Lori Vallow's New Charges

Why These New Charges, and Why Not Murder?

June 30, 2020

 Hello Fellow Hunters!

There was a development in the Lori Vallow case late yesterday afternoon when police charged her with two counts of conspiracy to commit destruction, alteration or concealment of evidence. That’s a felony that carries a maximum of five years in prison.

Why did prosecutors do this, and why not charge her with murder? Those of you who watched Court TV’s coverage might think you know, but I think they got the answer to the first part of the wrong. Ashley Banfield says the reason the charges can’t be maintained because “the police produced the children.” I don’t think that’s the reason. But they are right that the new charges are only an interim step.

Here are my thoughts: until yesterday, Lori’s charges were two counts of abandoning her children and two counts of contempt of court and one count of obstructing the police. The contents of the charging documents and the definition of the legal terms matter, so let’s break them down. First, let’s look at the definition of wilful.
               
 IL 18-101 The word “willfully,” when applied to the intent with which an act is done or omitted, implies simply a purpose or willingness to commit the act or make the omission referred to. It does not require any intent to violate law, or to injure another, or to acquire any advantage.
               
Now, the definition of abandonment:
IL 18-401 Every person who:
(1) Having any child under the age of eighteen (18) years dependent upon him or her for care, education or support, deserts such child in any manner whatever, with intent to abandon it;
(2) Willfully omits, without lawful excuse, to furnish necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance for his or her child or children, or ward or wards; provided however, that the practice of a parent or guardian who chooses for his child treatment by prayer or spiritual means alone shall not for that reason alone be construed to be a violation of the duty of care to such child;
 
And Contempt:
IL 18-1801 Wilful disobedience of any process or order lawfully issued by any court.
For the prosecutor to obtain a conviction, he would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Lori wilfully (with a willingness to commit the act) failed to furnish necessary food, clothing, shelter or medical attendance for a child under age 18 who was dependent on her for care or support. There is no evidence that Lori failed to furnish any of those things to the children before their deaths. So, her attorney could argue that she did willfully abandon either child because they would not have needed any of those things once they were dead. The other charges are the contempt and the obstruction. I’m sure the prosecutor will roll the obstruction charges (for asking Melanie Gibb to lie) into any future charges. The contempt charge is problematic because impossibility is an absolute defense to a charge of contempt. You can’t be held in contempt for willfully defying a court order if compliance was impossible. The argument is that Lori couldn’t produce the children because they were already dead. Yes, I know it’s an argument that makes the skin crawl. Lawyers are sometimes called upon to make arguments that are legally sound, but morally distasteful or intellectually disingenuous. We call that an argument you have to put a bag on your head to make. The prosecutor was smart to add the conspiracy to destroy, alter, or conceal evidence because it’s a charge Lori’s attorney can’t argue is moot because the children are dead.
 
Why not get on with the murder charges? The Court TV folks have this part right. Murder cases are incredibly complex. Think of it this way: someone gives you a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle to put together. The picture on the box is out of focus and may not show the entire puzzle. You’re not even sure if you actually have all the pieces. To add to the confusion, some of the pieces can fit int into your puzzle more than one way. Over time, you study and test and turn every piece until you painstakingly complete the puzzle. You take a picture of the puzzle; you tell everyone that this is the way the puzzle should look. Then you hand it off over to a defense attorney who studies the picture and studies the pieces, and wonders if the puzzle could go together in some other way. To test the prosecutor’s theory, the defense attorney takes the puzzle apart and reassembles it to see if she gets the same result as the prosecutor. Now imagine all that work has to be done within 60 days to comply with the defendant’s right to a speedy trial.

Time can work in two ways for defendants.  Pushing for a speedy trial limits the time the prosecutor has to prepare the case and do any ongoing investigation. I’ve heard of many cases where a critical piece of evidence, like a weapon, or even a body, turns up months after the crime. Prosecutors often test their theories and gather new evidence, like witness statements, additional lab work, or expert opinions right up until the day of trial. Exercising her right to a speedy trial forces the state’s hand before all that additional information is available. But delay can also work to the benefit of the defendant. The longer a case waits to get to trial, the weaker the evidence can become. Memories fade, physical evidence can degrade or be lost, and environments change; the creek that might have been running high in March is a trickle in September.

Generally, Prosecutors want time to assemble the case. They also don’t want the defendant to disappear or commit suicide. Charging their target with other charges, that may or may not be related to the murder, gives them time to assemble their case carefully before the game clock begins to run. At the outset, the abandonment and contempt charges were the only charges that made sense with the limited evidence the prosecutor had. Now, that those charges might be readily challenged because the children have been found, adding the new charges assures Doomsday Mom won’t be going anywhere soon.

                Stay safe, wash your hands, and email me with questions on this or any other topic about the case at info@thelorivallowstory.com. 
 
Author, Lori Hellis, is a retired criminal attorney with 27 years of experience. Her planned book, Children of Darkness and Light, will tell the story of this case.