Talk:Murders of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sources[edit]

Boudreaux shooting connection[edit]

This section was removed by Schazjmd (talk · contribs):

Brandon Boudreaux, Lori Vallow's nephew-in-law in Gilbert, Arizona, was the target of a drive-by shooting on October 2, 2019. The vehicle involved was a Jeep registered to the late Charles Vallow. Boudreaux had recently accused Lori Vallow of inducting his wife (Melani Boudreaux) into a cult. Melani Boudreaux left home for "Boise" in mid-October. On November 14, she was arrested by police for trespassing on her in-laws' American Fork, Utah property. When the Boudreaux's divorce was finalized in late November, Brandon received custody of their four children. On November 30 in Las Vegas, Melani Boudreaux married Ian Pawlowski, a Rexburg divorcee of four months. [1]

Edit summary: "removed section on Boudreaux, not relevant to topic of article, they're not mentioned anywhere else as connected in any way to the children's disappearance"

Oh, they're connected.

  • "How a Gilbert drive-by shooting is tied to the Idaho missing children" -AZ Central.
  • "‘Doomsday cult’ mom of missing kids is linked to recent attempted murder" -NY Post
  • "Relative of missing children was targeted in drive-by shooting after their mother joined a doomsday cult with her new husband - and believes the group could also be behind the kids' disappearance and three suspicious family deaths" -Daily Mail
  • "Shortly after 2 kids disappeared, someone shot at their family member" 12 news
  • "Relative of missing children believes attempt on his life is connected to a religious group" Fox10 Phoenix

I think it should be restored, perhaps expanding on it to better explain the connection based on these sources. --В²C ☎ 20:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only connection seems to be Boudreaux saying he thinks they're connected. It could be written that way in the article, that Boudreaux makes the claim that what happened to him is connected to the disappearance (although certainly not citing Daily Mail, and I'd avoid the NY Post as well). Schazjmd (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't a random shooting. The shooter was verified by police to be in a vehicle registered to Charles Vallow, the father of the missing children. The wife of the shooting target is a friend of Lori Vallow, and reportedly into the eccentric beliefs of Lori and Daybell. How is that not a bonafide factual connection? If I had just heard of this crazy case and went to WP to learn about it, I'd certainly want to know about this shooting. --В²C ☎ 20:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Born2cycle, if you start the section with "Brandon Boudreaux, Lori Vallow's nephew-in-law, claims that the children's disappearance is related to an incident in October 2019 when he was the target of a drive-by shooting. The vehicle...(etc)", then it makes a connection for the reader and gives context for why it's even mentioned. Schazjmd (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. J.'s dog[edit]

Could be used in the timeline.

Sources: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv3qzy0V9Mk: An Arizona dog trainer says he may have been one of the last people to see 7-year-old JJ Vallow before he and his sister Tylee Ryan, 17, went missing last September. Neal Mestas, of Gilbert, told Inside Edition that he trained a service dog, a Goldendoodle puppy named Bailey, for JJ, who has autism. He says he knew the family when they lived in Arizona and was "puzzled" when the dog was returned to him prior to their move to Idaho. - -https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/dog-trainer-lori-vallow-gave-up-jjs-service-dog-just-before-idaho-move: About a month following the shooting death of Vallow, Bailey was put up for sale for $2,500. Mestas says he received a phone call from Lori in August. "I'm picking up the dog, trying to help them out," said Mestas. "[Lori] said this tragedy happened, and she needed to move. She told me they were moving up north. I think she said Idaho or something like that. One of her daughters was in school in Idaho. She said they were moving up there to be with her, and so I said 'OK, let me see if I can find a home.' She said 'I need you to come get him right now.'" --Japarthur (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead length[edit]

Usedtobecool has added a lead too long tag to this article. I don’t agree that it’s too long. This story has several key elements that have to be mentioned in any useful summary. That’s pretty much all that’s in this summary.

That said, there is of course room for improvement in the lead. There might be too much detail about some of it. And anything removed from the lead needs to be ensured to be in the body. But there is no problem with length. The WP:LEADLENGTH guidance specifically allows four lead paragraphs for an article of this length (>30k; we have 37k). And that’s what we have: four paragraphs. —В²C ☎ 19:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle, The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. It did not conform to mine, and that's the only reason I tagged it. On the technical side, the article is 11K of prose, for which one paragraph summary is sufficient. Sometimes, it may be broken into two if needed. The four paragraph limit is the maximum, and is justified for topics like History of the world or Russia; here, the lead should give a straightforward 5W1H, around seven sentences are usually sufficient, maybe 10-12 if the topic is complicated. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remains identified as JJ Vallow[edit]

One of the sets of remains have been identified as seven-year-old JJ Vallow here cookie monster (2020) 755 17:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the timeline really necessary?[edit]

At the best, the timeline needs extensive edits to make it more concise, readable and grammatically correct. At worst, it possibly introduces a myriad of irrelevant details and dates that only adds confusion to the whole article. Your thoughts? MundaneIndigoMan (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While there is room for improvement, I think in general for this particularly complex story with so many inter-related events and incidents, a timeline is very useful. —В²C ☎ 19:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the style of the whole article needs improving, but the timeline does help to understand the chain of bizarre events. Salopian (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the events are too bizarre to really understand without a timeline. Kwallet (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA[edit]

I would really like to make this article GA in memory of the kids. It is very depressing that their remains were found, so I hope to honor them by making this article Ga in the future. DarklyShadows (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a memorial - it's one of the core policies. That aside, every article should be made the best it can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.50.200 (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Location[edit]

Should the coordinates of Daybell's property where the human remains were found be put into the article? If anybody wants to, it is here: 43°54′48″N 111°46′36″W / 43.91333°N 111.77667°W / 43.91333; -111.77667. Abductive (reasoning) 00:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“[Summer] 2019 to February 2020” policy on using seasons for timelines?[edit]

For events that occur in the Northern Hemisphere, is it Wikipedia policy to use seasons for dating those events? This could be a momentary confusion and complicated for people reading it in the Southern Hemisphere. If there is such a policy, then events in the Southern Hemisphere likely follow a similar policy, causing confusion for people in the Northern Hemisphere. I consider it best to use months instead of seasons in the timeline, avoiding whatever the policy on seasons is.Rich (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - I changed those headers to be more precise. Some1 (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Vallow or Lori Daybell?[edit]

Should she be referred to as Lori Vallow or Lori Daybell? cookie monster (2020) 755 04:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Vallow Daybell Seems to be most common in sources right now. —В²C ☎ 04:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birth names are the most stable ones, iMHO. --Japarthur (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reader confusion on charges[edit]

I read the article and one thing is not clear to me... Why is the mother being held on $1 million bail for a couple of misdemeanor charges? And why is the husband being tried for the four felony counts? It seems like the mother should be held responsible for her children's deaths and have the more severe charges. And who is being charged with the murders (assuming the kids were murdered)? I'm suffering some sort of disconnect...

Jeffrey Walton (talk) 06:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question again about her legal name[edit]

East Idaho News recently published a court motion filed by Lori's attorney regarding Lori's legal name. Her Hawaii marriage certificate is also attached to the motion. Her lawyer says her legal name is Lori Norene Ryan Vallow Daybell but her marriage certificate says her new legal name is Lori Ryan Daybell. How should we describe the discrepancy? [2] cookie monster (2020) 755 00:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JJ's birthname pre adoption should be in infobox right?[edit]

In the timeline it says Joshua Jaxon was born Canaan Todd Trahan. If this is true shouldnt it be in the inbox? Is it okay for me to correct this information? 174.216.132.59 (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is a terrible mess[edit]

It contains a myriad of irrelevant details and dates and is all over the place. It's extremely difficult to follow along when reading it. It's completely unstructured and convoluted, I feel a major rewrite is required. 185.68.78.1 (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'd never head of this case before and came here to get a quick summary. No luck! I gave up. Will need to find a different source to learn more. If I want ultra-levels of detail in a sort of info-dump format I know where to look. -- GreenC 21:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree though I lack the time right now, it is terribly written and hard to follow, major rewrite is needed Conway jon (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of remains section.[edit]

This section currently reads "they are no longer considered missing and the investigation is now focused on determining the circumstances surrounding their deaths". Is the investigation ongoing? Cleblutie (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 May 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 17:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow → Murders of Tylee Ryan, J. J. Vallow, and Tammy Daybell – Since Lori Vallow has now been convicted of conspiracy to murder Tammy Daybell, as well as the murders of her children, Tammy Daybell should be included in the descriptive title of this article. В²C ☎ 05:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support as while the events occurred at different times, they were all part of a larger scheme and ultimately part of the same trial. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this victim also bundled together with the other two in press coverage? Aaron Liu (talk) 10:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. The trial was about the murder of all three. For example: "In addition to being convicted of first-degree murder in the deaths of the children, and of grand theft, Ms. Vallow Daybell was also found guilty of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder in the death of Tammy Daybell, Mr. Daybell’s former wife." [3] В²C ☎ 04:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting that she was murdered, what I'm saying is I don't see any press coverage that bundles the three together. In fact the one you linked also treats it separately by including it in the sentence you quoted instead of including it in the paragraph before. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why that's a criteria that matters. We're not using a COMMONNAME title here; it's a descriptive title in this case. --В²C ☎ 02:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it matters because the coverage I mentioned shows that the event is mainly about the two children and Tammy was only related but not part of the main event. Such a title also decreases the chance of being able to search for it. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the event is mainly about the two children and Tammy was only related but not part of the main event It was all part of one larger scheme, which is covered by the trial. From WP:DESCRIPDIS: Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles. Examples: List of birds of Nicaragua, Campaign history of the Roman military, Pontius Pilate's wife (see WP:NCP#Descriptive titles) This is not a name used by our sources, but rather one describing the overall event, which includes the murder of Tammy Daybell. Such a title also decreases the chance of being able to search for it. Not sure what you specifically mean here, but the old title will continue to exist as a redirect, which can be searched. Redirects are also WP:CHEAP, so if necessary additional redirects to whatever title is ultimately decided upon can be created to address that as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We still don't know the motive of Tammy Daybell's murder, nor do we know who murdered her. Should we also include Charles Vallow and Brandon Boudreaux in the title? These aren't part of the main event, so they shouldn't be part of the descriptive title. At the end of the day, article titles still need naturalness and concision per WP:CRITERIA. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Turn this around: what makes the children's names more relevant? At least for this trial and conviction it was for the three named individuals proposed in this RM, those other people were not part of the initial charges/trial, so their connection to the event is not as concrete. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are more relevant because they were the prime event and in the initial disappearance, and the main focus of the media. Tammy Daybell was just among the "Complicating circumstances around the disappearances was a string of suspicious deaths". There isn't much reason to include Tammy Daybell in the title just because Lori Vallow was also convicted of murdering her. Just because this is a descriptive title doesn't mean the principles of COMMONNAME don't apply, in addition to the CRITERIA I mentioned above. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per what I said above. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While Daybell's death has arguably played the primary role in Chad's side of this event, as User:Aaron Liu points out, it's the two children who were the main focus of the story when it first began circulating. In addition, Google searches of Tylee Ryan's and J. J. Vallow's names both turned up nearly double the amount of results of searching Tammy Daybell's name. Even beyond feeling like an unwieldy article name, Daybell is not nearly as central to this article as Ryan or Vallow. That said, I have nothing against this and/or a title like Killings of Tylee Ryan, J. J. Vallow, and Tammy Daybell redirecting here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. I'll also note that there are two murder convictions, not three [4], which makes the proposed title even less intuitive. 162 etc. (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alex Cox[edit]

Do we have information on why Alex Cox seemingly obeyed his sister’s every command? Don’t see it in the article here or in any news articles, but seems very relevant. It’s also just so strange. Monsieur Mercury (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very strange, but I've seen only speculation about this; nothing solid in reliable sources. В²C ☎ 04:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Timeline really necessary?[edit]

I've been heavily cutting down and shortening this article due to the sheer amount of excessive and unnecessary information it has, and personally I feel as if the timeline is not even necessary because almost all of the important details on the case have already been mentioned earlier in the article. Instead of there being a timeline, I think there could be a section documenting important, more recent developments, or improvements done to the writing on the entire investigation. B3251 (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline is critical to understanding this incredible story. The timing of when the kids disappeared, when Daybell's wife was killed, when the Vallow-Daybell marriage occurred, when Alex got married, when he died, etc. etc., it's all very helpful to see these events in order with dates in compact form, exactly as presented in this section. --В²C ☎ 04:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the article could be improved to better highlight the important details whilst also staying clear from unnecessary information (which is what i had cleaned) in order to remove the excess detail tag. The article may have to be somewhat restructured in some areas to achieve this and when reading it I noticed repeating information, as well as the introductory paragraphs, which should cover more of a summary of the important bits, being far too long and detailed and would repeat later in the article. B3251 (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROSE. The prose already explains the timeline well and only explains it’s key points. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the timeline makes the critical order of events much more obvious than does gleaning it from the prose. --В²C ☎ 02:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By including a lot of tangential details and not having headers I'd say the opposite is true. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that's tangential and there are headers... specifying the dates. Are we looking at the same section of the same article? --В²C ☎ 23:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To readers who don't know much just giving dates as headers is not a good navigational aid, especially compared to the text headers. Let's say I want to know more and want to see a list. I see that they disappeared in Sept 2019 and go down to the corresponding timeline section, and I am instantly bombarded with like 20 items, with the longest and middle-ist and to me most eye-catching one being something about 2 Lori-something people reported by someone's something's private investigator bla bla discarded child items on the curb. How is this related to the incident enough to warrant such a long paragraph? How do these headers provide good navigational aids for someone who wants to know about the subject? How does it make the critical order of events more obvious by drowning everything? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a much better critical order of events is already included in the lede, the timeline's just a chronological assortment of slightly-related information. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I feel like the timeline is currently the biggest drawback keeping the ‘extensive details’ tag on this article. B3251 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the tag. It’s wrong. Countless articles have far more “extensive details” and there is no such tag on them (and no good reason for it). A timeline is somewhat unusual but this story has so many different facets it’s really the only way to present how they’re related chronologically succinctly. The lede is very good, but it necessarily presents the facets in a non-chronological order, starting of course with the killings of the two children. This has been discussed before, at #Is the timeline really necessary?. В²C ☎ 09:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly it definitely wasn't wrong before this all was removed. Just that certain articles with excessive details are untagged is not a good argument, as it is basically impossible to tag all of them.
The only parts out of chronological order in the lede is paragraph 3. Other than that, it's pretty succint. Every facet of the story is covered in there. The rest is just marriages, births, unrelated deaths, evidence of the children's disappearance, details which aren't needed for an at-a-glance. The detailed coverage is already covered in the other sections. The timeline is just an unnavigatable repeat of information already in the article. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, what do we think? Remove the timeline? Either way the timeline is excessive to the article and needs to be dealt with. B3251 (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur with removing it in favor of the lede Aaron Liu (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. B3251 (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Mooonswimmer 23:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about putting it in a separate sub-article? В²C ☎ 21:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how it would be of importance or what criteria warrants such an article. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find the timeline far more useful and informative than the article narrative text. That’s what I’ve been checking for years to keep apprised about this case. Maybe I’m the only one, but I doubt it. In any case, the only way to kniw for sure either way is to create it and then check page view counts in a few months. В²C ☎ 06:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure then. I've created a draft at Draft:Timeline of the murders of Tylee Ryan and J. J. Vallow. I've also done some hunting and found out that Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists exists. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I too found the timeline page you wrote to be FAR more informative than the current layout of the main article. I haven't really followed this case until the last few weeks and wondered what Lori Vallow was charged with in AZ, when the Lori/Chad trials were severed, when and why the death penalty was removed for Lori, and a few other things I didn't know. After reading your timeline and the attached sources, I found out all of these things in about five minutes without having to wade through a wall of text. Good job! Thank you. SteverB (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I didn't write that, Born2cycle (B2C) did. Secondly I believe the entire section named "Arrests and criminal charges" should serve that purpose. The only thing that wasn't there was the death penalty (I've now added that) and the severing dates which I don't see why people will seek. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming that. I just came back to the article after many months and find the wall of text difficult to follow, and I know the story. To someone unfamiliar with it, it’s much more challenging, I’m sure.
There are so many facets to this particular story that it really needs a compact timeline of events to understand. —В²C ☎ 13:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title and layout[edit]

I am not understanding the format of this article, particularly as there has been a tendency in recent past to downplay the killers. I know the vote was a year ago, but the input does not seem to be decided to me.

It seems like the article was written based upon what was the most notorious at the time: the weird Daybell-Vallow relationship... and the strange secrets, lies, and happenings around Tylee and J.J. A year of reflections gives us a bit more perspective on what the key issues are: serial killings, orchestrated with some unusual mindsets and motivations.

The article now[edit]

How would one know from the title about:

1.5 Killing of Charles Vallow
1.6 Shooting of Brandon Boudreaux... perhaps attempted killing
1.7 Murder of Tammy Daybell
1.8 Death of Alex Cox... and is this a crime like the others? should it be in this grouping?

Downplaying of the murder and mixture of Chad and Lori background info when it could be grouped in their section

2 Disappearance of Tylee and J.J.
2.1 Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow's marriage and flight
2.2 Investigations
Added "perhaps attempted killing" in underline.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion and title[edit]

My suggestion, based on the objective of downplaying the killers is to:

Have an initial section for the crimes and include all the victims. And, Tylee and J.J. didn't disappear, they were murdered. Four people were killed, not two. And, another was lucky not to be killed.
Have a section for the criminals: mostly Lori and Chad with their current subsection, also Alex and mention his role as a contributor and his death, and subsections for Arrests and criminal charges and Trials.

Perhaps the title could be something like Doomsday cult killings.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added, clarified thoughts about the criminals sections. I could make the section changes quickly and easily.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there,
Maybe that's because I have been adding content to the article these past few weeks but I tend to think that the current structure is pretty clear. It's relatively chronological, with 1) who the perpetrators are, their backgrounds, how they met, what made them "click" 2) their crimes 3) the trials. Also, I'm not sure how the article is downplaying anything. On the contrary (and taking into account the fact that Chad Daybell is still currently on trial) it explains in a factual manner what we know about the crimes and their perpetrators.
I'm not sure how putting the crimes before the "background" section would make the article more clear or readable, since the background helps understand the murders. IMHO it would make the article more confusing, if anything.
Also, I'd say it is crucial to highlight the disappearance of Tylee and J.J. : they did disappear (before it turned out that they had been murdered) and it was precisely their disappearance (and the extremely suspicious behavior of Chad and Lori while they were missing) that set the case in motion.
I agree that the subsection about Alex Cox's death could be moved elsewhere. Maybe it was put there because this death is included among the "suspicious events" (which it is) listed in the introduction ? Perhaps we could move that subsection in the "background" section and turn into into a subsection called simply "Alex Cox" if we add some biographical content about him.
Maybe laying out precisely how you envision the article structure would make it easier to understand what you'd like to do ?
As for the title, I'm not sure. The current title is about the most notorious aspect of the Chad/Lori case, which I find appropriate. Is "Doomsday cult killings" (or Doomsday cult murders, or something to that effect) widely used in the media ? Psychloppos (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have taken into consideration most of your points. The children disappeared, but they were killed within a day or so of going missing. I agree about the suspicious behavior. That might be better than "dramatic events" that were occurring during the investigations.
The Doomsday cult killings is used for this case... and Doomsday cult is used in the intro... but I just saw that Doomsday cult killings is a title used for other cases as well (Uganda, Kenya, somewhere in the states). Who knew? Since the Doomsday cult, assigning dark, etc. started with Daybell, perhaps the Daybell Doomsday cult killings? I don't know, but Tammy and Charles sure lost their lives.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed layout[edit]

Psychloppos You've made some good points. I've put together this outline and dropped in the dates just to help sort out the timing, not to be in the headings.

1 Background
1.1 Chad Daybell
1.1.1 Writing and publishing career
1.1.2 Religious radicalization
1.2 Lori Vallow Daybell
1.2.1 First marriages
1.2.2 Marriage with Charles Vallow
1.3 Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell meet
1.4 Lori and Chad's beliefs
2 Deaths and shooting
2.1 Killing of Charles Vallow - July 11, 2019
2.2 Prepare by moving to Rexburg - August 2019 - not needed, but kind of pivotal
2.3 Disappearance and murder of Tylee Ryan - c. September 9, 2019 - separate the two children or
2.4 Disappearance and murder of J.J. Vallow - c. September 23, 2019 - keep them combined
2.5 Shooting of Brandon Boudreaux - October 2019
2.6 Murder of Tammy Daybell - October 19, 2019
3. Investigations and suspicious events - Starts in September or October?
3.1 Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow's marriage and flight - November 2019
3.2 Death of Alex Cox - December 2019
4 Arrests and criminal charges
4.1 Lori's arrest - February 2020
4.2 Discovery of the children's remains and Chad's arrest - June 2020
4.3 Charges
5 Trials
6 In popular culture
7 See also
8 Notes
9 References
10 External links

How does that look? I would be happy to piece it together in a draft.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Color coded to make it easier to sort out the differences.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had an edit conflict, so I am just pasting this in for the moment and will reply to the previous posting.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit to add "Disappearance" to the section(s) for the children.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand better. There wouldn't be any major changes besides making the structure completely chronological.
I have to say that "Killings and attempted killing" and "dramatic events" seem a little odd to me, though. It might be useful to have other opinions. Psychloppos (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could change attempted killing back to shooting... and I mentioned that I liked your "suspicious behavior" instead of "dramatic events". I made the changes and underlined them in the layout. How does that look?
The intention wasn't to make it completely chronological, but hearing what you said, my new layout ideas were able to work out that way.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, "suspicious behavior" seems a bit odd too (does dying count as "behavior" ?). Note that I used the phrase "suspicious events" (not behavior) but I wasn't suggesting we use this as a title. We might use "Investigations and developments" for lack of a better idea...
What I am thinking about is: the cat-and-mouse game about where the children were supposed to be, Daybell and Vallow going to Hawaii, getting married, all the crazy things that happened simultaneously with the investigations (the kids, and after realizing something was up, about Tammy, too. I guess Brandon as well.)
I think "suspicious events" is better than "developments". But either works.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the use of the word "killing": my understanding is that it is currently used in the title of the subsection about Charles Vallow's death because this death has not been ruled a murder yet (Lori Vallow has yet to stand trial for this). So I'm not sure it would be appropriate to use it everywhere.
Good point. I think of it that way, too. How about Deaths and shooting?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the title of the article, I don't know if it would be useful to change it or if we should stick to the current one. The children's murders are arguably the most famous aspect of the case, first because of their horrific nature (the idea of a man killing his wife of 30 years is certainly horrible, but a mother killing her two children even more so) and second because they set the whole case in motion (if the children hadn't gone missing, the perpetrators may have gotten away with Charles and Tammy's deaths).
I see your point. I was horrified about everything that happened to the children, starting with moving and taking away JJ's service dog. But, trying to remove everyone inconvenient makes JJ's and Tylee's deaths worse to me in the big picture. There are four victims. This brings it into serial or multiple killer (I forget the latest terms). It is so utterly cruel, single-minded, and heartless for all four people, in my opinion.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that the current structure of the article is determined by the fact that Tylee and JJ's murders are more notorious that the other crimes. This explains that Charles and Tammy's deaths, and Boudreaux's attempter murder, are included in the "Background" section. We may of course change that, but that may require a general consensus as the structure is currently consistent with the title. If we don't rename the article, changing the structure will make less sense.
I agree about consensus and it doesn't make sense to change the article structure without changing the name.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to suggest a new title for the article, go ahead, but I'm not sure we can reach a consensus on that. Psychloppos (talk) Psychloppos (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that mine are any better, but perhaps running the format change and new title for discussion might include these or trigger other options:
Right now, I don't know that I have anything new to say about why it's important to bring more attention to Charles and Tammy - or perhaps make separate articles for them. Maybe that's the solution - keep them where they are in this article but link to two separate articles that explore those deaths more fully. I would do that. And, I guess leave Brandon where he is, too. A con is it could bubble up as a merge discussion later.
My wanting to include them more fully doesn't mean that I think Tylee and JJ's stories are less important, less dramatic, and what pulled us into the stories to begin with.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought of a distinction between the two formats. The current format explains the news cycles as they happened for JJ and Tylee. The new format focuses on what are all the deaths and shooting related to Daybell and Vallow.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was easier and I think clearer to drop in comments after each paragraph.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four options[edit]

Thinking about this more, I think that there are four options:

  1. Do nothing
  2. Change the format as proposed
  3. Create an article for Charles and one for Tammy
  4. Create an article based on section 2 of the proposed layout, with links to this article for JJ and Tylee. Possible titles:

(I changed labels for two headings in the proposed layout based upon our discussion - to try them on for size). Added title possibilities.––CaroleHenson (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For #4 with additional information to round out each topic. Not a copy and paste from here.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. None of these titles seem really satisfactory to me. Admittedly, it is tricky to find a perfect, comprehensive title for this case. But each one of these options has its problems and I don't see how they could be an improvement from the current one.
Maybe an input from other users could help us find additional options, but right now I'm not quite convinced that we need to rename this page. Psychloppos (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no question that the biggest hurdle as far as getting consensus is #2. It needs approval of the layout and the title.
Of options 3 and 4, I like option 4. It just seems much cleaner with a fuller picture to me, and focuses on each of the affected individuals within the context of the entire master plan.
I am willing to draft the article - and then put it up for discussion and consensus-gathering on this talk page for the content and title. I am really excited about the 4th option and appreciate how you've provided focus for wording choices.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New proposed titles:
I am thinking about starting the draft with the last one. It can always be changed with input and on the move to article space.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out one option - could mean different things - and take the article to different places.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not rush things. We can afford to wait for opinions by other users.
After all, Chad Daybell's trial is still underway and Lori Vallow has yet to stand trial in Arizona so this page may evolve again. Psychloppos (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my thoughts:
  • The issues are timely, I expect there will be more, at least a little more, about Charles and perhaps Brandon. As well as things that come to light about the others over time.
  • I have a good outline and thought process and in my experience, it's good to go with inertia.
  • I expect it will take a week or two and I can change course, if needed. I definitely expect this article to continue to grow.
  • I anticipate a different objective, content, and approach - with all relevant info for a given person in their section - but threads that go through the background and other stories.
I have a draft to request input that I am about to post. I generally write articles in two to three days, I intend to take my time.
Thanks so much for all your input, we covered a lot of ground - and all the work on this article!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the article[edit]

As I mention below, I agree that the article (and readers) would be better served by a different title. There's so much content that isn't directly related to Tylee and JJ's murders, yet it adds to the greater context. I don't think Daybell and Vallow doomsday cult deaths is perfect, but I think it better reflects the scope and framing of the article. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know; I am not necessarily against renaming the article, but I'm just not very excited about the proposed title.
Does Wikipedia have a clear policy on naming the articles about murders who do not have a widely-accepted name ? I saw for example that the article about Luka Rocco Magnotta had been renamed Murder of Jun Lin, even though Magnotta is much more famous than his victim.
Anyway, if we rename the article we'd have to find the right title and it should be addressed in a formal renaming request. Psychloppos (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool idea. I looked I couldn't figure out how to make the request so I posted this at Teahouse.
There was a recent title change to Bathtub Girls murder. I thought that was interesting.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography and WP:Title might be more appropriate to ask questions about title conventions. It would be better to ask about the policy on crime articles before starting a debate.
As for the formal renaming request, I was simply mentioning a move proposal, like the previous one here.
It seems normal that we settle for the most common name (as in Moors murders for example), but I'm not sure this case has one so far. Psychloppos (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Teahouse response from Michael D. Turnbull was: "One possibility if you can't reach consensus with others in discussion is to alert editors from interested Projects via a neutrally-worded request on a Project Talk Page to come and comment (see WP:CANVASS). Don't forget that WP:Redirects can be used for article titles, so in the end it may not matter much which title is the one used if there are several nearly-equal options. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)"[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography sounds like a great place to canvasrequest input, Psychloppos. Would you like to post something there? Or, I would be happy to do it if you like?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I ran out of fresh brain cells before I ran out of day. I do my best, really, but I have a cognitive and memory problems that were the reasons I started writing here in 2011 to keep as many brain cells alive and vital as I can and it's nice when the synapses fire in some kind of order. Wikipedia has been very good and I am very thankful to be here with all of you. Hope it's not an overshare, and just trying to let you into my world for a second and myself slide past patterns of embarrassment.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Input: New article[edit]

@Aaron Liu, Born2cycle, Psychloppos, CookieMonster755, B3251, Noloader, Locke Cole, Shoot for the Stars, Schazjmd, and Japarthur:@162 etc.:

I have an idea for a new article to:

  • Focus on all the deaths related to the Daybell and Vallow doomsday cult and how it fits their master plan
  • Perhaps - very fluid - titled "Daybell and Vallow doomsday cult deaths"
  • Within the context of the overall objective or plan - how each death was a puzzle piece towards their desired outcome

I am willing to draft an article upfront without expectations with this proposed layout

1 Background (A high level summary of Daybell and Vallow's objectives and plans as they relate to the deaths)
2 Deaths and shooting
2.1 Killing of Charles Vallow (July 11, 2019)
2.2 Prepare by moving to Rexburg (August 2019, pivotal step)
2.3 Disappearance and murder of Tylee Ryan (c. September 9, 2019)
2.4 Disappearance and murder of J.J. Vallow (c. September 23, 2019)
2.5 Shooting of Brandon Boudreaux (October 2019)
2.6 Murder of Tammy Daybell (October 19, 2019)
  • Discuss relevant investigations, relevant charges, legal issues/suits in each section
  • Dates and comments in small just for context, not meant for the headings.

It would not duplicate the Daybell and Vallow background sections of this article - and likely not the trial and other lower sections. They are covered quite well in the JJ and Tylee article and there's no need to replicate them.

Requested input - do you support me drafting this article, with no expectations, with the idea of presenting it to this talk page with potential article titles in a week or two?

I would put a link to the draft if I move ahead so people could weigh-in regarding content if they wanted to.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missed a few pings @Nythar, Fourthords, Drown Soda, and Technetium 99m:. Sorry about that!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you want to split the article ? Or do you want to create another one ? About what ? Psychloppos (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for this. The relevant sections are covered in detail here already. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped watching this article long ago. Reading it now, I think it's best to pursue renaming this article (above discussion) rather than starting a new one that will cover much of the same information. The scope of the content in this article isn't properly captured by the current title. All of the various events/attacks/deaths/murders are related to the same context necessary for reader understanding, so it wouldn't make sense to try to span articles. Schazjmd (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My original intention was to pull the deaths and shootings into one section and rename the article. See #Proposed layout. I got the impression that wasn't workable because the focus should be on JJ and Tylee. There are more victims and it's an inter-related web of deaths, is my point. I personally think it would be better to make the changes to this article and rename it. There is so much good here. If we could pull together the info about the deaths, that would help make it more cohesive than having Charles, Tammy, and Brandon handled one way and JJ and Tylee another.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but how would splitting the article make anything more cohesive ? I still don't understand what you'd like to do. Psychloppos (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about splitting the article.
I am only talking about making a cohesive Deaths and shooting section - Section 2 in both layouts. That's all we've talked about. There may not be any rewriting if the subsections just were grouped together in this article. That could be done in a couple of hours.
If the JJ and Tyle article remained and there was no expression of how the deaths were related, I thought of a separate article for Section 2 with a newm different background. I got that idea when you said that it didn't make sense to change the article or the title.
I could add more content about each of the deaths and more fully explore their master plan to be together and how the each of the deaths were like puzzle pieces towards that end.
So again, the point is a cohesive section about the deaths... Section 2.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having a separate article for section 2 is basically splitting the article. I don't see the use for that. Psychloppos (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. If we could group the deaths and shooting and rename the article to be more inclusive and have a more cohesive handling of the deaths, that would be wonderful!–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know if it will be wonderful but it might improve the article's readability a little bit (not that I find it that hard to read). Then again, as I said above, we'd have to build consensus through a formal renaming discussion and keep in mind that renaming the article is a prerequisite for changing its structure.
IMHO the easiest thing to do would be to move the section about Alex Cox's death. We could do that without making major changes to the article's structure. I'll propose the move in a separate section on this talk page. Psychloppos (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I am reading on this, it's best not to have an article that covers the deaths. It's better to rename this article and do a bit of regrouping (#Proposed layout). I am happy to withdraw this offer... unless further conversation is needed (I sometimes move too fast).–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Death of Alex Cox" subsection move proposal[edit]

I'm not sure that including the subsection about Cox's death in the "Background" section is completely appropriate. At first glance, one may get the impression that his death is part of the crimes attributed to Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow, which it isn't so far (though it can be included in the "suspicious events" surrounding the children's disappearance, and is mentioned that way in the lead section).

I'm thinking about moving the subsection in the "Disappearance of Tylee and J.J." section. IMHO it might make more sense there while making the article a little more chronological. Let me know if you're ok with this? Psychloppos (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to move the "Death of Alex Cox". I don't understand why it would go under Tylee and J.J. It wasn't related to their death.
I had suggested:
  • Grouping the deaths (except Alex) and shooting together (Section 2 in #Proposed layout), rather than having Charles Vallow's death, Tammy Daybell's murder, and Brandon's shooting in "Background".
  • And grouping, from a chronological perspective, "Investigations and suspicious events" (Section 3 in #Proposed layout), in with the crazy things that happened during the investigations, like Daybell and Vallow going to Hawaii and getting married, the cat-and-mouse "J.J. is a safe and he's happy" kind of comment and Tylee is at college game when they had been dead since about the day they went missing. And, Alex's death might fit in there as a strange-and-suspicious kind of activity.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, Psychloppos, I noticed yesterday that you have been doing the lion's share of the work on this article and it was a complicated story to tell. Really, when I think of how confused I was at the time, you've done an amazing job! I can see why the focus was on JJ and Tylee inititally because of the heated (and really confusing) news cycles. Thanks for that.
I think what could be some minor formatting and renaming to be more inclusive could add some nice polishing and make it easier for the reader to understand all the deaths (except Alex).
add pin and re-sign.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea would be to put the subsection about the death of Alex Cox after "Investigation". It happened after and in the context of the kids disappearance, just like Chad and Lori's marriage and flight, so it would make sense from a chronological point of view.
Then of course, we may also leave the article as it is. Psychloppos (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just so I am understanding, it seems what you are saying is the sections would look like this:
2 Disappearance of Tylee and J.J.
2.1 Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow's marriage and flight
2.2 Investigations
2.3 Death of Alex Cox
This section has an investigations subsection - pretty much just about Tylee and J.J., which as it stands makes sense because that's the name of the section. Other than a bit about exhumation of Tammy's body, it would seem there have been no other investigations. How is Alex's death related specifically to the disappearance of Tylee and JJ?
It seems to me that out of everyone in this story's bad fate, Tammy's seems the most tied to Chad and Lori's escape to Hawaii and marriage... if that was to be grouped with someone's specific murder.
And this means the following subsections are still under Background
1.5 Killing of Charles Vallow
1.6 Shooting of Brandon Boudreaux
1.7 Murder of Tammy Daybell
How is the shooting of Brandon and murder of Tammy "background" when they occurred in the month after Tylee and J.J. were murdered?–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think about how important this article is. How proud you should be about the work you have done on it... I really mean that. I feel a sense of protection that you have about Tylee and J.J. - that you need the article to be a certain way for them.
I like how you focused on making one change in a way that is safe. I wonder if pulling Charles, Brandon, Tammy, and Alex out of Background would be a nice change that helps the article but isn't too dramatic.
It's a strange kind of comment to make, I know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is "background" in the sense that Tylee and JJ's murders are the main subject of this article. Per the lead section: "Amid the disappearances was a string of suspicious deaths and events".
As for Alex Cox's death, it happened in the context of Chad and Lori's marriage and flight, which in turn happened in the context of the disappearances. Psychloppos (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But disappearance of Tylee and JJ did not happen "Amid the disappearances was a string of suspicious deaths and events" of Brandon, Tammy, and Alex. They didn't. Tylee and J.J. were dead before then. You and I may have been waiting, wondering, and biting our nails for them for months, but really, they were dead the day or one day after they went missing. They were missing because they were dead.
In the whole scheme of things, how important is it that they stay in "Background"?
I am feeling we are at an empasse, but I gave it one last try. I think we're ready for a third opinion or to reach out to the True Crime project / group you mentioned. You never answered whether you wanted to write up a request or have me do it, so I am happy to write it up today or tomorrow unless you feel differently now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was not my idea so you may do it yourself if you like. Psychloppos (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 May 2024[edit]

There has been some discussion for some time about renaming the article because it covers the deaths of Charles Vallow, Tylee Ryan, J.J. Vallow, and Tammy Daybell... as well as the shooting of Brandon Boudreau, but the title and sections are focused on Tylee and J.J.

Upon reluctance to change the title and layout of the article (#Proposed layout), I suggested a #Input: New article just about the deaths - but adding more information about why each person's death was part of the Daybell-Vallow plan and how they were interrelated (i.e., some duplicate info about the deaths, but none of the other sections). That option did not fly, but responders said that they thought it would be better to rename and made some adjustments to the article.

It would be nice to resolve this so that there was better reflection of the involved parties. One suggestion is "Daybell and Vallow doomsday cult deaths" Assistance is greatly appreciated. This is a summary for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that one of the killings (not yet gone to trial) occurred in Arizona, not in Idaho.
Another thing is that while there was indeed some sort of a cult around Chad Daybell and Lori Vallow, and that it seems to have been instrumental in "grooming" their accomplice (Alex Cox) the murders appear to have been mostly related to the private lives of Daybell and Vallow and less to the "cult" itself. On Vallow's case, the court ruled that the religious stuff was a bizarre rabbit hole to justify her crimes, and not the cause of said crimes.
So while I'm not against renaming the page, I'm not sure we can find a 100% appropriate title.
At the end of the day, I'm not even even sure that it would be useful to rename. Psychloppos (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally may be important to note that Tylee and J.J.'s disappearances and murders sparked the media attention towards the Daybell/Vallow case along with each death or misc. event surrounding it. Fundamentally, the kids' murders are the reason why the strange sequence of events leading up to it started receiving attention and investigation. B3251 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's still by far the most notable aspect of the case. Which is why the current title and layout are not really a problem. It may not be perfect (I doubt that we can have a perfect title for this article anyway), but it's not confusing either. Psychloppos (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the focus of the article should remain on Tylee and J.J., then IMHO there should be a separate article for Tammy Daybell. It doesn't need to be a split, because there's not much focus about her and what's in the intro could be trimmed down and the section about her taken out all together, with her article linked in Chad's section. Splitting Pulling her out of this article seems to be the way to go, especially since the title of the article with Tammy's name was turned down.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. How about simply Doomsday murders? If you Google for that, this article is first on the results, demonstrating this name is already commonly associated with this topic. — В²C ☎ 22:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, works sense to me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murders_of_Tylee_Ryan_and_J._J._Vallow&oldid=1225036064"