EXPLOSIVE: Lori's Jerry Springer Style Cross-Exam in Arizona | Lori Vallow Trial Day 3

Summary

Summary of "EXPLOSIVE: Lori's Jerry Springer Style Cross-Exam in Arizona | Lori Vallow Trial Day 3"

Release Date: April 10, 2025

---

Introduction

In the third day of Lori Vallow's Arizona trial for the murder of her fourth husband, Charles Vallow, Ashleigh Banfield delivers a riveting episode of "Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield." Banfield captures the intense courtroom drama, highlighting Lori Vallow's unconventional approach as both defendant and self-represented attorney. Unlike typical trial days filled with technical testimonies, Day 3 was anything but mundane, featuring fiery cross-examinations and explosive revelations that kept listeners on the edge of their seats.

Lori Vallow's Cross-Examination of Detective Daniel Coons

Lori Vallow took center stage by challenging the findings of retired Chandler police detective, Daniel Coons. Her focus was sharply on the forensic evidence, specifically the gunshot trajectory and bullet fragment locations related to Charles Vallow's death.

• Bullet Trajectory and Forensics:
  • Banfield explains: "The state claims the forensics show that Charles was shot twice—once while standing and once while on the floor. If you shoot someone who’s already lying on the floor, it doesn’t amount to self-defense; it’s murder."
  • Timestamp [02:50]: Lori Vallow: "So the wood floor plank that was taken from my residence was never tested for any fragments of the projectile."

Vallow's persistent questioning aimed to undermine the prosecution's argument of self-defense by emphasizing the lack of thorough forensic analysis. She interrogated whether the floor had been tested for bullet fragments, suggesting potential evidence oversight.

• Key Exchange:
  • Vallow: "Do you know for a fact that Alex shot the gun in question?"
  • Detective Coons: "Based on the information provided, that is what I have, yes."
  • Banfield notes: Vallow's tone grew increasingly aggressive, jeopardizing her credibility as objections from the prosecution intensified. By [04:39], she was "snapping at this witness."

Testimony of Nancy Jo Hancock

The prosecution brought forth Nancy Jo Hancock, a woman who had a date with Charles Vallow the night before his murder. Her testimony provided crucial insights into Charles’s behavior and potential motives behind his killing.

• Charles's Behavior and Extramarital Activities:
  • Hancock testified: "Charles told me he was done with the craziness and that he was getting a divorce."
  • Timestamp [06:22]: "A kid on Christmas morning? He was very excited to see JJ."

Banfield details that Nancy Jo and Charles spent an extensive evening together, both at Keg Steakhouse and later by Nancy’s truck. However, the following day, Charles was dead, and Nancy Jo's subsequent silence raised suspicions.

• Cross-Examination Highlights:
  • Vallow aggressively questioned Nancy Jo about Charles’s divorce, her dating habits, and even personal aspects like kissing, leading to multiple objections from the prosecution.
  • Timestamp [10:05]: Judge: "I'll sustain the objection."
  • Timestamp [11:08]: Vallow pushes, "Are you trying to tell me and this jury that you went on one date with my husband and he told you all the details of our lives?"

Banfield observes that Nancy Jo seemed more distraught over Charles’s death than Vallow herself, potentially undermining Vallow’s credibility.

Testimony of Christina Atwood

Perhaps the most damning testimony came from Christina Atwood, a former church friend of Lori Vallow. Christina introduced elements of the supernatural and alleged malicious actions by Vallow.

• Supernatural Claims and Alleged Misconduct:
  • Atwood revealed: "Lori was saying some very, very dark things. She had told me multiple times that Charles was possessed by dark spirits."
  • Timestamp [17:06]: Atwood: "He stated he wished that he could just kill Charles."

Atwood also testified that Lori confessed to drugging Charles with her son J.J.'s medication, further complicating the narrative against Vallow.

• Confrontation and Aftermath:
  • Atwood confronted Vallow: "If anything happened to Charles, I'd go to the police."
  • Banfield explains: Vallow dismissed Atwood’s concerns, claiming she was "just being dramatic," and later retracted her statements about the medication.

Analysis and Insights

Ashleigh Banfield provides incisive commentary throughout the episode, emphasizing how Lori Vallow's defense strategy appears to be unraveling under the pressure of mounting evidence and witness testimonies.

• Defense Strategy Backfiring:

  • Banfield notes: "If today's testimony is any indication of where this trial is headed, Lori Vallow's defense strategy could very well backfire one witness at a time."

• Motive and Evidence Strengthening Prosecution’s Case:

  • Motive Highlight: Charles Vallow seeking a divorce and showing interest in Nancy Jo Hancock provided a strong motive for murder.
  • Forensic Weaknesses: Vallow's inability to conclusively explain the forensic evidence further weakens her position.

Banfield concludes by anticipating a continuation of the courtroom drama into Day 4, suggesting that Vallow’s attempts to control the narrative might lead to more inconsistencies and revelations detrimental to her defense.

Conclusion

Day 3 of Lori Vallow’s trial proved to be a turning point, with explosive testimonies and aggressive cross-examinations highlighting significant flaws in Vallow's defense. Ashleigh Banfield effectively captures the intensity and complexity of the proceedings, offering listeners a comprehensive and engaging overview of the trial's critical developments. As the trial progresses, the evidence and testimonies presented continue to build a compelling case against Lori Vallow, positioning the prosecution advantageously.

Notable Quotes:

• Lori Vallow: "Do you know for a fact that Alex shot the gun in question?" [04:39]
• Nancy Jo Hancock: "If I would have realized how married he still was, maybe not." [09:44]
• Christina Atwood: "I was disturbed... She was drugging her husband, Charles Vallow." [19:04]

---

Stay tuned for Day 4 updates on "Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield," where Ashleigh continues to dissect the unfolding mystery with her signature insightful and irreverent style.

Transcript

[Lori Vallow]

Foreign.

[Ashley Banfield]

Hey, everybody. Welcome back to Drop Dead Serious. I'm Ashley Banfield. We are now three days into Lori Valo's Arizona trial for the murder of her fourth husband, Charles Vallow. And this courtroom, it is on fire. Today, Lori showed us once again that she is not just the defendant in this trial. She is the star, she is the lawyer. And sometimes she is the loudest voice in the room. Who knew that things would get so crazy on day three? Day three is when I'm used to hearing from like AT&T cell phone experts or like super boring DNA specialists. And it's really hard to stay alert during some of that kind of dry testimony. But today, today was not that. Today things got juicy like grapefruit juice. Like I'm talking bitter party of one. They say hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. And Laurie was that woman today, that scorned woman acting as her own lawyer. She had to cross examine a woman who went on a secret date with her husband. You know, the husband that she's accused of killing. So imagine for a moment the like cat fight vibe that erupted when things got personal with that witness. The judge had to actually save Laurie from herself. And the rest of the day was action packed too, from like fiery cross examinations and heated back and forths to a witness who says that she overheard some pretty incriminating things, like Laurie saying she drugged her husband Charles and her brother Alex saying he wanted to kill Charles. We're now knee deep in the strange, the spiritual, and the downright chilling. So let's get into it. Laurie came out swinging today, resuming her cross examination of retired Chandler police detective Daniel Coons. She challenged his findings on everything from gunshot trajectory to bullet fragment locations. And that's important because the state says that the forensics show that Charles was shot twice. Once while he was standing and once while he was on the floor. And if you shoot somebody who's already lying on the floor, that does not amount to self defense anymore. That's murder. So one moment, Laurie was asking the detective if stippling was found on Charles's chest and then questioning whether the floor in her rental home had ever been tested for for bullet damage. She seemed laser focused on the bullet's path, how it traveled through her husband's body and whether the floorboards beneath him had been examined for ricochet marks.

[Lori Vallow]

So the wood floor plank that was taken from my residence was never tested for any fragments of the projectile.

[Daniel Coons]

The projectile was intact, minus a deformity to it.

[Lori Vallow]

Okay, but there wasn't any reason, Are you saying there was no reason to test it?

[Daniel Coons]

There had been no implication or indication that there was a request for it to be tested.

[Lori Vallow]

And you wouldn't do that to see if the projectile actually hit the floor?

[Daniel Coons]

No, ma'am. All the other circumstances and information that led up to that decision to seize the floor, everything appeared that it was going to be related to the actual bullet that passed through your husband's body and struck the floor.

[Ashley Banfield]

Those are all actually really good questions because in any death investigation, that stuff should be like really meticulously logged. Right? Forensics investigators need to know trajectory of bullets. They need to know if bullets launched in the floor. Right. They need to know if someone was shot while he was down. And yet the shooter is saying self defense. But the detective calmly answered, Laurie, no, they didn't test that piece of flooring because he said the scene and the witness interviews that those things all told the story. Well, that's fine and dandy, but again, science is important when it comes to murder investigations. It's even important when it comes to self defense investigations because not every self defense is what they actually say it is. But Lori kept pressing this detective and her tone got sharper and sharper every time the prosecution objected. And by 11am she was snapping at this witness.

[Lori Vallow]

Do you know for a fact that Alex shots the gun in question.

[Daniel Coons]

Based on the information provided? That is what I have, yes.

[Lori Vallow]

Do you know that for a fact?

[Daniel Coons]

Just with the information that's been provided, I can't tell you one way or another if there's another shooter because the evidence does not show that there was.

[Lori Vallow]

Okay, so all you really know for sure after your five years of investigation is that my husband was shot two times, one by that particular gun, two with those particular bullets at my residence, and that he passed away as a result of that? Would that be correct?

[Daniel Coons]

Oversimplified. There is a lot more information that is available to us for that.

[Lori Vallow]

Is that correct? Is that question correct?

[Daniel Coons]

Those are some known facts, yes. But that is not all we know.

[Ashley Banfield]

Next witness up, a woman named Nancy Jo Hancock. I know, I had not heard of her either, but this woman was dynamite, as in explosive to Lori's case. Nancy is the woman Charles Vallow met on a dating site. In fact, he went on a date with Nancy the night before he was murdered. Nancy Jo testified that she and Charles talked all about Laurie. She said he was, quote, done with the craziness and that he was getting a divorce and said he couldn't wait to see his son. JJ the next morning and take his little boy to school.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

What was his demeanor about with regards to JJ and seeing his son.

[Lori Vallow]

Like.

[Witness]

A kid on Christmas morning? He was very excited to see JJ.

[Ashley Banfield]

Nancy Jo and Charles had dinner at the keg Steakhouse in Phoenix. They shut the place down, literally. And then they talked outside by Nancy's truck for another 45 minutes. But then the next day, dead silence. Nancy Jo texted Charles. She called him. No answer. By this point, she figured she had probably been ghosted. She wondered if she'd, like, misread things because she thought they'd made a pretty good connection. I mean, that date went on late. Five months later, though, Nancy Jo found out what really happened to Charles. Charles Vallow had been shot and killed the morning after their date. His name didn't make the news at the time because police mistakenly decided his killing was self defense and therefore it wasn't criminal. So Nancy, she just went on with her life until the headlines broke in December that that little boy J.J. and his big sister, they were missing. And that Charles Vallow's wife, Lori, she was wanted. Kay Woodcock was on the news. That was Charles Vallow's sister. Kay was looking for her brother's kids. So Nancy Jo called Kay Woodcock and told her everything she knew. And when it was time for Laurie to cross examine Nancy Jo, you could have heard a pin drop. Lori grilled Nancy Jo on all sorts of topics, many of them completely irrelevant to the murder case. And yes, the prosecution had to stay on their toes with objection after objection. Laurie demanded to know if Nancy Jo knew for a fact whether Charles was getting divorced, whether Nancy Jo dated married men, and whether Nancy Jo thought that Charles was a good kisser. And frankly, between the tense responses, it really seemed that Nancy Jones was the one grieving Charles Vallow, more so than Laurie. His actual wife.

[Lori Vallow]

Nancy Jo, Right?

[Witness]

Correct.

[Lori Vallow]

And we have not met before, correct?

[Witness]

Not.

[Lori Vallow]

Okay. And you stated that your husband or my husband told you that he was going through a divorce. Is that correct?

[Witness]

That's correct.

[Lori Vallow]

And did you have any way to verify that?

[Witness]

No, I didn't try to verify that.

[Lori Vallow]

Okay, so did it surprise you later to find out that we were not in the process of a divorce?

[Witness]

Charles was in the process of a divorce.

[Lori Vallow]

He was not in the process of a divorce. Did it surprise you to find that out? You've seen it all on tv where we're not getting divorced.

[Witness]

Okay.

[Lori Vallow]

So on the website that you met him, did he say he was divorced?

[Witness]

I'm not certain.

[Lori Vallow]

Would you have gone out On a date with him. If he would have said he was married.

[Witness]

If I would have realized how married he still was. Maybe not. But I just met for dinner. I wasn't sleeping with him or anything.

[Lori Vallow]

Do you go on dates with married men?

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

I'm going to.

[Lori Vallow]

Naturally.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

Argumentative. I'm going to also object under 611 for harassment.

[Judge]

All right, I'll sustain the objection.

[Lori Vallow]

Your Honor, do I not have a right to cross examine this witness for what she has already testified to?

[Judge]

You can cross examine her about what she's testified, too.

[Lori Vallow]

So you did go on a date with married men?

[Witness]

I went on a date with Charles.

[Lori Vallow]

But you did not know he was married.

[Witness]

I knew his divorce was not final.

[Lori Vallow]

His divorce was not started.

[Witness]

Okay.

[Lori Vallow]

Okay. So in your text messages, you asked Charles if he was a good kisser. Is that correct?

[Witness]

Maybe. Sure.

[Lori Vallow]

Did he answer that text message?

[Witness]

I'm sure. I'm sure he did.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

Again, 611 harassment.

[Judge]

I'll sustain the objection for relevance and hearsay.

[Lori Vallow]

Are you trying to tell me and this jury that you went on one date with my husband and he told you all the details of our lives?

[Witness]

I'm telling you the truth, and that's what I know.

[Lori Vallow]

So you spent your whole date getting to know each other talking about me?

[Witness]

Don't flatter yourself. No, we did not spend the whole time talking about you.

[Lori Vallow]

On your date, you talked about my husband was a life insurance salesman. Is that correct?

[Witness]

I knew he did something with money and insurance, but I really didn't know the details of what he did for work. Like I said, I don't ask the details about what someone does for work when I'm trying to get to know someone.

[Lori Vallow]

But you knew that he sold life insurance. You stated that.

[Witness]

I believe that I had a vague understanding that he did something with insurance.

[Lori Vallow]

And then he brought that up again at dinner.

[Witness]

No, we didn't talk about his work at dinner.

[Lori Vallow]

I thought you said you did talk about. And correct me if I'm wrong, you said you did talk about that he changed the life insurance policy at dinner.

[Witness]

Well, you were asking me if we talked about that he sold insurance, which that didn't happen. But yes, he did tell me that he changed the beneficiary of his life insurance policy. Policy.

[Lori Vallow]

At dinner, did he tell you how much his life insurance policy was for?

[Witness]

Yes, he did.

[Lori Vallow]

What did he say?

[Witness]

$1 million.

[Lori Vallow]

Did he tell you how much my life insurance policy was for?

[Witness]

I do not recall.

[Lori Vallow]

You don't recall?

[Witness]

We didn't talk about you very much in that vein.

[Lori Vallow]

When did you talk to him about me? Very much. Then if it wasn't at dinner, was it in your text messages?

[Witness]

We were talking about what he was going through in the process of separating from you, not about what your life insurance policy was worth. And we talked about you on the phone. And when I say you, meaning what he was doing as he was going through this separation.

[Lori Vallow]

So let me understand. You were dating some different men on these website, right? From the websites, sure. Would you say it was common for men to be talking so much about their supposed ex wives during their conversations with a potential.

[Witness]

It's actually very common.

[Lori Vallow]

Really, really interesting.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

And again, your honor, I'm gonna object to the defendant making comments after her questions.

[Lori Vallow]

I'm sorry, your honor. I won't do that again.

[Judge]

All right, please stop.

[Lori Vallow]

I'll just ask the questions.

[Judge]

Thank you.

[Lori Vallow]

Did you. Did he talk to you about my daughter, Tyler?

[Witness]

He did.

[Lori Vallow]

Did he talk about his relationship with her?

[Witness]

I don't recall that.

[Lori Vallow]

Did he talk about you, the contention in his relationship with my daughter, Tyler?

[Witness]

I don't recall that.

[Lori Vallow]

I'm sure you don't.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

I'm going to object to comments by the defendant made after questions to testifying.

[Ashley Banfield]

Things got so heated that the judge paused to warn Lori Valow about opening the door to testimony that could come back to biter in the. You know what?

[Lori Vallow]

You testified a minute ago that Charles told you a lot of things about his wife. You didn't say ex wife, but you said wife. Is that correct?

[Witness]

Okay, sure.

[Lori Vallow]

What were a lot of things?

[Witness]

The things that I've testified to.

[Lori Vallow]

Can you be more specific?

[Witness]

Am I allowed to do a narrative? Then.

[Judge]

Let'S go on. Sidebar. I'll excuse the jury for just a few minutes because we're having technical. Dee. Technical difficulty with the court reporter being able to hear. The last question the defendant asked of the witness was along the lines of what things did you discuss about me, meaning the defendant. Is that correct?

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

That's what I recall, your honor.

[Judge]

Are you sure you want her to answer that question? Because you're opening up a really big door. If you want her to answer the question, I'll have her answer the question.

[Lori Vallow]

How am I supposed to know what a lot of things are?

[Judge]

All right, if you want. If you want to answer the question and there's no objection from the state, we'll bring jury back in and have her answer the question.

[Ashley Banfield]

But the jury got the message loud and clear. Charles was making plans and looking for love elsewhere. All in all, the state hit it out of the park with this witness. I mean, what better motive to have your husband killed than being angry that he's seeing someone else? Oh, and then there was also this. Nancy Jo testified on the stand that she and Charles, during their conversations, had actually talked about his life insurance, about the fact that Charles told Nancy Jo he had switched the beneficiary of his life insurance from Lori to his sister. K. Talk about motive. Right? If you don't know that, because Laurie didn't know that. And that certainly could have been all the things that this jury was thinking at this point. Right. Then came perhaps the most damning testimony of the day. Laurie's former church friend, Christina Atwood. Christina told the jury that she met Laurie at the LDS Church. And by June of 2019, Christina said that Laurie was saying some very, very dark things. She testified that Laurie had told her multiple times that Charles was possessed by dark spirits, that she needed to cast them out. And at one of those gatherings on June 9, she said Laurie's brother, Alex Cox, made a chilling comment in front of the church group.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

At this meeting, did Laurie still express that her husband Charles was possessed?

[Christina Atwood]

Yes.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

And what were you guys. What was happening at this meeting? I know you said there was a prayer. What was happening?

[Christina Atwood]

We were asked to fast and pray for her family. And so we'd come together, fasting, and we, as I recall, gathered outside and had a. A prayer together. And I believe Lori was the one that said the prayer. And then we went in and broke our fast and ate and then visited.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

Was Alex part of that prayer outside?

[Christina Atwood]

Yes.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

During this, when you broke your fast and you guys were eating, did you hear Alex making some comments?

[Christina Atwood]

Yes.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

And you told us that they made you uncomfortable. What were these comments?

[Christina Atwood]

He stated he wished that he could just kill Charles.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

Was Lori around when he's saying this?

[Christina Atwood]

Yes, one of the times.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

Okay, so he said it more than once?

[Christina Atwood]

Yes.

[Ashley Banfield]

And it got a lot worse. Christina Atwood said that Lori told her she'd crushed up JJ's medication and put it in Charles drinks, that she was drugging her husband, Charles Vallow.

[Christina Atwood]

I heard her say that she had crushed up some of JJ's medicine and put it in his drink mix.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

Did it sound like a significant amount of medication?

[Christina Atwood]

Yes.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

When you heard this, what were you thinking?

[Christina Atwood]

I was disturbed.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

So you're thinking, now she's drugging her husband?

[Christina Atwood]

Yes.

[Nancy Jo Hancock]

Alex have any reaction to this?

[Christina Atwood]

Not that I recall.

[Ashley Banfield]

Christina Atwood said she confronted Lori the next day, told her if anything happened to Charles, she'd go to the police. But she says Laurie laughed it off and accused Christina of, quote, just being dramatic. She testified Laurie then changed her story and said she hadn't really given Charles the drugs or at least not in that amount. And yet weeks later, Charles Vallow was dead. When asked if Laurie ever said she was joking about any of this, about the dark spirits, about the drugs, Christina said, no, never. And then in a big surprise, Laurie had her shot at a cross examination and she did nothing. She said nothing, not a single question, no cross examination of Christina Atwood, no comments, just silence. So now we're heading into day four of this jaw dropping trial and let me tell you, if today's testimony is any indication of where this trial is headed, Lori Valo's defense strategy could very well backfire one witness at a time. Until then, thank you so much for listening everyone to this update. I'm Ashley Banfield and remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead seriously.