...that led to multiple 'Landmark
Forensic Analysis Discoveries' about Amelia Earhart's World Flight Outcome
By Tod Swindell
[Special thanks to Randall Brink, Joe Gervais, Rollin
Reineck, Ronald Reuther, and Donald Moyer Wilson; past collaborators who helped to enlighten a higher understanding of Amelia
Earhart's world flight outcome.]
With all that
has been learned, discovered and revealed about Amelia Earhart's world flight ending over the years, it is amazing how such
obvious truths ended up being so ignored by historical dictum influences. As a result, news outlets were limited to covering
perspectives on Amelia's loss in an ‘anything goes’ way, that in turn shored-up the 'official silence'
mantra, 'the mystery exists because it's supposed to exist.' Yet in the case of Amelia Earhart's 1937 world
flight ending and outcome, until Protecting Earhart's forensic analysis took place it remained difficult for the public
to envision what happened to Amelia as a result of her unplanned world-flight ending, or to physically recognize what became
of her afterward.
journey of mine began slowly at first in 1991, but it took a dramatic turn in 1996, then catapulted forward to 2006 after
I was asked to participate in a National Geographic Channel special about the so-called ‘mystery of Amelia Earhart’s
disappearance.’ I reluctantly agreed to appear in the program, then regretted doing so after watching its timid-effect
results that edited out 95% of what I brought to the table. Nat Geo's effort was deliberate when it came to whitewashing my
contribution. But hey, I’m still here, and the important thing to realize is to this day the United States government,
the Smithsonian Institution, and the National Geographic Society as well have never offered their own definitive opinions
about the Amelia Earhart disappearance matter. Rather, while the U.S. government kept its distance, the Smithsonian and Nat
Geo developed a habit of equally placating different viewpoint wielding 'Earhart disappearance investigators' out there--while
steadfastly adhering to the ideology of Amelia's loss perpetually existing as an unsolved, or even more-so, an unsolvable
Tom Crouch of the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum once told me over the phone, “We’re
not allowed to express a certain viewpoint about Amelia Earhart's disappearance.” Noel Dockstater, a producer for the
National Geographic Channel likewise mentioned to me, “There is no way we can say the mystery is solved.”
I’m the first to agree that something happened to Amelia Earhart on July 2, 1937 that people in the public
realm are lacking key information on. Equally though, today it remains a hard, unrecognized reality that Amelia’s missing
person case was solved by USAF Major Joseph A. Gervais (Ret.) when he presented her body evidence on a national level in 1970,
in the form of an enigmatic woman known as ‘Irene Bolam’ who he met and photographed in 1965. The
forensic study I embarked on and completed in the new millennium, that featured an objective to prove the assertion of Major
Gervais about the Irene Bolam he met and photographed either way, right or wrong, ended up proving him right—in
what now exists in a highly obvious way.
Presently, while the general public is still being coerced
to ignore this truth, I'm one to believe that is likely to change before too long. For universal truths, as opposed to often
inaccurate world generated truths, always do manage to prevail. Besides that, it's time. TS
In the latter part of the Twentieth Century, I learned quickly if one wanted to understand the full
scope of the so-called 'Amelia Earhart mystery' he or she was in for a confounding ordeal. Amelia's disappearance had long
existed as a hotly debated topic, which is why only a handful of individuals ever commanded the depth of knowledge and tenacity
required to take it on.
From the past it can be said Paul Briand, Joe Gervais, Bob Dinger, Fred Goerner, Vincent Loomis,
Joe Klaas, T. C. 'Buddy' Brennan, Randall Brink, Donald Moyer Wilson and Rollin Reineck existed foremost on the short list
of the most formidable Amelia Earhart disappearance historians. Sadly, with the exception of two, they're all gone now. [I
am proud to have previously collaborated with Gervais, Klaas, Brink, Wilson, and Reineck.]
qualifying factor for the above investigators; their individual efforts led to reputable published books where all drew the
same conclusion: On July 2, 1937, after not locating Howland Island, Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan went down at Mili Atoll
of the Marshall Islands where they were picked up by Japan's Imperial Navy and detained without public awareness.
official history has never endorsed this common summation, for according to 'official history,' Amelia Earhart, her plane,
and Fred Noonan were not seen nor heard from again after Amelia's purported last words of, "...we are running north and
south" were received---as she and Noonan remained safely airborne with hours of fuel left to burn.
Yes, officially that is where their story ended. The only thing missing was the truth
concerning the final direction the duo decided to head in, and where they ultimately ended up. Even though the above impressive
collection of Amelia Earhart historians ascertained the answers to both questions, they were still greeted by 'official silence'
in Washington and Tokyo after their information was made public. Ever evasive about it due to a quiet post World War Two pact
than remains in place to this day, the governments of the United States and Japan have managed to avoid any public discussion
of Amelia Earhart's 1937 world flight ending in a serious, meaningful way.
In the 1990s, after learning most of
the basic Earhart disappearance facts while culling stories for a television series, I found myself embarking on my own analysis
of Amelia's loss. I was originally inspired to by a Life Magazine article I read about a fellow by the name of Richard Gillespie,
who claimed he had 'solved the mystery' of Amelia's disappearance. What further caught my attention, though, was a follow-up
story citing the claim as presumptuous—where the mystery had not at all been solved 'forensically.' The many conflicting
viewpoints about it further revealed to me how Amelia's disappearance had evolved to become a polarized historical subject
But it was the mention of 'forensically' that got my attention. Its root word, 'forensic' is most
often associated with evidence examination techniques used in police laboratories, although there is a broader scope to its
meaning. Webster’s defines it this way:
forensic (fə ren’sik) adj. 1. pertaining to or used in courts of law or public
debate. 2. adapted or suited to argumentation; rhetorical. 3. of, pertaining to, or involved with forensic medicine or forensic
anthropology; forensic laboratory –n 4. forensics, the art or study of argumentation or formal debate. 5. forensics,
a department of forensic medicine as in a police laboratory.
There is a simpler definition where
'forensic' is combined with 'evidence' via 'forensic evidence.' It reads: "That suitable for argumentation in a court
Interestingly enough as well, 'forensic' came from the Latin word, 'forens-is' that when translated
means, "of, or belonging to the forum, public." Realistically, forever lacking an authoritative explanation for
what happened to Amelia Earhart, this was exactly the way her 'missing person case' story eventually came to exist. Official
history wanted nothing to do with it, so it ended up being exclusively debated in public forums. In fact, to date there has
never been an official investigation that looked into Amelia Earhart's disappearance, or an official explanation offered about
it; nothing akin to a Warren Commission Report, a Lindbergh baby kidnapping trial, or FBI hunts for Jimmy Hoffa or D.B. Cooper.
Hard to believe but true, even Eleanor Roosevelt was met with deflection by the White House when
she queried about her friend, Amelia’s disappearance ten months after the incident occurred. The cautious reply she
received stressed that Amelia's flight ending was something that would be "awful to have to make public," and how
Amelia's "reputation" would also suffer if the White House divulged what it withheld about her, "last few minutes."
It's true, that beyond admonishing Amelia for having "disregarded all orders," FDR right
hand man, Secretary of the Treasury, Henry P. Morgenthau Jr. could not have been more blunt in his response to the First Lady
when he described how the White House controlled information pertaining to what really happened to Amelia Earhart in an official
transcript dated May 13, 1938. Referring to Amelia's loss, Morgenthau responded, "We have the report of all those wireless
messages and everything else, what that woman--happened to her the last few minutes. I hope I've just got to never make it
public." Morgenthau's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Stephen Gibbons added, "We have evidence that the thing
is all over. Sure, terrible. It would be awful to make it public."
Evidence? What evidence? The
"wireless messages" the White House had surely wasn't 'smoking gun' evidence. It was second-hand evidence at best.
Smoking gun evidence would have amounted to Amelia's body, Fred Noonan's body, or Amelia's plane. The White House did not
have any of those 'smoking gun' items. On the other hand, the hearsay pertaining to Amelia's 'last few minutes' ostensibly
left the White House believing she and Noonan had been shot down by Japan as they trespassed into its Marshall Islands airspace,
and Japan's follow-up silence left the White House believing the duo met their demise that way.
That's not what happened though.
In the 1960s it was first publicly divulged that the Earhart-Noonan duo survived their Marshall
Islands plane ditching before they were picked up by Japan's Naval authority and subsequently detained. History itself recalls
Japan declaring war on China just five days after Earhart and Noonan went missing, a World War Two precursor that all-but
severed Japan's diplomatic relationship with the United States. Japan chose to remain silent about its pickup and detainment
of Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan at that point, that happened about the same time the Marco Polo Bridge incident occurred.
There was a similar historical atmosphere realized there as well: Right at the time Amelia was declared
'missing' a Japanese soldier had also gone missing in Wanping, China near the Marco Polo Bridge, and after China refused to
allow Japan's military to conduct a search for him there, Japan opened fire on the bridge, then invaded China. It is perhaps
no irony that right before its assult on Japan began, the U.S. had asked Japan permission to search the Marshall Islands for
Amelia, and Japan had refused to allow it, then evermore remained silent when it came to the subject of Amelia Earhart's world
As a result, early on FDR and his administration could only guesstimate what happened to Amelia
Earhart and Fred Noonan, although in due time the White House surely did come to understand and accept... it had guessed wrong
by determining the two died as a result of Amelia's plane being shot down.
As for Morgenthau's mention of Amelia having "disregarded all orders," her decision to
steer into the vicinity of Japan's 'no-fly zone' Marshall Islands likely had something to do with that.
on my forensic analysis journey those years ago, initially with the help of former CIA operative, Bazzel Baz, an Amelia Earhart
researcher by the name of Mike Harris, a Forensic Anthropologist by the name of Walter S. Birkby, and WGA screenwriter, David
O'Malley--whose well-researched screenplay, "Amelia Earhart: The Final Chapter" got my attention--I soon found myself
evaluating the wide variety of ‘cottage industry’ debates over what really happened to Amelia Earhart and her
navigator, Fred Noonan--until my mindset took a major turn in 1996. That summer, Earhart investigative author, Randall Brink
paved the way for my introduction to legendary Amelia Earhart disappearance investigator, retired U.S. Air Force Major, Joe
When I met Joe Gervais he was spry and sharp at age seventy-one. We went on to become good friends
and remained so until his passing in 2005. [I remain in touch with my friend, Randall Brink, whose 1993 classic investigative
book, Lost Star: The Search For Amelia Earhart was then considered to have been the quintessential modern thesis when
it came to describing the events and aftermath of Earhart's ‘globe circling flight.']
Brink told me was right: Joe Gervais was an amazing, walking encyclopedia when it came to Amelia Earhart's disappearance.
To be sure, he had a den in his home entirely dedicated to his forty-years of investigating Amelia Earhart's loss. Upon our
acquaintance I already believed Amelia lived beyond the date she was reported missing, although I remained unclear on the
‘how’ and ‘where’ parts of her continued survival, and I hoped Joe Gervais would better enlighten
I found Joe Gervais curious as well, for ever since the 1960s he had professed—and still was
professing—that the wool had been pulled over the public’s eyes about Amelia’s disappearance dating back
to the time the event occurred. What’s more, he was still asserting how the woman known as 'Mrs. Irene Bolam’
who he met and photographed in 1965 among other well-known retired pilots, the same woman who inspired and whose photo appeared
in the 1970 Joe Klaas book, Amelia Earhart Lives, had been none other than the still living, re-identified Amelia Earhart.
[Note: In 1965 Joe and his wife, Thelma and their two sons, Gerald and Douglass were flown to Long Island, New York from their
Las Vegas home by Amelia's 1930s pilot friend, Viola Gentry so Joe could lecture about his Earhart disappearance investigation
to a club known as 'The Early Birds of Aviation.' It was there on the day of August 8, that Joe Gervais met the curiously
prominent, Mrs. Irene Bolam and her British husband, Guy.] Yes, in 1996, a quarter century after Mrs. Bolam sued Joe Gervais
and Joe Klaas for libel, causing Amelia Earhart Lives to be removed from the stores by its publisher, McGraw-Hill, Joe Gervais
was still insisting Mrs. Irene Bolam had previously been known as 'Amelia Earhart.'
To Joe Gervais, Mrs. Bolam's
defiance didn’t matter. “She still knew who she used to be," he'd say. And, "people don't realize, she
didn't sue us for suggesting she used to be known as Amelia Earhart, she sued us for some libelous information contained in
the book, such as Joe Klaas having referred to her recently deceased husband, Guy as her 'alleged husband,' when in fact the
two had been legally married in 1958, and she produced her marriage license in court as proof." Gervais added, "After
I had my attorney request her fingerprints to prove her identity, she refused to comply and dropped the suit against myself
and Joe Klaas, although McGraw-Hill was still ordered to pay her a high five figure sum for the libelous information the book
contained." [The record shows Irene Bolam and Gervais and Klaas paid a ten dollar consideration to each other to finalize
her suit against them.]
Joe’s ongoing resilience begged my question: "Did anyone ever conduct a Forensic Analysis
that examined Irene Bolam’s complete life history, to include comparing her physical being and character traits to Amelia’s?"
His reply surprised me: "No, not that I am aware," adding. "...but I knew who she was right away." He
further added, "People continued to suspect her," and, "There was an investigative news article series about
her in 1982, a few months after she died. You should take a look at it."
I was able to obtain a copy
of the series Joe referenced. It was published over a two week span in October of 1982 by the Woodbridge New Jersey News Tribune.
A long time good friend of Mrs. Bolam’s, John Burk was the paper’s publisher at the time. It wasn't so obvious
at first glance, but the more I studied it I could tell the series had been no less that a contrived Red Herring. The effort
that went into it was significant though, and displayed how the level of the ongoing protective stance over who Irene really
was [or used to be] was truly stupefying. It also increased my curiosity, especially after reading a few key words spoken
by former Seton Hall College President, Monsignor James Francis Kelley in the series, who it described as Irene's "Close
friend and confessor." Responding to a reporter who questioned him if the rumor of Irene’s past 'dual identity'
was true, Father Kelley responded, “I could not state my feelings. Doing so would violate everything I learned in the
In the years that followed, Monsignor Kelley would disclose to different investigators how his late
friend, Irene truly had been the 'former' Amelia Earhart, who, adjacent to her return to the United States had her name changed
in order to live anonymously. "She didn’t want to be Amelia Earhart anymore," according to Kelley.
Kelley died in 1996, opposing theorists who heard about his earlier admissions began shouting them down. For example, Richard
Gillespie of Tighar, whose decades of searching for Amelia's plane came up empty, soap-boxed Monsignor Kelley's conveyance
about Irene as if his words amounted to the deposition of a chronic liar.
Conversely, close friends of
Monsignor Kelley's who knew him well spoke of how sharp and on-point he was in the late 1970s, when he first shared with them
his ordeal of 'having helped Amelia' with her 'healing process' and 'new identity' after she returned from overseas. All of
them were certain it was not something the highly regarded priest made up. Among them was his St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands
good friend and seasonal neighbor, Donald Dekoster, a former Detroit automobile executive whose recorded testimony described
Father Kelley as "quite lucid" when he disclosed the Gervais-Irene’s ‘Amelia past’ to him. When
asked if he felt Monsignor Kelley's statement about Amelia's identity change was true, Mr. Dekoster remarked, "It had
to be true, or he wouldn't have said it." Another supportive account came from Helen Barber of Wayne, Pennsylvania [both
Donald Dekoster and Helen Barber were interviewed on tape, and their spouses were also present during Monsignor Kelley's disclosures
about his friend, Irene, who he referred to as 'Amelia' in their presence] whose detailed recollections of her conversations
with Monsignor Kelley about his post war experiences with the former Amelia Earhart were compelling to say the least; and
of course there were the recorded statements Father Kelley himself allowed to investigators, Dean Magley and Rollin Reineck,
in which the well-known and highly respected Monsignor spoke of his late friend, "Irene" having previously been
known as "Amelia" in a matter of fact way.
When listening to Monsignor Kelley’s 1991 unwavering
tape-recorded confirmation of the truth he had protected for many years with few exceptions, (as long as the former Amelia
Earhart remained among the living) and then by combining it with the forensic comparison analysis that plainly displays how
three different women were attributed to the same 'Irene' identity--with the one matching Amelia appearing nowhere as 'Irene'
prior to the mid-1940s, the most astutely objective individuals are able to grasp the ‘Amelia became Irene’ reality
in no uncertain terms.
To edify: Monsignor Kelley arrived at his own resolve during the years following his good friend,
the Gervais-Irene’s passing, that enabled him to plainly speak of the controversial reality he had long shielded from
the general public.
Back to my journey...
After thoroughly digesting the 1982 so-called "investigative newspaper article
series," I steered my own ship in the direction of sponsoring and conducting a serious in-depth analysis of the complete
life history of the woman in question, Irene Madeline O’Crowley Craigmile Heller Bolam. Ultimately, I believed a Forensic
Comparison Study and thorough analysis of her background would be a sure-way to close the book on Joe’s long-time assertion
of Amelia Earhart’s post-loss survival as a re-identified person.
I was wrong. It wasn't that
simple. It soon dawned on me that a complete forensic analysis of the full historical record of the events leading up to,
during, and after Amelia's loss would also be required in order to: 1.) Determine the true probability of Amelia's continued
survival after July 2, 1937, 2.) Determine what the circumstances of her post-loss survival entailed, 3.) Determine when she
actually emerged in the United States as 'Irene,' and 4.) Objectively evaluate her later life friendships and routines as
With much help offered by Joe Gervais, retired USAF Colonel, Rollin Reineck [Reineck tape-recorded
Monsignor Kelley’s admission in 1991] and famous pilot-turned-author, Ann Holtgren Pellegreno--who collectively furnished
rare photos and compelling information about Irene’s personal life history--it began to dawn on me why Joe had remained
so sure of himself when it came to the Irene he met and photographed all those years ago. I also realized why the debunking
or affirming of his assertion was never going to be done easily, for after all, by the late 1990s three decades had passed
without anyone else having done it.
During the arduous process I became involved with, I also found myself increasingly
intrigued by Joe’s 'Irene' as I worked to determine how and why her enigmatic psyche had evolved to exist the way it
For instance, some individuals who had acquainted her but did not believe she was formerly known
as 'Amelia' offered that she wanted people to think she was the survived Amelia Earhart as an 'odd publicity stunt.'
I didn’t buy that.
Bill Prymak, founder of the now defunct 'Amelia Earhart Society' tried to convince me Irene Bolam was "placed on the
scene" to make Joe Gervais think she used to be Amelia, because Joe had gotten, "too close to the fire."
I didn’t buy that either.
A private detective, the late Jerome Steigmann told me Irene Bolam and Monsignor Kelley had been
long time secret lovers, and Father Kelley told people Irene used to be Amelia in order to hide it.
brother," I said to myself, knowing the shared Irene identity equation and the head-to-toe physical and character traits
congruence the Gervais-Irene and Amelia Earhart shared were no coincidence.
So no, I didn't buy the 'Msgr. Kelley and Irene were secret lovers' malarkey either.
also mentioned he knew a different truth about Irene, one where she had been a Russian spy and the United States government
had paid him "a lot of money" to keep quiet about it.
To me, Mr. Steigman's broad claim was another outlandish
detour to avoid.
What I did buy into, at long last, following a ton of investigative work requiring countless reach-outs, a massive amount
of information gathering, endless letters and e-mails of correspondence, well over a hundred comparison studies, extensive
travel that involved meeting and interviewing the most noted Amelia Earhart disappearance investigators and a slew of other
disappearance story or family connected individuals, lectures I was engaged to deliver at research symposiums to include a
few at the annual Amelia Earhart Festival in Atchison, Kansas and a major one at the Oakland Air and Space Museum's 'Earhart
Research Symposium' [resulting in my early study efforts making national news] yes, by 2006, just a year after the passing
of Joe Gervais, I found myself sitting high above Time Square in the office of Larry Heller’s attorney for a pre-arranged
meeting with Larry Heller himself, the 1934 born son of the ‘original’ Irene Madeline O’Crowley Craigmile
It was then I confirmed with absolute certainty, after Mr. Heller's identity placements indicated the younger and older versions
of the "Non Gervais-Irene" [as labeled in the forensic comparison study] to be the woman he recognized as his 'mother,'
how three different women had been attributed to the same 'Irene Bolam' identity, and the 'Irene' who Joe Gervais met and
photographed in 1965, [labeled in the study as the "Gervais-Irene"] who matched Amelia in every way... could only
have been the woman previously known as 'Amelia Earhart.' By the time all was said and done, while still facing massive public
denial, this long buried truth had finally revealed itself in a forensically determined way. I just wished Joe Gervais had
lived to see the forensic verification of something he honestly determined for himself decades earlier.
Protecting Earhart examines the overall history of Amelia’s loss and features an extensive Forensic Analysis
and Comparison Study that closely scrutinized and dissected Joe Gervais' 'Amelia Earhart changed her name to Irene' conclusion.
The entire effort enables one to realize how Wikipedia’s, TIGHAR’s, Alex Mandel’s, Elgen Long’s, and
the Amelia Earhart Society’s versions of Amelia Earhart’s final fate--along with other non-representatives of
official history whom over the years presented different theories while backing perpetual efforts to decry the decades-old
Gervais claim, consistently endorsed misleading, if not outright misinformation about the Irene Bolam story that resulted
in their own and others' false-drawn conclusions.
By reading Protecting Earhart and examining the
entire Forensic Analysis, one is finally able to objectively review the full-gamut of available investigative research data
on the Irene-Amelia case that confirms its incontestable conclusion.
While Protecting Earhart encapsulates
the historical record of Amelia Earhart's 'missing person' case, the Forensic Analysis ventured well beyond physical comparisons
alone. It also examined and compared character traits such as voice patterns and handwriting, and personal backgrounds to
include the family histories of both Amelia and the original Irene, and Amelia's and her later-life self, the Gervais-Irene's
individual social backgrounds--that proved to be so blatantly intertwined.
In consideration of the complete
physical comparisons, the medical history of Amelia Earhart revealed her to have endured more than one sinus operation, leading
to the examination of procedure evidence noticeable on both Amelia Earhart and the Gervais-Irene. The study also compared
eyes, teeth, hands, feet, arm lengths, shoulders, breast plates and more on its way to unequivocally verifying who Joe’s
Irene used to be.
Further backing the reality of it all, the study displays how the 'Irene' who Joe Gervais met and
photographed in 1965, appeared nowhere identified as 'Irene' in photographs prior to the mid-1940s, and it includes the transcript
of, and a physical copy of the tape recording featuring Monsignor James Francis Kelley’s 1991 admission, when he confirmed
his long time close-friend, Mrs. Irene Bolam, who he helped after World War Two, truly was the survived, re-identified Amelia
The fair conclusion drawn by it all, much to the dismay of those who would rather not have to believe
or accept such a reality; anymore it is impossible to deny the equation’s naturally displayed results after combing
through the tonnage of indisputable data supporting what said results convey. As Randall Brink previously pointed out, there
already existed an 'overwhelming preponderance of circumstantial evidence' describing Amelia’s post-loss continued survival
under Japan’s auspice. Thus, adding the physical 'smoking gun' evidence, that being, the 'body evidence' of Amelia Earhart,
[in the form of the Gervais-Irene] it basically closed the book on Amelia Earhart’s age-old 'missing person' case.
In all reality
it is true anymore, in 1965 Joe Gervais actually did find a 'smoking gun' in the form of Amelia’s body... cloaked as,
'Mrs. Irene Bolam.'
It is also true, where the question of Amelia Earhart having been privately re-identified as 'Irene'
after she went missing, yes, the very idea this same question was still being asked four decades after Joe Gervais first claimed
it to be true with such veracity, really should have been enough to create a greater academic concern. In a way it is an insult
to the combined intellect of the American public that a forensic analysis should even be required to show that Joe Gervais
had been right all along about his deeply investigated Irene-Amelia deduction. Considering a basic Webster’s definition
of the word 'science,' [systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation]
anyone who would have taken the time to seriously delve into the 'forensic science' of it, not only would they soon-enough
have realized Joe Gervais was right about the Irene he met and photographed in 1965, but had they tracked the story from the
beginning they would have also realized how over time the 'Amelia became Irene' truth evolved from being greeted by high states
of ridicule in the early 1970s, to exist any further today... as an obvious reality.
Then again, the many "important
sounding people," as Gervais used to say, whom over the years so vehemently tried to convince the curious that Joe Gervais
was delusional, preferred [evidently] to continue with their less-informed assumptions in lieu of accepting how it was actually
they-themselves who fell victim to their own delusions--by not taking the time to correctly evaluate, recognize, and endorse
a truth that was plainly visible all along.
Reality is reality, though, and it’s time we all face it where the truth about
Amelia Earhart’s continued existence as a re-identified person after her famously storied 'disappearance' …is
of anyone’s concern, anymore.
Tod Swindell, 2017