The Lori Vallow Trial Vault: Day Number 12 Of Testimony (3/22/25)

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant’s actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:[email protected]:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​On the twenty-second day of Lori Vallow Daybell's trial, the court heard testimony from multiple witnesses, providing further insight into the events surrounding the deaths of Tylee Ryan, J.J. Vallow, and Tammy Daybell. FBI Tactical Specialist Nicole Heideman testified about digital evidence recovered between Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow, such as romantic text messages exchanged under the names "James" and "Elena." These messages, read aloud in court, revealed the depth of their relationship and plans for the future, including discussions about being together and searching for rings while their respective spouses were still alive.Additionally, FBI Agent Nick Ballance presented cell phone data analysis, highlighting communications between Chad Daybell's burner phone, Alex Cox, and Lori Vallow. The data placed Alex Cox near Chad Daybell's property on the night Tammy Daybell died, following a 16-minute call with Lori, who was in Hawaii at the time. This evidence aimed to establish a timeline and suggest coordination among the parties involved.to contact  me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​On the twenty-first day of Lori Vallow Daybell's trial, the court heard testimony from Ian Pawlowski, Lori's nephew-in-law. Ian recounted his brief marriage to Lori's niece, Melani, and detailed his interactions with Lori and Chad Daybell. He testified about the couple's apocalyptic beliefs, including their discussions on "light" and "dark" spirits and the concept of individuals being possessed by evil entities. Ian also revealed that he had cooperated with law enforcement by recording conversations with Lori and Chad, during which they discussed their religious ideologies and attitudes toward the police.Additionally, FBI Tactical Specialist Nicole Heideman returned to the stand to provide further insights into the relationship between Lori and Chad. She presented evidence of their joint visits to LDS temples, highlighting that their access cards were scanned within seconds of each other, indicating coordinated visits. Heideman also discussed a narrative written by Chad, referred to as the "James and Elena" story, which paralleled his real-life relationship with Lori. This story depicted characters engaging in a romantic and spiritual journey, mirroring the events and beliefs shared by Chad and Lori.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Jeffrey Epstein and his finances remain shrouded in mystery even in death.On today's show we will take another look at Epstein's finances and one of the vehicles he used to increase his wealth.(Commercial at 16:08)To contact me:[email protected]:https://wallstreetonparade.com/2019/07/tax-filing-suggests-child-sex-offender-jeffrey-epstein-made-his-wealth-flipping-hot-ipos-on-wall-street/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

John Brockman is a legend in the literary world. He has represented some of the finest minds in science in regards to their written works. His firm is considered the most prestigious. He was also one of Epstein's biggest enablers.Brockman was used by Epstein to open the door to relationships with the top scientists on the planet. The door he used was called the Edge foundation.Who is John Brockman? What was his role in this whole macabre story?To contact me:[email protected]:https://newrepublic.com/article/154826/jeffrey-epsteins-intellectual-enablerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In today's episode we learn a bit more about the court battle between Virginia Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell over documents that pertain to the case.Maxwell is arguing that they should stay sealed to prevent harm and embarrassment to the powerful people who are contained within.Virginia Roberts attorneys argue that the public deserves to know who is named.What will the Judge decide?Join me as I take a look.To contact me:[email protected]:https://www.google.com/amp/s/lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ghislaine-maxwell-argues-it-would-be-too-difficult-to-release-full-epstein-files/amp/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Plaintiff Sara Rivers files this complaint in Case No. 1:25-cv-01726, bringing legal action against the defendant based on personal knowledge, information, and belief. Represented by legal counsel, Rivers outlines the specific allegations, detailing the defendant's alleged misconduct and the legal grounds supporting the claims. The complaint asserts that the defendant’s actions have caused harm and seeks accountability through the judicial system.This lawsuit requests appropriate legal remedies, including compensation and other relief deemed necessary by the court. The filing establishes jurisdiction, presents supporting facts, and sets forth claims that Rivers intends to prove. Through this action, the plaintiff seeks justice and redress for the alleged wrongdoing, holding the defendant legally responsible for the damages incurred.to contact me:[email protected]:Sara cmpltBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed a motion to preclude the death penalty and adopt other necessary procedures, alleging that the prosecution committed disclosure violations by providing an overwhelming volume of disorganized and unsearchable data, thereby hindering the defense's ability to prepare effectively. The defense argued that these alleged violations compromised Kohberger's rights to a fair trial, due process, and effective legal representation.In response, the State asserted that it has complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16 and its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, emphasizing that discovery materials were provided promptly and in the same format as received. The prosecution contended that the defense had not identified specific evidence that was improperly withheld or disclosed late, and therefore, there was no basis to preclude the death penalty as a sanction. The State requested that the court deny the defense's motion, affirming that Kohberger's due process rights have been upheld throughout the proceedings.to contact me:[email protected]:031725-States-Response-Defendants-Motion-Preclude-Death-Penalty-Disclosure-Violations.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the defense filed a motion to preclude the death penalty and adopt other necessary procedures, alleging that the prosecution committed disclosure violations by providing an overwhelming volume of disorganized and unsearchable data, thereby hindering the defense's ability to prepare effectively. The defense argued that these alleged violations compromised Kohberger's rights to a fair trial, due process, and effective legal representation.In response, the State asserted that it has complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16 and its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, emphasizing that discovery materials were provided promptly and in the same format as received. The prosecution contended that the defense had not identified specific evidence that was improperly withheld or disclosed late, and therefore, there was no basis to preclude the death penalty as a sanction. The State requested that the court deny the defense's motion, affirming that Kohberger's due process rights have been upheld throughout the proceedings.to contact me:[email protected]:031725-States-Response-Defendants-Motion-Preclude-Death-Penalty-Disclosure-Violations.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a recent report by The U.S. Sun, legal experts discussed two key pieces of evidence that could influence the upcoming murder trial of Bryan Kohberger, the suspect in the 2022 killings of four University of Idaho students. Kohberger’s defense team is pushing to introduce DNA evidence pointing to alternative suspects, arguing that DNA from multiple unidentified individuals was found both at the crime scene and on one of the victims. They suggest that someone else could have planted Kohberger’s DNA on the knife sheath found in the house. However, Florida-based trial attorney Mark NeJame called the theory a stretch, pointing to the significance of Kohberger’s DNA being found on the sheath and questioning the plausibility of such a setup.The defense also referenced DNA mixtures from unidentified males found in blood samples and under the fingernails of victim Madison Mogen. NeJame acknowledged that such evidence could be used to create reasonable doubt, especially the blood samples, which may be relevant in identifying additional individuals present. However, he cast doubt on the fingernail DNA’s value, suggesting it could have resulted from casual contact prior to the murders. NeJame emphasized that blood evidence remains the most critical forensic element, potentially acting as “breadcrumbs” to determine the killer’s identity. With the trial approaching, these debates over admissible evidence will play a pivotal role in shaping the courtroom battle.to contact  me:[email protected]:Two pieces of Bryan Kohberger evidence can completely bring down murder trial by casting doubt about guilt, lawyer warns | The US SunBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.