BBM
I agree with you in regards to unnecessary and offensive comments about people's looks, name calling, etc., they have no place in the discussion and are against the TOS. If you see something like that simply report the post and let the mods know about it and deal with it. I've personally reported on posts calling Chad and Lori names before and the mods have removed the offending posts. As much as I think they're guilty of some pretty serious stuff they still deserve to be treated with some measure of dignity.
In regards to your comment about "People vilify Chad's daughter for sticking her tounge out at media then do the same thing here with attack posts on the various characters." I can only presume you're talking about me since I am the only person (that I'm aware of) who recently made a comment about people sticking their tongues out. In my defense: 1) I didn't name names, or even specify the gender of the person. 2) It is a known fact that one of Chad's children did stick their tongue out at media reporters who were trying to cover the missing children case. Like you, "I am trying to stick with facts and logical supposition," and my "logical supposition" and reason for pointing out this fact was to highlight the differences between how regular everyday people treat missing children cases and how Chad, Lori, and those closely associated with them have been treating this case of the missing children and how it is not normal behavior. 3) Even though I pointed out this fact, as far as I know I haven't used it to "vilify" anyone with any kind of "attack posts on the various characters." Sure, what I posted might not have been flattering towards them, but their actions and behavior itself is what's not flattering and speaks for itself. Instead of "vilifying" and "attacking" anyone though I asked questions and my intent was to seek to understand why their behavior was what it is. Here is the post in question in case anyone wants to see for themselves and/or report it:
ID - ID - Joshua Vallow, 7, & Tylee Ryan, 17, Rexburg, Sept 2019 *mom arrested* #31
In regards to your comments about sticking with the facts and reliable information, I think that's all that any of us are trying to do. However, everyone can look at the same "facts" and form completely different conclusions and opinions based on those "facts." That's perfectly fine. I think why you're facing so much pushback though is because your conclusions and opinions of the "facts" are quite different than what most everybody else is seeing and interpreting. That's also fine. Differing opinions and perspectives help everyone to see a bigger picture and consider things they might not have thought of otherwise. Which, hopefully, will help everyone find answers and resolution in this case. I have appreciated many of your contributions throughout this case. And I have also been frustrated and extremely baffled by some of the things you've said. You'll say things that make perfectly good sense and are reasonable to me, and then in the next breath leave me scratching my head wondering how in the world you've come to the conclusion or formed the opinion you have. Isn't it wonderful (and frustrating) that we can all form our own opinions and thoughts based upon the same "facts?"
Now, having said all that, here are some of the issues I have with the theories many people have come up with in trying to defend/justify Lori's actions.
- Claim: Lori is hiding the children for their own protection.
- First off it must be noted Lori has never made this claim. This theory has only ever been made by people in support of Lori or who are trying to defend/justify/explain why the children are missing. If Lori isn't making this claim then that's already a mark against it - we simply can't assume it's true because we wish it to be with nothing else supporting it. Furthermore, one must wonder why Lori isn't making these claims. I suspect Lori would get far more help and support in protecting her children and hiding them if there was an actual and legitimate concern and she had evidence of it. As we've seen time and again, whenever the safety of children are involved, whether that threat is real or perceived, everyone comes out to help protect the innocent and helpless.
- Who/what would she be protecting them from? Was it from a physical threat or abuse? Sexual? Emotional? No one can claim it was from CV - he was dead. Same goes for JR. Who else could have been a threat? I have seen no evidence of anyone wishing harm upon the children. Lacking any real, tangible, or named threat against the children I must conclude that there isn't any.
- If the children did need protection why would it necessitate going into hiding? By all accounts Alex was capable of defending Lori and the children from any perceived physical threat, and yet he was never with the children as a protector. Also, the police are readily available and much more (not to mention legally) qualified to help protect against any real threat or danger - Lori has gone to police for help before, and yet, strangely, in this case not only has she not gone to LE for help but she was/is actively obstructing/preventing them from helping.
- Why isn't Lori with the children? As their mother she is morally and legally responsible for their protection. She should be the first and last one watching over them. How can she truly ensure their safety if she is nowhere near them? If she trusted someone else with their care and protection (what, not her brother or any other family members?) then she should be at the very least in constant contact and communication with them to monitor their safety and well-being. Such is not the case (per the police affidavit).
- Why move to Idaho? Prior to this Lori and her children had only ever lived in warm climes - California, Texas, Arizona, Hawaii. It is reasonable to assume that she would want to stick with what was familiar, and therefore safer, for her and the children. When we put ourselves in strange and foreign environments we, by necessity, must rely much more heavily upon others and their knowledge and expertise for help, otherwise we're at a great disadvantage. The only advantage moving to Idaho would provide in helping to protect/hide the children is that it would be completely out of the norm and unexpected for Lori and therefore might make it that much harder for someone trying to track them down. However, it doesn't appear that Lori was too terribly concerned about letting people know she had moved to Idaho - she told KW and LW, CR, JJ's dog trainer, and likely many others that they were moving to Idaho. Alex and Melani would also move into the same area, and BB knew of this fact. JJ was also enrolled into public school in Idaho. All of this would defeat the purpose of moving into a completely random and unexpected area in order to protect oneself from someone trying to do you harm.
- Claim: Lori is hiding the children because of a custody dispute.
- Lori hasn't made this claim. See same response to claim #1 above.
- Who could possibly have a custody dispute? Legally, nobody. CV was dead. JR was dead. Lori was the only person alive that could claim custody of the children. KW and LW had no rights as they relinquished those rights when they allowed JJ to be adopted. Furthermore, LE, KW and LW, and others have already disputed this claim saying there is no custody dispute over the children.
- Why even hide the kids over a custody dispute? As pointed out earlier Lori had legal custody of the children. She had already spent many years in a custody battle over Tylee, why wouldn't she do the same for JJ if necessary? A custody battle over JJ would have been won before it even began. Surely Lori would have known this. Hiding the kids in a custody battle makes absolutely no sense for Lori, especially given her past experience, and could easily backfire on her. One might argue that Lori has shown a history of taking Tylee out of state in order to thwart a custody dispute. True. But she had never made Tylee "disappear" off the face of the earth when doing so. Why now? Since Lori had legal custody all's she had to do was fight it out in court. The full weight of the law would have been on her side and she could have probably even filed charges against anyone for attempting custodial interference.
- Tylee is emancipated and/or will soon be an adult. Sure, I could entertain a custody dispute over JJ, but what would be the purpose of hiding Tylee away from some unnamed/perceived custody dispute or one involving JJ? There is none. And any supposed dispute over her - well, she's either emancipated or will soon be an adult (definitely would have been by the time anything proceeded through court) and has right over her own personage. Again, no purpose for hiding her.
- Why isn't Lori with her children? Just as in claim #1 Lori is morally and legally responsible for the welfare of her children. Everyone who I've ever known to be involved in a custody dispute keeps their children as close to themselves as possible. At all times. They fear their children being kidnapped or taken away from them and desperately cling on to them as much as humanly possible. And if the kids are not directly in their care at the time they make every effort to reach out to them regularly via phone, text, video chat, welfare checks, etc., to make sure they're still alright. Lori has done none of this, per police discovery.
- Claim: Lori is hiding them because there's large sums of money involved (generally insinuating in the process that 'evil' grandma KW is behind all of this and somehow wants JJ and Tylee in order to get ahold of the money that's at stake).
- Again, Lori hasn't made this claim. Only those people wanting to defend or garner support for Lori have voiced it. Providing no evidence to even support it.
- Grandma KW has already offered up money for the safe return of the kids, $20,000 to anyone who helps recover them. Even more, Charles' $1,000,000 life insurance payout, to Lori herself if all's she does is return the kids safely to them. Sounds like grandma is more interested in having JJ and Tylee returned safe than any supposed claim on money.
- If there's some kind of dispute over money going on then why hasn't Lori lawyered up from the beginning, even before moving to Idaho? There's no need to hide the kids, just fight it out in court. KonaHonu and others have already pointed out that she would have a reasonable and legal support for claim on the life insurance money (assuming there was no foul play involved) not to mention half of Charles' assets. There's absolutely no reason to make the kids disappear over it.
- If Lori is so concerned about the money then why was she out blowing whatever she did have by living it up in Hawaii? And if the money was supposed to be for the kids then why is there no evidence of her using any money to support the children, per police discovery? And why does it now appear that she's now being investigated for fraud by federal authorities?
I'm sure I could go on. I've tried to keep an open mind and see things from others' perspectives on how Lori and Chad could be innocent or the victim in all of this, and why the children must be hidden away for some greater good, but nothing, absolutely nothing anyone has come up with makes any kind of sense in light of known facts, established truths, and good common sense. If you or anyone else has anything to proffer in their defense I'm all ears. Nothing would make me happier than knowing with a certainty that the children are alive and safe. But you can also expect me to approach it with a critical eye and healthy dose of skepticism, because there's already a mountain of evidence painting a very different picture. JMO.
JMO
