The Chad Is (Not) Great

I have been following the Vallow-Daybell case since early 2020 - after Nate Eaton of East Idaho News followed them to Hawaii but well before the children were found.

If you're not familiar with the case you may try this as a primer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-GuonthUgY
A Who's-Who follows at the end of this blog
It's an incredibly complicated case with multiple conspirators, multiple victims, links to multiple states - principally Idaho, Arizona, and Hawaii - and, I kid you not, religious cult practices and ZOMBIES.

What follows are my personal opinions only.

EDIT: 7th June 2024

I have now been sitting on the Death Penalty ruling for a little while. As a Brit, I am not a fan; as someone who thinks Lori is the more responsible party, I am not a fan; as someone who thought the body of evidence was weak, I am not a fan... but I'm okay with it.

Which is a relief.

The thing is, I had expected a decent defence. A scenario where it would be hard to discern where the truth lay. But we didn't have that so I am comfortably assured of his guilt.

The defence I anticipated would have gone something along the lines of

• Lori taught Chad light / dark (throw her under the bus properly)
• Lori persuaded him he had the divination skill / ability to judge light / dark, reveal death percentages, identify possessing demons etc (to explain Chad's texts - after all, we don't have evidence to real-world conversations so anything could have been said)
• Lori said Tylee had run away to Annie's (or someone else from her dad's side - to explain her absence)
• Lori said Kay had taken JJ (or someone else from his dad's side - to explain his absence)
• Chad and Lori therefore didn't have custody of any minors (explaining what happened in Hawaii)
  Chad didn't have to know his new wife was still pocketing the kids' Social Security money
• Lori and Alex knew when his house would be empty so they could dispose of the bodies and frame him
• The storage place video was just him helping her out with some stuff, couples do that
• Tammy died after ingesting something Chad brought home from Lori or Alex
  
• The whole murder-by-asphyxiation-because-they-couldn't-find-an-actual-cause-of-death thing was pretty ludicrous; and IMHO not taking a medical history from family members was an inexcusable lapse - medical records are not reliable. Neither, of course, is family testimony but it builds a picture
• Chad was an idiot, sure - but who thinks their girlfriend is bumping people off?! You just don't expect that... so he didn't see the signs

It still wouldn't have held up as Lori and Chad BOTH told people Tylee had died but there was doubt to be cast and then the defence just didn't. 

So yes, I am comfortable with the sentence passed.

Yesterday an Idaho court found Chad Guy Daybell guilty on all charges - now it is only to be decided whether he gets Life Without Parole, or the Death Penalty. His second wife, Lori Vallow (nee Cox), was convicted last year and she only escaped the possibility of being executed for her crimes by opting for a speedy trial.

I have mixed feelings about this as I am British and not a big fan of the death penalty. I can see it when there is exceptional cruelty, torture, sadism etc. but while this is NASTY I don't feel it meets my personal threshold. I am also conflicted as I feel Lori was far more guilty of the two.
There was evidence of manipulation on both sides but Joe Ryan (and Stacey Cope) died BEFORE she even met Chad. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of the incriminating things he texted were seeded by Lori. Lori was the main person to benefit from ALL the deaths, even Tammy's. During the trial it was brought up how the only link between Alex and Tammy, who he tried to shoot, was Chad. That's not true: the link is LORI. Alex was trying to kill Tammy to clear the way for Lori to marry Chad... he was doing it for HER, not HIM!
In fact, had I been on the jury I couldn't have found Chad guilty on the evidence provided. Sure, it was a series of unfortunate coincidences, and there's no way on earth he was innocent, but the case never progressed onto anything solid. There were no witnesses, no forensics, none of those really damning things that seals the baddie's fate in crime dramas.
It leaves me feeling antsy about due process because if they can convict someone of first degree murder on so little there's not much hope of justice for the wrongly accused.

Just because the kids bodies were buried on his property doesn't mean he had to have known they were there... by that logic Tammy and their son Garth both had to be in on it too cos they were there as well!
I would have thought there'd be SOMETHING tangible - a witness to the fire that destroyed Tylee for example, someone who'd seen him dig the pit or collect the firewood. The police found Tylee's DNA on a couple of Chad's tools but opted not to fingerprint them to see who'd handled them last?! Honestly, I'm with John Prior (Chad's lawyer) on that one - it had been the best part of a year and Chad hadn't cleaned or reused the tools to destroy that evidence??? Yeah, that screams set-up.

Tammy's death bothers me enormously: there was no technical cause of death found so they ruled asphyxiation / homicide. HUH?
People die in their sleep, suddenly and of no apparent cause, all the time. SIDS (Cot Death) is well known about in infants but at any age essentially the same thing can happen, something a lot of people don't know about until it happens to someone close. Just because you can't find a cause does not equal murder, any more than multiple cot deaths in a family indicates murder (see: Sir Roy Meadow).
One suspected case I recall was that of the son of British actor Nicholas Lyndhurst; a second (private) autopsy found the cause of death to be leukaemia. Did they check Tammy for leukaemia? Her family said she'd been tired, breathless, bruised easily... all of which would fit.

The fact that they relied on her medical record and didn't talk to her family is incredibly problematic to me. Although it is dangerous to BELIEVE the family they certainly ought to be part of the investigation. For example, they made a big deal of sleep apnoea not being on her medical record but that just means she never sought treatment or diagnosis - at least one of her kids claims that they and Tammy's father have it. That's what we'd call a relevant family history right there; an inherited trait to STOP BREATHING IN YOUR SLEEP (which would also explain Tammy's alleged tiredness).
Tammy allegedly didn't like doctors so there'd likely be a lot missing from the official record; people don't tell their doctors everything even if they do go regularly. Then there's the fact doctors don't record everything accurately - I know my own records have errors, omissions, and outright lies in them. This idea that your doctor *knows* you hasn't been true for most people in generations!

Don't get me wrong, it would be unbelievable if Tammy's death was actually natural but if she was asphyxiated I feel sure there should have been more proof of it - it's possible to do without leaving trace evidence (fibres in the lungs etc) but you'd expect more injuries from crushing, restraining, or fighting back.
I also want to know exactly how they ruled out poisoning by malachite: Chad and Lori were all about malachite, repeatedly referenced 'malachite balm', malachite is highly poisonous and causes symptoms very like those experienced by Tammy and Alex.
Basically, I think they missed something and I don't like that they got a First Degree Murder conviction anyway.

One of the big GOT YOU! moments in the trial was in rebuttal where it came up that (1) Chad had searched how to turn off the location / GPS data on an iphone (Jan 2019) - Chad had an Android not an iPhone - (2) and an application to delete the location / GPS data associated with his account (Aug 2019) but his PC wasn't secure and was located in a family room so they can't prove either action was him (I didn't catch them say the application was made from a secure phone and not the desktop). Also, if he was smart enough to wipe his location data (incidentally this was before Lori and the kids had moved to Idaho, before he was even in the frame for anything) how did he not think to wipe his search history?!
IMHO all they *actually* proved was that Chad had an affair with and married a woman who was, along with her now-conveniently-deceased brother, implicated up to her eyebrows. Doesn't seem enough to me.

As I say though, there's no doubt Chad is guilty - your wife dies mysteriously (while you're having an affair with a woman whose last two husbands have also died mysteriously) and re-marry SEVENTEEN DAYS LATER??? Her minor kids go missing and you stay married, you go to Hawaii where she claims she has no minor kids and you stay married, she gets arrested and you stay married, the kids turn up murdered on your property and you get arrested too and you stay married, she is tried and convicted and sentenced to life without parole and you STILL STAY MARRIED??? That's not what innocent people do!!!

Who's Who
Killers and Conspirators
Lori Cox Vallow - mother and murderer; convicted 2023
Chad Daybell - Lori's 5th husband, murderer; convicted 30th May 2024. Wannabe religious leader / prophet
Alexander Lamar 'Alex' Cox Pastenes (51) 2019 - brother of Lori, alleged murderer (died before he could be investigated)
Zulema Pastenes - wife of Alex for about 5 minutes before he died, most people following the case suspect she was a co-conspirator as she was a follower of Chad & Lori
Melani Cope Boudreaux Pawlowski - Lori's niece, most people following the case suspect she was a co-conspirator as she was a follower of Chad & Lori. Her ex husband Brandon was the target of a botched shooting by Alex. She is now remarried and has at least one more child

Victims and those who died under suspicious circumstances
Stacey Cox Cope (31) 1998 - Lori's sister, mother of Melani. Her death was mysterious and while all the family but Alex were away... While most followers of the case consider Joe the first victim those who know about Stacey's death have other ideas. Curiously Lori had ANOTHER deceased sister, Laura Lee, who died in 1971 aged 42 days. That was two years before Lori was born but Lori creepily adopted Laura's nickname - Lolly - as her own
Joseph Anthony 'Joe' Ryan Jr (59) 2018 - Lori's 3rd husband, they had been acrimoniously divorced for many years at the time of his death. Supposedly died of a heart attack but his ex wife Lori both had him cremated without informing his family, and she got life insurance from him. Most people following the case believe he was Lori and Alex's first victim (see Stacey Cox Cope)
Leland Anthony 'Charles' Vallow (62) 2019 - Lori's 4th husband; was shot dead in supposed self defence by Alex Cox; Lori is to stand trial for his murder. Lori was shocked to discover Charles had changed his life insurance beneficiary to Kay
Tylee Ryan (17) 2019 - Lori's daughter, born to her 3rd husband Joe Ryan; her burned and dismembered remains were found on Chad Daybell's property. Lori continued to draw Social Security money for Tylee relating to Joe's death
Joshua Jaxon 'JJ' Vallow né Canaan Todd Trahan (7) 2019 - Lori's son, adopted with her 4th husband Charles Vallow; biological grandson of Kay Woodcock; found buried (intact) on Chad Daybell's property. Lori continued to draw Social security money for JJ relating to Charles' death

Tamara 'Tammy' Douglas Daybell (49) 2019 - Chad's 1st wife; prior to 'dying in her sleep' she was the target of a botched shooting by Alex Cox
Alexander Lamar 'Alex' Cox Pastenes (51) 2019 - see under 'killers and conspirators'

People on Chad and Lori's 'Dark' List (aka potential victims)
Brandon Boudreaux - Melani's 1st husband; Brandon was the alleged target of a botched shooting by Alex Cox
Braxton, Brees, Brighton, and Blake Boudreaux - at least two of Melani and Brandon's children were on the dark list; they are now in their father's custody
Heather Daybell - Chad's sister-in-law, wife of his brother Matt
Detective Ray Hermosillo - a police officer investigating Chad and Lori
Samantha Gwilliam - Chad's sister-in-law, sister of Tammy
Kay Woodcock - Kay was Charles Vallow's sister; Kay was the biological grandmother of JJ. If she had not called for a welfare check on JJ Lori and Chad might've got away with it. Kay and her husband Larry have been front and centre advocating for Lori and Chad's victims. lori had alternately claimed Kay was trying to abduct JJ and, after his disappearance, that he had gone to live with Kay.
Adam Cox - Lori's only surviving brother; Lori claimed he was out to kill her. Adam was a friend of Charles and they had hoped to stage an intervention to protect the kids... but then Charles was killed

Survivors (close relations not mentioned above - incomplete)
Colby Ryan - Lori's surviving (adult) child, born to her 2nd husband and adopted by her 3rd. When he was contacted about JJ's disappearance he asked after Tylee... who the police didn't even know about at that time!
Summer Cox Shiflet - Lori's only surviving sister
Emma Murray, Garth Daybell, Mark Daybell, Seth Daybell, Leah Murphy - Chad and Tammy's adult children

Other
Mandy Leger (46) 2022 - JJs biological mother. Lost custody to Kay and Larry Woodcock due to substance abuse issues and initially had visitation but JJ was adopted out while she was in rehab which devastated her. She had always hoped to be reunited with her son but her world fell apart when he was murdered. She died of a heart condition... or a broken heart.
Dennis Todd 'Todd' Trahan - JJs biological father. Lost custody to Kay and Larry (his mother and stepfather) due to substance abuse issues and initially had visitation. Trahan, as of JJ and Tylee's celebration of life in April 2024, was incarcerated.

A Slightly Awkward Victim Tribute

THIS BLOG INCLUDES PERSONAL SPECULATION ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE DEAD OR INVOLVED IN ONGOING PROSECUTIONS. THIS IS MY OPINION ONLY.

Towards one of my The Conqueror Challenges I have set myself the task of cycling a kilometre for every year of age of Lori Vallow Daybell's victims. This is, in part, because I abandoned my challenge to follow her first trial* - if you will excuse the term - religiously. I have been following the case since early 2020 when the kids were still missing and I will continue to do so for Chad's trial, Lori's trial for the murder of Charles Vallow, and any related proceedings that should arise. I have never been so emotionally invested in a court case my whole life.

* Lori Vallow Daybell's trial for conspiracy to murder Tylee Ryan, JJ Vallow, and Tammy Daybell ran from 3rd April to 12th May 2023. I have a file containing multiple family trees, timelines, over 100 pages of notes of salient points from Nate Eaton of East Idaho News live tweeting the case.

When the guilty verdicts came in my internet glitched so I was standing out in the street using my phone data instead... and I F*CKING HOWLED in sheer relief. Especially on the counts relating to Tylee cos I feared there wasn't enough evidence in her case. I am a big believer in innocent until proven guilty but Lori Vallow Daybell is my one (1) exception. No way in hell can an innocent woman go off to get married with no idea or care where her two minor children are, especially when they later show up buried in her new husband's yard. I can usually imagine at least one alternative scenario, no matter how far-fetched, but there's nothing; and Lori didn't even offer a defence.

So that's what led me to where I am now... cycling a tribute to each of her victims. But the reason for this blog entry is the slightly awkward reasoning involved in a few of the tributes.

1) Joseph Anthony "Joe" Ryan Jr, 1958-2018 (59)

3rd husband of Lori, biological father of Tylee.
This is the first slightly dubious tribute. Officially he died of natural causes but there's plenty I find suspicious, including that his ex wife whom he was on particularly bad terms with was his next of kin, dealt with his death and was particularly slow in informing his family (see also Charles).
Then there's the suggestive history... Lori's brother (see also Alex) had served a short sentence for assaulting and threatening Joe. It's also worth noting that the benefits Tylee received from her father's death was part of the motive for her murder.
Joe had been accused of child molestation by Lori, her son from her second marriage - Colby, and his own daughter Tylee. Now, I'm NOT calling Colby a liar but the authorities believed Lori had coached her kids - I feel it's possible he has false memories she planted and / or he was molested by someone else (my money would be on Alex). The thing is, having made these allegations Lori refused to co-operate with the investigation whereas Joe co-operated fully. Child abuse isn't taken lightly so it's an unusual conclusion for the authorities to reach, and Lori's refusal to push for a prosecution is just plain weird to me. Also, making claims that her exes were abusive is part of a pattern with Lori so I take it with a pinch of salt.

2) Leland Anthony "Charles" Vallow, 1956-2019 (62)

4th husband of Lori, adoptive father of JJ.
Charles was, by all accounts, a great dad. But he'd started reaching out for help claiming Lori was a danger to the kids... and he ended up dead. Shot by Alex (see below) in alleged self defence. Tylee spoke well on the police interview tapes - she was an intelligent and articulate young lady - but do I believe she could have been biased towards her mother and uncle? Hell yes. Do I believe she reported what she *believed* happened that morning? Also, perfectly plausible.
The trial for his murder is yet to take place but so far everything points to Charles being at risk from Lori, rather than the reverse. Also, after his death Lori heartlessly informed his sons from a prior marriage of their father's death by TEXT.
Just as Tylee was killed, in part, for the money she received from Joe's death so was JJ killed, in part, for the money he received from Charles' death.

3) Tylee Ashlyn Ryan, 2002-2019 (16*)

Biological daughter of Lori and Joe.
Tylee's death is the one that hits me in the feels most. In part it's because so much attention went to JJ - if JJs biological grandparents hadn't raised the alarm over his whereabouts would have even realised Tylee had also disappeared? It would have been so easy to say Tylee had left home, gone to uni, decided to go NC with the family... 
It is unknown how exactly Tylee died but what was done to her body after death is vile beyond description. She was not killed and buried like the little brother she adored, she was annihilated. The wounds found on what was left of her pelvis are highly suggestive to me; I suspect she suffered a lot more than anyone knows before she died. Her remains were dismembered, partially burned and buried on Chad Daybell's property.

*Although she was likely 16 when she died Tylee is often listed as 17 due to her birthday falling after the last time she was seen alive and long before her remains were discovered. I am doing 17km accordingly.

4) Joshua Jaxon "JJ" Vallow, ne Canaan Todd Trahan, 2012-2019 (7)

Adoptive son of Lori and Charles; biological son of Todd Trahan (Charles' nephew) and Mandy Leger.
JJ was described as a sweet, loving kid. He had been born prematurely to bio parents with addiction issues and had autism. Lori registered him as homeschooled and got rid of his service dog shortly before he was last seen alive.
He was asphyxiated with a plastic bag and duct tape, and buried in the yard of Chad Daybell. His body was not desecrated the way Tylee's was.

5) Tamara Michelle "Tammy" Daybell, nee Douglas, 1970-2019 (49)

Wife of Chad, whose death cleared the way for him to marry Lori only days later.
Tammy is described as a wonderful, intelligent woman who loved children and animals; she was the mother of five. Divorce was supposedly not an option for Chad because of his 'spiritual standing'.
Days before she died she was shot at and believed it was a teenager pranking her with a paintball gun... it was almost certainly Alex with a very real and deadly weapon. Tammy died of supposed natural causes - later an exhumation and autopsy found she died by asphyxiation.

6) Alexander Lamar "Alex" Pastenes, ne Cox, 1968-2019 (51)

Brother of Lori.

I have listed him as Alex Pastenes as this was his legal name at death - he is 'Alex Cox' in almost all accounts, inc. Lori's trial.

Definitely the most controversial inclusion on this list as he was certainly responsible for Charles' death and heavily implicated in Tylee and JJ's. He had previously assaulted Joe, shot at Tammy AND shot at a survivor - Brandon Boudreaux, estranged-and-now-ex husband of Lori's niece Melani. He supposedly died of natural causes like Joe.
HOWEVER, his death was entirely too 'convenient' and it bore marked similarities to Tammy's death - which was also initially ruled as natural. 
There is no doubt in my mind he was murdered, possibly because Lori (& Chad?) thought it would all get blamed on him and they'd get away with it but certainly because he knew too much.
It is a 'pity' he was killed because he for sure knew and could have answered a lot of the questions Lori (& Chad?) almost certainly never will. He also should have faced justice for his involvement. I don't like to call him a 'victim' but I believe it likely he was used and I believe that he was killed. That isn't right, whatever he did. I find it uncomfortable to include him but maybe I can think of his kilometres as being additional tribute for the kids - it doesn't seem right that they should get so few kilometres when they were robbed of so many years.
Alex is described as a funny guy, emotionally immature following a brain injury in his teens, and exceedingly devoted to Lori.  Lori gives me Cersei Lannister vibes and I have suspicions that she manipulated Alex just as the fictional Cersei manipulated her brother Jaime; the siblings are described as having had a peculiar, over intimate relationship. It's also worth noting that none of the deaths benefited him directly - they were all for Lori.

7) Mandy Nicole Leger, 1976-2022 (46)

Biological mother of JJ.
Mandy certainly DID die a natural death unlike the others but she is the most forgotten. I count her as a victim because the death of her son destroyed her. She may have lost custody but that doesn't mean he wasn't her world.
An account I read stated that she had surrendered her parental rights to JJs grandparents with the intention of getting him back when her circumstances were improved... instead they adopted him out. Then he was killed and all hope of an eventual reunion was lost. I have heard birth mothers of other murder victims speak on the devastation that comes of losing your child twice - being considered unfit to raise your own kid and then the sheer horror of the supposedly better 'suitable parent' killing their child.

I've used '& Chad?' a few times. That's because his trial is still pending and I have no idea what defence may be presented. It's hard to imagine how he could be innocent of any or all charges, especially Tammy's murder, but to me it's just a tad more plausible than Lori being innocent. I see Lori as the manipulator and mastermind and all the deaths directly benefited her, only Tammy's was directly to the benefit of Chad... Tammy was the family breadwinner so he needed her life insurance to start over with Lori. Chad clearly thinks he's amazeballs and a spiritual leader but personally I see him as a pathetically weak specimen, "led by the storm". He probably still thinks he was so clever and is still oblivious as to how he was played... although that's no excuse at all.

POSTSCRIPT

I had already roughed out this blog before I heard this call between Lori's brother Adam and Chandler PD after Charles' killing and it's like confirmation that my theories aren't totally OTT, especially regarding Joe Ryan's death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBriE0jW9GA

Social Media Vs Alec Baldwin

I don't think I really need to cite sources for this one; the shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of 'Rust' is easily Googled.

It was ABSOLUTELY a terrible tragedy that was PREVENTABLE. I am in favour of those responsible being held accountable.

However, unless there is something exceedingly significant - not yet in the public domain - laying responsibility on Alec Baldwin is RIDICULOUS.

In the normal course of things the blame for a shooting lies utterly in the hands of the person holding the weapon. However, if that weapon is in the hands of an actor on a film set the situation is (IMHO) very different.

The gun was a PROP.

It was handed to him and declared COLD, defined as "a weapon that does not involve fire or explosions as a result from the use of gunpowder or other explosive materials." but in film set terms it refers to a firearm that is unloaded, including the use of explosive blanks. In other words, it should have been entirely safe. On social media I see, over and over, that any gun should be considered 'hot' but that's nonsense. Obviously, if you pick up a random gun you should treat it as if loaded but when it is handed to you and declared cold by the person responsible for it then it is frankly ludicrous to think it could be live.

Of course this did not turn out to be the case. But unless Baldwin tampered with the gun, loaded a live round himself, the responsibility is in the hands of the props department, specifically the armourer - in this instance Hannah Gutierrez Reed.

There are two similar cases which spring to mind:

Actor Jon-Erik Hexum (1957 - 1984) died after simulating Russian Roulette with a gun loaded with a single blank. Although there was no bullet the force of the explosive blank was enough to shatter his skull. He was subsequently declared brain-dead from his injury. The death was ruled accidental and his mother received an out-of-court settlement. By the logic being applied to the Rust incident it would instead have been ruled suicide as the gun was in his hands and he died by his own action, and the film company would likely have paid nothing.

Actor Brandon Lee (1965 - 1993) died after a prop gun fired by fellow actor Michael Massee (1952 - 2016) discharged an improperly made dummy round. Massee suffered enormous guilt over the incident; it was devastating to him. But there was NEVER any question that he was responsible for Lee's death. The incident was ruled an accident due to negligence and, again, Lee's mother received an undisclosed settlement against the filmmakers. In some regard this *might* hold Baldwin accountable - he was not merely an actor but producer; Rust was his passion project. But all the same it was not his job to ensure gun safety on set. Unless he was personally responsible for hiring Gutierrez Reed (and Baldwin was only one of SIX producers), and assuming whoever she was hired by could possibly have known she wasn't competent in the role, it is hard to see how blame falls specifically on him.

On social media armchair experts declare that Baldwin should have ensured that the gun was at no time pointing at anyone... do they not understand that on film sets there are people everywhere?! And whether Baldwin put the gun to his own head like Hexum or deliberately fired it during a take like Massee the gun SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM. 

This is a dangerous precedent to set. Regardless of your line of work if you are using a machine or piece of equipment and it malfunctions or had been improperly maintained that should be on the shoulders of the person whose job it was to ensure its safety. Under this logic any one of us could be held accountable for a workplace accident for the failure of something the safety of which is not our responsibility. Obviously there's a good and valid argument for due care and attention but this is almost on a par with pointing a stapler at someone and it firing a bullet and killing them - you simply can't get away from the fact that the stapler should not have bullets in it! You shouldn't be expected to assume the stapler is a loaded lethal weapon.

It's a horrible thing to say but I'm glad Michael Massee is dead. Watching this unfold would have utterly destroyed him.

I can't begin to tell you how much I love Adventures With Purpose but I'm gonna try

Okay so usually I'd put an edit at the end, but given the seriousness of the circumstances I'm putting it first - almost as a disclaimer:

EDIT

Following the allegations / charges against Adventures With Purpose (AWP) creator Jared Leisek (https://www.the-sun.com/news/6609361/adventures-with-purpose-rape-charge/) I have a few things to say:

1. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Bear in mind what happened with Ricky Martin so recently; smoke without fire is definitely a real thing. Think too about JD vs AH - for six years the vast majority believed the allegations, supported the victim... and were shown to be wrong once the evidence was available. DUE PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL. Of course miscarriages of justice (innocent going to jail, guilty set free) happen but at least both sides get heard along the way; a one-sided allegation-only account is never adequate.

2. Bear in mind that Jared is 47 years old (as of date: 2022) - IF guilty that means he was 17 at the time of the offences. Certainly plenty old enough to know right from wrong and to be held responsible for his actions but still a minor. The law treats minors with a degree of leniency because it is supposed that they are less responsible and more capable of being rehabilitated. THIS IS NOT IN ANY WAY DIMINISHING THE CRIME but context is also important.

3. IF guilty that does not make ANYONE guilty by association - not his wife, his kids, his co-workers, or AWP supporters. EVERYONE has a past and you have NO CLUE what secrets those around you might be keeping. It could just as easily be your relative, friend, or colleague.

4. IF guilty that does not invalidate the good Jared & AWP have done, nor does that good negate past evil. Very few people are all good or all bad; even serial killers can make seemingly incongruous acts of kindness, and people still revere Gandhi and the man was dodgy af! Modern 'cancel culture' leaves no room for the shades of grey most of humanity comes under. Once time has been served the hope is always that criminals will not reoffend, will re-enter society as better people who have the potential to do good in the world. Time may need to be served here... but the good still stands. They are not mutually exclusive.

Please do not take this as ANY kind of defence against child sex offenders; just a plea to keeping an open mind until more is known and not misdirecting blame on bystanders. With that said, I have rephrased a couple of points in the body of this blog, changing those sections to red text in the interests of transparency.

I forget exactly how I first heard about Adventures With Purpose (AWP) but it was either through this YT video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxYGBOfJRU0&t=325s) or a news story about the same. As the rant video was posted on 9th October 2020, the same day as AWP posted their video of the solved case, I can safely say it was now two years ago. I have been following AWP ever since.

Starting at Nicholas Allen

Nick Allen was a young man of 17 from North Carolina who disappeared in February 2020 with his mother's vehicle. It later transpired that he'd broken up with his girlfriend and his mum feared the worst. As Nick had introduced his mum to AWP, and as her gut pulled her to a particular stretch of river she called them in... Her instincts proved to be spot-on; despite the police's claims the river had been searched they found her vehicle within minutes. (https://eu.the-dispatch.com/story/news/local/2020/10/02/body-found-car-may-connected-missing-teen/5893349002/)

However, the police's reaction was DESPICABLE. AWP were treated like crap on-scene which is one thing but the police kept denying it was her car even with the license plate in hand, there was no way her boy could be in there etc. etc. Given that I'm in the UK and heard about it before the bad press forced the Sheriff to issue an apology (https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article246433185.html) you might get a sense of just how bad it was.

I seriously recommend watching the AWP video on the case (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAfYtXB-qN4); both for the context of the controversy and to understand the amazing 'job' AWP do.

AWP: A Superhero Origin Story

From scrolling back through the available videos on the channel AWP started out in July 2018 with videos of collecting trash from waterways. That was the original, intended 'purpose'. A diver named Jared Leisek using his skill set to do some good cleaning up the environment and making some fun 'treasure hunting' YT videos along the way.

But sometimes the universe has other ideas. Trash like lost go-pros and sunglasses became bikes and cars... They could have simply decided the job was too big, to daunting, but they just took it like "huh, guess this is what we're doing now."

On January 10th 2020 AWP premiered their video about the recovery of Nathan Ashby, a 22 year old missing almost 5 months in Missouri (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUc87t6yIF8&t=64s). The diving conditions were terrible, visibility was non existent... Jared identified that the car contained human remains by touch. Think about that for a sec. That's a horrific enough thing to have to do even if you've had some kind of specialist training.

Another key moment was during a livestream on 27th May 2020 when a car pull went from clean up to call the cops (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ1z9M4KAhM&t=5s). Timothy Robinson of Oregon had been missing for 12 years; he was 56 (https://lailasnews.com/international/timothy-edward-robinson-oregon-what-happened/). Again, they could have baulked. It's the sort of experience that might stop anyone going back in the water. Instead they accepted this new direction, and became dedicated to cold cases - specialising in searching underwater for people who had gone missing with their vehicles which was where their accidentally developed skill set had led.

Over time the team changed and grew. I don't want to get into the Sam Sam The Adventure Man debacle except to say that I am strictly Team AWP over that. There will always be those who disagree with how a thing is done but I strongly support AWPs ethos: they are not paid by the authorities, they ask nothing of the families they assist, they are funded through YT revenues, merch sales, donations from subscribers (inc. premium memberships), and they rarely accept sponsorships as advertising products while dealing with sensitive cases doesn't sit well with them. 

I don't have any time for those who diss what they do. Indeed, while researching the sources for this blog I have unsubscribed from another, unrelated YT channel because the owner used a secondary channel to throw sh*t at AWP. NOT that I believe anyone is above being critiqued (nobody is perfect and nobody is obliged to make the choices others would wish of them) but sh*t throwing is not acceptable and the YouTuber in question was already on their last red flag for me given some of their content (esp. borderline transphobic BS). 

AWP have, in the time I have been watching them, gone from a small, fairly amateur group with a beat up Winnebago to a highly respected movement operating two fully equipped teams in proper rigs. The videos have become far more professional and as they've honed their skills they've been encouraging people to check boat ramps with their fish-finding sonar and helping train up volunteers. They want more people found so it's all about getting more people looking; if they were all about 'the fortune & glory' (what fortune?! There was only one case where a reward was offered and that never materialised) as some like to accuse them of why the heck are they so keen to share their unique skill set? 

Some have accused Jared of being fame-hungry but he's deliberately stepped back lately, probably in part to counter those accusations. Probably the worst I could say of Jared in terms of his role in AWP is that he knows what he wants said and has a tendency to say it before anyone else gets the chance! Most of the recent videos have been presented by Doug Bishop - to the endlessly asked question of "where's Jared?" lol.

Doug was operating a towing company when Jared reached out to his business for help recovering a sunken vehicle. Not only did he immediately jump to help but he trained as a diver and is now leading an AWP team (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zEcGU7-iwU). For some this is clearly a calling. There are literally people being inspired by these videos to learn to dive, learn to use sonar, to trawl through missing persons cases looking for leads, to create apps that help track searched areas for accuracy... all sorts of people with all kinds of skills bringing what they have to the table in order to get the lost found. 

That beat up Winnebago was donated to Chaos Divers (Jacob Grubbs) who regularly works with AWP as well as working on his own channel solving missing persons cases in water (https://www.youtube.com/c/ChaosDivers). AWP also work with others such as Team Watters (https://teamwatterssonar.com/) and Exploring With Nug (check out this truly amazing video of him solving the 21 year old cold case of Tennessee teenagers Erin Foster & Jeremy Betchel solo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjL4TZse6hs). 

Kiely Rodni

I remember seeing a tweet come by with a missing persons poster for 16 year old Kiely Rodni and my immediate thought was it was an AWP case, despite AWP not running a twitter account. Turns out it was a retweet from someone I'd been following since my Blockhead (NKOTB fan) days. But I looked at it and just *knew* she was in the water and AWP would find her. Ridiculous, I know. She'd gone missing with her vehicle at a lakeside party and the similarities with the Ethan Kazmerzak case seemed startling.

About 24 hours after I saw that tweet AWP livestreamed that they were dropping what they were doing and heading to California for Kiely. 

This was probably the case that garnered them the most public attention yet, it was an incredibly high profile case (*cough* Missing White Woman Syndrome *cough*) costing around 20,000 man hours in the search for her over just a couple of weeks. In my mind it also tied back to Nick Allen because multiple agencies had already searched Prosser Creek Reservoir, insisted it was clear - AWP even searched multiple sites before returning to Prosser Creek Reservoir just to check for themselves... at which point they found her vehicle after approx. 35 minutes on the water. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPwnDyW26gk).

Not only had the 'amateurs' found what the 'professionals' had missed they'd done it in next to no time. No disrespect to the authorities but they deal with that sort of case every once in a while, AWP do it all the time - that makes a difference. 

Watching and Weeping 

It's a strange thing to get hooked on perhaps. I have a particular horror of drowning, being trapped underwater, and of bodies in water... but for anyone to be brought out of that? To be returned to their family, given a proper burial. That's beautiful. Sad that it's ever necessary but no one should stay under water for months, years, even decades. No one will ever convince me otherwise that AWP are doing something truly incredible and bearing witness to it reassures me that there are at least some good people on this planet.

It's so damn emotional when they find someone. The one that probably broke me the most was Samantha Hopper. She was exactly 7 months younger than me. When she died she was 19 years old and 8 months pregnant with her third child - I was five months pregnant at that date. My older daughter was just a few months younger than her daughter Dezarae who was with her grandmother and was the time and so survived. It felt entirely too close to home, for all they were from Arkansas.

It's also truly humbling to see some of the cases which contrast so starkly with that first one I saw. The livestream regarding finding Tod DiMinno was just two days ago and they spoke about the way they worked with local authorities, and the mutual respect they usually now receive rather than being treated as interfering amateurs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXGKvJTsVcw).

Found So Far

(apologies if I've missed anyone, this was purely from scrolling through thumbnails)

Nathaniel Ashby

Timothy Robinson

Nicholas Allen

Ethan Kazmerzak

Antonio Lopez

Bill Simmons

Tammy Goff

Richard Ritz

Carey Mae Parker

Samantha Hopper, her unborn baby, and toddler daughter Courtney Holt

Charles Fluharty

Nadine Moses

John Zarkowski

Jeff Shepherd

Thomas Thornton

Stephanie Torres

Annie Lee Hampton

Margaret 'Jan' Shupe Smith

James Amabile

Dedrick Smith

Ralph Brown

Jed Hall

Kiely Rodni

Tod DiMinno

Also thinking here of Donnie Messier whose truck they found underwater on October 5th 2022. A 34 year old man from Vermont who was last seen alive in 2006. No remains were found but reports indicate his vehicle was pretty trashed... it may be that his case is as 'solved' as is possible.

My thoughts are with all their loved ones.

The Slimline Royal Family Diet

Despite her 50 year reign I pretty much had never heard of Margrethe II of Denmark until she came down with COVID-19 following Queen Elizabeth II's funeral a couple of weeks ago. Sorry. But I was today years old when I decided I don't like her. Not sorry.

CONTEXT:

Margrethe Alexandrine Þórhildur Ingrid was born in 1940 making her 82 years old. In 1967 she married Henri de Laborde de Monpezat, known as Henrik, who died in 2018 aged 83.
The couple had two children, both born before her reign began - Crown Prince Frederik, who is 54 and Prince Joachim, 53.

So the story is that to slim-down and modernise the Danish Royal Family she is stripping Joachim's children(^) of their titles, effective from the New Year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/denmarks-queen-margrethe-strips-four-grandchildren-of-royal-titles

Crown Prince Frederik married Mary Donaldson in 2004. They have four children:

• Prince Christian, who is nearly 17
• Princess Isabella, 15
• Twins, Prince Vincent and Princess Josephine, who are 11

Prince Joachim first married Alexandra Manley in 1995. They had two children before divorcing in 2005.

• Prince Nikolai, 23^
• Prince Felix, 20^

Prince Joachim remarried in 2008 to Marie Cavallier and they had two children together:

• Prince Henrik, 13^
• Princess Athena, 10^

Just think about that for a moment. The cardinal rule of parenting is to treat your children equally. Of course, life doesn't work like that: one son will be King, the other will not. But this just smacks of favouritism. The golden child, the heir, gets everything; the spare not only gets nothing but his children get stripped THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OR THEIR OWN what they have had since birth.

I've already seen from social media responses that there's a loud contingent of 'aw diddums, poor little rich kids' but that's REALLY NOT THE POINT. It's about the inherent unfairness of treating one group of grandchildren differently because they were not born to the favoured child. The wrong of taking back a gift. 
So I make no apology for the overuse of the word 'imagine' in the following rant. Whether or not you approve of royalty is irrelevant; put yourself in the shoes of a young man in his early 20s or a girl of 10 and imagine your granny doing something this unkind.

"The official reason was to allow the four children of her youngest son, Prince Joachim, to live more normal lives"

I've argued this before with Britain's (or America's) Harry and Meghan - stepping back from Royal Duties and / or renouncing titles does not a commoner make. Especially regards the security concessions (amounting to the team he is paying for being given any relevant information) Harry has asked for - opting out does not reduce or negate the RISK OF ASSASSINATION. Harry, Meghan, Archie & Lilibet will always be potential targets whatever their titles or roles, as will Nikolai, Felix, Henrik and Athena. This in no way affects who they are, for all it cuts at their personal sense of identity.

"With her decision, her Majesty the Queen wants to create a framework, for the four grandchildren, to a much greater degree, to be able to shape their existence without being limited by the special considerations and obligations that a formal affiliation with the Royal House as an institution implies."

Do you know what affiliation means? It means 'adopted as a son'. These are actual sons (and daughter) who are not adopted (which presumes that adoption is any less than biology), by unaffiliating them from the Royal House literally means rejecting them as family. How can that be anything other than cruel?

It is barking mad that Queen Margrethe thinks switching out 'Prince' and 'Princess' for 'Count' and 'Countess' would give them any more freedom over their personal destinies. There is nothing you can do as a count that you can't as a prince. It makes zero sense to me.

"They can't understand why their identity is being taken from them." 

This quote refers to the older two children as it was made by their mother but I imagine this will be just as hard on the younger two. Most little girls go through a phase of wanting to be a princess... poor little Athena *is* a Princess and is having it snatched away. I can't imagine any of them being disposed kindly toward their grandmother for this. Even at Nikolai's twenty-three I can't see this as being 'understandable'.

I've seen people comment that it's just a title, not their identity. Ye gods... Imagine you are a doctor... you get to keep your qualification but you are no longer allowed to use the title. Would you be hurt and angry about that? Maybe because that's something a Dr worked hard for you think it is different to a hereditary title... so imagine instead you have your SURNAME stripped. Your grandma has decided you're surplus to requirements so you no longer get to use the name you have had since birth. 
Maybe your title (Mr, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mx) is irrelevant to you but it is literally still part of your name whether you use it or not. Also, if you *choose* to change your name (by deed poll, by marriage, whatever then that's a CHOICE) but imagine someone suddenly deciding you're no longer allowed to use the one you have. Your parents may be cruel, may reject you, but I know of no culture where they have the right or ability to take your familial identity away.

My parents didn't see fit to give me either of their names. Perhaps you will think that means, never having experienced that sense of belonging, that I don't know what I am talking about. Naturally, I believe the reverse is true - that I am fully cognisant of the sense of fundamental rejection that comes with being denied what is normally considered your birthright. It makes you feel neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. Bad enough from birth, I can't imagine the pain of being rejected anew at an age enough to understand.

I can understand, to an extent, the logic for sliming down the Royal Houses of Europe but there are far better ways of doing such things. For starters, how about offering the kids a CHOICE when they come of age? Rather than expecting Frederik's children to become working royals ASK THEM. It'd be quite something if Christian, Isabella, Vincent and Josephine were to reject the job, huh? If I were one of those siblings that'd be what I'd suggest - that we all ganged up against the system in solidarity with our cousins. Strike action!
Another idea would be to decide that, apart from the direct heir, no one's spouse would receive a title on marriage and no one's children would have a title either. It'd just be a matter of time until it slimmed down naturally. Far less hurtful too.

"Only the future king, Prince Christian, will receive an appenage, a decision taken in 2016"

An appenage is described as 'a grant of land or revenue' gifted when the royal child comes of age. Note the timing of this change - just as Nikolai was approaching his coming-of-age. The average family equivalent might be throwing a granddaughter a Quinceanera and then changing your mind when your eldest granddaughter hits fourteen... while promising to do one for just one of their (younger) cousins. Although a party is obviously not directly comparable to a gift that sets a kid up for life it's still going to be a bitter disappointment; expecting a celebration and being denied. Sure, that's a very privileged gift to receive but imagine being led to expect such a thing your whole life only to be told it's not happening practically on the eve? Not kind. And to keep that gift in place for the one kid who very specifically doesn't need it (because they stand to inherit everything)? Weird.

That was bad enough as it was a gift not yet given but taking back a gift, whether it's a child's Lego set or royal titles, is a big no-no. 

All I know is that if I treat my grandkids as shoddily as Queen Margrethe is doing I'd be disowned. And they'd be damned right too.

Big Kids In Buggies

Just saw a clip on Instagram that niggled so once again this Opinionated Potato is putting in their tuppenceworth...

GENERAL GIST: Take a stroller to Disneyland for a child 7 and under because it's a lot of walking and they need the sensory breaks.

Seven and under. Where to begin with this? First up this assumes you only have ONE child under seven or that your family consists of enough adults to have a stroller for each young child.
Assuming that is even the case it means the adult had to deal with the stroller ALL DAY regardless of whether the child is using it. Even if you need to take a stroller it can be quite difficult multitasking between dealing with the stroller and ambulatory children - meaning that any non-strollered child has their parents being necessarily more hands off. Part of the magic of a family holiday / day out is holding hands and physically interacting with their kids (or indeed coupled parents holding hands and physically interacting with each other).

Theoretical family, using neutral names for obvious reasons...
Parent: Sam
Parent: Lee
Child 1: Brook, 8
Child 2: Ocean, 5
Child 3: River, 2

By this advice Sam & Lee have a stroller each - one for River who genuinely needs it, and one for Ocean who may only use it for a short breaks. Sam & Lee don't get to hold hands at all during the day, they both get tired of pushing; no one holds Brook's hand, when Ocean is out of the stroller no one (other than Brook) is holding theirs. Basically everyone has a fairly sucky time except the only kid whose needs are being fully met.
If instead they only take a stroller for River then Sam and Lee can take turns pushing so they don't get so tired and can enjoy quality time with their children. If Ocean gets really tired maybe they can take a ride while River toddles or is carried? Overall the family get to physically interact a whole lot more.

Next objection: where are you even finding a stroller that can take a SEVEN YEAR OLD??? My eldest broke every buggy she ever had and we gave them up before she was THREE. That's not down to childhood obesity, she wasn't overweight. She was 9lbs 11oz at birth and off the growth chart completely by about 7 months.
At almost four she wasn't well and was tired so she sat in her baby sister's stroller... and it broke.
In later life I've realised that a lot of the dirty looks my elder daughter and I got when she was 'little' were likely not because I was a teen mum, but probably because it looked like I had a four year old in a babygro with a dummy.

Assuming your child has no disabilities (more on that in a moment) why are you thinking a 5, 6, 7 year old is going to struggle to walk around a theme park? Do you walk too fast for your kid? Are you not taking regular rest breaks? Most of the comments were from parents going "WTF?! My kid has more energy than I do!" and especially adding in the excitement factor... I mean I'd get it more if you were walking around a particularly unexciting art gallery and the kid was bored out of their tiny mind.
Mostly I'm thinking that this is a DRIVER PROBLEM. Most kids don't walk any great distances or over prolonged times and if you're concerned about little Joey managing to walk around all day TRAIN THEM, like you're training for a big hike or whatever. Before I took my kids anywhere we'd brush up on what to do if we got separated etc etc so unless your trip is super impulsive surely you factor in prepping your kids for what you have in mind?
So ahead of a planned trip to Disney (or wherever) start taking your kid(s) on walks. Short at first, building up if you can. Ensure the pace is sedate enough, take rest breaks, and pay special attention to the comfort of their shoes and other clothing. Chances are they'll be fully able and if they're not you'll be better prepared knowing exactly what you do need.
It might help the parents too, if they're quite sedentary.

Which brings me to what I'm gonna term here INableism Obviously if your kid has any particular special needs, diagnosed or otherwise, you likely already know the right course of action for your family, but the context of this seemed to be a travel agent or childcare expert (I wasn't paying attention) being asked for advice. And yeah, this is my unsolicited advice: don't assume anyone can't do a thing until you either ask them or try.
Assuming people with disabilities are going to struggle with certain tasks is inverted ableism. Someone in my family has a physical disability and their primary school teacher was SHOCKED they'd learned to tie their laces. It went down in family legend as being a really important example that you shouldn't assume. Assuming a woman can't lift something heavy is sexism, as is assuming that a man can lift it. Assuming a child can't walk around a theme park is pretty much just ageism.
A kid isn't going to wake up on a specific birthday suddenly able to climb a mountain or whatever - just like they're not innately able to adult at 18. Skills need to be taught, learned, practiced, reinforced.

I once knew someone who'd make wild sweeping statements as to what their kid could do, liked and disliked, what interested them... Didn't encourage their kid to try anything new EVER - skills, foods, experiences. Nope 'Mother Knew Best' poor kid. Don't be her.

The Queen's Cousins

Fell down a bit of a rabbit hole last night and find myself needing to put in my tuppence-worth, quelle surprise.

I remember watching The Queen's Secret Cousins (2011) and it annoyed me as misrepresentation at the time. I was reminded of that irritation during the recent coverage of the death of HM Queen Elizabeth II where the tale got wheeled out again.

So last night, set off by a vague reference, I found myself looking to see if there was any further information and I found this rather lovely review from The Guardian (source: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2011/nov/17/tv-review-the-queens-hidden-cousins) which all the quotes in bold are from.

"The voiceover whispered of "dark secrets". Only none were forthcoming in The Queen's Hidden Cousins (Channel 4); unless by secrets you include a story that was all over the tabloids in 1987." 

There's almost a quarter of a century between 1987 and 2011; it's not unreasonable to think that a lot of viewers in 2011 had never seen or heard of the scandal. I was 9 years old in 1987 and disinclined to read tabloids. Nowadays a lot of the tabloid reading adults in the UK weren't even born in '87! Certainly it's been no secret for many, many years but it's still getting trotted out intermittently as a 'shameful scandal' against the Royal Family although none of the people involved are in any way Royal - the late Queen Mother (1900-2002) was Royal by marriage, not by birth, and this is her family.

I would like to take a look at the idea that The Queen Mother was in any way culpable for her nieces treatment. Sure, she was a patron of Mencap (a charity for people with learning disabilities) but at a familial level was it really anything to do with her?

Let's start with the Bowes-Lyon family tree (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngRK08NpoNo): Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, later The Queen Mother, was the ninth of ten children; from them she had 23 nieces and nephews. The eldest of that generation was only 10 years her junior.

The cousins in question were Nerissa Bowes-Lyon (1919-1986) and her sister Katherine (1926-2014), the children of her brother John (1886-1930). Not only was this brother fourteen years her senior but there were four other siblings between John and Elizabeth. 

Obviously all families have different dynamics but from everything I've seen over the years siblings usually have closer relationships to same sex siblings who are also close in age. It's not particularly remarkable that Elizabeth may not have been especially close to John. Siblings don't always stay in close contact anyway. 

My mother has a brother and sister - she had a fairly good relationship with her sister but no contact with her brother for years now. My father has three brothers - all close in age - and he has nothing to do with any of them.

There were certainly a large number of other family members who could have but did not interest themselves in Nerissa and Katherine but no one's mentioning them, I assume because they're not Royalty.

"Maybe the Royal Family's apathy towards Katherine and Nerissa was catching"

If anything it would have been the other way about - if the Bowes-Lyon clan had interested themselves more maybe the Royals would have also. Families can be estranged for any number of reasons and <<<UNPOPULAR OPINION>>> perhaps it's more toxic to expect people to be close just because they're related.

Aside: So much has been made of the Duchess of Sussex cutting her attention seeking toxic father Thomas Markle out of her life but people (and MSM) choose to ignore that Thomas has never met Ashleigh and Chris Hale, his grandchildren by Meghan's half-sister Samantha (Ashleigh is approximately 37 while Chris is about 35) and estranged from her other daughter, Noelle Rasmussen. But the narrative is all poor Thomas, cut out of Archie & Lilibet's life. I'm certainly not disputing the poor Nerissa, poor Katherine narrative but they had Bowes-Lyon and Trefusis relatives before the House of Windsor and there might well have been other factors at play. Just using this as an example that interpersonal relationships are frequently complicated and the media doesn't always present a balanced perspective.

This is WITHOUT factoring in that the Queen Mother was a wife with young children herself (the late Queen Elizabeth II and her cousin Katherine were the same age), her husband's family and her Royal duties. To my way of thinking the idea she should have known Nerissa and Katherine's fates is a bit of a stretch, especially as families often tried to hide how disabled their children were.

The Royal Family proper (i.e. the lines directly related to the monarchy) are not insubstantial in themselves. The Queen Mother had in-laws, and the late Queen Elizabeth II had another seven cousins on her father's side (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6F5JC9Ut3I). There are also more distant cousins such as those via Edward VII or Queen Victoria who may well have taken precedence over their Bowes-Lyon relations with the young Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret Rose.

All things considered I don't find it at all remarkable that The Queen Mum (allegedly) didn't know what became of two relatives out of so many. She had plenty else going on in her life.

"Surely someone must have noticed that the women had disappeared"

WHY?! Neither Nerissa or Katherine would have lived at all publicly. They would not have gone to school, or have been debutantes, or simply attend family events. Who exactly would have missed two young women who had probably not been seen since early childhood?!

John's widow Fenella (nee Trefusis - this is relevant later) is described as having been 'a leading guest' at the wedding of Princess Elizabeth & Philip Mountbatten in1947 (17 years after John's death; source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bowes-Lyon) but it does not necessarily follow that the family were close. A lot of people include close relations in their wedding parties... and never speak to them for decades. 

As an aside to my own familial experiences I have far less cousins but even in these days of social media I have little idea where they are, what they're up to, if they've put any kids in institutions... How much do YOU know about YOUR extended family?

"Katherine and Nerissa Bowes-Lyon, then aged 15 and 22 respectively, had been secretly placed at Earlswood mental hospital in 1941 by their parents"

Well, that's blatantly untrue, isn't it?! Their father John had been dead for 11 years, all that time Fenella was raising her four surviving children alone; she never remarried. Also, define 'secretly'? They didn't make it public, it was later reported (quietly) that they had died... but there's a subtle difference between secrecy and privacy. Secrecy makes it sound underhanded, and perhaps it was. But it could just have been a private family matter no one felt like sharing.

"If the family had stayed together for that long, what was the breaking point? It must have been something quite dramatic."

Also nonsense in my humble opinion. Any parent of a severely special needs child (let alone a lone parent, let alone two special needs children, let alone trying to balance the needs of their other kids) can reach breaking point over nothing at all. Eventually an awful lot of carers burn out.

It is also worth noting that in 1941 Nerissa and Katherine's sister Anne, then 24, was recently married and had her first child that year (Lady Elizabeth Shakerley 1941-2020). Is it possible that the sisters were hospitalised so that Fenella could be an active grandmother, or perhaps their disabilities made them a risk to the new baby. Just because someone is mentally disabled it does not follow that they are passive or inactive, physically incapable of doing harm; indeed, some mentally disabled people can be dreadfully violent.

Fenella Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis was 52 in 1941. She was likely getting to old to physically care for them any more. She may well have felt that they would be happier and more settled in an institution. Perhaps she had health issues of her own (as many carers do) and was concerned that her daughters ought to transition to a hospital before her own death.

Second guessing the strains which Fenella was under is vague at best but remember that the 1940s were not only a different age culturally speaking but also technologically - there were no communication devices for the non-verbal, wheelchairs and other aids were primitive at best, even basic care needs like laundry would have been quite burdensome without modern appliances. Certainly Fenella was better placed than most but that does not infer that she had it at all easy.

"None of this would have mattered so much if there had been any attempt to discover why the two women were placed in care in 1941, as this was the one part of the story that was genuinely still a mystery"

They were placed in care because they were non-verbal and estimated to have a 'mental age' of six years - isn't that enough of a reason? I assume the author, John Crace, means what medical condition(s) led to this unhappy situation... But between their medical records being justifiably private and the lack of genetic diagnostics when they were young it's very unlikely a definitive answer could ever be provided.

A different Anne, Anne Tennant, Baroness Glenconner had her engagement (to the future father of Diana, Princess of Wales) broken off after "his father objected to the match on the grounds of "mad blood", as one of her grandmothers was a Trefusis" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerissa_and_Katherine_Bowes-Lyon)

This is no mere paranoia about heredity, but based in fact. I mentioned earlier that Nerissa & Katherine's mother was a Trefusis, I have shown an example of another Trefusis descendant having her engagement called off due to the family's reputation... Fenella had five children - two disabled, two healthy, one who died in infancy. Her only sister's story followed the same pattern: Harriet Hepburn-Stuart-Forbes-Trefusis (1887-1958) married, in 1910, Major Henry Nevile Fane and had seven children (source: http://www.thepeerage.com/p1246.htm#i12451): three disabled, three healthy, one who died in infancy. There was quite plainly something wrong in that family and potential suitors were understandably alarmed.

The three disabled children of Harriet were also, eventually, life patients at Earlswood - Idonea (1912-2002), Rosemary (1914-1972) and Etheldreda (1922-1996) (source: https://www.tatler.com/article/real-story-nerissa-and-katherine-bowes-lyon-the-queens-cousins-the-crown-season-4). It is perfectly possible that Harriet and Fenella having between them five daughters with similar, if not identical disabilities, may have chosen to send the young women to Earlswood together. While apparently cutting off all contact with the five girls it was likely a hard decision; very few parents get up one morning and decide to write their kids off completely. It's also worth noting that popular thought at the time was to make a clean break of it - that it would be distressing for the disabled person to see family members and not be taken home with them, it would likewise be extremely painful for the family members leaving them behind.

It seems improbable that a birth-injury disability such as cerebral palsy would (a) not be recognised as such and (b) affect at least five of twelve cousins (after all, we don't know whether the two who died in infancy would have been similarly affected or not). Much more likely is some genetic illness although what motivation would there have been for seeking a diagnosis at such a late stage when their siblings children, and indeed THEIR children, all appear to have been unaffected. Sure, there's curiosity but realistically only Katherine could have been genetically screened, the others having died before such testing was widely available. Even if she had been screened that does NOT guarantee any answers. 

"If the 85-year old Katherine had made her first ever public appearance on the Buckingham Palace balcony: that would have been abusive"

Obviously this was a scenario that was never going to happen - as a Bowes-Lyon she would not have got a balcony spot in a month of Sundays. But even if it had been an option I agree with Crace; it would have been abusive. While hiding people with disabilities away is, thankfully, largely done away with there is nothing admirable about putting them on display to be gawked at like in old freak shows. Like I said earlier - there's a big difference between secrecy and shame, and privacy and protection.

Maybe their family did them dirty but it was in line with societal norms of the era and judging them by the standards of several generations later is pointless. Also, no one has ever really addressed whether Earlswood was a good, bad, or indifferent place to be. I also think this sort of story is immensely unhelpful to struggling carers who may need to consider residential homes

Perhaps we need to consider empathy before judgement, especially in a historical context where little can ever be certain.