Can justice truly be served when the defendant appears blissfully unaware of the gravity of their crimes? This question hangs heavily in the air as Lori Vallow Daybell is set to face trial once again, this time in Arizona for the murder of her previous husband, Charles Vallow. The Idaho governor has given the green light for her transfer, but it has left many pondering the efficacy and necessity of putting her on trial once more.

Tony Brueski, host of "Hidden Killers," and Jennifer Coffindaffer, a retired FBI special agent, delve into the complex web of Lori Vallow Daybell’s case, addressing critical questions about her mental state, the potential for re-traumatizing the victims’ families, and the pursuit of justice.

"Lori Vallow Daybell is no stranger to controversy and legal battles, but this upcoming trial in Arizona brings a new set of challenges and considerations," Brueski begins, setting the stage for a conversation filled with insights and tough questions. He wonders aloud, "Is she fit to stand trial? Should we be re-traumatizing the victims and this family all over again for someone who very likely at the end of the day is still going to be blissfully unaware of her crimes?"

Coffindaffer brings her expertise to the table, emphasizing the necessity of the trial despite the complexities it entails. “There’s probable cause to believe she committed this crime. So she certainly should stand trial,” she states confidently, highlighting the importance of the legal process in ensuring justice is served. She adds, “I think for the families, it’s a measure of justice to have the person they think killed their loved one stand trial and have all that evidence out there for everyone to know what happened to their loved one.”

As the conversation unfolds, Brueski and Coffindaffer grapple with the likelihood of seeing a repeat of Lori’s previous trial, questioning whether her defense will once again concede defeat. They discuss the peculiar nature of Lori’s mental state, with Brueski drawing attention to her bizarre statements during the sentencing hearing of her last trial, where she appeared to be completely disconnected from reality.

Coffindaffer provides a nuanced perspective, suggesting that Lori’s actions and statements could be a part of a calculated act to manipulate those around her. “I really think that in this case, I think it’s always been an excuse for having sexual and marital freedom, for having freedom away from her children that she didn’t want to be bound to,” she argues, questioning the authenticity of Lori’s religious beliefs and the sincerity of her actions.

The dialogue takes a turn as Brueski and Coffindaffer discuss the potential outcomes of the trial, weighing the possibility of Lori being an exceptional actor against her being genuinely disconnected from reality. They ponder the implications of each scenario, questioning what justice looks like when the accused may not fully grasp the severity of their actions.

As the podcast episode draws to a close, Brueski leaves listeners with a chilling thought: “We’ll see if we get a wink at some point in time, though. I'm waiting for it.” It’s a statement that encapsulates the eerie uncertainty surrounding Lori Vallow Daybell, her mental state, and the pursuit of justice in her case.

The trial in Arizona presents an opportunity for closure and justice for Charles Vallow’s family, but it also raises critical questions about the nature of accountability, the impact of mental illness on legal proceedings, and the lengths to which society should go to seek justice. As Lori Vallow Daybell once again becomes the subject of national attention, the world watches, waits, and wonders: Will justice be served, or are we witnessing a performance from one of the most enigmatic figures in recent legal history?