COURTROOM INSIDER PART 2 | Prosecution rests and whoa! Error found!

Detective Doug Hart reads through a series of texts between Lori and Chad, discussing ominous plans and coded language. The texts reveal a deep connection and shared understanding of a disturbing narrative involving 'zapping' children and references to a 'storm'. The conversation suggests a sinister plot, with Chad expressing his desire to follow Lori 'to the ends of the universe' and both discussing the 'James and Elena story'. The texts also show technical difficulties experienced by Chad, possibly affecting the investigation's progress.

Investigator Hart testifies about the exchange of messages between Lori, Chad, and Melanie, which took place during a road trip to California. The messages suggest a plan to cause pain to the children referred to as 'two threes'. The conversation indicates a possible threat to the children's safety, with Chad offering to 'zap' them and Lori indicating when it would be appropriate to do so. The testimony also involves discussions about supernatural elements, such as spirits and dark entities, which the investigators took seriously in the context of the case.

The court addresses a critical discrepancy in the alleged dates of JJ Valow's murder. The initial indictment states the murder occurred between the 22nd and 23rd of September 2019, but the amended indictment incorrectly cites the 8th and 9th. The judge expresses concern over the lack of evidence supporting the new dates and the potential impact on the trial's integrity. The prosecution and defense are given time to argue their positions on this issue, highlighting the importance of accurate and consistent information in a criminal trial.

The prosecution attempts to amend the indictment after the defense has rested its case, which is typically not allowed under Idaho Criminal Rule 7e. The defense objects to any changes, arguing that the prosecution had ample opportunity to amend the indictment earlier. The judge's decision on whether to allow amendments could significantly affect the trial's outcome and the defendant's rights.

Judge Boyce rules that the amended indictment should not have included alterations to count 4, which refers to the alleged murder of JJ Vallow. He acknowledges that the original indictment's dates were correct and that the change to the amended indictment appears to be a clerical error. The judge considers the potential prejudice to the defense and concludes that allowing the amendment would not be prejudicial, thus permitting the correction of the dates to align with the original indictment.

The narrative shifts to the public's engagement with the trial, highlighting the presence of former jurors, the media, and the impact of the case on the community. The trial's proceedings are discussed on a livestream, with the host expressing gratitude for the support received and detailing plans for future coverage. There is also mention of the judge's decision-making process and the implications for the trial's continuation.

The public's reaction to the trial is palpable, with individuals expressing their support for the coverage and discussing the case's developments. The host of the livestream receives gifts and messages from viewers, indicating a deep connection between the community and the trial's outcome. There is also anticipation for the continuation of the trial and the insights that former jurors and experts can provide.

The livestream host addresses various questions from the audience regarding the trial, such as Chad's decision to go to trial instead of accepting a plea bargain, the presence of networks in the courtroom, and the potential for appeal. The host also discusses procedural aspects of the trial, such as amendments to the indictment and the roles of different court personnel. The segment ends with a reflection on the day's events and a look forward to the next court session.