Let's Talk About Evidence

Can Circumstantial Evidence Convict Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell?

July 3, 2020

I’ve seen a lot of comments on social media about circumstantial evidence, so let’s talk about evidence in general then circumstantial evidence specifically.

The rules around evidence are the backbone of the law.  The rules control what can be used at trial, how it is admitted, and what it tells the finder of fact. 

The finder of fact is either the judge or the jury. The judge or jury listens to the facts, weighs the evidence, decides which testimony is credible, and then applies the law to the specific facts of the case.  In a criminal case, evidence is presented to a jury, unless the defendant waives their right to a jury and opts to have a judge decide guilt or innocence.  Why might a person do that? Well, if a defendant believes that his case turns on a technical or legal argument that might be misunderstood by a jury, he might want a judge to decide the case.

There are two statements that we hear all the time that bear some explanation.  The first is “that’s circumstantial evidence.”  The second is “that’s hearsay.”  Today’s post will deal with the first, and I’ll take on hearsay in a later post (whole legal textbooks have been written about hearsay).

So what is evidence? A typical instruction given to juries defines it, “There are two types of evidence. One is direct evidence—such as the testimony of an eyewitness. The other is circumstantial evidence—the proof of a chain of circumstances pointing to the existence or nonexistence of a certain fact. You may base your verdict on direct evidence or on circumstantial evidence, or on both.”  In short, circumstantial evidence is treated just the same as any other evidence.  Other forms of evidence are physical evidence, oral evidence given by witnesses who are under oath, and documentary evidence, the information contained in books, files, papers, images, videos, and any other method of storing information.  All of the rules surrounding what kinds of evidence can be admitted in court are designed to assure the information the finder of fact hears is reliable. 

If either Lori Vallow or Chad Daybell are charged and tried, we can imagine what evidence the prosecution might introduce.  Melanie Gibb will be called to testify about what she saw and what she heard Lori say. That’s oral evidence given in court and under oath.  We expect to see autopsy reports on the children’s remains.  While the medical examiner who performed the examination and wrote the report will probably be called as a witness, his or her testimony will expand on and authenticate the written report.  That’s documentary evidence.  We will also hear evidence that Chad and Lori were romantically involved, that Lori had two children, Tylee and JJ, that Alex Cox was Lori’s brother, that Lori and Chad held some unusual religious beliefs, that JJ was last seen on September 23, 2019, that Alex Cox’s phone pinged in Chad’s backyard on September 24, 2019, in the specific area where JJ’s body was found.  As far as we know, no eye witness saw Alex or Chad bury JJ’s body. That’s a chain of circumstantial evidence. Because we are thinking beings with brains that are always attempting to make meaning, we are good at taking facts and inferring things from the information we have.
 
Here is where circumstantial evidence is tricky.  Can we infer from the above facts beyond a reasonable doubt that Alex killed JJ? Or Lori? Or Chad? No. Circumstantial evidence is like a chain. The more missing links, the less likely it is that you can prove a chain of events that leads to only one conclusion.  That’s why circumstantial evidence needs to be corroborated by as much physical, documentary, and witness evidence as possible.  That’s why Melanie Gibb’s testimony that Lori thought JJ was a zombie is so essential; It’s a link in the chain. No doubt, now that officials are sure something happened to JJ on the night of September 23, 2019, they are scouring the planet for other evidence.  Did someone see Alex carrying a body-shaped bundle? Was there a witness who heard a scream, or saw Lori’s car speeding along the highway near Chad’s?  What did the clerk at the Maverick’s convenience store notice when Alex was there?

                Prosecutors use circumstantial evidence to prove crimes every day. The only question, in this case, is whether prosecutors can prove a chain of events so clear that the only conclusion is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Have questions?  Email me at info@thelorivallowstory.com.

Lori Hellis is an author and an experienced criminal attorney.  Her book, Children of Darkness and Light, The Lori Vallow Story, is expected out in 2021.