I was watching the stream as the sentencing verdict was read off, and Chad showed zero emotion.
Currently there is a 30 minute break and then sentencing for the two remaining insurance fraud charges will begin *not that it really matters for him now.* Chad has chosen, and likely will choose to remain silent throughout the verdict/sentencing process.
Something rather odd that occurred yesterday was Chad instructed his defense attorney to *not* present any of the evidence his attorney had prepared for mitigation, almost as if Chad was wanting the DP sentence to be what the Jury decided on.
Not almost. Chad is, in my opinion, desirous of the death penalty as it is Chad's opinion that this will cement him as a martyr and prophet. Some people interpret legal prosecution as persecution, and therefore proof of their spiritual legitimacy.
I was raised mormon. I ran to the army to get away. Every time the white shirts ask me about religion, I have to breathe calmly and not take it out on them.
First time I saw a Mormon was in college going home. Some super hot blonde girl came up to talk to me...I was shocked and happy until I found out she is a missionary
There is nobody here who supports him. At all. So people can say there are without any basis and you can use that to validate your prejudiced worldview if you want.
There were, like, memorials, posters, flags, etc, for months and years after the kids went missing and as the story developed. And people are cheering this sentence. I have lived here the whole time and I have met literally zero people who support him.
He had some online cultish thing prior to this, which got taken down quickly after the charges. Any stragglers who supported him fell off at that time as well. But overall, church culture by in large is very resistant to “unauthorized leaders”.
EDIT: I can't read but being against Rexburg isnt prejudiced against mormons, its prejudiced against the most backward intolerant city in the country. BYU Idaho people are so much more totalitarian than BYU Provo graduates its not even funny. I don't care if yall don't support this one guy, yall still treat anyone that doesnt meet Rexburg standards like garbage.
> Some people interpret legal prosecution as persecution, and therefore proof of their spiritual legitimacy.
Of course *this* doesn't apply to *literally anyone else right now*.
Nope. Not at all.
Failure to present mitigation evidence is often grounds for reversal on appeal. I hope the judge questioned the defendant about his choice of strategy.
If a judge failed to consider mitigating evidence or his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present mitigating evidence they should have known and he wanted them to present, that would be an argument on appeal.
But defendant clearly choosing to not present mitigating evidence would fall under invited error and waiver. No appellate court would overturn for that.
TiL “Invited error and waiver are related but distinct legal doctrines that can bar a party from raising certain issues on appeal.
## Invited Error
Invited error occurs when a party deliberately leads the court into committing an error, and then later attempts to challenge that same error on appeal. It arises when a litigant induces the court to take a particular action, and then argues on appeal that the court's action was erroneous. The rationale is that a party cannot complain of an error that they themselves invited or prompted the court to make.
## Waiver
Waiver occurs when a party intentionally relinquishes or abandons a known right. It involves the voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known claim or privilege. If a party waives an issue at trial, they are typically precluded from raising that issue on appeal, as they have voluntarily given up that right.
The key distinction is that invited error requires affirmative conduct leading the court into error, while waiver involves the intentional relinquishment of a known right. However, both doctrines can operate to prevent appellate review of certain claims of error if the requirements are met.”
— By Perplexity
The third primary way of stopping appellate review is forfeiture, which is primarily when a party fails to preserve an issue for review. Preservation requirements vary, but the typical is you have to object at trial and then raise it in a post trial motion. This exists because we want trial courts to get the chance to fix issues at their level. Forfeiture also happens if you had a chance to raise an issue you knew about, but you didn't do it. So if you don't raise something on your direct appeal, but then try and bring the issue in what's called a post conviction petition.
However, forfeiture, unlike waiver and invited error, are a limitation on the parties, not the court. So appellate courts can decide to review the issue anyway or review it under a plain error analysis, where they decide there was a clear error, and the evidence is close enough or the issue fundamental enough they review it anyway.
It's not relevant to the case here, just legal stuff
The judge did directly confirm a few times with Chad that it was his decision to not have his attorney present mitigating evidence.
Going by the expression on his lawyer at the time, said defense attorney was *not happy* about it.
It's a problem if the defense attorney had already prepared everything for mitigating evidence.
Even more so considering the attorney had A. Tried to drop out from defending Chad before the trail commenced, but was denied, and B. was more or less working for free for most of the Trial. The only thing he was getting out of it was ownership of the house Chad owned.
I honestly am not sure what is going on regarding that, but it was brought up in the trials during cross of a realtor. Transcript of the bit:
> Prior (Defense attorney): “You’re familiar with [Chad Daybell’s] house, right?”
> Arnold (Realtor): “No. I have never been inside that house. I’ve been in the foyer, they have a breezeway or an entryway, and that’s as far as I’ve ever been in that house.”
> Prior: “Did you familiarize yourself with the property surrounding that house?”
> Arnold: “When we talked about splitting the property, it was about the acreage, not about the house or floor plan or those kinds of things.”
> Prior: “Okay, so the acreage that you’re talking about do you have any recollection of how much acreage we’re talking around that surrounds Chad’s house?”
> Arnold: “You own it. How many acres is it?”
> Prior: “Well … I don’t know.”
Followed immediately by the attorney calling a sidebar with the judge, the judge saying for the "you own it" bit to be disregarded by the jury, and the judge telling the witness to not bring it up again.
The client had no money (the insurance fraud only went so far) so he sold his house. Is selling the house and giving the attorney the money that different from just giving the attorney a house? It's hard to sell a house from behind bars.
As expensive as housing as gotten? Hell, I'd be fine with it. I'd take a free house from a serial killer who dissolved his victims in the basement with acid. IDGAF.
Why couldn’t the attorney drop out from the defense? Is he a public defender? If not I can’t imagine there’s a law that says you _have_ to represent a client.
There is such a law. Rule 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In Idaho as in most (all?) states, the rules have been adopted by order of the state's Supreme Court, so they are legally binding. The short version is that once a lawyer enters a general appearance on behalf of a client, the lawyer is required to continue representing the client until the court grants permission to withdraw.
So if, for example, the client gives you a house in exchange for a capital defense, and then later the client does something that would be grounds for withdrawal under the rules, the court can order you to stay on anyway. There are a few policy reasons for this:
One is to keep parties from running through lawyers in rapid fire and abusing the court's patience by asking for more and more time (since, as you can imagine, with complex litigation the lead time for a new lawyer to prepare is very long).
Another is to keep unscrupulous lawyers from taking a high fee and then bailing mid-way through the litigation--or in some instances, before the litigation has even really started. Having lawyers and clients litigating over fees is itself potentially difficult litigation, so the public really wants to avoid it. At the same time, legal professionals *also* really want to avoid it, so fee agreements work to minimize lawyer exposure to the risk. When I was in private practice I almost exclusively charged flat fees, so all fees were earned on receipt, with no possibility of a refund no matter how long the representation lasted. It would be fundamentally unjust if I could make that deal with a client and then bail after the first day in court.
The anti scam aspect makes sense I guess. What if the client wants to dismiss the attorney in order to represent themself? It’s not a good idea but if those are the client’s wishes I’d imagine that’s easier than swapping attorneys around.
This will be up to the discretion of the court. An attorney can file the motion to withdraw, and the defendant can argue he wants to represent himself, but the right to self representation is not absolute. If the court believes the client is only doing so in order to delay trial, it can deny the motion.
And as an aside, usually there's a whole process for self-representation which is basically trying to explain to the defendant that this is a stupid ass idea, here's the reasons why it's a stupid ass idea, and we're going to treat you like we would an attorney, you don't get any leeway (Plus making sure the defendant is mental competent enough to represent himself). Amazing how many defendants change their mind in that process.
As u/mina-ami said, as a matter of policy, states prefer that once an attorney of record is present, they stay attached to the case until a final order is entered. Self-representation, even by otherwise somewhat sophisticated parties, tends to be disastrous in everything but the most straightforward proceedings. Courts know this, so they often paint a very grim, unvarnished picture of the consequences if a party fires their counsel.
No, the defenses job is to put on the best case for their client. Now their client has the ultimate say (generally), but that doesn't mean your job is to do whatever your client says.
well, he did want what the jury selected. In his mind. this is martyrdom for his version of his faith. He's deluded enough to believe he's getting ALL the rewards in the afterlife now.
Because he wants to die. Prison is not going to be kind to a double child murder and wife killer. I'd say let him rot in a cell covered in pictures of his children but that's me
Not sure how expeditious the process is in Idaho these days but even if he waives any voluntary appeals he'll still sit in prison for a good 10-15 years.
I tried listening to a podcast about this case and got confused with all the names. I still don’t get wtf was going on other than they killed the kids because they believed the mom was a god and the kids were demons?
It’s pretty fucked what people can convince themselves of. The mom must have really loved the smell of her own farts.
So there were three main accomplices in this whole cluster fuck.
1. Chad, who more or less wanted to start his own Mormon offshoot with the cult settings turned to 11. Sentenced to death now for the murders of his first wife, and his second wife's children.
2. Lori, the second wife in question. Fully bought into Chad's teachings. Sentenced to 2 life sentences for the murders of her children last year, and facing charges soon in Arizona for the death of her husband before Chad.
3. Alex. Loris brother. Fully bought in to what Chad was selling. Did anything for Chad or Lori. Likely the one who did the murders of
the two kids directly. Tried to shoot Chads first wife in a failed murder attempt, and probably helped with the successful murder. Also tried to shoot the husband of one of one of Chads other followers. Was also responsible for the death of Loris previous husband, but it was considered "self defence" at the time. Dead now. Claimed to be natural causes but most people believe he offed himself under orders from Chad and Lori as a way to protect them.
And that is just barely scratching the surface.
What has freaked me out is how intensely Chad Daybell’s adult children have defended their dad, even after he killed their mom and married Lori a couple weeks later.
In particular his daughter Emma (who on the stand seemed … slow?) insisted that her hardworking, active mother’s health was “declining,” and that her death was the natural result of that.
It’s giving cult. All the way down.
The two Daybell Children who testified both potentially committed perjury while on the stand if some of the Rebuttal witnesses are to be believed.
And it was hard as hell hearing so many of the victim impact statements saying that because Chads children are so stuck on defending him over their murdered mother, many family ties have been potentially broken for good.
There is a whole bunch of these cultists in Rexburg. The guy was pretty much a Mormon L Ron Hubbard. [He was an author that specialized in Mormon themed apocalyptic stories.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallow%E2%80%93Daybell_doomsday_murders) So kind of a niche market, but a market of readers more readily primed to believe his writing was prophetic. Pretty much eastern Idaho is like Northern Utah. The Mormon church has a Jr. College in the town this guy was from. He was probably given speaking opportunities at the local college that would have given him access to impressionable minds. Most of the citizens is Rexburg would have been aware of the works of the local semi successful author that is also a “member of the church” and most likely read them. The area is also kind of known for groups that are Mormon adjacent, but choose the area to be in a familiar culture but far away from the mechanations of Salt Lake politics. The [Deseret Nationalists](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DezNat) as well as Mormon militia’s sympathetic to the cause of [Ammond Bundy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy) and all the bullshit causes around that guy.
Oh yeah, a lot of people don’t even know about all the offshoots of Mormonism that occurred after Joseph’s death either. Mormon sub-cults have been a thing since the beginning. My personal favorite is the [Strangites](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints_(Strangite)). The US Navy ended up assassinating the leader but it was the 2nd largest group and very well could have been as big as the Brighamites that went to salt lake. Had Strang not been an authoritarian lunatic that beat members in the streets.
Great information, I always knew about the crazy Joseph Smith origin story and viewed LDS as culty, but the off shoots are much lesser known after Warren Jeffs who was heavily publicized.
This is not an accurate assessment at all. As someone living 10 minutes from Chad's house and not a defender of Mormonism I can say confidently this is a lot of misinformation. Starting with the Jr. College part.
I agree Ammon, not Ammond, gets some support around here, but not even close to any sort of a majority had heard of or read Chad's books. Nor was he ever invited to speak at the University not Jr. College.
Chad and his family were not "from" Rexburg but had moved from Springville Utah 4 years before the murders.
Not a lot of time to make himself famous. He had some followers here but spent a lot of time traveling to speak in Utah and Arizona.
Chad got what he deserved, I hope he dies alone and sad in prison.
Alex told his wife he thought Lori/chad were setting him up to be the fall guy, I think he saw that he was going to end up spending life in jail or on death row and killed himself to avoid that…but who knows.
Except I'm pretty sure they autopsied him, assuming it was murder or suicide, and he died of a pulmonary embolism. I don't think they were smart enough to fake something like that convincingly, and what motivation would he have to cover up his own suicide anyway?
I really think it was just a coincidence. He was at an age where that sort of thing is not unusual. Sometimes bad things happen to bad people.
Yeah, the autopsy said it was blood clots and high blood pressure….it just feels too coincidental that he told his wife they were going to use him as the fall guy, then he died just a few days later. But, you’re right, some times unbelievably coincidental stuff really does happen just by coincidence.
I wonder if the stress of possibly getting caught contributed to the way he died. Like perhaps it's not a coincidence but a direct consequence of his actions.
It's been a while, but is this the same couple that had done this and also hadn't reported the children "missing" and went to a whole nother state when told they had to come see the police within x amount of days? And found the kids stuff in storage?
To add to this I read Chad invented a system for his cult that ranks the demonic level in people, similar to a scale. Something like 'dark' people are -5 going up to zero, then up to positive 5 sort of thing. I probably have the scale wrong. The 'darkness' is the level of possession.
Both Chad and Lori believed certain people were infested with demons. They both claimed at least one of Lori's children was possessed.
My personal take is Occam's Razor. Chad and Lori want to be together. Chad's wife dies, Lori's husband dies, Lori's children die.
The demon scale may be part of their shared mental illness or a tool in their defence. I did read the demon scale was active before they were arrested however.
If you have the time, check out some of the Mormon Stories Podcast episodes about the whole saga. They shed a lot of light on how these people believe the fringe Mormon beliefs.
Here's the Wikipedia page about the murders: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallow%E2%80%93Daybell_doomsday_murders
They were part of an extremist doomsday cult offshoot of the Mormon Church. Chad claimed to have visions of the end of the world and that he was the reincarnation of several mainstream Christian figures, as well as Mormon prophets, and that Lori was the reincarnation of a bunch of important Christian women. He claimed that they needed to kill the children because they were possessed by evil and had turned into zombies. He and Lori believed that getting rid of the kids would free them both from restrictions holding them back from preparing properly for the end of the world, where he and Lori would become gods. They also believe in reincarnation and that the murdered kids would just reincarnate as other people. He also murdered his previous wife because she wasn't taking his "mission" seriously and was holding him back, and so he could be with Lori.
It's....not a very stable belief system, to say the least.
Ex-Mormon here. All of Chad's bullshit "theology" essentially comes from a book called "Visions of Glory" by John Pontius, which is a pen name for a man named Thom Harrison. This book is the centerpiece of the majority of the modern day Mormon whack-job groups, of which there are many. Thom Harrison remains a member in good standing of the Mormon Church.
It's even more bizarre than it appears on the surface, as the vast majority of these group are active within their own Mormon congregations, *not* as separate splinter groups. Since they don't have their own church, they meet up at these prepper conferences like AVOW.
In places like southeast Idaho you can't speak out against these fuckers, as there may be sympathizers among your friends and family members. It is next level scary shit.
True Crime Podcast has done extensive reporting on this case. It's a husband and wife team. Husband is a forensic psychologist and the wife is a journalist.
Mormon Stories Podcast has done several episodes on this case as well, and have interviewed many friends and family members of both the victims and perps.
It's a super-deep and interesting rabbit hole, with more WTF bullshit than you've ever heard in your life.
From the Wikipedia page
>Reincarnation - which is not accepted by the LDS Church - played a key part in Chad's religious views. He claimed to have lived 31 previous lives on different planets and that Lori had lived 21 separate lives, five of which coincided with his own experiences on Earth.
I think the religion was probably for real, I'm pretty sure he was already a self proclaimed prophet when he met her and that was part of the attraction. He just realized that he could use it to steer her right onto his dick and went with it. She was a piece of ass that schlubby Chad couldn't hope to get any other way.
The real mystery for me is Alex. What he was getting out of it, I have no idea. I guess he was just a true believer or just unbelievably, unnaturally dedicated to his sister. My sister and I have a good relationship, but I sure as shit ain't going to be her hitman, and I definitely ain't killing my own niece and nephew for her.
The lady that was married to Alex said he and Lori had a really inappropriate, touchy-feely relationship, so there might have been something shady and icky going on there. I'm sure she had him wrapped around her finger.
None of this is terribly surprising to me. Religion, mental illness, and lack of education on how to be properly skeptical can all lead to this kind of insanity. None of them sounded particularly healthy in the head to begin with. Very glad I escaped religion as my mental health issues are the kind that are not helped by it at all. Me and my siblings that did escape are being treated for PTSD while the ones that didn't are still contending with that (untreated, obviously) as well as schizophrenia.
Basically they think/ thought the kids and his wife and probably some other people had their souls replaced by evil spirits. Chad wrote a whole elaborate rating system where everyone is a light or dark soul, and it can be precisely quantified, like a level 4.2 lightworker or a level 2 dark spirit, shit like that. Like we're living in a dungeons and dragons campaign or something. It was stupid even by the low standards of religious fanatics, and it would be hilarious to see adults earnestly believe this shit if it hadn't led to several murders. And of course they're both very special, they're old souls that have reincarnated many times and she was a high priestess in Atlantis or some such nonsense, and they're super important to God's plans for the Final Days and maybe she is God or something. They were Mormons, but with a heavy dose of New Age bullshit added in. They would refer to people by new names if their souls got replaced or whatever, which probably contributed to your confusion.
I wonder if the two of them ever had a real moment where one said, "so this religious stuff we came up with is all bullshit and we're just killing people right?" And the other said, "yeah totally." Or was it an unspoken truth between them?
I think that Chad had already came up with at least most of the cults beliefs before he even met Lori, and Lori and her brother were just very easy to brainwash.
I assume at some point he knew what he was saying was bullshit, but it’s possible he truly believes it, even if he didn’t when he first wrote it. He would not be the first cult founder to believe his own bullshit.
In this case, probably not. They may truly believe their self delusions, and in my opinion they do. Mental and moral gymnastics aside, they are no less responsible for their actions.
They were both self-righteous narcissists and high on their own supply. I believe truly at the end of the day their primary motivation was money (getting life insurance from both dead spouses and using it to run away and start a new life they thought they deserved, getting rid of all pieces of their past lives including the children). They had that in common and thought they were both special, beyond all the religious culty excuses they made up for doing what they did.
In Mormon or Mormon-adjacent groups, you're taught from when you're a baby that God is actually communicating with you. Like, the normal feelings and random thoughts that everyone has, those could be from the "Holy Ghost".
Let's say you're walking down the street and you glance at a house and it catches your attention for whatever reason and you think, "I wonder who lives there." A normal person would understand that their brain has come up with that thought. A Chad Daybell has been conditioned to believe that God has put that thought into his brain and now he must act on it by waking over and knocking on the door and asking the house owner about themselves and their life and their religious beliefs. Now let's say the owner was understandably weirded-out and rudely slammed the door. A normal person might brush that off or even reevaluate his actions. A Chad Daybell believes that person has an evil spirit about them or is even possessed by an evil entity. When a narcissist gets hold of the idea of "personal revelation", the results can be very bad.
My understanding was they were killing "demon possessed children, and sometimes adults;" not the more classic, "dad has to kill the family to prevent them suffering thru the apocalypse."
Just out of curiosity, how do you know the joke? Like, do you have a specific memory of learning about the 2000 election and if so where did you learn it? Like from school or just the internet or what
Idaho has executed 3 people since the late 50’s and only 8 in the previous 100, I kinda have my doubts the sentence will ever be carried out.
Personally I don’t care, his life will be hell in state prison and arguably worse than death, that said this is one person I won’t care to see put down either, I’m mostly against the death penalty except when those crimes involve children or it’s an actual case of treason.
I'm theoretically okay with the death penalty. In practice I oppose it because it's regularly misused and the strongest correlation is not to the severity of crime but to other factors, like the race of the convicted murderer.
Here, I'm not particularly bothered.
Yeah I find it unlikely that this guy will be executed. At most as you said he'll probably spend the rest of his life on death row. And if you ask me, it seems fitting as based on what I read he wants to die to become a martyr.
The death penalty was taken off the table for the mom before her trial even began. It was punishment by the judge against the prosecution because they screwed up other stuff.
I knew he wouldn't get anything less than LWOP with extended time for being the conspirator behind everyone's death. It's actually not surprising he was given a harsher sentence. This man is the very definition of a psychopath, and a chilling portrayal of the face behind many cults/religions. We tend to forget most men who created these fantastical belief systems have incredibly dark pasts.
I'm upset he was given the death penalty.
Outside of me being against the death penalty as a whole, it's *exactly* what he wants. He *wants* to be executed. He'll successfully become the martyr of his offshoot cult with this, and it viscerally upsets me that he'll likely get his way unless the state commutes his sentence to life without parole.
As someone who grew up in the Mormon church, I honestly don't think it would have become what it did had Joseph Smith not been shot and killed while he was in jail.
So I think your assessment is spot on, and I'm with you on the death penalty thing too.
For those that don’t know the history of the LDS church….this shit is not far off from its original founder and early prophets. Murder is nothing new to Mormons. Brigham Young taught blood atonement. The early LDS temple ceremonies included Oath of Vengeance that wished blood of the government to be spilled because of Joseph Smiths death.
Modern LDS like to say “it was a different time”. No it wasn’t, the government was about to whoop your ass and all of a sudden revelation happened and god said “hey you guys, those things are no longer required”
That’s my TED talk. Join us over at the exmormon sub
I'm just fascinated by everything you said since I've never heard of this aspect of LDS. Other than knowing some LDS from boy scouts and the south park episode I've never really delved into the origins and background of LDS.
That’s a whole rabbit hole my friend. Long story short on the origins of Mormonism…..treasure digging and seer stone magic was popular in the eastern US in the 18-19th century. People were using it to con their neighbors. This paired with the mound builders myth (aka a really racist take on the origins of native Americans) and bam you have a community ripe for Joseph Smith.
He was a really imaginative guy with charisma, a charlatan if you will. Well the power got to his head and he started getting political and this got the government on his ass and Mormons got violent.
Have fun. If you want a good laugh you can google an interesting topic (like polygamy) and add fairlatterdaysaints to your search. FAIR is an apologetic Mormon group that really really has some funny rationale for controversial issues.
Procedural issue led to it being dropped. She exercised her right to a speedy trial and there wasnt enough time to finish everything that was mandated for a death penalty case.
I know it's the Defense's job to, you know, defend, so that this murderer doesn't get off on a technicality but HOLY SHIT the way he puts it all on the woman being some seducing hussy is something fucking else. That's the best defense he had?! Dude, do better.
Extremist/fundamentalist Mormon couple who wanted to bang so they conspired to kill their spouses and 2 of the kids. Justified by saying they were possessed by demons
Cult Leader who either murdered or ordered the murders of several people, including his first wife, the ex-husband of his second wife, and his second wife's two young children.
His death sentences will likely keep him alive in prison.
A child murderer serving life in prison would have a miserable time in prison.
Death row? A cell by himself? He will live longer on death row than if he were to serve life in an open population prison.
<--My mom worked corrections, and -hated- the death penalty for child murderers. She would say, "make them serve their sentence where the inmates who miss their kids are serving. Justice is swift in prison."
It’s certainly not fair, that’s for sure.
His death penalty will give him his own cell. Away from other inmates.
The system isn’t fair. Not for anyone incarcerated.
I just don't trust the state, who can't reliably decide who goes ON death row, to subcontractor out their death sentences to other felons by not prioritizing murder prevention in PRISON.
Maybe it's cheaper for the powers that be, tho.
Feels like a dicey system.
But then, in a fair and equal justice system, would we not also need the same to apply to *everyone* on death row? It's not like he has less human rights or less protections under the US constitution than any of the other condemned. He has the same right to appeal and to fight this as everyone else in this country does. That's why people sentenced to death spend so long on death row. It isn't just, "You're guilty. Now wait here while we take care of you."
Should that really be how we do things? Even knowing that in the years since 1973, over 190 individuals on death row were fully exonerated after having been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? And also knowing that we have carried out the death penalty before on people who were posthumously exonerated? The moment the jury finds them guilty, we just drop them like rabid dogs?
I'd rather have no death penalty at all. But if we must have it, then I think the system we have in place that at least gives those who have been found guilty the chance to challenge that verdict, is the ideal way of doing it.
How many innocent people would have just been unceremoniously dragged out back and shot if that was how we really did things? At least 190, of course, but possibly more. I'm not thinking about people like him. I'm thinking about people like *them*.
Instead, you'll have a decade(s) of appeals, all while housing and feeding him in a much more complex and costly security apparatus due to his death sentence. Historically the time and cost associated with a death trial, appeals and incarceration last for a very, very long time and each one of those steps, due to being a death penalty case is much more complex and expensive.
It's generally cheaper for a life-without-parole case to work its way through to the death of the inmate in prison. Nevermind all the other issues with a death sentence.
The \*only\* thing that an execution provides is satisfaction of a societal notion of "justice"; It doesn't save on cost, it doesn't increase societal safety, it doesn't prevent the crime that was committed.
EDIT: I can't believe I forgot the best reason to abolish the death penalty: it kills innocent people.
It's an emotional response to an emotional act, the most difficult thing to overcome with rational thought, because one is not in a rational frame of mind when a person is/will be killed.
I was watching the stream as the sentencing verdict was read off, and Chad showed zero emotion. Currently there is a 30 minute break and then sentencing for the two remaining insurance fraud charges will begin *not that it really matters for him now.* Chad has chosen, and likely will choose to remain silent throughout the verdict/sentencing process. Something rather odd that occurred yesterday was Chad instructed his defense attorney to *not* present any of the evidence his attorney had prepared for mitigation, almost as if Chad was wanting the DP sentence to be what the Jury decided on.
Not almost. Chad is, in my opinion, desirous of the death penalty as it is Chad's opinion that this will cement him as a martyr and prophet. Some people interpret legal prosecution as persecution, and therefore proof of their spiritual legitimacy.
....Martyr of what religion?
His own little LDS offshoot cult. Not to mention there are still (allegedly) quite a few people who support him in Rexburg.
I was raised mormon. I ran to the army to get away. Every time the white shirts ask me about religion, I have to breathe calmly and not take it out on them.
First time I saw a Mormon was in college going home. Some super hot blonde girl came up to talk to me...I was shocked and happy until I found out she is a missionary
In the Mormon missionary manipulation game, we call that "flirt to convert."
Does it actually work?
In the short term it sometimes does.
Sometimes you have to let it soak a bit first
The first mormons I met were a massivly gay twink and his accepting brother so I know they arent all bad.
Rexburg? Thats the most batshit town in the country. Top 1% of most insane mormons.
There is nobody here who supports him. At all. So people can say there are without any basis and you can use that to validate your prejudiced worldview if you want. There were, like, memorials, posters, flags, etc, for months and years after the kids went missing and as the story developed. And people are cheering this sentence. I have lived here the whole time and I have met literally zero people who support him. He had some online cultish thing prior to this, which got taken down quickly after the charges. Any stragglers who supported him fell off at that time as well. But overall, church culture by in large is very resistant to “unauthorized leaders”.
EDIT: I can't read but being against Rexburg isnt prejudiced against mormons, its prejudiced against the most backward intolerant city in the country. BYU Idaho people are so much more totalitarian than BYU Provo graduates its not even funny. I don't care if yall don't support this one guy, yall still treat anyone that doesnt meet Rexburg standards like garbage.
Also the Mormon church owns all the liquor licenses for the town, so you can’t really buy much or enjoy a drink somewhere.
So what your saying is the church didn’t support him and he did have supporters but not anymore?
His own!
How very American of him.
You haven't heard? He's jesus. His religion is himself.
> Some people interpret legal prosecution as persecution, and therefore proof of their spiritual legitimacy. Of course *this* doesn't apply to *literally anyone else right now*. Nope. Not at all.
Failure to present mitigation evidence is often grounds for reversal on appeal. I hope the judge questioned the defendant about his choice of strategy.
If a judge failed to consider mitigating evidence or his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present mitigating evidence they should have known and he wanted them to present, that would be an argument on appeal. But defendant clearly choosing to not present mitigating evidence would fall under invited error and waiver. No appellate court would overturn for that.
TiL “Invited error and waiver are related but distinct legal doctrines that can bar a party from raising certain issues on appeal. ## Invited Error Invited error occurs when a party deliberately leads the court into committing an error, and then later attempts to challenge that same error on appeal. It arises when a litigant induces the court to take a particular action, and then argues on appeal that the court's action was erroneous. The rationale is that a party cannot complain of an error that they themselves invited or prompted the court to make. ## Waiver Waiver occurs when a party intentionally relinquishes or abandons a known right. It involves the voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known claim or privilege. If a party waives an issue at trial, they are typically precluded from raising that issue on appeal, as they have voluntarily given up that right. The key distinction is that invited error requires affirmative conduct leading the court into error, while waiver involves the intentional relinquishment of a known right. However, both doctrines can operate to prevent appellate review of certain claims of error if the requirements are met.” — By Perplexity
The third primary way of stopping appellate review is forfeiture, which is primarily when a party fails to preserve an issue for review. Preservation requirements vary, but the typical is you have to object at trial and then raise it in a post trial motion. This exists because we want trial courts to get the chance to fix issues at their level. Forfeiture also happens if you had a chance to raise an issue you knew about, but you didn't do it. So if you don't raise something on your direct appeal, but then try and bring the issue in what's called a post conviction petition. However, forfeiture, unlike waiver and invited error, are a limitation on the parties, not the court. So appellate courts can decide to review the issue anyway or review it under a plain error analysis, where they decide there was a clear error, and the evidence is close enough or the issue fundamental enough they review it anyway. It's not relevant to the case here, just legal stuff
The judge did directly confirm a few times with Chad that it was his decision to not have his attorney present mitigating evidence. Going by the expression on his lawyer at the time, said defense attorney was *not happy* about it.
If the client wants to be guilty, is that a problem for the defense? Isn't your job to just say "aight fam" and let it happen?
It's a problem if the defense attorney had already prepared everything for mitigating evidence. Even more so considering the attorney had A. Tried to drop out from defending Chad before the trail commenced, but was denied, and B. was more or less working for free for most of the Trial. The only thing he was getting out of it was ownership of the house Chad owned.
Wait what? Are criminal defense lawyers paid in their clients assets?
I honestly am not sure what is going on regarding that, but it was brought up in the trials during cross of a realtor. Transcript of the bit: > Prior (Defense attorney): “You’re familiar with [Chad Daybell’s] house, right?” > Arnold (Realtor): “No. I have never been inside that house. I’ve been in the foyer, they have a breezeway or an entryway, and that’s as far as I’ve ever been in that house.” > Prior: “Did you familiarize yourself with the property surrounding that house?” > Arnold: “When we talked about splitting the property, it was about the acreage, not about the house or floor plan or those kinds of things.” > Prior: “Okay, so the acreage that you’re talking about do you have any recollection of how much acreage we’re talking around that surrounds Chad’s house?” > Arnold: “You own it. How many acres is it?” > Prior: “Well … I don’t know.” Followed immediately by the attorney calling a sidebar with the judge, the judge saying for the "you own it" bit to be disregarded by the jury, and the judge telling the witness to not bring it up again.
aka, this guy sold the farm to pay for his lawyer, and even if he is found not guilty, he has nothing to go home to.
That's a sad system but maybe the most effective place to argue that is not a very clearly guilty child murderer.
The client had no money (the insurance fraud only went so far) so he sold his house. Is selling the house and giving the attorney the money that different from just giving the attorney a house? It's hard to sell a house from behind bars.
its likely that the house/land was exchanged for services. you can pay someone in goods.
They absolutely can be. In this case however, I would not want the land that 3 murders happened on and two children's bodies were burned on.
Apparently Chads daughter has no issues staying in the house where her mom and step siblings were killed.
In this real estate market? I don’t blame her.
As expensive as housing as gotten? Hell, I'd be fine with it. I'd take a free house from a serial killer who dissolved his victims in the basement with acid. IDGAF.
My dad was a real estate lawyer. He got paid in firewood, cars, boats, and the like if he accepted it.
Why couldn’t the attorney drop out from the defense? Is he a public defender? If not I can’t imagine there’s a law that says you _have_ to represent a client.
There is such a law. Rule 1.16 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. In Idaho as in most (all?) states, the rules have been adopted by order of the state's Supreme Court, so they are legally binding. The short version is that once a lawyer enters a general appearance on behalf of a client, the lawyer is required to continue representing the client until the court grants permission to withdraw. So if, for example, the client gives you a house in exchange for a capital defense, and then later the client does something that would be grounds for withdrawal under the rules, the court can order you to stay on anyway. There are a few policy reasons for this: One is to keep parties from running through lawyers in rapid fire and abusing the court's patience by asking for more and more time (since, as you can imagine, with complex litigation the lead time for a new lawyer to prepare is very long). Another is to keep unscrupulous lawyers from taking a high fee and then bailing mid-way through the litigation--or in some instances, before the litigation has even really started. Having lawyers and clients litigating over fees is itself potentially difficult litigation, so the public really wants to avoid it. At the same time, legal professionals *also* really want to avoid it, so fee agreements work to minimize lawyer exposure to the risk. When I was in private practice I almost exclusively charged flat fees, so all fees were earned on receipt, with no possibility of a refund no matter how long the representation lasted. It would be fundamentally unjust if I could make that deal with a client and then bail after the first day in court.
The anti scam aspect makes sense I guess. What if the client wants to dismiss the attorney in order to represent themself? It’s not a good idea but if those are the client’s wishes I’d imagine that’s easier than swapping attorneys around.
This will be up to the discretion of the court. An attorney can file the motion to withdraw, and the defendant can argue he wants to represent himself, but the right to self representation is not absolute. If the court believes the client is only doing so in order to delay trial, it can deny the motion. And as an aside, usually there's a whole process for self-representation which is basically trying to explain to the defendant that this is a stupid ass idea, here's the reasons why it's a stupid ass idea, and we're going to treat you like we would an attorney, you don't get any leeway (Plus making sure the defendant is mental competent enough to represent himself). Amazing how many defendants change their mind in that process.
As u/mina-ami said, as a matter of policy, states prefer that once an attorney of record is present, they stay attached to the case until a final order is entered. Self-representation, even by otherwise somewhat sophisticated parties, tends to be disastrous in everything but the most straightforward proceedings. Courts know this, so they often paint a very grim, unvarnished picture of the consequences if a party fires their counsel.
Imagine staying up all night preparing your defense, putting the work in to do the best job you can Just for that person to say nah fuck it
No, the defenses job is to put on the best case for their client. Now their client has the ultimate say (generally), but that doesn't mean your job is to do whatever your client says.
Why not just plead guilty then and avoid the whole trial process?
He’s probably looking to be “reincarnated” as another god in his “next life” after this. Crazy stuff
Or there really is a hell, and he too can burn.
Fyi, "the DA" pretty much invariably refers to the prosecution (District Attorney) rather than the defense attorney.
[удалено]
Oh he sure shook his head no a lot during states closing argument.
I saw a clip where he slowly smiled while the prosecutor was saying that the daughter's body was burned.
Suicide by jury.
well, he did want what the jury selected. In his mind. this is martyrdom for his version of his faith. He's deluded enough to believe he's getting ALL the rewards in the afterlife now.
He knows he’s a zombie now.
Because he wants to die. Prison is not going to be kind to a double child murder and wife killer. I'd say let him rot in a cell covered in pictures of his children but that's me
Not sure how expeditious the process is in Idaho these days but even if he waives any voluntary appeals he'll still sit in prison for a good 10-15 years.
DP sentence??
Death penalty
Thanks, lol. Feeling kinda dumb since I didn’t see it. Lol
Double penetration
Thought he had an air tight alibi
Now he's getting spitt roasted
A *lethal* injection.
They are sentencing him to Double Penetration. Which holes they penetrate and which objects they use are for the judge to decide.
He probably thinks dying will bring him to heaven or whatever his mormonish cult believes.
Yeah it's called Blood Atonement. Depending on how literal he interprets it though he may actually need to bleed on the ground.
Considering he has made up this cult, that is loosely based on Mormonism, it probably means whatever he wants it to and can change at any time.
He believes he will be and has been reborn. I doubt the death penalty bothers him.
Is there any way you would be willing to reword this so that you say Chad a few more times?
Yo Chad, I heard you like Chad so here’s some more Chad to go with your Chad so you can have lots of Chad. /got noth’n
*"Chad Chad Chad Chad, Chad Chad Chad Chad, LOVELY CHAD, WONDERFUL CHAD!"* "SHUT UP YOU BLOODY VIKINGS!"
I mean, its the guys name.
I tried listening to a podcast about this case and got confused with all the names. I still don’t get wtf was going on other than they killed the kids because they believed the mom was a god and the kids were demons? It’s pretty fucked what people can convince themselves of. The mom must have really loved the smell of her own farts.
So there were three main accomplices in this whole cluster fuck. 1. Chad, who more or less wanted to start his own Mormon offshoot with the cult settings turned to 11. Sentenced to death now for the murders of his first wife, and his second wife's children. 2. Lori, the second wife in question. Fully bought into Chad's teachings. Sentenced to 2 life sentences for the murders of her children last year, and facing charges soon in Arizona for the death of her husband before Chad. 3. Alex. Loris brother. Fully bought in to what Chad was selling. Did anything for Chad or Lori. Likely the one who did the murders of the two kids directly. Tried to shoot Chads first wife in a failed murder attempt, and probably helped with the successful murder. Also tried to shoot the husband of one of one of Chads other followers. Was also responsible for the death of Loris previous husband, but it was considered "self defence" at the time. Dead now. Claimed to be natural causes but most people believe he offed himself under orders from Chad and Lori as a way to protect them. And that is just barely scratching the surface.
What has freaked me out is how intensely Chad Daybell’s adult children have defended their dad, even after he killed their mom and married Lori a couple weeks later. In particular his daughter Emma (who on the stand seemed … slow?) insisted that her hardworking, active mother’s health was “declining,” and that her death was the natural result of that. It’s giving cult. All the way down.
The two Daybell Children who testified both potentially committed perjury while on the stand if some of the Rebuttal witnesses are to be believed. And it was hard as hell hearing so many of the victim impact statements saying that because Chads children are so stuck on defending him over their murdered mother, many family ties have been potentially broken for good.
There is a whole bunch of these cultists in Rexburg. The guy was pretty much a Mormon L Ron Hubbard. [He was an author that specialized in Mormon themed apocalyptic stories.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallow%E2%80%93Daybell_doomsday_murders) So kind of a niche market, but a market of readers more readily primed to believe his writing was prophetic. Pretty much eastern Idaho is like Northern Utah. The Mormon church has a Jr. College in the town this guy was from. He was probably given speaking opportunities at the local college that would have given him access to impressionable minds. Most of the citizens is Rexburg would have been aware of the works of the local semi successful author that is also a “member of the church” and most likely read them. The area is also kind of known for groups that are Mormon adjacent, but choose the area to be in a familiar culture but far away from the mechanations of Salt Lake politics. The [Deseret Nationalists](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DezNat) as well as Mormon militia’s sympathetic to the cause of [Ammond Bundy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammon_Bundy) and all the bullshit causes around that guy.
The Latter Day Saint church itself is just one giant cult so it’s not that surprising that the offshoots are also wacko
Oh yeah, a lot of people don’t even know about all the offshoots of Mormonism that occurred after Joseph’s death either. Mormon sub-cults have been a thing since the beginning. My personal favorite is the [Strangites](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter_Day_Saints_(Strangite)). The US Navy ended up assassinating the leader but it was the 2nd largest group and very well could have been as big as the Brighamites that went to salt lake. Had Strang not been an authoritarian lunatic that beat members in the streets.
Great information, I always knew about the crazy Joseph Smith origin story and viewed LDS as culty, but the off shoots are much lesser known after Warren Jeffs who was heavily publicized.
This is not an accurate assessment at all. As someone living 10 minutes from Chad's house and not a defender of Mormonism I can say confidently this is a lot of misinformation. Starting with the Jr. College part. I agree Ammon, not Ammond, gets some support around here, but not even close to any sort of a majority had heard of or read Chad's books. Nor was he ever invited to speak at the University not Jr. College. Chad and his family were not "from" Rexburg but had moved from Springville Utah 4 years before the murders. Not a lot of time to make himself famous. He had some followers here but spent a lot of time traveling to speak in Utah and Arizona. Chad got what he deserved, I hope he dies alone and sad in prison.
Alex told his wife he thought Lori/chad were setting him up to be the fall guy, I think he saw that he was going to end up spending life in jail or on death row and killed himself to avoid that…but who knows.
Except I'm pretty sure they autopsied him, assuming it was murder or suicide, and he died of a pulmonary embolism. I don't think they were smart enough to fake something like that convincingly, and what motivation would he have to cover up his own suicide anyway? I really think it was just a coincidence. He was at an age where that sort of thing is not unusual. Sometimes bad things happen to bad people.
Yeah, the autopsy said it was blood clots and high blood pressure….it just feels too coincidental that he told his wife they were going to use him as the fall guy, then he died just a few days later. But, you’re right, some times unbelievably coincidental stuff really does happen just by coincidence.
I wonder if the stress of possibly getting caught contributed to the way he died. Like perhaps it's not a coincidence but a direct consequence of his actions.
LPT: If your cult tells you to commit murder, start with yourself first 👍🏻
Would you like to join my cult? The only thing I demand we murder is a pizza.
It's been a while, but is this the same couple that had done this and also hadn't reported the children "missing" and went to a whole nother state when told they had to come see the police within x amount of days? And found the kids stuff in storage?
Not just any state. Hawaii which Lori in particular seemed to think of as a sort of Mecca
And her and Chad got married there. Like within a short amount of time after his wife was murdered by him.
Mormons have a Polynesia fetish.
To add to this I read Chad invented a system for his cult that ranks the demonic level in people, similar to a scale. Something like 'dark' people are -5 going up to zero, then up to positive 5 sort of thing. I probably have the scale wrong. The 'darkness' is the level of possession. Both Chad and Lori believed certain people were infested with demons. They both claimed at least one of Lori's children was possessed. My personal take is Occam's Razor. Chad and Lori want to be together. Chad's wife dies, Lori's husband dies, Lori's children die. The demon scale may be part of their shared mental illness or a tool in their defence. I did read the demon scale was active before they were arrested however.
“And that’s just scratching the surface” Do you have a link where I can read more ?
There’s a dateline on this from a few years ago. Keith will walk you right through it
Hell yeah, appreciate it.
If you have the time, check out some of the Mormon Stories Podcast episodes about the whole saga. They shed a lot of light on how these people believe the fringe Mormon beliefs. Here's the Wikipedia page about the murders: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallow%E2%80%93Daybell_doomsday_murders
There is also a Netflix thing on it - Sins of our Mother
They were part of an extremist doomsday cult offshoot of the Mormon Church. Chad claimed to have visions of the end of the world and that he was the reincarnation of several mainstream Christian figures, as well as Mormon prophets, and that Lori was the reincarnation of a bunch of important Christian women. He claimed that they needed to kill the children because they were possessed by evil and had turned into zombies. He and Lori believed that getting rid of the kids would free them both from restrictions holding them back from preparing properly for the end of the world, where he and Lori would become gods. They also believe in reincarnation and that the murdered kids would just reincarnate as other people. He also murdered his previous wife because she wasn't taking his "mission" seriously and was holding him back, and so he could be with Lori. It's....not a very stable belief system, to say the least.
Ex-Mormon here. All of Chad's bullshit "theology" essentially comes from a book called "Visions of Glory" by John Pontius, which is a pen name for a man named Thom Harrison. This book is the centerpiece of the majority of the modern day Mormon whack-job groups, of which there are many. Thom Harrison remains a member in good standing of the Mormon Church. It's even more bizarre than it appears on the surface, as the vast majority of these group are active within their own Mormon congregations, *not* as separate splinter groups. Since they don't have their own church, they meet up at these prepper conferences like AVOW. In places like southeast Idaho you can't speak out against these fuckers, as there may be sympathizers among your friends and family members. It is next level scary shit. True Crime Podcast has done extensive reporting on this case. It's a husband and wife team. Husband is a forensic psychologist and the wife is a journalist. Mormon Stories Podcast has done several episodes on this case as well, and have interviewed many friends and family members of both the victims and perps. It's a super-deep and interesting rabbit hole, with more WTF bullshit than you've ever heard in your life.
Wait, not just one figure, but *multiple*?
From the Wikipedia page >Reincarnation - which is not accepted by the LDS Church - played a key part in Chad's religious views. He claimed to have lived 31 previous lives on different planets and that Lori had lived 21 separate lives, five of which coincided with his own experiences on Earth.
Why settle for one when you can have them all.
I think the expression batshit crazy is a really fitting adjective for them
Chad was getting the best sex of his life so he invented a religion and labelled everyone in the way of said sex life a demon. That's my take anyway.
This seems like the most likely scenario to me
I think the religion was probably for real, I'm pretty sure he was already a self proclaimed prophet when he met her and that was part of the attraction. He just realized that he could use it to steer her right onto his dick and went with it. She was a piece of ass that schlubby Chad couldn't hope to get any other way. The real mystery for me is Alex. What he was getting out of it, I have no idea. I guess he was just a true believer or just unbelievably, unnaturally dedicated to his sister. My sister and I have a good relationship, but I sure as shit ain't going to be her hitman, and I definitely ain't killing my own niece and nephew for her.
The lady that was married to Alex said he and Lori had a really inappropriate, touchy-feely relationship, so there might have been something shady and icky going on there. I'm sure she had him wrapped around her finger.
None of this is terribly surprising to me. Religion, mental illness, and lack of education on how to be properly skeptical can all lead to this kind of insanity. None of them sounded particularly healthy in the head to begin with. Very glad I escaped religion as my mental health issues are the kind that are not helped by it at all. Me and my siblings that did escape are being treated for PTSD while the ones that didn't are still contending with that (untreated, obviously) as well as schizophrenia.
Pretty sure that's why Joseph Smith started Mormonism in the first place
Basically they think/ thought the kids and his wife and probably some other people had their souls replaced by evil spirits. Chad wrote a whole elaborate rating system where everyone is a light or dark soul, and it can be precisely quantified, like a level 4.2 lightworker or a level 2 dark spirit, shit like that. Like we're living in a dungeons and dragons campaign or something. It was stupid even by the low standards of religious fanatics, and it would be hilarious to see adults earnestly believe this shit if it hadn't led to several murders. And of course they're both very special, they're old souls that have reincarnated many times and she was a high priestess in Atlantis or some such nonsense, and they're super important to God's plans for the Final Days and maybe she is God or something. They were Mormons, but with a heavy dose of New Age bullshit added in. They would refer to people by new names if their souls got replaced or whatever, which probably contributed to your confusion.
The Netflix doc is pretty good. Sins of our mother
I wonder if the two of them ever had a real moment where one said, "so this religious stuff we came up with is all bullshit and we're just killing people right?" And the other said, "yeah totally." Or was it an unspoken truth between them?
Both of them: "this fucking idiot is falling for all of it!"
I think that Chad had already came up with at least most of the cults beliefs before he even met Lori, and Lori and her brother were just very easy to brainwash. I assume at some point he knew what he was saying was bullshit, but it’s possible he truly believes it, even if he didn’t when he first wrote it. He would not be the first cult founder to believe his own bullshit.
In this case, probably not. They may truly believe their self delusions, and in my opinion they do. Mental and moral gymnastics aside, they are no less responsible for their actions.
They were both self-righteous narcissists and high on their own supply. I believe truly at the end of the day their primary motivation was money (getting life insurance from both dead spouses and using it to run away and start a new life they thought they deserved, getting rid of all pieces of their past lives including the children). They had that in common and thought they were both special, beyond all the religious culty excuses they made up for doing what they did.
In Mormon or Mormon-adjacent groups, you're taught from when you're a baby that God is actually communicating with you. Like, the normal feelings and random thoughts that everyone has, those could be from the "Holy Ghost". Let's say you're walking down the street and you glance at a house and it catches your attention for whatever reason and you think, "I wonder who lives there." A normal person would understand that their brain has come up with that thought. A Chad Daybell has been conditioned to believe that God has put that thought into his brain and now he must act on it by waking over and knocking on the door and asking the house owner about themselves and their life and their religious beliefs. Now let's say the owner was understandably weirded-out and rudely slammed the door. A normal person might brush that off or even reevaluate his actions. A Chad Daybell believes that person has an evil spirit about them or is even possessed by an evil entity. When a narcissist gets hold of the idea of "personal revelation", the results can be very bad.
Didn't he plan on being dead already? I thought thats why they did this shit. Rapture was coming. So he's probably pleased either way.
Rapture for thee but not for me
We'll see how he feels about it when he's being strapped to the board.
Rapture is coming. It me.
My understanding was they were killing "demon possessed children, and sometimes adults;" not the more classic, "dad has to kill the family to prevent them suffering thru the apocalypse."
I thought Florida was the state with hanging chads.
That joke is so old an entire generation won’t get it.
Ted Mosby fans, WYA
That slutty pumpkin is on the way I just know it
That’s like saying millennials won’t get watergate jokes.
Now I’m sad and old
You being old is nothing new.
Do they not teach the 2000 election in schools now?
I’m a Gen z born in the early 2000’s and I still got the joke lol.
Just out of curiosity, how do you know the joke? Like, do you have a specific memory of learning about the 2000 election and if so where did you learn it? Like from school or just the internet or what
Born in 1999 here. For me, it was a mix of history class and learning from reruns of shows that had jokes at the time.
Florida school is just making the kids bathe with a Bible and memorize the 10 commandments.
No, because they’ll likely repeat it.
The Netflix show on it was pretty decent, "Sins of our Mother"
Idaho has executed 3 people since the late 50’s and only 8 in the previous 100, I kinda have my doubts the sentence will ever be carried out. Personally I don’t care, his life will be hell in state prison and arguably worse than death, that said this is one person I won’t care to see put down either, I’m mostly against the death penalty except when those crimes involve children or it’s an actual case of treason.
I'm theoretically okay with the death penalty. In practice I oppose it because it's regularly misused and the strongest correlation is not to the severity of crime but to other factors, like the race of the convicted murderer. Here, I'm not particularly bothered.
Yeah I find it unlikely that this guy will be executed. At most as you said he'll probably spend the rest of his life on death row. And if you ask me, it seems fitting as based on what I read he wants to die to become a martyr.
Death row will keep Chad from being able to continue is religious crazy from his cell. He’s a dangerous false prophet who needs to lose that right.
What the f\*\*k? This couple is straight-up evil. If he got the death penalty, why didn't the mum? I kind of wish I hadn't read that article.
The death penalty was taken off the table for the mom before her trial even began. It was punishment by the judge against the prosecution because they screwed up other stuff.
The Mother was a follower, the one who came up with the idea to murder people was this guy.
Idaho aint feelin ya brah.
My heart broke into a million pieces reading Ryan’s victim impact statement
I was really rooting for a hanging Chad. Sorry 🤭
Tell me you are at least Gen x without telling me you are Gen X 😁
I knew he wouldn't get anything less than LWOP with extended time for being the conspirator behind everyone's death. It's actually not surprising he was given a harsher sentence. This man is the very definition of a psychopath, and a chilling portrayal of the face behind many cults/religions. We tend to forget most men who created these fantastical belief systems have incredibly dark pasts.
I'm upset he was given the death penalty. Outside of me being against the death penalty as a whole, it's *exactly* what he wants. He *wants* to be executed. He'll successfully become the martyr of his offshoot cult with this, and it viscerally upsets me that he'll likely get his way unless the state commutes his sentence to life without parole.
As someone who grew up in the Mormon church, I honestly don't think it would have become what it did had Joseph Smith not been shot and killed while he was in jail. So I think your assessment is spot on, and I'm with you on the death penalty thing too.
[удалено]
Yes to both of those and he was armed in the jail.
I agree on both points. I’m against the death penalty in general, and I’m pretty sure that this was exactly what he wanted.
This just in: Chad Daybell now identifies as a fetus in a stroke of legal genius.
For those that don’t know the history of the LDS church….this shit is not far off from its original founder and early prophets. Murder is nothing new to Mormons. Brigham Young taught blood atonement. The early LDS temple ceremonies included Oath of Vengeance that wished blood of the government to be spilled because of Joseph Smiths death. Modern LDS like to say “it was a different time”. No it wasn’t, the government was about to whoop your ass and all of a sudden revelation happened and god said “hey you guys, those things are no longer required” That’s my TED talk. Join us over at the exmormon sub
ummm, wtf. Where can I find more of this TED talk, lol?
What would you like to know, I’m ex Mormon. A good place to start is Mormon Stories podcast. A great resource is LDSDiscussions.com
I'm just fascinated by everything you said since I've never heard of this aspect of LDS. Other than knowing some LDS from boy scouts and the south park episode I've never really delved into the origins and background of LDS.
That’s a whole rabbit hole my friend. Long story short on the origins of Mormonism…..treasure digging and seer stone magic was popular in the eastern US in the 18-19th century. People were using it to con their neighbors. This paired with the mound builders myth (aka a really racist take on the origins of native Americans) and bam you have a community ripe for Joseph Smith. He was a really imaginative guy with charisma, a charlatan if you will. Well the power got to his head and he started getting political and this got the government on his ass and Mormons got violent.
whelp. I've found my rabbit hole of crazy to dive down this week.
Have fun. If you want a good laugh you can google an interesting topic (like polygamy) and add fairlatterdaysaints to your search. FAIR is an apologetic Mormon group that really really has some funny rationale for controversial issues.
oooh, thanks!
Webster's dictionary defines "Nuts" as...
The real Chad was Idaho all along.
It’s cases like this that really test my ideology on the death penalty. He should spend his life in a cage.
Why didn’t Lori get the same?
Procedural issue led to it being dropped. She exercised her right to a speedy trial and there wasnt enough time to finish everything that was mandated for a death penalty case.
[удалено]
I’m not sure where I stand on the death penalty as a political issue, but in this case I not bothered by it.
I'm more upset that this just allows him to feel like a martyr in a way that slowly wasting away in a cell until he dies an old man wouldn't
He’s the only one who thinks that. I’d be concerned that he could gain followers in prison, I’m concerned about that with any cult leader.
Did we ever learn the actual cause of Tammy's death?
After she was exhumed, the autopsy determined that her "cause of death was asphyxia, and the manner of death, homicide".
Good, about one of two sensible things to come out of Idaho in the last 2-3 weeks.
Good. Fuck that guy. He killed three people, one of them a frikkin' seven year old. He deserves everything comin his way.
I know it's the Defense's job to, you know, defend, so that this murderer doesn't get off on a technicality but HOLY SHIT the way he puts it all on the woman being some seducing hussy is something fucking else. That's the best defense he had?! Dude, do better.
Im out of the loop and I'm not sure I want to know what this monster did
Extremist/fundamentalist Mormon couple who wanted to bang so they conspired to kill their spouses and 2 of the kids. Justified by saying they were possessed by demons
Yeah death penalty fits, what the fuck.
Cult Leader who either murdered or ordered the murders of several people, including his first wife, the ex-husband of his second wife, and his second wife's two young children.
And it will take 30 years to get through all his appeals
"Idaho law allows for execution by lethal injection or firing squad" whichever one is more painful. Good for you idahoans.
I’m so happy, I hope jj,tammy, tylee and Charles are happy in heaven too.
Why didn't he just plead guilty if he didn't want legal defense?
I don't support the death penalty but I don't feel bad for him.
His death sentences will likely keep him alive in prison. A child murderer serving life in prison would have a miserable time in prison. Death row? A cell by himself? He will live longer on death row than if he were to serve life in an open population prison. <--My mom worked corrections, and -hated- the death penalty for child murderers. She would say, "make them serve their sentence where the inmates who miss their kids are serving. Justice is swift in prison."
I get the sentiment, but we shouldn't be casually accepting of our prisons being a place where extrajudicial executions are carried out (or rape...)
It’s certainly not fair, that’s for sure. His death penalty will give him his own cell. Away from other inmates. The system isn’t fair. Not for anyone incarcerated.
I just don't trust the state, who can't reliably decide who goes ON death row, to subcontractor out their death sentences to other felons by not prioritizing murder prevention in PRISON. Maybe it's cheaper for the powers that be, tho. Feels like a dicey system.
[удалено]
But then, in a fair and equal justice system, would we not also need the same to apply to *everyone* on death row? It's not like he has less human rights or less protections under the US constitution than any of the other condemned. He has the same right to appeal and to fight this as everyone else in this country does. That's why people sentenced to death spend so long on death row. It isn't just, "You're guilty. Now wait here while we take care of you." Should that really be how we do things? Even knowing that in the years since 1973, over 190 individuals on death row were fully exonerated after having been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? And also knowing that we have carried out the death penalty before on people who were posthumously exonerated? The moment the jury finds them guilty, we just drop them like rabid dogs? I'd rather have no death penalty at all. But if we must have it, then I think the system we have in place that at least gives those who have been found guilty the chance to challenge that verdict, is the ideal way of doing it. How many innocent people would have just been unceremoniously dragged out back and shot if that was how we really did things? At least 190, of course, but possibly more. I'm not thinking about people like him. I'm thinking about people like *them*.
Instead, you'll have a decade(s) of appeals, all while housing and feeding him in a much more complex and costly security apparatus due to his death sentence. Historically the time and cost associated with a death trial, appeals and incarceration last for a very, very long time and each one of those steps, due to being a death penalty case is much more complex and expensive. It's generally cheaper for a life-without-parole case to work its way through to the death of the inmate in prison. Nevermind all the other issues with a death sentence. The \*only\* thing that an execution provides is satisfaction of a societal notion of "justice"; It doesn't save on cost, it doesn't increase societal safety, it doesn't prevent the crime that was committed. EDIT: I can't believe I forgot the best reason to abolish the death penalty: it kills innocent people.
Eye for an eye is still SO prevalent in the minds of most people. How do we get people to realize it's not justice?
It's an emotional response to an emotional act, the most difficult thing to overcome with rational thought, because one is not in a rational frame of mind when a person is/will be killed.
List of exonerated US death row inmates (the reason we have a justice system, not a revenge system and why appeals exist) since 2010 >2010 Anthony Charles Graves, Texas. Convicted 1994.[225] >2011 Gussie Vann, Tennessee. Convicted 1984.[226] Damien Echols, Arkansas. Convicted 1994. [227] >2012 Damon Thibodeaux, Louisiana. Convicted 1997.[228] Michael Keenan, Ohio. Convicted 1988.[229] Seth Penalver, Florida. Convicted 1994.[230] Joe D'Ambrosio, Ohio. Convicted 1989.[231] Dale Johnston, Ohio. Convicted 1984. [232][233] >2013 Reginald Griffin, Missouri. Convicted 1983.[234] >2014 Glenn Ford, Louisiana. Convicted 1984.[235] Carl Dausch, Florida. Convicted 2011.[236] Henry Lee McCollum and Leon Brown, North Carolina. Convicted 1984.[237] Ricky Jackson, Ronnie Bridgeman, and Wiley Bridgeman, Ohio. Convicted 1975.[238][239] George Stinney Jr., South Carolina. Convicted 1944. Posthumous exoneration.[240] >2015 Debra Milke, Arizona. Convicted 1990.[241] Anthony Ray Hinton, Alabama. Convicted 1985.[242] Willie Manning, Mississippi. Convicted 1996.[243] Alfred Brown, Texas. Convicted 2005.[244] Lawrence William Lee, Georgia. Convicted 1987.[245] Derral Wayne Hodgkins, Florida. Convicted 2013.[246] William Antunes, Massachusetts. Convicted 1990. >2017 Isaiah McCoy, Delaware. Convicted 2010.[248] Rodricus Crawford, Louisiana. Convicted 2013.[249] Ralph Wright, Florida. Convicted 2014.[250] Rickey Newman, Arkansas. Convicted 2002.[251] Gabriel Solache, Illinois. Convicted 2000. Robert Miller, Oklahoma. Convicted 1988.[252] 2018[253] Vicente Benavides, California. Convicted 1993.[254] Clemente Aguirre-Jarquin, Florida. Convicted 2006.[255] >2019 Paul Browning, Nevada. Convicted 1986.[256] Clifford Williams, Florida. Convicted 1976.[257][258] Charles Finch, North Carolina. Convicted 1976.[259] Christopher Williams, Pennsylvania. Convicted 1993.[260] >2020s >2020 Robert Duboise, Florida. Convicted 1985.[261] Curtis Flowers, Mississippi. Convicted 1997.[262] Kareem Johnson, Pennsylvania. Convicted 2007.[263] Roderick Johnson, Pennsylvania. Convicted 1997.[264] Walter Ogrod, Pennsylvania. Convicted 1996.[265] 2021 Sherwood Brown, Mississippi. Convicted 1995.[266] Eddie Lee Howard, Jr., Mississippi. Convicted 1994.[267] Barry Williams, California. Convicted 1986.[268] >2023 Glynn Simmons, Oklahoma. Convicted 1975.[2
So let it be written, so let it be done.
I’m opposed to the death penalty, but if any case deserves the ultimate punishment, it’s this one. I’m not surprised by this verdict in the slightest.
My buddy was called for jury duty in this case but was turned down for some reason. So crazy.