value and could lead to an unfair trial, potentially violating Kohberger’s constitutional rights.The motion requests that the court carefully review and exclude any evidence deemed overly graphic, emotionally charged, or otherwise prejudicial. The defense emphasizes the importance of ensuring a trial based on facts and legal standards rather than emotional reactions. By filing this motion, Kohberger’s legal team aims to prevent any undue influence on the jury and secure a fair judicial process.In Motions in Limine #2 and #3 in Case No. CR01-24-31665, Bryan Kohberger’s defense seeks to exclude additional prejudicial evidence from trial. Motion #2 requests the exclusion of speculative or unreliable expert testimony, arguing that such testimony could mislead the jury and lacks a sufficient scientific basis. The defense contends that only properly vetted, methodologically sound expert opinions should be admitted to ensure a fair trial. Motion #3 seeks to bar any references to uncharged or unrelated bad acts allegedly committed by Kohberger. The defense argues that introducing such evidence would unfairly bias the jury, violating evidentiary rules that prohibit character attacks unrelated to the charges at hand. Both motions emphasize the necessity of maintaining a trial based strictly on admissible, fact-based evidence to ensure due process.to contact   me:[email protected]:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-1-RE-Inflammatory-Evidence.pdf022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-3-RE-Use-Term-Murder.pdf022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-4-RE-Using-Terms-Psychopath-Sociopath.pdf