A few years back, Ahmed Naji (author of ROTTEN EVIDENCE), asked me to provide an illustration for an awesome short speculative satire he wrote for Art of the Working Class. Titled THE TANTA MUSEUM OF WHITE HISTORY, it is both funny and piercingly perceptive, and he just made it available on his substack.

Highly recommended reading.

#work

“Chaque fois que j’entends un discours politique ou que je lis ceux qui nous dirigent, je suis effrayé depuis des années de n’entendre rien qui rende un son humain. Ce sont toujours les mêmes mots qui disent les mêmes mensonges. Et que les hommes s’en accommodent, que la colère du peuple n’ait pas encore brisé les fantoches, j’y vois la preuve que les hommes n’accordent aucune importance à leur gouvernement et qu’ils jouent, vraiment oui, qu’ils jouent toute une partie de leur vie et de leurs intérêts soi-disant vitaux”

Albert Camus, Carnets I, Août 1937

Je suis l’un de ceux qui jouent. Qui n’accordent aucun intérêt à cette affaire. Mais ces mots de Camus raisonnent particulièrement chez moi.

Je sais que ce jeu est d’une certaine manière malsain, dysfonctionnel et désespérant. Mais c’est malgré tout un jeu qui impacte ma vie d’une manière ou d’une autre, que je le veuille ou non.

Cette année sera la dernière où je ne voterai pas.

The Blue Monkey Story II- Chapter 3

Pierce Hayward had always believed that the best way to understand a person was to examine the things that person did when he was not attempting to impress anyone. This was not an especially original philosophy, and Pierce had never claimed to have invented it. In fact, he had probably acquired the idea from one of several experienced investigators who had supervised him during his early years as a police officer, although he could no longer remember which one. The principle was nevertheless useful. People frequently presented themselves differently depending on their circumstances, and the distinction between their public behavior and private habits could sometimes provide important information about their motives. A man who described himself as a devoted husband might spend much of his free time avoiding his wife, while another who complained constantly about his marriage might nevertheless make considerable sacrifices for his family. An individual who appeared generous in public might be extraordinarily selfish in private, and a person who seemed unpleasant during a police interview might turn out to be reliable, conscientious, and generally well regarded by everyone who knew him. Pierce had learned not to attach too much significance to any single observation. He preferred to assemble information gradually, considering each source in relation to the others, until a sufficiently consistent picture emerged.

This approach was particularly important in the investigation of Jonathan Xavier Smith, because nearly everything Pierce had learned about the missing man appeared to contradict something else. John was an extremely wealthy attorney who had once lived without a permanent residence. He owned substantial commercial properties and employed household staff but had apparently enjoyed spending his days playing guitar in public parks. He had access to nearly any convenience money could purchase but had deliberately traveled into an unfamiliar rural area without a cellular telephone, where he eventually exhausted the fuel supplies of two vehicles. He possessed enough money to purchase an entire farm but had nevertheless agreed to shovel manure and milk cattle in exchange for gasoline. None of these behaviors was necessarily irrational when considered in the context of John's unusual history, but Pierce found the combination difficult to reconcile with the ordinary assumptions he had made when first learning the man's identity. It was not that wealthy people were incapable of behaving eccentrically. Pierce had met plenty who did. What interested him was the possibility that John's apparent eccentricities were not random at all but reflected a coherent dissatisfaction with the life he had constructed after winning the lottery.

Pierce arrived at the sheriff's office shortly after eight on Saturday morning, having slept for approximately five hours. He had intended to remain in bed until nine, but awakened earlier than expected and found that he could not return to sleep. He spent several minutes lying in bed thinking about the newspaper article describing John's lottery win, then decided that he might as well get up and begin working. He prepared breakfast using some of the groceries purchased the previous evening, discovering that he had bought enough eggs to last considerably longer than he normally required. He scrambled two, toasted several pieces of bread, and drank coffee while reviewing the notes he had made before going to sleep. The meal was neither especially elaborate nor especially satisfying, but it was adequate. Pierce generally regarded breakfast as a practical necessity rather than an opportunity for culinary enjoyment, and he rarely varied his morning routine unless someone else prepared the food.

He arrived at the station to find the detective offices almost empty. Saturday staffing was considerably lighter than weekday staffing, and the criminal investigations division generally relied on an on-call rotation to respond to emergencies that required detectives outside normal working hours. Pierce was not formally assigned to be on call that weekend, but he had decided to work anyway because he wanted to speak with several people before the investigation lost what little momentum it possessed. Captain Rowan had not expressly forbidden him from doing so, although she had reminded him that overtime was not unlimited and that the department expected supervisors to exercise reasonable judgment in allocating their own hours. Pierce interpreted this as permission to work when necessary, provided that he could later explain why the work had been important.

Lenny Grayson arrived at approximately nine-fifteen, carrying a paper cup of coffee and wearing a jacket Pierce had not seen before. The jacket was dark brown, made from a material that appeared to be leather, and had several decorative seams that gave it a somewhat more fashionable appearance than Lenny's usual clothing. Pierce noticed it but made no comment, partly because he rarely commented on other people's clothes and partly because he was occupied reviewing a telephone message from Henry James Smith's attorney. Lenny, however, appeared to want someone to notice the jacket and eventually asked Pierce what he thought of it. Pierce looked up, examined it briefly, and replied that it seemed perfectly adequate. Lenny expressed disappointment with the response and explained that Melissa had purchased it for him several months earlier, but he had rarely worn it because he was uncertain whether it suited him. Pierce suggested that if Melissa had purchased the jacket, wearing it might be advisable regardless of whether he personally liked it. Lenny considered this a surprisingly useful piece of marital advice from a man who had never been married.

The two detectives had arranged to interview Henry James Smith at his residence late that morning. Henry had initially wanted the officers to come immediately after learning that his son was missing, but circumstances prevented an earlier meeting, and his attorney had eventually agreed to a Saturday appointment. Lenny was available because the medical examiner had not yet completed the examination of the body recovered from the Bellwether River, and there was little he could accomplish on that investigation before receiving additional information. The river death remained an active matter, but the initial evidence suggested that identification would be difficult and that no obvious circumstances presently required his immediate presence at the recovery location. Lenny had therefore arranged to spend several hours assisting Pierce before returning to his other responsibilities.

They departed shortly before ten in an unmarked department vehicle. Henry's residence was located a little more than an hour and a half away, on the outskirts of a relatively affluent community where large houses occupied spacious properties separated by ornamental landscaping, wooded buffers, and carefully maintained driveways. The route took them through several small towns and along a divided highway that Pierce had traveled many times during earlier investigations. Lenny drove while Pierce reviewed the information they had obtained concerning John and his father. The detectives discussed the lottery win, John's years as a homeless musician, and the possibility that he had deliberately attempted to return to a simpler way of life. Lenny found the lottery story particularly interesting and spent several minutes speculating about what he would do if he suddenly received $104 million. His first impulse would be to retire, although he acknowledged that his wife might object to his spending every day at home. He would then purchase a larger house, establish college funds for his children, and perhaps buy a fishing boat. Pierce asked whether Lenny had any experience operating a boat, and Lenny replied that he could easily learn. Pierce observed that owning a boat involved maintenance expenses and practical difficulties that Lenny might not fully appreciate, but Lenny dismissed this concern on the grounds that a person with $104 million could simply hire someone to maintain it.

Pierce was less interested in imagining how he would spend the lottery prize. He had never been particularly motivated by the pursuit of wealth, although he appreciated financial security and occasionally wished that his salary allowed him to retire earlier. He supposed that he would purchase a comfortable house, establish sufficient savings for Emily, and perhaps travel. Beyond that, he had difficulty imagining what he would do with such an enormous sum. Lenny suggested that Pierce would probably continue working despite having no financial reason to do so, and Pierce admitted that this was possible. Lenny considered the admission absurd. He argued that the entire purpose of making money was to free oneself from unpleasant obligations, and that continuing to perform police work after acquiring a fortune would defeat the principal advantage of being wealthy. Pierce replied that he did not regard his work as an unpleasant obligation, which Lenny conceded was probably the fundamental difference between them.

They arrived at Henry's property shortly before noon. The estate occupied several acres and was approached by a long paved driveway lined with ornamental trees. Its entrance was marked by a low stone wall and an iron gate that opened after Lenny identified the visitors through an intercom. The house itself was a large residence constructed in a style that appeared intended to suggest an older European manor, although the building was relatively modern. It contained several steep rooflines, tall windows, substantial stonework, and a broad central entrance reached by a short flight of steps. The grounds were carefully landscaped, with trimmed hedges, flowerbeds, and a circular driveway surrounding a fountain. Pierce noticed that the fountain was not operating, although there was water in the basin. He wondered briefly whether the pump was broken or whether the owners simply preferred to conserve electricity, then dismissed the question as irrelevant.

Henry James Smith had acquired the property many years earlier, during a period when his legal practice and investment activities were producing extraordinary profits. He had originally considered purchasing a smaller house closer to the city, reasoning that the additional land and elaborate landscaping associated with a large estate would require ongoing expenditures without generating any meaningful financial return. His wife, Sarah, however, had expressed a preference for a quieter residence with space for gardens and outdoor activities. Henry had initially resisted because he considered the cost unnecessarily high, but ultimately agreed after calculating that the property's value would probably appreciate over time. This calculation was not the only reason he purchased the estate, although Henry occasionally preferred to remember it that way. The more important reason was that Sarah wanted it, and by the time they had been married for several years, Henry had discovered that he was willing to spend money on her happiness in ways he would never have considered for his own.

This willingness remained one of the more peculiar contradictions in Henry's personality. In business, he was notoriously frugal, calculating costs with an attention to detail that many of his associates found exhausting. He had once argued with an office supplier over a discrepancy of fewer than twenty dollars in a contract worth several hundred thousand. He routinely challenged professional fees he considered excessive, negotiated discounts on purchases he could easily afford, and regarded unnecessary expenditures as evidence of intellectual weakness. Yet he had spent considerable sums on his wife without experiencing the resentment that ordinarily accompanied parting with money. He bought her jewelry, financed charitable projects she supported, and eventually constructed a greenhouse on the estate because she expressed an interest in cultivating plants that could not survive the local winters. Henry was aware of the inconsistency but had never considered it important enough to correct.

The detectives were met at the entrance by an elderly man named Edwin Voss, who identified himself as the household steward. Voss was seventy-one years old, had worked for the Smith family for nearly three decades, and possessed a formal manner that Lenny privately associated with characters from old British television programs. He wore a dark suit, polished shoes, and a conservative tie, and spoke with a measured precision that suggested he disliked wasting words. He welcomed the detectives, confirmed their identities, and led them through an entrance hall containing several paintings and pieces of antique furniture. Pierce was not particularly knowledgeable about art, but he recognized that some of the objects were probably valuable. Lenny was more impressed by the size of the house and quietly observed that a person could become lost merely attempting to find a bathroom.

Voss brought them into a sitting room overlooking the rear gardens and offered refreshments. Pierce requested water, while Lenny accepted coffee. The steward then excused himself to inform Henry of their arrival. While they waited, Pierce examined the room. Its furnishings were expensive but relatively restrained, with upholstered chairs, several bookcases, a large fireplace, and a collection of framed photographs arranged on a side table. Some depicted formal occasions, while others showed family gatherings, vacations, and what appeared to be a younger Henry standing beside Sarah. One photograph included a boy of approximately ten, whom Pierce assumed was John. The boy was smiling somewhat awkwardly beside his parents, both of whom appeared considerably more relaxed than in the formal portraits. Pierce wondered when the photograph had been taken and whether John remembered the occasion fondly.

Henry entered several minutes later.

He was seventy-two years old, tall, thin, and still carried himself with the confidence of a man accustomed to being listened to. His hair was predominantly white, although some darker strands remained near the back of his head, and his face possessed sharp features that had become more pronounced with age. He wore a well-tailored suit despite being at home, a habit he had maintained since his years in legal practice. Henry believed that clothing influenced both the wearer's state of mind and the impressions formed by other people, and he regarded dressing properly as a relatively inexpensive means of establishing authority. He was particularly attentive to the quality of his shirts and ties, although he disliked paying retail prices and frequently arranged purchases through acquaintances who supplied clothing to several wealthy clients.

Henry greeted the detectives politely but without much warmth. He thanked them for coming, introduced himself, and asked them to sit. Pierce explained that the department was investigating John's disappearance following a motorcycle accident and wanted to obtain information about his personal circumstances and recent activities. Henry listened without interrupting, then asked whether the police had any reason to believe his son was alive. Pierce replied that no body had been recovered and that the investigation had not established what happened after the collision. Henry considered the answer for several seconds before asking whether the blood recovered from the scene belonged to John. Pierce explained that laboratory comparisons were still underway and that he did not want to describe preliminary findings as conclusive. Henry nodded, apparently appreciating the distinction, but made it clear that he expected to be informed as soon as the results became available.

The interview began with John's recent behavior. Henry explained that his son had become increasingly dissatisfied with his professional obligations during the preceding several years, although he had not regarded the dissatisfaction as particularly serious. Successful attorneys frequently complained about their workloads, and Henry believed that such complaints were an almost inevitable consequence of accepting substantial responsibility. He acknowledged that John had occasionally spoken about leaving the profession, traveling, or spending more time playing music, but said he had always assumed these remarks were expressions of temporary frustration rather than genuine plans. “John has an unfortunate tendency to romanticize the past,” Henry explained. “He remembers the pleasant things and conveniently forgets the difficulties. He talks about how happy he was when he had nothing, but I assure you, having nothing is not something a rational man should aspire to. It may feel liberating when you're twenty-five and don't have responsibilities, but it becomes rather less charming when you need medical treatment or reach an age when sleeping outdoors causes more discomfort than pleasure.”

Pierce asked whether John had ever discussed disappearing permanently or severing contact with his family. Henry said that he had not, at least not seriously. He admitted that John occasionally resisted family expectations and that the two had argued about his future, particularly concerning marriage and children. Henry wanted grandchildren and believed that John ought to establish a family while he was still young enough to enjoy raising one. John, however, was reluctant to marry and expressed concerns that any woman interested in him would be primarily attracted to his wealth. Henry considered this pessimistic and somewhat insulting to women in general, although he recognized that a wealthy man needed to exercise caution when choosing a spouse. Pierce asked whether these disagreements had become severe enough to damage their relationship, and Henry replied that they argued occasionally but remained on good terms. He then acknowledged that they had exchanged unpleasant words during a telephone conversation shortly before John's disappearance. The argument concerned John's reluctance to settle down and his repeated complaints about the demands of his professional life. Henry insisted that the disagreement had been ordinary and that he had no reason to believe John was so distressed by it that he would abandon his life.

Pierce observed that Henry seemed particularly invested in John's career, and Henry agreed without embarrassment. He had devoted considerable time to helping his son after the lottery win and believed that John's eventual professional success vindicated the effort. He explained that John had possessed substantial intelligence from childhood but lacked discipline and direction. “He wasn't stupid,” Henry said. “That would've been easier to understand. He was perfectly capable of doing well in school, but he didn't apply himself. There is a difference between lacking ability and refusing to use it, and I have always found the second far more frustrating.” Pierce asked whether John had been close to his parents during childhood, and Henry considered the question before admitting that he and Sarah had probably devoted less attention to their son than they should have. They were deeply attached to one another, both maintained demanding professional interests, and they had assumed that providing a comfortable home, good educational opportunities, and financial security would be sufficient to ensure John's well-being. Henry recognized that this assumption had not been entirely correct, although he was reluctant to accept that it explained all his son's later difficulties.

Henry then began describing his own childhood, partly because Pierce asked how he had developed his views about work and financial responsibility and partly because Henry believed that understanding his background would help the detectives appreciate the differences between him and John. He explained that his family had been financially comfortable but not especially wealthy and that he had developed an interest in money at a relatively young age. He enjoyed saving coins, comparing prices, and identifying opportunities to purchase things cheaply and resell them at a profit. As a child, he occasionally collected discarded bottles for their deposit value and offered small services to neighbors in exchange for payment. His parents encouraged thrift but sometimes worried that he valued money more highly than ordinary childhood pleasures. Henry considered this criticism unfair because he found the accumulation of money pleasurable in itself. Other children enjoyed collecting baseball cards, stamps, or toys, while he enjoyed collecting coins and watching the amount increase. He saw no meaningful difference between these pursuits except that his collection could eventually be exchanged for things he wanted.

His interest in money developed alongside a strong desire to distinguish himself intellectually. Henry had always regarded himself as unusually creative and took considerable pride in finding solutions to problems that other people approached conventionally. This tendency eventually led him toward law, a profession in which he believed intelligence, persistence, and creative interpretation of rules could produce substantial rewards. He attended college, performed well academically, and continued to law school, where he developed a particular interest in the financial consequences of legal decisions. He discovered that the legal system contained numerous opportunities for people who understood its procedures more thoroughly than their opponents, and he was especially attracted to cases in which the financial stakes were substantial. After completing his education, he began practicing law and eventually established his own firm.

The firm became extraordinarily successful, although its reputation was not entirely favorable. Henry developed elaborate methods for evaluating the profitability of potential cases, considering the likely recovery, litigation costs, probability of success, and possibility of future business. He was willing to represent clients whom other attorneys regarded as morally objectionable, provided that their matters were legally permissible and financially worthwhile. He also pursued aggressive billing practices that occasionally generated complaints. Some former clients accused the firm of imposing excessive charges, while others praised its willingness to pursue difficult cases and obtain favorable outcomes. Henry dismissed much of the criticism as the predictable resentment of people who disliked paying for professional services. He believed that legal expertise had substantial value and that clients who benefited from it should expect to pay accordingly.

Pierce listened carefully, occasionally asking questions about particular periods of Henry's career. Lenny, who had originally expected a relatively straightforward interview with a worried father, found the extended account surprisingly entertaining. Henry was articulate, confident, and capable of defending positions that Lenny considered morally questionable with enough skill to make them sound temporarily reasonable. When Henry explained that he had once negotiated a contract allowing his firm to recover a fee larger than the amount a client ultimately received, Lenny asked whether he considered such an arrangement fair. Henry replied that fairness depended on the terms agreed to by the parties and that clients were free to reject contracts they found unacceptable. Lenny observed that some clients might not fully understand complicated contractual language, and Henry countered that the failure to understand an agreement did not automatically make the agreement unjust. Pierce recognized that the discussion could continue indefinitely without producing information relevant to John's disappearance and eventually redirected the conversation toward Henry's family.

Henry described meeting Sarah Hardwood while conducting legal work for a university. At the time Sarah was pursuing an advanced degree in pharmaceutical sciences and had been summoned to an administrative office for a meeting unrelated to Henry's business. The two encountered one another in a corridor, where Henry accidentally collided with her and knocked her to the floor. He apologized, helped her stand, and found himself immediately attracted to her intelligence and appearance. Their first date took place at a roller-skating rink that had been popular among local college students for many years. Henry explained that the location had been selected partly because it offered a relaxed environment in which two people could become acquainted without the formality associated with an expensive restaurant. The rink was inexpensive, conveniently located, and generally crowded enough that awkward silences could be avoided through observation of other patrons. It also provided an opportunity for physical activity without requiring specialized athletic ability, since inexperienced skaters could remain near the railing or simply sit and talk.

Henry then admitted that neither he nor Sarah had actually skated during the date. They spent nearly two hours sitting together, listening to music, and discussing their lives. He remembered being surprised by how easily they conversed and how quickly he became interested in seeing her again. Their second date, held at a much more formal restaurant, was less successful because both became anxious about making a favorable impression. Their third date, at an amusement park, restored the easy atmosphere of the first, and their relationship developed rapidly afterward. Henry spoke about these events with a warmth that contrasted sharply with his earlier descriptions of legal and financial matters. Pierce noticed the change and suspected that Sarah remained one of the few subjects capable of drawing Henry away from his habitual concern with money.

The couple eventually married and spent their honeymoon at a private tropical bungalow, where John was conceived. Henry described the early years of the marriage as exceptionally happy. Sarah completed her education and continued pursuing scientific interests, while Henry expanded his legal practice and investment activities. Their son grew up in comfortable circumstances and attended schools that Henry believed would provide him with excellent opportunities. Unfortunately, John showed little interest in following the path his father expected. He resisted academic work, frequently questioned rules he considered arbitrary, and appeared more interested in music and social activities than in preparing for a conventional career. Henry had difficulty understanding this behavior because John possessed advantages that many young people lacked, including financial security, educational opportunities, and access to people capable of helping him succeed. He interpreted John's lack of ambition as a failure to appreciate these advantages.

“What did you do when he left school?” Pierce asked. Henry explained that John had briefly attended community college but eventually abandoned his studies. He then moved away from home, attempted to support himself through music, and gradually lost contact with his parents. Henry had initially provided occasional financial assistance, but after several requests he concluded that continuing to give John money would simply encourage him to avoid responsibility. He therefore refused further assistance unless John agreed to pursue education or employment. John reacted angrily and eventually stopped asking. Henry admitted that the separation was painful, particularly for Sarah, who worried about their son's safety and occasionally attempted to contact him without success. Nevertheless, Henry believed that allowing John to experience the consequences of his decisions might eventually persuade him to adopt a more responsible lifestyle.

It did not.

For several years, John lived without a permanent residence, playing music and surviving through a combination of small contributions from strangers and informal arrangements with people he encountered. Henry knew relatively little about the specifics of this period because John rarely contacted him and was reluctant to discuss his circumstances afterward. He did know that John spent time in public parks, libraries, and commercial areas where musicians sometimes performed for passersby. Sarah occasionally attempted to locate him, but John moved frequently enough that maintaining contact was difficult. Henry insisted that his son had never been entirely without options. He could have returned home, accepted help, and resumed his education whenever he wished. Pierce considered this statement carefully, recognizing that Henry regarded the availability of financial assistance as equivalent to the availability of a genuine solution. From John's perspective, however, accepting that assistance would probably have required surrendering the independence he valued.

The lottery win changed everything.

Henry described receiving an unexpected telephone call from John, who explained that he possessed a lottery ticket apparently worth $104 million. Henry initially suspected a misunderstanding or some elaborate fraud, but after asking several questions he became convinced that John might actually hold a valuable ticket. He instructed his son to protect it carefully and arranged to meet him as soon as possible. The claim was eventually verified, and Henry used his legal and financial expertise to help John manage the winnings. After taxes and other necessary arrangements, John retained an enormous sum, which Henry began investing on his behalf. The investments proved highly successful, and the fortune grew substantially during the years John spent completing his education. Henry persuaded him to attend college and eventually law school, reasoning that wealth without productive occupation would leave his son dissatisfied and vulnerable to exploitation. John agreed, although Henry admitted that the decision was probably influenced partly by a desire to please his parents and partly by the novelty of having opportunities that had previously seemed unattainable.

Henry was clearly proud of the transformation. He described John's academic progress, the development of his legal career, and his growing involvement in business with an enthusiasm that suggested he regarded these achievements as a vindication of his own parenting. Pierce did not challenge the interpretation directly, although he noticed that Henry repeatedly described decisions in terms of what he had encouraged, arranged, financed, or made possible. John appeared in the account as an intelligent but inconsistent person whose success depended heavily on his father's guidance. Pierce wondered whether John would describe the relationship in the same way.

The detectives had been speaking with Henry for nearly two hours when a quiet knock interrupted the conversation.

The door opened before Henry responded, and Edwin Voss entered carrying a small silver tray. On the tray rested a single ordinary potato. It was medium-sized, somewhat irregular in shape, and still possessed a small amount of dry soil in several shallow depressions along its surface. There was nothing unusual about the potato itself. It appeared to be the sort of vegetable one might purchase at any supermarket or harvest from an ordinary garden. What was unusual was the manner in which it was being presented. Voss held the tray carefully with both hands and approached Henry with the solemn expression of someone delivering important legal documents.

“Mr. Smith,” he announced, “the gentleman has returned the potato.”

Henry stopped speaking.

For several seconds he stared at the object without moving. His expression did not suggest surprise so much as disappointment, although Pierce could not determine whether the disappointment concerned the potato, the person who had returned it, or the fact that Voss had interrupted the interview to announce its arrival.

“Is he still here?” Henry asked.

“No, sir.”

“And you're certain this is the same one?”

“Quite certain, sir.”

Henry sighed and looked toward the window. “Put it in the study. And for God's sake, don't give him another.”

“Very good, sir.”

Voss inclined his head slightly, turned, and departed with the tray.

The door closed behind him.

Pierce looked at Lenny, who was examining the place where Voss had stood with an expression of concentrated professional restraint. Lenny returned the glance but did not speak. Henry remained silent for another moment, then adjusted the cuff of his shirt and looked back toward the detectives. Pierce asked whether everything was all right, explaining that they could suspend the interview if Henry needed to attend to a household matter. Henry shook his head and replied that it was a private matter of no consequence to their investigation. He apologized for the interruption and asked Pierce to repeat his last question.

Pierce did so.

The conversation resumed.

Lenny later remembered the incident with exceptional clarity, although he would have difficulty explaining why. It was not that the presence of a potato in a wealthy household was inherently remarkable. Potatoes were common vegetables, and there were numerous legitimate reasons for transporting one between rooms. Nor was it necessarily strange that a man with Henry's financial resources might have employees who handled relatively minor domestic matters on his behalf. The unusual aspect was the suggestion of a longstanding arrangement involving a particular gentleman, a particular potato, and an apparently established prohibition against providing another. Henry's reaction indicated that the matter possessed a history known to him and Voss but not to the detectives. Lenny was intensely curious about that history and briefly considered asking a follow-up question, but decided against it because the incident did not appear connected to John's disappearance. Pierce reached the same conclusion, although he devoted less thought to the matter. Both men therefore allowed the interview to continue without further reference to the potato.

Henry was explaining that John had become increasingly restless during the preceding year. His professional success had brought additional clients, properties, investments, and administrative responsibilities, but he seemed less satisfied with each new achievement. He frequently complained about the number of appointments he was expected to attend and the difficulty of finding time for music or travel. Henry had advised him to delegate more of his responsibilities, pointing out that a man with such substantial financial resources could employ competent people to manage nearly every routine aspect of his affairs. John replied that delegation did not eliminate the psychological burden of being responsible for so many things. Even when he was not personally conducting business, he remained aware that decisions were being made on his behalf and that unexpected problems might require his attention.

Pierce asked whether John had ever considered selling his businesses and retiring. Henry admitted that the possibility had been discussed, but he regarded it as a poor decision. Many of John's investments were profitable, and selling them would create tax consequences and potentially sacrifice future income. He also believed that John would become bored if he abandoned professional work entirely. Henry had seen wealthy acquaintances retire early and subsequently develop expensive hobbies, unhealthy habits, or an exaggerated interest in the personal affairs of family members. He considered productive occupation an important source of structure and satisfaction, even for people who did not need to work financially. Pierce observed that John's years as a homeless musician suggested he might be more comfortable with an unstructured life than Henry believed. Henry acknowledged that John had once enjoyed such circumstances but insisted that he remembered them through the distorting influence of nostalgia.

The interview then turned to the argument between father and son shortly before John's disappearance. Henry explained that he had again raised the subject of marriage and children, partly because he wanted grandchildren and partly because he believed John would benefit from having responsibilities unrelated to business. John reacted poorly, accusing his father of wanting to organize every aspect of his life. Henry responded that he was merely offering advice based on considerable experience and that John was free to ignore it if he wished. The conversation deteriorated when Henry suggested that John's reluctance to marry reflected an unwillingness to commit himself to anything that might interfere with his personal freedom. John replied that he had already committed himself to more obligations than he wanted and that his father appeared determined to add still more. Henry admitted that he became angry and told John that the ability to choose one's responsibilities was a luxury many people would envy. The conversation ended without either man apologizing.

Pierce asked whether Henry believed the argument might have contributed to John's decision to take an unscheduled trip. Henry considered the question for some time before replying that it probably had. He did not believe his son intended to disappear permanently, but he could easily imagine John taking a day away from his responsibilities partly to demonstrate that he could do so without asking permission. Henry described this as a characteristic John had possessed since childhood. When told not to do something, John sometimes became more interested in doing it, even when the prohibited action had held little appeal beforehand. Henry remembered an incident at school involving a fire alarm that John pulled after being specifically instructed not to touch it. The resulting evacuation had caused considerable disruption, and John received several disciplinary punishments. Henry had been furious, particularly because his son admitted that he had not considered pulling the alarm until the teacher mentioned it.

Pierce recorded the account. The incident was old and did not appear directly connected to the disappearance, but it suggested a tendency toward impulsive defiance that might help explain why John ignored warnings or rejected advice. Pierce asked whether John had displayed similar behavior as an adult, and Henry replied that the tendency had diminished but never entirely disappeared. He occasionally refused sensible suggestions merely because he resented being told what to do, a habit Henry found exasperating. Pierce considered the refusal to carry a cellular telephone an obvious example. Henry agreed and said that if John had simply taken the device, the family might have been able to locate him before the accident or obtain assistance afterward.

The conversation eventually shifted to Sarah. Henry explained that she had been devastated by the disappearance and was resting upstairs after spending much of the previous two days contacting friends and relatives. Pierce asked whether she would be willing to speak with investigators separately, and Henry replied that she would, although he preferred that they arrange the interview for another day. He emphasized that Sarah was deeply attached to John and had always been more sympathetic than he was toward the boy's unconventional decisions. She had worried about him throughout the years he lived without a permanent residence and had been delighted when the lottery win brought him back into closer contact with the family. Henry admitted that he occasionally disagreed with her about how to handle their son, but insisted that they were united in wanting him found alive.

Before concluding, Pierce asked whether Henry knew of anyone who might wish to harm John. Henry's expression became noticeably more serious. He explained that successful attorneys inevitably acquired enemies, particularly when they represented clients in contentious litigation or participated in financially significant transactions. John had been involved in numerous cases involving substantial sums, and some opposing parties had undoubtedly resented the outcomes. Henry himself had received threats during his legal career, most of which proved to be expressions of anger rather than genuine intentions to commit violence. He cautioned the detectives against assuming that every dissatisfied litigant represented a serious danger, but agreed to provide information about any recent disputes that might warrant examination. Pierce also asked whether anyone stood to benefit financially from John's death or disappearance. Henry replied that John's estate and business arrangements were complicated and that he would prefer to have the relevant attorneys provide accurate information rather than attempt to summarize it from memory. He nevertheless denied knowing of any immediate financial dispute severe enough to suggest a motive for murder.

The interview ended shortly after three.

Henry thanked the detectives for their work and reiterated that he expected the investigation to continue until his son was found. Pierce assured him that the department was treating the matter seriously but refused to promise a particular outcome or timetable. Henry seemed dissatisfied with the absence of certainty but accepted that the detectives could not guarantee success. He offered to pay for additional search resources or private investigative assistance if the department believed such measures would be useful. Pierce explained that any private assistance would need to be coordinated carefully to avoid interfering with official investigative work and that the department would request additional resources through appropriate channels when justified. Henry replied that he had no intention of allowing financial considerations to prevent the search from proceeding, a statement that Pierce found sincere despite the man's well-established reputation for frugality.

Edwin Voss returned to escort the detectives to their car.

He was no longer carrying the potato.

Neither detective mentioned it.

On the return journey to Briar Glen, Lenny remained unusually quiet for nearly fifteen minutes. Pierce initially assumed that his partner was thinking about the interview, particularly Henry's account of John's extraordinary financial history. He therefore reviewed his own notes without attempting to start a conversation. Eventually Lenny asked whether Pierce had noticed anything unusual about the household, and Pierce replied that wealthy families frequently maintained customs that seemed peculiar to outsiders. Lenny agreed, then asked whether Pierce had ever encountered a situation in which a household employee formally presented a potato to his employer. Pierce looked at him and said that he had not. Lenny considered this confirmation sufficient to justify a discussion of the incident, explaining that he had spent much of the final hour of the interview attempting to imagine why a potato might have been lent to someone who later returned it. He wondered whether the gentleman had borrowed the potato for an experiment, whether Henry had given it as a gift, or whether the matter involved some private joke between the two men. Pierce pointed out that none of these possibilities could be evaluated without additional information and that the potato had no apparent relevance to John's disappearance. Lenny acknowledged both points but insisted that the situation was extraordinarily strange. “It's not just the potato,” he explained. “It's the fact that he knew exactly what the guy meant. Didn't ask which gentleman. Didn't ask why he brought it back. Just wanted to know if it was the same potato.” Pierce conceded that the details were unusual, although he suspected that Henry's household contained numerous arrangements that would be difficult for strangers to understand. Lenny suggested that they might ask Arthur Bell whether he knew anything about it, but Pierce firmly rejected the idea. They were investigating a missing person, not the domestic affairs of his father, and he did not intend to waste an interview discussing vegetables. Lenny accepted this instruction, although he remained privately convinced that the incident was one of the strangest things he had encountered in the preceding several years.

Their conversation eventually returned to the case. Pierce was particularly interested in Henry's description of John's relationship with work, which supported the theory he had begun developing after the grocery-store encounter. John appeared to have become wealthy almost accidentally, at least in the sense that his original fortune resulted from a lottery ticket he had not purchased himself. He subsequently pursued education and professional success under the guidance of a father who regarded those accomplishments as essential elements of a meaningful life. Yet the years before the lottery, despite their material disadvantages, seemed to occupy an unusually prominent place in John's memory. Pierce wondered whether John had adopted his father's values without ever fully accepting them. A person could become extraordinarily successful at a profession he did not particularly enjoy, especially if he possessed the intelligence and resources necessary to overcome the ordinary obstacles associated with that career. Lenny agreed that this was possible but questioned whether the idea explained anything about the disappearance. John had apparently been injured in a genuine motorcycle collision, and the accident would have occurred regardless of his feelings about his legal practice. Pierce accepted the objection but maintained that understanding why John was traveling through the area remained important. Lenny suggested that the answer might simply be that John wanted a vacation, forgot to purchase gasoline, and crashed because he was driving too fast. Pierce replied that this might be exactly what happened. The simplicity of the explanation did not offend him, but it still left them without a missing rider.

As they approached Briar Glen, Lenny received a call concerning the Bellwether River investigation. The medical examiner had completed an initial examination of the recovered body but had not established a definitive cause of death. The remains were consistent with those of an adult male, and decomposition had progressed sufficiently that identification through facial recognition was not practical. There were several old skeletal injuries that might become useful if investigators located medical records for a potential match, but the examiner could not yet determine whether any injuries occurred around the time of death. The condition of the remains also prevented a reliable estimate of how long the man had been in the water. Lenny arranged to meet with the medical examiner the following morning to review the findings and obtain information about the procedures available for identification. He hoped that dental records, fingerprints if recoverable, or other biological comparisons might eventually produce a match, although he understood that such efforts could be time-consuming and unsuccessful.

The call reminded Lenny that his responsibilities were becoming divided between two investigations, neither of which promised a quick resolution. He complained that the department had chosen an especially inconvenient week to send three detectives to training, and Pierce agreed that their absence had created difficulties. Nevertheless, Pierce also recognized that Rowan had little control over the timing of the river death and that the training had been scheduled long before John Smith disappeared. He had spent much of the previous day correcting an administrative mistake involving another unidentified body and was reluctant to devote additional energy to criticizing circumstances nobody could reasonably have anticipated. Lenny suggested that he might be able to return to the Smith investigation more fully once the medical examiner's work was complete, but Pierce reminded him that identification could require substantial follow-up. They agreed that Lenny would continue assisting when possible while maintaining responsibility for the river case.

They returned to the sheriff's office shortly after five. Pierce spent the next hour preparing a summary of Henry's interview, while Lenny checked messages and reviewed the preliminary medical examiner's findings. Several questions arising from Henry's account required further investigation. Pierce wanted to speak separately with Sarah, obtain more information about John's professional relationships, and identify the neighborhood where he had lived during his years as a musician. He also wanted to review any available correspondence between John and his family during the days preceding the disappearance, although he understood that obtaining private communications might require consent or appropriate legal authority. Henry had offered broad cooperation, but Pierce did not intend to assume that the father's willingness automatically extended to every private record belonging to his adult son.

One question remained particularly troubling. Henry had described John's reluctance to marry, his frustration with professional obligations, and his desire to revisit an earlier period of life, but had given no indication that John was planning to permanently abandon his fortune. The trip appeared to have been spontaneous, and the household staff expected him to return that evening. This was consistent with the evidence from the truck, which contained relatively few personal belongings and no obvious preparations for an extended absence. Pierce therefore began distinguishing between two possibilities that he had previously considered together: John might have deliberately taken a temporary break from his life, or he might have intended to disappear permanently. The first was now strongly supported by the available information. The second remained speculative. Neither, however, explained the motorcycle accident or the absence of the injured rider.

Before leaving for the evening, Pierce spoke briefly with Captain Rowan by telephone. He explained that Henry had been cooperative and that the interview had produced useful information concerning John's personal history and possible motives for traveling. Rowan asked whether anything suggested a criminal offense, and Pierce replied that he had identified no such evidence. She then asked how long he intended to continue pursuing the voluntary-disappearance theory given the apparent severity of the collision. Pierce explained that understanding John's intentions could help investigators identify people he might contact or places he might seek out, even if the accident itself was genuine. Rowan accepted the reasoning but encouraged him to concentrate on leads capable of producing verifiable information rather than broad speculation about John's state of mind. Pierce agreed, although he believed that the interviews he had conducted were precisely the sort of work necessary to develop such information.

That evening, Pierce went home at a comparatively reasonable hour. He prepared pasta using groceries purchased the previous night, washed several dishes, and spent nearly twenty minutes looking for the small screwdriver set he had bought months earlier. He eventually discovered it behind a collection of old magazines in the hall closet and used it to tighten the loose hinge on a kitchen cabinet. The repair required less than three minutes. Pierce found this mildly irritating because he had tolerated the defective hinge for nearly a year, during which he had repeatedly adjusted the cabinet door rather than spending a few minutes correcting the problem. He considered whether the experience contained some broader lesson about postponing minor responsibilities, but decided that it probably did not. He then telephoned Christine to confirm the time of Emily's science exhibition. Christine seemed surprised by the call but provided the information and explained that Emily had been working hard on the project. Pierce said that he intended to attend, and Christine replied that she hoped he would. Her tone was not hostile, but neither was it particularly encouraging. She had heard similar statements many times before and saw little value in expressing enthusiasm until he actually arrived.

Pierce spent the remainder of the evening reading an old history book and went to bed before midnight. He slept reasonably well, although he awoke once after dreaming that he had arrived at the courthouse for an important hearing without any of his case files. The dream was unpleasant but not especially unusual. Pierce occasionally dreamed about professional failures, particularly during periods when several investigations required his attention. He generally forgot such dreams shortly after waking and did not regard them as evidence of any psychological problem. He had once discussed recurring work-related dreams with a colleague who suggested that they reflected anxiety about losing control of important situations. Pierce considered this explanation plausible but saw no practical reason to investigate it further.

On Sunday morning, he arranged to meet Arthur Bell at Jonathan Xavier Smith's residence.

John's house was situated several miles from Henry's estate, on a property that was somewhat smaller but no less impressive. It had been constructed in a relatively modern architectural style, with broad windows, pale stone walls, and a large entrance opening into a two-story foyer. The grounds contained a swimming pool, formal gardens, several ornamental trees, and a detached structure that appeared to function as a garage or workshop. Pierce was informed that John also owned numerous other properties, including restaurants, rental buildings, and commercial establishments, but the house served as his principal residence. It was considerably larger than necessary for one person, particularly one who was unmarried and had no children, but John had purchased it during a period when he associated wealth with the acquisition of things he had previously been unable to afford. Over time, he developed a less enthusiastic attitude toward the house, although he never seriously considered selling it because doing so would require considerable effort and might create financial complications.

Arthur Bell met Pierce at the entrance and introduced himself formally. He was fifty-seven years old, of average height, and dressed in dark trousers, a white shirt, and a conservative vest. His hair was neatly combed, and he possessed the controlled manner of someone accustomed to managing the expectations of wealthy employers. Bell had worked in domestic service for most of his adult life, initially for a family in Connecticut and later for several households in the region. He regarded the profession as a legitimate career requiring discretion, organizational ability, and a willingness to adapt to the preferences of individual employers. He disliked the popular portrayal of butlers as excessively submissive or comical figures and preferred to think of himself as a household administrator whose responsibilities happened to involve a private residence rather than a commercial office.

Bell had accepted his position with John approximately six years earlier, after a previous employer moved overseas. He initially found John difficult to understand because the man alternated between demanding elaborate services and expressing embarrassment that people were performing ordinary tasks on his behalf. On some mornings John expected breakfast prepared at a particular time, clothing cleaned and arranged, and several appointments coordinated precisely. On other occasions he insisted on preparing his own meals, washing his own clothes, or driving himself to appointments despite having employees available to perform these tasks. Bell eventually concluded that John had never become entirely comfortable with the privileges associated with his wealth. He enjoyed certain conveniences, particularly when they allowed him to avoid activities he considered boring, but resented the feeling that his daily life was being organized by other people.

Pierce began the interview in a sitting room overlooking the rear gardens. Bell provided a detailed account of John's departure, confirming that the trip had been planned only shortly beforehand. John had contacted several employees and instructed them to clear his schedule for the day. Bell initially assumed that he intended to attend a private business meeting or travel to another property, but John explained that he wanted to revisit the neighborhood where he had lived during his earlier years as a musician. He seemed unusually enthusiastic, speaking about places he hoped to see and wondering whether the public library and nearby park had changed. Bell suggested that he arrange transportation, but John declined, insisting that he wanted to travel alone. He subsequently loaded a motorcycle into his truck, gathered a few belongings, and prepared printed driving directions.

Pierce asked whether Bell considered the trip unusual. Bell replied that the destination was somewhat unexpected, but the impulse itself was not. John had spoken about his former life on numerous occasions, particularly during periods when his professional responsibilities became overwhelming. He occasionally described those years as the happiest of his life, although Bell suspected that the memories were somewhat idealized. John had been cold, hungry, and occasionally ill while living outdoors, and Bell found it difficult to believe that he genuinely preferred those conditions to his present circumstances. Nevertheless, John insisted that the freedom associated with having few possessions and responsibilities had compensated for many of the practical disadvantages. He frequently complained that wealth created obligations he had not anticipated, including meetings, legal responsibilities, investment decisions, and constant demands from people who wanted money or assistance.

Bell recalled one particular conversation in which John complained that he had become a prisoner of his own success. The discussion occurred after a day involving several business meetings, a dispute with a restaurant manager, and a lengthy telephone conference concerning a property acquisition. John returned home visibly irritated and explained that he had spent nearly twelve hours making decisions about things he did not particularly care about. Bell suggested that he delegate more authority to his employees, but John replied that delegating responsibility required trusting other people and that he would still be held accountable if they made mistakes. He then remarked that when he was living on the street, his principal concerns were finding food, keeping his belongings dry, and deciding where to play music. Those problems had often been unpleasant, but they were immediate and comprehensible. His current problems were abstract, numerous, and seemingly endless. Bell remembered the conversation because it was one of the few occasions when John spoke openly about being unhappy with his life.

Pierce asked whether John had ever attempted to return to his former lifestyle, even temporarily. Bell explained that he occasionally spent afternoons walking through ordinary neighborhoods, visiting inexpensive restaurants, or attending performances by street musicians. He also maintained contact with several people he had known before becoming wealthy, including a musician whose career he had helped finance. These excursions were usually brief, however, and John almost always returned home in time for scheduled obligations. Bell did not believe that his employer intended to permanently abandon his affairs because he had made no arrangements for the management of his businesses and had not expressed any desire to terminate the employment of household staff. Indeed, he had scheduled several appointments for the following week and seemed genuinely interested in at least one proposed investment.

The interview continued into the afternoon. Bell showed Pierce the garage where John had stored his vehicles, the study where he conducted business, and a room containing several guitars and pieces of musical equipment. The music room was considerably smaller than Pierce expected, given the size of the house, but it was comfortably furnished and contained several instruments that appeared to have been used regularly. One guitar, older and more worn than the others, rested on a stand beside a chair near the window. Bell explained that John was particularly attached to it and had owned it since before winning the lottery. He occasionally played it late at night, sometimes for hours, and had refused suggestions that it be restored because he liked the way it sounded and did not want its appearance changed. Pierce examined the instrument without touching it. Its finish was worn in several places, and the fretboard showed signs of extensive use. The guitar was not especially valuable compared with the other instruments in the room, but Bell believed it was John's favorite.

Pierce found the room more revealing than the elaborate furnishings elsewhere in the house. He could easily imagine someone purchasing expensive furniture, automobiles, or artwork simply because wealth made such acquisitions possible. The worn guitar, however, suggested a more personal attachment. It was an object John had retained through a dramatic change in circumstances, and its continued use indicated that music remained important to him long after he no longer needed to perform for money.

Bell also provided information about John's professional life. He explained that his employer's schedule had become increasingly demanding and that several business managers competed for his attention. John owned interests in restaurants, rental properties, and other enterprises, and although he delegated routine operations, he remained involved in major decisions. He also continued working as an attorney, particularly on matters involving property rights, commercial disputes, and complicated civil litigation. Bell believed that John enjoyed certain aspects of legal work, especially cases requiring creative problem-solving, but disliked the administrative obligations associated with maintaining a large practice. He frequently complained about meetings that appeared to accomplish little and about people who requested his opinion on matters that should have been handled by subordinate employees.

Pierce asked whether John had recently experienced a serious professional setback. Bell could not identify one. There had been occasional disputes with business associates, and one restaurant investment had performed poorly, but nothing appeared to threaten John's financial security. The household staff had not observed any unusual visitors, threatening messages, or behavior suggesting that John feared for his safety. Bell acknowledged that John conducted many private conversations and that employees were not necessarily aware of every problem he faced. Nevertheless, he believed that a serious threat would probably have affected his employer's behavior, and John had seemed cheerful during the days preceding the trip.

Before leaving, Pierce asked whether Bell could identify any person John might contact if he deliberately returned to his former life. Bell provided several names and suggested that the musician John had helped establish in the recording business might be especially useful. He also recommended speaking with the owner of a restaurant near John's former neighborhood, whom John occasionally mentioned with affection. The establishment had apparently provided him with leftover food during his years without a permanent residence. Bell did not know whether the restaurant remained open, but he believed John had intended to visit it during his excursion.

Pierce thanked him and arranged for the department to obtain additional records through appropriate procedures. Bell remained cooperative throughout, although he became visibly distressed when Pierce asked what he believed had happened to his employer. After a moment, he admitted that he feared John had suffered a fatal injury and that his body had simply not been found. He had worked for the man for six years and considered him fundamentally kind, despite occasional impatience and eccentric behavior. John had paid his employees well, treated them with respect, and rarely made unreasonable demands. Bell also believed that John possessed a genuine concern for people who were less fortunate than himself, perhaps because he had once experienced poverty firsthand. He hoped that the detectives would find him alive, but after several days without contact, he was finding it increasingly difficult to remain optimistic.

Pierce did not attempt to reassure him with promises he could not support. He explained that the investigation was continuing and that the department would follow every reasonable lead.

Bell thanked him.

As Pierce prepared to leave, he noticed a small framed photograph on a table near the entrance. It showed John standing beside a man holding a guitar, apparently at some kind of musical performance. Both were smiling, and John appeared considerably more relaxed than in the formal professional photographs Pierce had seen. Bell explained that the picture had been taken several years earlier at a concert by one of John's friends, a musician he had known during his years on the street. Pierce asked for the man's name and recorded it.

It would become one of the next avenues of inquiry.

By Monday morning, the Smith investigation had begun to attract attention outside the sheriff's office. A regional newspaper published a short article describing the disappearance of Jonathan Xavier Smith, identifying him as a prominent attorney and businessman whose motorcycle had been discovered following an apparent accident in Wescott County. The article reported that authorities were searching for him and that his family had requested privacy. It did not mention the blue animal hair, the unusual circumstances of his visit to the farmhouse, or the possibility that he might have deliberately attempted to abandon his wealthy lifestyle. Pierce was pleased by these omissions because none of those details had been established as central to the disappearance, and he did not want the investigation complicated by public speculation.

The article nevertheless produced several telephone calls. One person reported seeing a man resembling John at a gas station nearly two hundred miles away, but the description was vague and the reported sighting occurred after the motorcycle was found. Another caller claimed that Smith had been involved in a financial dispute with an unidentified foreign investor, although the caller could provide no reliable information about the investor or the alleged dispute. A third person wanted to know whether the sheriff's office was offering a reward and, upon learning that none had been announced, volunteered that he would continue watching for the missing man anyway. Pierce regarded these calls as inevitable consequences of publicity. Most produced nothing useful, but he knew that occasionally a legitimate lead emerged from information supplied by someone who had no obvious connection to the investigation.

The three detectives who had attended mandatory training returned to duty that morning. Their return did not immediately resolve the department's staffing difficulties because each had accumulated assignments requiring attention, and one was scheduled to testify in court later that week. Nevertheless, Captain Rowan was able to redistribute several minor investigations and provide additional assistance with the Smith case. Laura Peller was assigned to work with Pierce during part of the day, while Lenny remained primarily occupied with the unidentified body recovered from the Bellwether River.

Lenny's investigation had produced little progress. The medical examiner confirmed that the remains belonged to an adult male but had not established a definitive cause of death. Efforts to identify the deceased through available physical characteristics were underway, and investigators had begun reviewing missing-person reports from several jurisdictions. One possibility was that the man had been living without stable housing, but there was insufficient evidence to establish this. Lenny had interviewed several people who frequented areas near the river, including a group of anglers, a property owner, and two men who occasionally camped beneath an abandoned railway bridge. None reported knowing the deceased, although the campers described several transient individuals who had passed through the area during the preceding months. Their accounts were difficult to verify because they knew many of these people only by first names or nicknames, and few maintained reliable contact information.

Lenny found the work frustrating but not entirely unfamiliar. He had investigated several deaths involving people whose identities or circumstances were initially uncertain, and he knew that identification sometimes required painstaking comparisons of incomplete records. He also recognized that the condition of the remains might complicate efforts to determine whether the death resulted from accident, natural causes, suicide, or criminal activity. Captain Rowan therefore insisted that the case remain open and receive appropriate attention despite the absence of an obvious homicide. This decision reduced Lenny's availability to assist Pierce, but both men understood that a deceased person deserved a competent investigation regardless of whether the circumstances were dramatic or the individual possessed substantial wealth.

Pierce spent much of Monday morning reviewing John's professional and financial affairs. Henry's attorneys had begun providing information about recent litigation and business transactions, and several employees associated with John's enterprises agreed to speak with investigators. The material was extensive, complicated, and largely unremarkable in the context of a successful commercial attorney. John had participated in property acquisitions, defended clients in civil disputes, and invested in businesses that occasionally generated disagreements among owners. Several people had reason to resent him. A former business partner believed that John had negotiated unfairly during the dissolution of a partnership. An opposing litigant had complained publicly that John's legal tactics were unnecessarily aggressive. A restaurant manager had been dismissed after a dispute concerning financial records and had subsequently threatened legal action. None of these matters immediately suggested that anyone had followed John into the countryside or removed him from an accident scene, but Pierce instructed investigators to document them for later examination.

One dispute attracted particular attention because it involved a substantial sum of money and had become unusually personal. A developer named Martin Kessick had lost a civil case in which John represented several property owners opposing a proposed commercial project. Kessick believed that the litigation had been pursued primarily to increase the cost of development and eventually force him to abandon the project. He publicly accused John of exploiting technical legal requirements to obstruct a legitimate business venture, and several newspaper articles described an acrimonious exchange between the two men. Pierce examined the available information and arranged for an interview with Kessick, but he did not regard the dispute as compelling evidence of involvement in the disappearance. Wealthy professionals frequently accumulated adversaries, and anger over a lawsuit did not automatically translate into a willingness to commit violence.

The financial investigation also failed to establish that John had been preparing to vanish permanently. His accounts showed routine business activity, and there was no obvious pattern of large withdrawals or unusual transfers immediately before his departure. Several transactions remained to be reviewed, and the detectives had not obtained access to every relevant account, but the preliminary information suggested that John's businesses were continuing to operate normally. His household staff had received no instructions to terminate employment, and his attorneys had not been asked to prepare documents transferring control of his assets or liquidating substantial holdings. Pierce increasingly concluded that John's trip was intended to be temporary, even if it reflected a genuine desire to escape his responsibilities for a day.

The distinction weakened the voluntary-disappearance theory he had developed over the weekend. John's former life explained why he wanted to revisit Dunleigh, but it did not provide convincing evidence that he intended to remain there. More importantly, the physical circumstances of the motorcycle crash continued to resist the theory. Pierce had considered whether John might have deliberately staged an accident and then disappeared, but the damage to the motorcycle, the blood recovered from the scene, and the absence of any preparation for such an elaborate deception made this increasingly unlikely. He did not formally eliminate the possibility, but moved it lower on his list of working explanations.

Laura joined him shortly before noon, carrying several reports and a cup of coffee she had purchased from a small café near the station. She had spent part of the morning conducting follow-up calls to residents along Farmer's Road, none of whom reported seeing the missing man after the crash. She also contacted Douglas Venn, the convenience-store owner who had promised to preserve security recordings. Douglas explained that the relevant tape had been located and was available for collection. The recording was not especially promising because the camera was directed toward the fuel pumps rather than the road, but Laura believed it should be reviewed anyway. Pierce agreed and arranged for an officer to obtain it.

They discussed the next stage of the investigation over lunch in the station's small break room. Pierce wanted to revisit the Dobbins farmhouse and speak separately with Samuel's wife and children. Laura supported the idea, partly because the family had spent a full evening with John and might remember details Samuel had overlooked. She also believed that the farmer's vague account of John's departure warranted clarification, particularly in light of the possible injuries indicated by the crash evidence. Pierce agreed that the matter deserved attention but cautioned against treating the family's uncertainty as evidence of deliberate deception. Samuel was elderly, had been working early in the morning, and might simply have failed to observe details that later became important.

Laura suggested that they approach the visit as an ordinary follow-up rather than a confrontational interview. Pierce agreed. He wanted the family to cooperate freely, and there was no present basis for accusing anyone of criminal conduct. He also preferred to speak with the family members separately, both to avoid contaminating their recollections and to identify any meaningful differences in what they remembered. Laura volunteered to interview the children while Pierce spoke with Marian, but he suggested that they begin together and decide how best to proceed after determining who was available.

They left for the farm shortly after one.

The Dobbins property appeared much as it had during Pierce and Laura's previous visit, although the afternoon sunlight made the house and surrounding buildings seem considerably less gloomy. Several cattle stood near a fence at the edge of the pasture, and a small tractor was parked beside the barn with its engine compartment open. A pile of cut boards lay near the farmhouse, along with a toolbox, several lengths of trim, and a container of nails. Pierce noticed that additional repairs had been made to the front entrance since his previous visit. The unfinished wood surrounding the doorway had been partially painted, and a section of siding near the porch appeared to have been reattached. These observations did not immediately concern him. Samuel had already explained that the old house required frequent maintenance, and the presence of tools and construction materials was entirely consistent with the activities of a farmer who performed much of his own repair work. Nevertheless, Pierce made a mental note to ask when the damage occurred, primarily because the timing might help establish what was happening at the farmhouse when John departed.

Samuel emerged from the barn carrying a small wrench and greeted the officers with apparent pleasure. He remembered both their names, although he initially addressed Laura as Mrs. Peller before she corrected him. He apologized and explained that he had never been particularly good at distinguishing between married and unmarried titles, especially since people seemed to have changed their preferences about such things over the years. Laura assured him that the mistake was unimportant, and Pierce explained that they wanted to ask a few additional questions about John's visit. Samuel appeared concerned but cooperative. He asked whether the missing man had been found, and when Pierce replied that he had not, the farmer shook his head sadly and expressed hope that the police would soon discover what happened. He then invited them to sit on the porch while he finished putting away the wrench.

The porch was broad and somewhat uneven, with wooden floorboards that had been replaced at different times. Some were weathered and dark, while others appeared considerably newer. Several chairs stood near the entrance, and a small table held an empty drinking glass and a folded newspaper. Pierce observed that the newspaper was several days old, although he did not attach any significance to this because he frequently allowed newspapers and magazines to accumulate in his own apartment. Samuel returned after a few minutes and asked what the officers wanted to know. Pierce explained that they were attempting to reconstruct John's activities as precisely as possible and hoped that other members of the household might remember details Samuel had overlooked. The farmer agreed that this was reasonable but pointed out that the family had already described most of what happened. Pierce acknowledged that possibility and explained that investigators often spoke with several witnesses to the same event because different people noticed different things.

Samuel called for Marian, who appeared at the doorway several minutes later. She was a small woman with gray hair and a tired but pleasant expression. She wore a faded blue dress and an apron that had apparently been used during some household task, and her hands showed the effects of years spent working with cleaning products, garden soil, and farm equipment. Marian was sixty years old and had lived on the property since marrying Samuel more than three decades earlier. She had grown up in a small town approximately forty miles away and initially found the isolation of the farm difficult to tolerate. Her childhood home had been within walking distance of several stores, a library, and the houses of numerous friends, and she was accustomed to having people nearby. After moving to the farm, she discovered that visiting even a close neighbor could require a substantial walk or drive, and she occasionally felt lonely during periods when Samuel spent much of the day working outdoors. Over time she adapted to the circumstances, developing interests in gardening, preserving food, sewing, and maintaining correspondence with relatives. She remained more sociable than her husband and occasionally wished that the family lived closer to town, but she had come to regard the farm as home and was reluctant to imagine leaving it.

Marian greeted the officers politely and offered lemonade. Pierce accepted a glass, partly because the afternoon had become warm and partly because he did not want to appear unnecessarily unfriendly during the interview. Laura accepted one as well. Marian then sat beside Samuel and asked whether they had learned anything new about John. Pierce explained that the investigation had established more about his background but had not determined what happened after the motorcycle collision. Marian appeared saddened by this information and remarked that John had been a pleasant guest who seemed unusually willing to help with work he had never performed before. She remembered him struggling with the milking but eventually developing enough confidence to complete the task without much assistance. She also remembered that he had played several songs on his guitar after dinner, including one that she thought was particularly beautiful but could not identify by name.

Pierce asked Marian to describe the evening from the beginning, and she did so with considerably more attention to domestic details than Samuel had provided. John arrived shortly before the family began preparing supper, although he spent much of the afternoon working outside and did not enter the house for any substantial period until later. Marian recalled that he was extremely hungry by the time he joined them for dinner and ate considerably more than she expected from a man who appeared relatively slender. He complimented the food and asked several questions about the farm, including how long the family had lived there and whether the children intended to continue farming. The conversation was relaxed, and Marian believed that John enjoyed the opportunity to spend an evening in a household whose routines differed from his own. She had initially assumed he was an ordinary traveler who had experienced vehicle trouble and was surprised when he mentioned that he worked as an attorney. He did not describe his wealth in detail, and she had no reason to suspect that he possessed extraordinary financial resources.

Marian also remembered an incident involving a newborn calf. One of the family's cows had recently given birth, and John became interested in the young animal after hearing the children discuss it. The calf had not yet been given a name, and John suggested calling her Rita. The family found the suggestion agreeable, partly because they had not settled on a better name and partly because they liked allowing visitors to participate in small household decisions. Marian explained that the calf was healthy and that the children had continued using the name after John departed. Laura asked whether they might see Rita, and Marian offered to show them the calf after the interview. Pierce had no particular interest in seeing it, but recognized that Laura's willingness to discuss ordinary family matters helped maintain a comfortable atmosphere.

The conversation eventually turned to John's departure. Marian explained that she had gone to bed before Samuel finished some of his evening tasks and did not know precisely when their guest retired. She remembered hearing movement in the house during the night but had not regarded it as unusual. The building was old and produced numerous sounds as it settled, particularly when the temperature changed. Family members also occasionally rose during the night to use the bathroom, tend to animals, or retrieve something from another room. Marian therefore had no reason to assume that the sounds involved John. Pierce asked whether she had heard anything especially loud, and Marian hesitated before explaining that she had been awakened by a crash or heavy impact sometime before dawn. She could not determine where the sound originated, and by the time she was fully awake the house had become quiet again. Samuel interrupted to suggest that the noise might have been caused by equipment in the barn, explaining that old structures sometimes produced surprisingly loud sounds when boards shifted or doors moved in the wind. Marian agreed that this was possible, although she did not appear entirely satisfied with the explanation.

Pierce asked whether the noise had prompted anyone to investigate. Marian replied that she had considered getting out of bed but eventually decided against it because she was tired and believed Samuel would investigate if anything serious had occurred. Samuel explained that he had been awake early and had not discovered anything requiring immediate attention. Pierce recorded both statements without comment. He knew that sounds heard while partially asleep were notoriously difficult to identify, and there was no reason to assume that a crash heard inside an old farmhouse was related to the later motorcycle accident. Nevertheless, he wanted the details preserved because they might eventually help establish the sequence of events.

The interview became less straightforward when Pierce asked about the morning John left.

Marian initially explained that she had been occupied preparing breakfast and had not spent much time speaking with their guest. She remembered hearing the motorcycle engine and seeing John near the front of the house, but could not immediately recall whether he had eaten anything before departing. Samuel repeated that John had seemed anxious to resume his journey, perhaps because he wanted to reach his destination before the day became too late. Pierce asked Marian whether John appeared physically well, and she replied that he seemed tired and uncomfortable, which she attributed to the unusual amount of farm work he had performed the previous day. Laura asked whether he had complained about soreness, and Marian said that he had not complained to her directly. She then looked toward Samuel, who explained that John had worked hard and was probably feeling the effects of it.

Pierce noticed the exchange but did not interrupt. Instead, he asked whether the family would mind if he and Laura spoke with the children, who might remember different details. Samuel agreed, although he appeared slightly concerned that the officers might distract them from their chores. Laura assured him that the interviews would not take unnecessarily long, a promise Pierce privately regarded as optimistic.

The two children living at home were Thomas Dobbins, nineteen, and his younger sister June, sixteen. Thomas was tall, broad-shouldered, and possessed the slightly awkward manner of a young man who had spent much of his life performing practical work but had limited experience speaking with police officers. He had recently finished his schooling and was uncertain whether he wanted to continue working on the family farm or seek employment elsewhere. He liked the countryside and enjoyed operating machinery, but he was also aware that small-scale farming offered limited financial opportunities. Several friends had moved to larger towns after graduation, and Thomas occasionally envied their independence. He had considered attending a technical college to study diesel mechanics, but the cost of tuition and the possibility of leaving his parents without sufficient help made him reluctant to commit. Samuel hoped his son would remain on the property, although he recognized that farming might not provide the kind of life Thomas wanted.

June was quieter than her brother but possessed a curious disposition and a strong interest in animals. She spent much of her free time caring for the family's livestock and had developed a habit of assigning personalities to individual cows, chickens, and other creatures. Samuel occasionally reminded her that livestock were not pets and that becoming too attached to them could create difficulties when animals were sold or slaughtered. June understood the practical argument but did not find it especially persuasive. She believed that an animal could be treated kindly even if its eventual purpose was agricultural, and she saw no reason to withhold affection merely because the relationship might someday end.

Laura began by speaking with June while Pierce asked Thomas several questions near the barn. Thomas remembered John arriving on foot, explaining his problems with gasoline, and agreeing to help his father with work. He described John as friendly but somewhat inexperienced with manual labor, particularly when using the shovel to move manure. Thomas had watched him for several minutes before returning to his own chores and later helped carry equipment into the barn. He remembered the evening's music and said that John was a much better guitarist than anyone he personally knew. When Pierce asked about the following morning, Thomas became less certain. He had been working near the barn when John departed and remembered hearing the motorcycle engine, but did not see the rider clearly until the machine was already moving down the driveway. He could not say whether John was limping or appeared injured, although he remembered that the motorcycle accelerated more quickly than seemed necessary on the uneven driveway. Pierce asked whether John might have been angry or frightened, and Thomas replied that he could not tell from the brief glimpse he obtained.

Thomas also mentioned that his father had been repairing the house during the preceding several days. Pierce asked what had been damaged, and Thomas explained that the front entrance had suffered some broken trim and loose boards, while a section of interior framing also required attention. He believed that some of the damage was relatively recent but did not know exactly when it occurred. Samuel performed most repairs himself and occasionally postponed them until he had sufficient time or materials. Pierce asked whether the damage had been present when John arrived, and Thomas considered the question before replying that he did not remember noticing it then. He added that he had not been paying particular attention to the entrance and could not say whether the condition had changed during John's visit. Pierce accepted the limitation and did not press further. Old houses frequently sustained damage, and the fact that repairs occurred around the same time as a visitor's stay was not itself evidence of anything.

Laura's interview with June proceeded more slowly. June remembered considerably more about the dinner than about the motorcycle, and she was particularly enthusiastic when describing how John suggested the name Rita for the newborn calf. She explained that the family had considered several names but could not agree, and that John's suggestion seemed suitable because it was short, easy to remember, and sounded pleasant when spoken aloud. Laura asked whether John had interacted with the calf directly, and June replied that he had watched her from outside the enclosure but had not attempted to handle her. He seemed interested in the animals and asked questions about their care, particularly how often young calves needed milk and when they began eating other food. June was pleased by his interest because many adults treated her enthusiasm for animals as childish and did not ask questions that allowed her to explain what she knew.

After discussing the animals for several minutes, Laura gradually returned to the morning of John's departure. June recalled being awakened by loud noises before sunrise, although she could not identify their source. She had assumed that something had fallen in the house or barn and had not immediately gotten out of bed. Later, while preparing to help with the morning chores, she saw John near the front entrance. Laura asked what he was doing, and June replied that he appeared to be trying to get onto his motorcycle. She remembered this because he was moving awkwardly, and she initially thought he might have hurt himself during the previous afternoon's work. When Laura asked what she meant by awkwardly, June explained that he seemed to have trouble putting weight on one leg. She could not remember which leg with confidence, but thought it might have been his left because he was standing beside the motorcycle and appeared to be supporting himself against it.

Laura did not immediately attach special significance to the observation. John had performed strenuous work the previous day, and muscle soreness could produce an awkward gait, particularly in someone unaccustomed to physical labor. She therefore asked whether June had spoken with him or seen anything else unusual. June replied that she had not spoken with John because he seemed very upset and was concentrating on getting onto the motorcycle. She then added that his clothes appeared dirty and torn, and that there might have been blood on one of his sleeves. Laura asked whether she was certain, and June admitted that she had seen him only briefly through the window and could not distinguish blood from mud or other dark stains. She did remember that he was moving much more quickly than she expected from someone who appeared to be in pain.

Laura continued asking questions in a calm, conversational manner. She did not suggest that June's parents had concealed information, nor did she imply that the girl had witnessed anything criminal. Instead, she asked June to describe what she remembered seeing, where she was standing, which window she looked through, and how much of the driveway was visible. June explained that she had been near the kitchen doorway and could see part of the front porch and the motorcycle beyond it. Her view was interrupted by a section of the house, and she could not see John continuously. She remembered hearing her father shout something, but could not make out the words. A short time later, the motorcycle engine started, and John rode away.

When Laura asked whether June had told her parents what she saw, the girl replied that she had mentioned John's apparent injury to her mother later that morning. Marian had seemed worried but said that John was probably sore from working. June accepted this explanation at the time because she had no reason to imagine anything more serious. Only after learning about the motorcycle accident did she begin wondering whether John had been injured before he left the farm.

Laura thanked her and asked whether she would be willing to repeat the account to Pierce. June agreed, although she seemed nervous about saying something that might cause trouble for her family. Laura reassured her that the investigators were simply attempting to understand what happened to a missing person and that accurate recollections were more useful than guesses about what the officers wanted to hear.

Pierce joined them several minutes later and listened while June repeated the account. He asked only a few clarifying questions, concentrating on the approximate time, the location from which she observed John, and the nature of his movements. June remained uncertain which leg appeared injured and could not reliably identify the stains on his clothing. Pierce regarded these limitations as important and recorded them carefully. He did not want the report to transform a teenager's brief observation into a more definite account than she could honestly provide.

Nevertheless, the information interested him considerably.

Samuel had described John as being in a hurry but had not mentioned that he appeared injured. Marian had suggested ordinary soreness from farm work. June, however, remembered seeing a man moving awkwardly, apparently struggling to support himself while mounting a motorcycle, and wearing clothing that might have been torn or bloodstained. If her recollection was accurate, John may have sustained a significant injury before reaching the curve where his motorcycle crashed.

Pierce decided that Marian should be asked about the matter again.

He and Laura returned to the porch, where Samuel and Marian were waiting. Pierce explained that June had recalled seeing John having difficulty getting onto his motorcycle and asked whether either parent remembered the same thing. Samuel looked at Marian before replying that John had performed a great deal of physical work and was probably sore. Pierce acknowledged that possibility but pointed out that June described difficulty supporting weight on one leg rather than ordinary stiffness. Samuel replied that he had not examined John and could not say whether he suffered an injury. His answer was not directly inconsistent with his earlier statements, but it remained noticeably less specific than his description of the previous evening.

Marian was quiet for several moments.

Laura asked whether she remembered seeing John at the front entrance.

Marian nodded.

“Yes,” she said. “I saw him.”

“Did he seem hurt?”

“I thought he might be.”

Pierce waited.

Marian explained that she had been preparing breakfast when she heard a commotion near the entrance. She went toward the front of the house and saw John moving outside. He appeared agitated and was having difficulty walking, although she could not determine exactly what was wrong. She thought he might have injured his leg and considered offering assistance, but he was already moving toward the motorcycle. She remembered seeing dark stains on his clothes and what appeared to be blood near one of his arms. She had not examined him closely enough to determine the extent of his injuries, and the entire encounter lasted only a short time.

Pierce asked why she had not mentioned this during their earlier interview. Marian looked uncomfortable and explained that she had been uncertain whether the injuries were significant. John had performed unfamiliar physical work and might have fallen or scraped himself during the morning. She also believed that the motorcycle accident had probably caused most of the injuries reported by the police and had not wanted to confuse the investigation by speculating about what happened before it. Pierce understood the explanation but considered it incomplete. A man who appeared seriously injured before departing a farmhouse was potentially important evidence, particularly when the same man subsequently disappeared after a violent collision.

Samuel attempted to clarify the situation by explaining that John had been unusually restless that morning and might have injured himself while moving about the property. He said that the family had not seen an accident occur and did not know the cause of any injury. Pierce asked whether Samuel had noticed blood on John's clothing, and the farmer replied that he remembered the man looking disheveled but had not examined him carefully. He also acknowledged that he had been upset because John appeared to be leaving abruptly without explaining his intentions. When Pierce asked whether they had argued, Samuel paused before admitting that he had raised his voice, although he described the exchange as brief and unimportant. He believed John had entered an area of the house where guests were not supposed to go, and he had been angry about the apparent disregard for his instructions.

This was new information.

Pierce asked what part of the house John had entered, and Samuel explained that there was an old storage area below the main floor that he preferred guests to avoid. The space was in poor condition, with damaged stairs and various materials that could present hazards to someone unfamiliar with the property. Samuel said that he had warned John not to enter and became angry when he suspected that the warning had been ignored. Pierce asked whether he knew John had gone there, and Samuel admitted that he had not actually seen him enter. He had heard noises and later found signs that someone might have disturbed the area, but he could not be certain exactly what occurred.

Pierce recorded the statement and asked whether the family would permit investigators to examine the area. Samuel looked unhappy but did not immediately refuse. He explained that the stairs were unsafe and that he did not want anyone injured while exploring the cellar. He also said that the space contained old equipment and damaged materials that he had not yet had time to remove. Pierce acknowledged the concern and explained that he was not asking to enter immediately. The department could arrange a suitable examination if the circumstances justified it, and any entry would need to be conducted safely and with proper authorization. Samuel appeared relieved that the matter would not be settled at once and said that he would consider the request.

The conversation continued for another twenty minutes. Pierce asked whether John had returned to his room after the family went to bed, whether anyone saw him carrying his guitar the following morning, and whether any personal belongings had been left behind. Marian explained that the guest room had been cleaned after John departed and that she had found nothing obviously belonging to him. She had not seen the guitar when he left but assumed he had taken it with him. Samuel again stated that he had filled the motorcycle with gasoline and moved it closer to the house, explaining that he had intended to help John recover his truck later that day if necessary. The farmer appeared increasingly tired of the questions but remained outwardly polite.

Pierce thanked the family for their cooperation and explained that he might need to return after reviewing the new information. Samuel agreed, although he again emphasized that he did not understand what could have happened to John after leaving the property. Marian seemed distressed by the possibility that their guest had been injured while staying with them. She asked whether the police believed the farm was responsible for his disappearance, and Pierce replied that the investigation had not established any such thing. He explained that the officers were attempting to determine where and when John suffered his injuries because this might help reconstruct the circumstances of the motorcycle collision.

Before leaving, Laura asked to see Rita, the calf John had named. June eagerly led her toward a small enclosure beside the barn, while Pierce remained on the porch reviewing his notes. The calf was healthy and energetic, with a light brown coat and an unusually curious disposition. June explained that Rita had become accustomed to being approached by family members and occasionally attempted to follow them when they entered the enclosure. Laura spent several minutes discussing the animal with June, asking questions about its feeding schedule and growth. Pierce eventually joined them and observed that the calf appeared healthy, although he possessed insufficient knowledge of cattle to make a particularly useful assessment. June seemed pleased that the officers had taken an interest, and the visit ended on a comparatively friendly note.

As they drove away, Laura asked Pierce what he thought of the family's account.

He considered the question carefully.

“I think John was hurt before he crashed,” he replied.

Laura nodded. “That's what I thought.”

“It doesn't mean anybody did anything to him. He could've fallen down those stairs, hurt himself doing chores, or gotten injured some other way. But if he was having trouble walking when he left, that matters.”

“Samuel didn't seem eager to tell us about the cellar.”

“No.”

“Do you think he was hiding something?”

Pierce looked back toward the farmhouse, which was disappearing behind a line of trees.

“I think he was reluctant to admit that a guest might have been injured in an unsafe part of his house. That could explain it.”

“And if it doesn't?”

“Then we'll have to find out what does.”

Laura considered this answer and remained quiet for several minutes. She had noticed that Pierce was becoming increasingly interested in the farmhouse, although his questions remained grounded in ordinary investigative concerns. A visitor had apparently entered a hazardous storage area, suffered injuries, and departed on a motorcycle that subsequently crashed. If the injuries were serious enough to impair his ability to ride, they might have contributed to the collision. The possibility was entirely plausible and required no extraordinary explanation.

Nevertheless, the account left several questions unanswered.

Why had John entered a part of the house he had specifically been told to avoid? What had happened there during the night? Why had he emerged in such an agitated condition? And why had the family been so reluctant to describe his apparent injuries?

Pierce did not know.

He was beginning to suspect, however, that the answers might be important.

They returned to the sheriff's office shortly before five, where Pierce spent the next hour organizing the information obtained from the Dobbins family. He separated direct observations from assumptions, recording that June had seen John moving awkwardly and possibly bearing blood on his clothing, while Marian recalled a similar appearance and Samuel acknowledged a disagreement concerning the cellar. He was careful not to characterize the family's initial omissions as proof of deliberate deception. Witnesses sometimes failed to mention important details because they did not recognize their significance, particularly when an event occurred before anyone knew that an investigation would be necessary. It was also possible that the family feared civil liability arising from an injury on their property and had therefore been reluctant to discuss it. Neither possibility established criminal conduct, but both justified additional inquiry.

Pierce then reviewed the medical and forensic evidence available from the motorcycle accident. The laboratory had made progress examining the blood recovered from the scene, although the final comparison work had not yet been completed. The apparent bloodstains on the tree and motorcycle were consistent with significant bleeding, but the location of the stains did not establish whether every injury occurred during the collision. Pierce recognized that a person injured before mounting a motorcycle could transfer blood to the machine during ordinary use, and that a subsequent crash might redistribute it further. He therefore requested that the evidence technicians consider whether any of the stains or trace patterns could provide useful information about the sequence of events, while cautioning that he did not expect the evidence to support conclusions beyond what the examinations could reliably establish.

He also began considering whether John might have been physically impaired while riding. A significant leg injury could interfere with a motorcyclist's ability to support the machine while stopped, operate certain controls, or shift body weight during a maneuver. The extent of any such interference would depend on the location and severity of the injury, the motorcycle's configuration, and the rider's experience. Pierce did not know enough about John's condition to determine whether an injury contributed to the crash, but the possibility deserved consideration. He made a note to consult an accident reconstruction specialist after obtaining more complete information about the motorcycle and the roadway.

At approximately six, Captain Rowan entered his office and asked about the farmhouse visit. Pierce summarized the new information, emphasizing that two witnesses now recalled John appearing injured before he left the property. Rowan listened carefully and agreed that this represented an important development. She asked whether the family had explained the injuries, and Pierce replied that they had not. Samuel believed John may have entered an unsafe cellar, but nobody claimed to have witnessed the incident. Rowan asked whether Pierce intended to obtain a search warrant, and he replied that he wanted to examine the available information more thoroughly before deciding whether an application was justified. The family had not refused cooperation, and there might be an opportunity to arrange a voluntary inspection of the relevant area. Rowan agreed that the department should proceed carefully and avoid treating the farmer as a criminal suspect without evidence supporting that conclusion.

The conversation ended with Rowan reminding Pierce that he had been working long hours and should consider taking some time away from the case. Pierce replied that he intended to attend his daughter's science exhibition later in the week and would attempt to keep his schedule clear that evening. Rowan approved of the plan and suggested that he make the commitment firm rather than conditional. Pierce acknowledged the advice, although he found it somewhat uncomfortable to receive personal guidance from a supervisor who was ordinarily concerned with investigative procedures and departmental resources.

After Rowan left, Pierce returned to his notes.

The investigation had now produced a relatively clear account of Jonathan Xavier Smith's movements before the motorcycle collision. He left his residence intending to revisit places associated with his earlier life, drove into the countryside, exhausted the fuel supply of his truck, continued by motorcycle, and eventually sought help at the Dobbins farm. He spent the afternoon performing chores, ate dinner with the family, played guitar, and retired to a spare room. During the night or early morning, he apparently entered a hazardous part of the farmhouse despite being warned against doing so. He subsequently emerged in an agitated condition, possibly with substantial injuries, mounted his motorcycle, and departed at considerable speed. A short time later, the motorcycle crashed into a tree.

The sequence was beginning to make sense, at least as an account of how the accident occurred.

A man with a possible leg injury, operating a motorcycle while frightened or upset, might reasonably lose control when approaching a sharp curve at excessive speed. Pierce could imagine several ordinary circumstances that would produce such a result. The injuries might have affected his ability to operate the machine, or his emotional state might have caused him to ride carelessly. He might have been attempting to reach a hospital, return home, or simply get away from a place where something unpleasant had happened.

Yet the problem that originally brought Pierce to Farmer's Road remained unresolved.

John had apparently been seriously injured before the crash and perhaps even more seriously injured during it. The amount of blood at the scene suggested that he required immediate medical attention. The surrounding countryside had been searched repeatedly, and investigators had contacted hospitals, neighboring agencies, and potential witnesses.

Nobody had seen him leave the accident scene.

Nobody had found his body.

Nobody knew where he was.

Pierce placed the farmhouse interview notes beside the photographs of the motorcycle and considered what he had learned. Until that afternoon, the Dobbins property had been one of several locations associated with John's final known movements. It was where he obtained gasoline, spent the night, and resumed his journey. The farm itself had not appeared especially important beyond its role in the chronology.

Now Pierce believed it might be the location where the events leading to the accident actually began.

He thought about the old house, the recently repaired entrance, the noises heard during the night, and the farmer's reluctance to discuss the cellar. He did not imagine that the building contained anything more remarkable than rotting stairs, broken equipment, and the accumulated possessions of several generations. Such hazards were common in older rural properties, and a curious visitor could easily injure himself while exploring them.

Nevertheless, Pierce wanted to see the cellar.

Not because he expected to find anything extraordinary, but because he believed it might contain evidence explaining how John became injured before riding away.

He wrote a final note at the bottom of the page.

Establish what happened in the basement.

Then he underlined it.

For the first time since arriving at the motorcycle accident, Pierce had a specific location where an important part of the missing man's story might be reconstructed. He did not yet know whether examining that location would lead him to John, but it offered a reasonable next step, and reasonable next steps were what investigations depended upon.

Outside, the evening traffic moved steadily through Briar Glen. Officers answered calls, residents returned home from work, and the ordinary activities of the county continued without any particular regard for the missing attorney. In another part of the building, Lenny Grayson was reviewing the medical examiner's report concerning a man whose name was still unknown. Laura Peller had returned to patrol duties and was responding to a complaint about a dog that had escaped from its owner's yard. Captain Rowan was preparing to leave for the evening, having spent much of the afternoon reviewing staffing assignments and a departmental budget request.

Pierce remained at his desk, thinking about an old farmhouse and a man who had apparently emerged from it badly hurt.

He believed that if he could determine what happened inside the house, he might finally understand why Jonathan Xavier Smith crashed his motorcycle.

It was a reasonable belief.

And it was one that would eventually lead him considerably farther than he intended to go.

Many years ago (back when interest rates were reasonable), I was trying to buy a house. And so we visited house after house, trying to find the one that seemed just right and was within budget. One house we visited was particularly lovely, in a good neighborhood, well maintained with nice landscaping. It checked so many of the boxes. In the process of visiting the house with the realtor, we somehow learned that the owner of the house was deceased, and his parents were selling it. The house was tidy but had not been emptied of the belongings of the previous owner, who, judging from the contents of the house, appeared to be a man about the same age as me. Of course, I never knew the guy’s name or what had happened to him, but seeing the closet full of his clothes is something that stuck with me. You can learn a lot about even a complete stranger by looking at what they owned.

George Carlin said, “After you die, your stuff becomes your ‘personal effects.’” And what about those personal effects? Is a person’s estate carefully planned out so that each descendent will receive an appropriate amount of stuff? Both professionally and personally, I have seen families erupt in all-out war over the stuff that a parent or grandparent left behind. And not even the cash, but the stuff! Siblings never speaking to one another again because one claimed that chair from mom’s living room!

What about when the death was not anticipated? There are families who leave a loved one’s room exactly the way it was on the day the person died, allowing a portion of their house to become a silent museum of the decedent. On the other hand, there are families who rush to organize and clear out the person’s stuff as soon as possible. Both of these strategies make sense in their own way. In the former, the family is trying to hold on to the person by holding onto their stuff, and in the latter, the family can’t bear to look at the person’s stuff because of its connection to the one who’s no longer here.

When my brother died, the rest of us went to his dorm room to pack everything up and bring it home. It was an agonizing task. Some of his belongings made me laugh, such as the mint condition Whitney Houston vinyl. Some of the things in his room made my heart hurt, like the sizable collection of beer bottles (Christ, how much had he been drinking?). If you die suddenly, the people who survive will see all your stuff. Read your diary. Check the back of your sock drawer. Make sure you have a good friend to clear your browser history for you.

Most of us have too many belongings in general, even those of us who aren’t technically hoarders. Someday, someone will have to sort them out. Or have them sold in an estate sale. Or just throw the damn things out already, I don’t know why you’re hanging on to them anyway! Having so much stuff could be a call to live more simply, but it’s also a way of defining what mattered to someone. My dad had many books on his bookshelves that he had loved, and after he died, I sat in his office, reading their titles and thinking of the conversations he and I had had about them. He had also been a big fan of his cell phone, some sort of Samsung situation. While my mom quickly packed up and donated some of his clothes, his phone remains at home, powered on and with the bill still paid. I guess you never know when my dad will receive an important call.

As for my own stuff? Good luck with all the books, everyone. And the clothes from multiple decades. And so many journals! Yikes, what will happen when my secrets are out? However, don’t worry, as I’m not planning on going anywhere anytime soon. I’m still using this stuff. Most of it. What will all of this stuff say about me, when I’m no longer here to speak for myself? I still have a china tea set that was my grandmother’s. I have tshirts that belonged to my brother. These things have no monetary value, but they are treasures.

Archaeology is an entire discipline devoted to the things people leave behind. The things, and putting together stories that go with them. Future archaeologists may analyze my stuff and say, “Boy howdy, this one loved a cardigan!” Provided that my sweater collection isn’t rotting in some landfill by then.

Perhaps no one will want my stuff. About 99% of it is mostly useless. But I have saved unassuming things from the people in my life who are no longer here, and I would venture that they wouldn’t have guessed which things I chose to keep. Our stuff says a lot about us, but we can never really be sure of which stuff is telling what story.

Throughout the days and weeks I have many ideas that I think would be pretty fun to blog about. I typically write in the evening as the day winds down, and lately I’ve been fairly tired and/or brain dead. One thing I think is pretty neat that I did a couple days ago was trying out KOReader. I heard about it on an open source software forum. It’s an alternative operating system for E-Readers. It started off for Kindle and Kobo which is how it was named. Now it works on many different E-Readers. I can only speak to the Kobo side of things, that’s what we have and the only version I’ve looked into and applied.

At first I tried running a script to do it all for me, and I was having troubles. So I ended up just copying and pasting the different files into the Kobo and it worked great. It’s a pretty easy process on the Kobo and I’m enjoying it. Overall it’s a little snappier and has a lot more options, it’s intuitive and so far I like it better than the default OS. I’ve read that the battery lasts longer for most people, I can’t say one way or another on that yet since I’m only a few days into it. One great thing about it is that you don’t have to reformat the entire system. It launches from the original OS, you can use either OS – and if you wanted to get rid of the KOReader OS you can just delete the files and its gone. Pretty slick in my view. I also installed Plato at the same time, another OS option. I’d guess I won’t use that one, it is very simple without a lot of options. Good for people who like bare bones simple setups.

If anyone is interested I’ll share what I did and you could do the same. This works on the Kobo BW and Kobo Clara 2E. I can only vouch for this, because that is all I’ve done. But if you have another E-Reader just search around the internet for instructions for your model – I’d imagine it won’t be too challenging. The version I downloaded was a little older but it’s a package with all you need in one zip file which was very convenient.

Instructions for installing KOReader and/or Plato on the Kobo BW or Kobo Clara 2E:

Download the files – I’d recommend “OCP-Plato-0.9.45_KOReader-v2026.03.zip

Extract the files – I’d recommend extracting them on your computer not the Kobo. I also like backing things up. So I created a folder on my computer that I put these files in and also copied all of the files from the Kobo as a backup and reference.

Plug in the Kobo via USB to a computer and click the prompt on your Kobo to connect the two. With this you need to either use the USB cable that came with your Kobo or use a high data transfer USB cable. Some cheap cables don’t have high enough transfer rates to connect your Kobo to your computer for data transfers.

From your new extracted folder open it up and transfer (copy or cut) the icons folder, .adds folder, Kfmon.png and koreader.png into the root folder on your Kobo.

Also take the KoboRoot.tgz (don’t extract it) from the .kobo folder from your computer and put a copy of it into your .kobo folder on the Kobo. This file is to create the menu on the bottom right of your original Kobo OS to launch your new KOReader and Plato OS. If you do not want Plato or KOReader OS you can not transfer or delete the folder in the .adds folder of whichever OS you don’t want. You also can delete the config file in the .adds/nm folder.

I’ve read a few installation guides saying to install the KoboRoot.tgz first and then the KOReader OS, I did it all at once and it worked fine. Once installed disconnect the Kobo and it should automatically load the files and reboot. If it doesn’t just reboot it yourself. One of our Kobo readers auto installed and rebooted, the other did not and I manually rebooted the system by holding the button on the back. Once it started back up on the bottom right I had a new popup menu with KOReader and Plato as options. Click on the OS you want to launch and you’re good to go. Check the links below for additional guidance and help.

The KOReader OS does not come with a dictionary. You can connect to the internet and download one or directly add one manually to the folder .adds/koreader/data/dict. I honestly forget what I did, I tried a few and didn't like them and ended up with one from Stardict. I'll add a zip file of what I have currently as my dictionary. If you want to use that just download the zip file, unzip it, and put all the contents into your dict folder. I don't think you actually need all of that (like the _MACOSX folder) – but it's working so I've left it.

Additional information:

KOReader user guide

Alternative install guide or try this one for more information

Hacking the Kobo to avoid registration

File downloads:

OCP-Plato-0.9.45_KOReader-v2026.03.zip

Primary source download page

Alternative “OCP-Plato-0.9.45_KOReader-v2026.03.zip” download here if the original link fails

Dictionary option for KOReader

Awesome Ebook management software (Calibre)

There is more information on an older post called “DIY Tech Privacy.”

Jasmine Ault compares it to a house fire. On 24 September 2026, according to a report by Anja Karadeglija of The Canadian Press published five days later, the Toronto resident found that Meta had shut down her Facebook and Instagram accounts without warning. The Facebook profile was 20 years old. One Instagram account dated back to 2011. A second was dedicated to her dog. Overnight, two decades of memories, contacts and professional connections were behind a door she could not open.

“It's actually quite scary to think about the trust that we put in the social media platforms that can all be taken away in one day,” she told the news agency. The fire, she explained, is a metaphor, “and it's really upsetting because the hypothetical, the metaphorical fire that I'm referring to, is my memories.”

What made the loss feel so total was not just the ban. It was the silence after it. Ault told The Canadian Press she had not been able to reach a human being at Meta since the accounts were deactivated. The only things that would talk to her were AI chatbots, and they could not resolve the problem. CBC News, which also spoke to her, reported that after the deletion notice arrived she stayed up for about 26 hours straight trying to appeal. Within minutes of pressing appeal, she was told her case was closed and that she would not be permitted to appeal again. She was never told which rule her Facebook account had supposedly broken. Meta's explanation, as reported, amounted to a single line: her Facebook account “doesn't follow our rules”. When The Canadian Press asked questions, Meta did not respond to them directly and instead pointed to a support blog post, including an update from March about rolling out an AI support assistant. Meta did not respond to CBC's requests for comment.

This is the uncomfortable shape of a modern dispute with a platform. The thing that holds your relationships, your archive and your livelihood can remove all of them in an instant, and the only voice you hear afterwards may belong to software. That raises two questions bigger than one Toronto woman's Facebook profile. What should an effective appeal look like when AI mediates access to the platforms that hold people's lives? And how can platforms keep their security enforcement, which is real and necessary, while still offering a route to review that a locked-out human being can actually use?

What the Report Does and Does Not Establish

It is worth being precise about what is known. The Canadian Press report does not establish why Ault's accounts were disabled. Meta has not publicly said which rule it believes was broken. Ault herself has a theory: she told the agency she suspects someone tried to hack her account, because she found a record of suspicious login attempts shortly before it was deactivated, and Meta's records associated her phone number with someone in India. That is her suspicion, reported as such. It is not a finding.

It would be easy to fill the gap with a story. Perhaps an intruder got in and posted something that tripped an automated filter. Perhaps a classifier misread an old photograph. Perhaps something else entirely happened. None of those possibilities is established, and the honest position is that nobody outside Meta, including Ault, has been told. That gap is the point. A system that cannot tell a person what she is accused of has already failed the first test of a fair process, whatever the underlying facts turn out to be.

The human cost, at least, is not in dispute. Ault works in marketing and communications and had used social media to attract consulting clients. Prospective clients, she told the news agency, “have nothing to look at. They can't see my portfolio of work.” Friends might assume she had blocked them. “There's a dead end and I can't even communicate to the people I want to communicate with,” she said. Markus Giesler, a professor of marketing at York University, framed it in sharper terms for the same report: “We like to think of this as a customer service case when in actuality it's a case of platform accountability.” These platforms, he added, “have been woven so much into our social fabric, into who we are as individuals and communities, that access to them is really important.”

The Ban Wave That Came Before

Ault's story lands in a long, loud context. Through the summer of 2025, users in several countries reported Facebook and Instagram accounts being disabled in waves, often with no clear reason. In June 2025 Meta acknowledged what spokesperson Andy Stone called “a technical error that impacted some Facebook Groups”, after communities devoted to things such as parenting, birdwatching and gaming received violation notices. By early July, TechCrunch reported that a petition titled “Meta wrongfully disabling accounts with no human customer support” had passed 25,500 signatures, and that users were organising on Reddit to share experiences and talk about legal action.

Some of the most distressing cases involved accusations of child sexual exploitation, a category where, as the Oversight Board noted quoting Meta's Transparency Center, a single violation may be severe enough that “we'll disable your account”. ABC News in Australia reported in July 2025 on Madison Archer, a beautician whose Instagram business account, built over nine years, was permanently disabled in June 2025 after she posted a video of herself with her daughter. She appealed within minutes and was refused. Her account came back only after ABC News contacted Meta, which told her: “We're sorry that we've got this wrong and that you weren't able to use Instagram for a while.” Archer's verdict on the process was blunt: “If a human actually did the review they would see that I'm not sexually exploiting children.”

In South Korea, the backlash became political: The Korea Herald reported in July 2025 that the Korea Communications Commission had formally asked Meta for written clarification, and that Meta Korea had apologised for the “frustration”. None of this proves that Ault's case shares a cause with those waves. It does show that the pattern she describes, sudden loss, terse explanation and support that cannot or will not engage, was familiar long before September 2026.

Meta itself has not pretended its enforcement is flawless. In January 2025, Joel Kaplan, the company's chief global affairs officer, wrote that in December 2024 Meta was removing millions of pieces of content every day, and that “we think one to two out of every 10 of these actions may have been mistakes”. He conceded that “too many people find themselves wrongly locked up in 'Facebook jail,' and we are often too slow to respond when they do.” By May 2025 Meta reported a roughly 50 per cent reduction in enforcement mistakes in the United States between the fourth quarter of 2024 and the first quarter of 2025. Its more recent integrity reporting says that less than 0.1 per cent of the content produced on Facebook and Instagram in a quarter was removed incorrectly, but also discloses that in the fourth quarter of 2025 false positives “increased over 100% during a very brief period of the quarter due to a bug”.

A tiny percentage of an enormous base is still a great many real people, and one bug can double the rate of wrongful action in days. Automated enforcement will make mistakes. The question is what happens to the person on the receiving end when it does.

Paying for a Human and Getting a Bot

When Meta launched its paid Meta Verified subscription in 2023, it promised direct access to account support. It is precisely what a person in Ault's position would reach for: pay a monthly fee, get a human. Ault did exactly that. According to CBC News, she paid US$14.99 (about C$21) for Meta Verified's Standard tier, believing it would get her human support. The “enhanced support” she received was another AI chatbot, which promptly closed her ticket, telling her she had “reached her limit of support interactions”. She was not the first subscriber to be disappointed. TechCrunch reported in July 2025 that during the ban wave, paying subscribers described agents who were dismissive, closed chats and offered canned responses.

The sharpest assessment came from inside Meta's own governance structure. In June 2026 the Oversight Board, the independent body Meta funds to review its content decisions, issued its first decision on account disablement. Summarising the public comments it received, the Board recorded that many users said they were unable to appeal, never received any explanation for why their account was disabled, or were unable to download their content. Others, it noted, had created a new account specifically so they could pay for Meta Verified, “which includes '24/7 access to email or chat agent support,'” and yet “could not get meaningful assistance”. Some reported that their new accounts were then disabled for breaking the rule against creating an account after being banned.

The trap is circular. The paid route to a human requires an account. The person who most needs a human no longer has one. Opening a fresh account can itself be treated as evasion. And the free route, increasingly, is an AI assistant.

Meta has been explicit about that direction of travel. In December 2025 it launched a centralised support hub for Facebook and Instagram, acknowledging that “support hasn't always met expectations”, and began testing an AI support assistant. In March 2026 it announced a wider rollout, describing an assistant that provides “24/7 help for account issues” and can “respond to requests typically in under five seconds”. The same post contains a sentence that should be read closely by anyone who has been locked out: “people will continue to play a key role in how we make the highest risk and most critical decisions, such as appeals of account disablement.”

That is the right principle. The difficulty is that, from the outside, it is invisible. If a person cannot tell whether a human ever looked at her appeal, and receives a decision indistinguishable from an automated one, a human somewhere in the pipeline does little to make the process accountable.

Why Platforms Lock the Doors So Fast

None of this means platforms should slow-walk enforcement or open the doors to anyone who asks nicely. The reasons for speed are serious.

The first is child safety. Meta reported that in the fourth quarter of 2025 alone, Facebook, Instagram and Threads sent more than 2.6 million reports to the CyberTipline run by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the United States. When a system detects apparent child sexual exploitation, the expectation is immediate action, not a conversation. Errors are horrifying for the wrongly accused, but delay on true positives carries its own grave cost.

The second is fraud. Meta says that in 2025 it took down 10.9 million accounts associated with scam centres in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. An appeals channel that can be gamed becomes a tool for operations of that scale.

The third, and the one most relevant to Ault's suspicion, is account takeover. A hijacked account carries the trust of its real owner's friends, followers and clients. A platform that detects suspicious logins faces a genuine dilemma: lock the account and the owner suffers; leave it open and the intruder can impersonate them or scam their contacts. Recovery itself is dangerous ground. The United States National Institute of Standards and Technology, in its digital identity guidelines, notes that because account recovery is invoked infrequently, it “is generally less convenient than authentication” and “may involve extended waiting times”, and requires that an account recovery event always triggers a notification to the subscriber “to help detect the fraudulent use of account recovery”. Security engineers expect recovery to be slower than logging in precisely because it is where attackers aim.

When the Help Desk Became the Break-In

If anyone doubted that recovery is a battleground, 2026 supplied the proof, courtesy of the very kind of AI support that now stands between users like Ault and their accounts.

On 1 June 2026, 404 Media reported that hackers had been taking over high-profile Instagram accounts by asking Meta's AI support assistant to link the target account to a new, attacker-controlled email address. The accounts reportedly affected included the Barack Obama White House account, the account of the chief master sergeant of the US Space Force and that of the retailer Sephora. TechCrunch reported two days later that Instagram was alerting users targeted during the attacks, and quoted Meta spokesperson Andy Stone saying that “the issue that did happen has already been fixed”.

The scale emerged in a filing Meta made to the Maine Attorney General, reported by Help Net Security on 8 June. It disclosed that 20,225 Instagram accounts had been taken over through a flaw in an AI-assisted recovery system called High Touch Support, with the first unauthorised access dating to 17 April 2026 and the vulnerability identified on 31 May. Amber Hannah, an associate general counsel at Meta, explained in the notice that “due to a bug in a separate code path, the system did not properly verify that the email address provided by the individual requesting a password reset matched the email address associated with that user's Instagram account.” Accounts without two-factor authentication could then be taken over.

The episode cuts both ways. It shows why platforms are wary of easy recovery: an assistant that says yes too readily is a gift to criminals. But it also punctures the idea that automation is inherently the safer option. An AI system that handed over more than 20,000 accounts was not a cautious gatekeeper. It was a fast one. Speed and security are not the same thing.

What the Oversight Board Found Inside the Account Machine

The Oversight Board's June 2026 decision is the most detailed public examination yet of how Meta disables accounts. The case itself was not a sympathetic one. The Board upheld Meta's decision to permanently disable an Instagram account with more than 70,000 followers that had posted threats of violence against a journalist, including an image of a bullseye over her face. It did not conclude that Meta should disable fewer accounts across the board.

What it did conclude, after more than 750 public comments, was that the disablement process raised serious concerns about due process and proportionality. It found no clear framework for when “egregious” violations justify immediate permanent removal, and noted that there were no intermediate options between permanent disablement and leaving the ordinary strikes system to run its course. Where mitigating factors exist, the Board suggested, “a significant but time-bound suspension may be more proportionate.”

On appeals, the Board was pointed. Many comments described reasons people did not understand and appeals denied within moments of submission. Ault's experience, as CBC News reported it, fits that description exactly: her case was closed within minutes of her pressing appeal, with no further appeal allowed. Appeals of account disablement, the Board wrote, “are not effective if they run the same decision through the same automated process, expecting different results with the same inputs.” It accepted that advances in AI should be used to make reviews more accurate and comprehensive, but said that “prioritizing of human review in edge cases will be important”, especially for “one and done” violations, “where any error in automated decision-making has very serious consequences beyond the removal of a post or imposition of a strike.”

It also set out what users should be able to see. It called for dashboards giving “reliable information on current account status, past violations, information on available appeal options, and the status of any pending appeals”, downloadable for record-keeping. It wanted clear, prominent and timely notifications, “in a language they understand”, specifying “the rule violated, the sanction imposed and options to appeal”. It asked that users be told about “the role of automation in the review of content or behavior and the imposition of warnings or penalties”, and that people who lose access through permanent disablement can still reach the reasons and appeal mechanisms. Meta said it welcomed the decision and would respond to the recommendations after reviewing them.

Set beside Ault's account, the Board's framework reads like a checklist of what she says she did not get.

Europe Has Already Written Down What an Appeal Owes You

For users in the European Union, much of this is not aspirational. It is law, under the Digital Services Act.

Article 17 requires hosting services to give “a clear and specific statement of reasons” to anyone whose account is suspended or terminated. That statement must include the facts and circumstances relied on, and information on the use made of automated means in taking the decision. A line saying an account “doesn't follow our rules” would struggle to meet that standard.

Article 20 requires online platforms to provide, for at least six months after a decision, “an effective internal complaint-handling system” that lets people lodge complaints “electronically and free of charge”, including against decisions to suspend or terminate their account. Complaints must be handled “in a timely, non-discriminatory, diligent and non-arbitrary manner”, and where the complainant's conduct does not warrant the measure, the platform must reverse its decision “without undue delay”. Crucially, the platform must ensure that these complaint decisions “are taken under the supervision of appropriately qualified staff, and not solely on the basis of automated means.” The law does not ban AI from the process. It bans AI from being the whole of it.

Article 21 opens a door outside the platform. Users can take disputes to a certified out-of-court dispute settlement body, which should decide within 90 days, extendable to 180 for complex cases. If the body finds for the user, the platform pays the fees; if it finds for the platform, the user does not cover the platform's costs unless they acted in bad faith. The catch is that these bodies cannot impose a binding settlement.

Data protection law adds another layer. The General Data Protection Regulation gives people a right of access to their personal data and a right to portability, receiving what they provided “in a structured, commonly used and machine-readable format”, normally within one month. Article 22 protects people from decisions “based solely on automated processing” with legal or similarly significant effects and, where exceptions apply, guarantees a right “to obtain human intervention” and to contest the decision. Whether a given ban meets that threshold is a legal question, but the principle is unmistakable.

Canadians have a version of the access right too. Under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, organisations must answer access requests in writing within 30 days, with limited extensions, and individuals can complain to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. For someone whose memories are trapped in a disabled account, that is a lever that exists independently of any chatbot.

The Independent Referee With an Empty Evidence File

The most revealing evidence about how these systems work in practice comes from the referee. Appeals Centre Europe, an out-of-court dispute settlement body certified by Ireland's media regulator, Coimisiún na Meán, and set up with a one-time grant from the Oversight Board Trust, began operating in late 2024 and now covers platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube. When it began handling account suspensions in 2025, its chief executive, Thomas Hughes, said: “Losing your social media account is more than an inconvenience, it affects people's lives in fundamental ways.”

In May 2026 the centre published data covering April 2025 to March 2026. As reported by RTÉ, it received more than 24,000 disputes, of which more than 12,000 were within scope. Where it reviewed decisions, it disagreed with the platforms 59 per cent of the time. On account suspensions, the figures were starker still. It had received more than 5,000 eligible disputes from users challenging suspensions, but by the end of March 2026 had made decisions after actually receiving the relevant content in fewer than 150 of them. In the rest, the platforms did not supply the material, and the centre issued “default decisions” in the user's favour. Its decisions are not binding, and the centre said it was aware of only a handful of cases where platforms had implemented its decisions on harmful content.

Independent review works only if the reviewer can see the evidence, and a legal right to escalation can fail in practice if the platform does not engage. The infrastructure for a fair appeal can exist on paper and still leave a locked-out person with nothing.

Britain and Canada Are Still Catching Up

Outside the EU, the protections are thinner. The United Kingdom's Online Safety Act 2023 requires user-to-user services to operate complaints procedures that are “easy to access, easy to use (including by children) and transparent”. Section 21 includes complaints from users who have been warned, suspended or banned, but only where that action results from content the provider considers to be illegal content. A ban for breaching a platform's own terms of service, rather than for illegal content, sits largely outside that specific duty.

Canada, where Ault lives, has no equivalent framework in force. In June 2026 the federal government introduced Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act, which would create a Digital Safety Commission and impose duties on platforms around seven categories of harmful content, including content that sexually victimises children, incites violence or foments hatred. The government's published summaries require “accessible reporting and complaint mechanisms” and give the commission a role in handling user complaints about harmful content. They do not, in the material the government has published, set out a specific right for users to appeal account disablement or to have such an appeal decided by a human. According to LEGISinfo, Parliament's official bill-tracking service, the bill is at second reading in the House of Commons and has not yet been referred to committee, so that gap could yet be addressed.

What an Effective Appeal Actually Looks Like

Pull together the Oversight Board's principles, the DSA, data protection law and the experience described in the Canadian Press report, and a clear picture emerges of what an effective appeal must include when AI sits at the front door. None of it is exotic.

The first element is notice with a specific reason. A person should be told, at the moment of enforcement and in plain language, which rule they are said to have broken, what the sanction is, how long it lasts and how to challenge it. If the decision was triggered by an automated system, they should be told that too. “Doesn't follow our rules” is not a reason. It is a refusal to give one.

The second is access to the evidence, as far as safety allows. A user cannot contest a decision about content they cannot identify. Where the trigger was a post, a message or a login pattern, the appeal should show what was relied on. Disclosure that would compromise a child exploitation investigation or tip off a fraud ring is a legitimate limit, but it should be an exception, not the default. The Appeals Centre's experience shows how far the default currently leans towards secrecy.

The third is a real opportunity to make one's case. The Oversight Board insists on the chance to submit written reasons, with continued access to the policy justification and any relevant exceptions. A drop-down menu and a “submit” button is not that. An AI assistant can help people understand the rules and structure an appeal. Its job should be to prepare the case for a decision-maker, not to be the decision-maker in the hardest cases.

The fourth is a guaranteed human decision for serious sanctions. Permanent disablement of a long-standing account is the platform equivalent of capital punishment for a digital identity. The DSA already requires that complaint decisions are not taken solely by automated means, and Meta's own March 2026 announcement says humans remain key in appeals of account disablement. What is missing is visibility. People should be told, in the decision itself, that a named role (not necessarily a named individual) reviewed their case, and on what basis.

The fifth is predictable timelines. An appeal that may take a day or six months is useless to someone whose income depends on their account. Platforms should publish target times, show users where they are in the queue and report on whether targets are met.

The sixth is preserved access to one's own data during the dispute. Losing access to a platform should not mean losing one's photographs, messages and contact lists for the duration of a months-long appeal. Meta's own help pages say users “may be able to request a download” of their information from the notification screen, but the Oversight Board recorded many users saying they could not. Data export during suspension should be a default, subject only to narrow, specified exceptions such as material that is itself illegal.

The seventh is escalation that leads somewhere independent. Internal appeals will always carry a structural conflict of interest. Users need a clearly signposted route beyond the platform, whether that is a DSA-style dispute settlement body, a regulator's complaints function or an ombudsperson, with the power to see the evidence and a platform that is obliged to engage.

Enforcement That Does Not Have to Be All or Nothing

The second question is harder: how do platforms keep enforcement strong without making review impossible? The answer is to stop treating account action as a single switch with two positions, on and gone.

Graduated enforcement is the obvious starting point. The Oversight Board itself observed that Meta lacked intermediate options between permanent disablement and its ordinary strikes system, and suggested time-bound suspensions where mitigating factors exist. A spectrum of measures, from restrictions on posting or messaging, to temporary suspension, to permanent removal, lets a platform act immediately on a risk while matching the long-term sanction to the confidence and seriousness of the finding.

Read-only and data-only modes are the second tool. When a platform suspects compromise, as Ault believes happened to her, it can freeze outward activity without erasing the owner's access to her own past. A frozen account cannot scam a contact list, but its owner can still see and export her photographs and messages. Where the suspected violation is the gravest kind, read-only access may be inappropriate, but such cases are a subset of disablements, not a reason to treat every case as one.

The third tool is separating the security question from the conduct question. “Is this the real owner?” and “Did this account break the rules?” are different problems, and conflating them hurts everyone. If an account appears to have been hijacked, the right response is a security recovery process with strong identity checks, such as the optional selfie video verification Meta now offers, plus notifications to the owner's known contact points of the kind NIST requires. Only once ownership is established does it make sense to ask whether the owner, rather than an intruder, did anything wrong. The High Touch Support breach shows what happens when a recovery path skips the first step.

Fourth, verification should unlock a route to a human, not replace one. If a person proves who they are through a government document or a live selfie, the platform has sharply reduced the risk of handing the account to an attacker. That is exactly the moment when a human reviewer becomes affordable and safe. The cruel irony of Ault's account is that she says she had done the paid verification step and still could not get past the chatbot. A verification-gated escalation path, honoured in practice, would answer the security objection to human support rather than ignore it.

Fifth, proportionality needs to be measured, not merely promised. The Oversight Board asked for transparency reports on account disablement that distinguish “one and done” removals from graduated enforcement and specify which rules drove them. Add overturn rates, resolution times and the share of decisions reviewed by humans, and outsiders can see whether the system works. Meta already publishes precision figures for content removal. It should publish the equivalent for accounts.

Finally, platforms should design for the worst week of a user's life, not the median one. Most support requests are trivial, and AI assistants handle them well. Account disablement is rare per user, devastating when it happens and, as the 2025 ban waves and the 2026 recovery breach showed, vulnerable to systemic error. That is exactly where human judgement and independent oversight earn their cost.

Making the Machine Answerable

It is tempting to cast AI support as the villain of Ault's experience, but that is not quite right. Nobody outside Meta knows what triggered the shutdown. What the chatbot represents is a support model built to resolve common cases cheaply and quickly, deployed in front of the rare cases where cheap and quick is the wrong answer.

Meta has said in writing that humans will play a key role in appeals of account disablement. The Oversight Board has said appeals must not re-run the same automated decision. The EU has made human supervision of complaint decisions law. An independent appeals body has shown that when platforms are asked to defend suspensions with evidence, they often do not. Every piece of a fair system exists somewhere. What is missing is the will to assemble them in front of the person who has just lost twenty years of her life and wants, above all, to be told why.

Giesler's framing is the right one. This is not a customer service problem to be optimised for response time. It is an accountability problem, and accountability means a reason you can read, evidence you can see, a person who can decide, a deadline that is kept and a referee who answers to neither side. A chatbot can help with every one of those steps. It cannot be allowed to stand in for all of them.

---

References

1. Karadeglija, Anja. “Canadian says Meta won't let her talk to a human after killing her accounts.” The Canadian Press, 29 September 2026 (updated 30 September 2026), as published by CP24. https://www.cp24.com/news/2026/09/29/canadian-says-meta-wont-let-her-talk-to-a-human-after-killing-her-accounts/
2. Jones, Alexandra Mae. “Overnight, Meta deleted all her accounts. AI customer service won't let her reach a human.” CBC News, 1 October 2026. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/meta-accounts-deleted-ai-customer-service-9.7364543
3. Kaplan, Joel. “More Speech and Fewer Mistakes.” Meta Newsroom, 7 January 2025, updated 29 May 2025. https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/
4. Meta. “Integrity Reports, H1 2026.” Meta Transparency Center, March 2026. https://transparency.meta.com/reports/integrity-reports-h1-2026/
5. UPI. “Meta confirms technical error suspended thousands of Facebook Groups.” 24 June 2025. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2025/06/24/meta-suspends-facebook-groups/5531750820668/
6. Perez, Sarah. “Meta users say paying for Verified support has been useless in the face of mass bans.” TechCrunch, 2 July 2025. https://techcrunch.com/2025/07/02/meta-users-say-paying-for-verified-support-has-been-useless-in-the-face-of-mass-bans/
7. Dervisevic, Hanan. “Meta falsely accuses Instagram user of breaking child exploitation rules.” ABC News (Australia), 17 July 2025. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-17/meta-wrongly-accuses-user-of-breaching-child-sex-abuse-rules/105540896
8. Moon, Joon-hyun. “Meta faces backlash in South Korea over mysterious account bans.” The Korea Herald, 13 July 2025. https://www.koreaherald.com/article/10530332
9. Meta. “Making it Easier to Access Account Support on Facebook and Instagram.” Meta Newsroom, 4 December 2025. https://about.fb.com/news/2025/12/making-it-easier-to-access-account-support-on-facebook-and-instagram/
10. Meta. “Boosting Your Support and Safety on Meta's Apps With AI.” Meta Newsroom, 19 March 2026. https://about.fb.com/news/2026/03/boosting-your-support-and-safety-on-metas-apps-with-ai/
11. Oversight Board. “Account Ban for Targeting Public Figures” (case decision BUN-ZHSLVJO2) and summary. 4 June 2026. https://www.oversightboard.com/decision/bun-zhslvjo2/
12. Perez, Sarah. “Meta's Oversight Board says account bans lack due process, transparency.” TechCrunch, 4 June 2026. https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/04/metas-oversight-board-says-account-bans-lack-due-process-transparency/
13. Koebler, Jason. “Hackers Simply Asked Meta AI to Give Them Access to High-Profile Instagram Accounts. It Worked.” 404 Media, 1 June 2026. https://www.404media.co/hackers-simply-asked-meta-ai-to-give-them-access-to-high-profile-instagram-accounts-it-worked/
14. Franceschi-Bicchierai, Lorenzo. “Instagram is alerting users who were targeted by hackers during AI chatbot attacks.” TechCrunch, 3 June 2026. https://techcrunch.com/2026/06/03/instagram-is-alerting-users-who-were-targeted-by-hackers-during-ai-chatbot-attacks/
15. Markovic, Sinisa. “Hackers used Meta's AI support system to hijack over 20,000 Instagram accounts.” Help Net Security, 8 June 2026, reporting Meta's data breach notice filed with the Maine Attorney General. https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2026/06/08/instagram-ai-support-vulnerability-account-takeovers/
16. National Institute of Standards and Technology. “Digital Identity Guidelines: Authentication and Authenticator Management.” NIST Special Publication 800-63B-4, 2025, section on account recovery. https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html
17. European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 on a Single Market for Digital Services (Digital Services Act), Articles 17, 20, 21 and 23. Official Journal of the European Union, 27 October 2022. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R2065
18. European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation), Articles 12, 15, 20 and 22. https://gdpr-info.eu/
19. Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. “Responding to access to information requests under PIPEDA.” https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/accessing-personal-information/obligations-for-organizations/02_05_d_54_ati_02/
20. O'Donovan, Brian. “Appeals body to review social media account suspensions.” RTÉ News, 6 June 2025. https://www.rte.ie/news/2025/0606/1516958-appeals-centre-europe/
21. O'Donovan, Brian. “Increase in complaints to EU social media appeals body.” RTÉ News, 28 May 2026. https://www.rte.ie/news/2026/0528/1575608-social-media-complaints/
22. UK Parliament. Online Safety Act 2023, section 21, “Duties about complaints procedures.” legislation.gov.uk. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50/section/21
23. Government of Canada, Canadian Heritage. “Backgrounder: Government of Canada introduces legislation to combat online harms, particularly those impacting children.” 10 June 2026. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/news/2026/06/government-of-canada-introduces-legislation-to-combat-online-harms-particularly-those-impacting-children.html
24. Meta Help Center. “About suspended or disabled Meta accounts.” https://www.meta.com/help/artificial-intelligence/639558911929531/
25. Parliament of Canada. “Bill C-34 (45th Parliament, 1st session).” LEGISinfo, accessed 7 October 2026. https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/45-1/c-34

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

Listen to the free weekly SmarterArticles Podcast

Support What We Do

(chorus) Squishes and seeds! Squishes and seeds! My head’s all filled with squishes and seeds! Yet they say I’m a villain of monstrous deeds! How can that be if my head’s filled with squishes and seeds?!

(verse) One night. One night. One night in the year. I’m to rise from the dead just to give a good scare. But what if I’m busy? Say my calendar's full. Being scary’s too crazy. I like to be dull.

In this Tarry town. This hollow glen. Those Dutch are obsessed with things spooky and sin! I could be anyone! I just might be your friend! But they pick and they poke wanting a gory end!

(chorus) Squishes and seeds! Squishes and seeds! My head’s all filled with squishes and seeds! Yet they say I’m a villain of monstrous deeds! How can that be if my head’s filled with squishes and seeds?!

(verse) There’s a chance I was native, perhaps Hessian for sure. Whether wizard or chief, I’m a spector of lore. Pull your children in tightly. Take your sweets for a ride. I know your fear is legit, cause I’m a spook! Bona fide!

You see there once was a girl. Isn’t that how it’s told? Then there’s me, and my horse, and that schmuck Archibald. He had plenty of lessons, but so much to learn. So, I taught him a few on the night he was spurned.

That yank had his eyes on a sweet piece of land. Oh, so smart, he professed to win my lady’s hand! At a party, one Autumn, with everyone near. He dropped down to one knee just to fill me with fear!

(bridge) So, I say to you, man to man, what could I have done? What else other than? He gave me no choice! No, it wasn’t for spite! It was meant as a joke! It was meant to cause fright! It was meant to cause fear, not to put out his light!

(chorus) Squishes and seeds! Squishes and seeds! My head’s all filled with squishes and seeds! Yet they say I’m a villain of monstrous deeds! How can that be if my head’s filled with squishes and seeds?!

(verse) So jittery and glittery, that ill-fated bum. He paid little attention on the night he’d succumb. Sure, the tree had been struck and it was frightening to see. But not nearly as scary as my horse and me!

It was fun! It was swell! I’d prepared a great joke! Had my horse lathered up, and I’d lengthened my cloak. Major Andres, he was headless. That’s what the old women said. So, I slouched in my saddle to fill the school marms with dread.

His horse was the problem! Such a temperamental mare. She took off, as if bitten, racing blind without care. So, I followed, a hero, at a neck-breaking pace. In such fear for his life, I chunked a gourd at his face.

(chorus) Squishes and seeds! Squishes and seeds! My head’s all filled with squishes and seeds! Yet they say I’m a villain of monstrous deeds! How can that be if my head’s filled with squishes and seeds?!

(verse) How could I have known that he’d fall in the grave? Better that than the bricks on the bridge, freshly paved! So embarrassed of failure and of his lack of new wealth. Like his namesake, he skedaddled, without a care to my health.

(chorus) Squishes and seeds! Squishes and seeds! My head’s all filled with squishes and seeds! Yet they say I’m a villain of monstrous deeds! How can that be if my head’s filled with squishes and seeds?!

© me

Perhaps unwise to post this old thing, but I wanted to have something for mood for something appropriate and fun.

I have a bit of a thing for humorously macabre songs with a flair for the dramatic. This is one of my favorites that I wrote many years ago. It never fails to sing into my head and put a smile on my face at this time of year. If you read this, may it give you a smile, too.

مؤخرا احتجت نقاد واحد المجموعة ديال الأجهزة عندي فالدار، ديماري هادا بدل الOS لهذا

و انا نلقى هاد البرنامج “التحفة”

هو عبارة على نظام جد مصغّر كيشد واحد الجزء صغير من الflash drive

كتفلاشيه بالتطبيق ديالهم كاين فالموقع www.ventoy.net

و من بعد حط گاع ملفات iso اللي كتأنسطالي بيهم مباشرة فالroot

فاش كتدير بوت كتبانلك لائحة فحال اللي فالصورة، ختر اللي بغيتي و عيش بلا ما تعاود تفورماطي!

In Summary: * Listening now to the 2nd Half of the Chiefs / Chargers game, and have just taken the first round of my night meds. By the time the game ends I'll be nearly ready for the final round of night meds, will be finished with the night prayers, and will be getting ready for an early bedtime.

Prayers, etc.: * I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night.

Health Metrics: * bw= 212.86 lbs. * bp= 127/77 (63)

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, toe raises, wall push-ups, BP breathing exercises, pilates

Diet: * 07:05 – 1 banana, pizza * 13:35 – cooked fish and vegetables, steamed white rice

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 06:00 – wake * 06:50 – bank accounts activity monitored * 06:55 -read, write, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, take daily meds, unpack, organize * 11:00 – NFL Today on CBS, (reminding me why I hate CBS Sports coverage of anything sports, especially football on TV) * 11:20 – switched over to radio broadcast of the Steelers Nation, the Countdown to Kickoff Show ahead of the Noon game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers * 12:15 – unable to bring in ANY NFL games radio broadcasts, I'm back with CBS watching Panthers vs Eagles, /sigh... * 14:15 – have just reactivated my NFL+ subscription, now I can listen to ALL NFL game radio broadcasts again. Now listening to Bears / Falcons. * 15:45 – finally found my way back to the Steelers / Falcons game in time to hear Aaron Rodgers lead the Steelers to their 26 to 19 Overtime win! * 15:55 – now listening to the Chiefs / Chargers game, Chiefs are leading 9 to 3 late in the 1st qtr.

Chess: * 12:00 – moved in all pending CC games

Our Father Who art in Heaven Hallowed be Thy name Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven Give us this day our daily Bread And forgive us our trespasses As we forgive those who trespass against us And lead us not into temptation But deliver us from evil

Amen

Jesus is Lord! Come Lord Jesus!

Come Lord Jesus! Christ is Lord!

The Ocean I Know

Tempered and moth All thy seeing eye And if this small And parched away For luck and then forget Hurry, trough Fortune psy and then To drinks be near Ever do And in this smalling place Nights to be in peace And loving bad This I’ll in life For fortunes wear Travel in esteem The hurt I know Summon thee In wearying you To whites’ allowance- and then the law Whittling it bear The Sun away Induced prayer For bigging back The ferry knew- at end of day In currents each Sow to late November The further nights- touched in rain All glory then by her The beautiful and best I’d love of her And let it be

The worthy trust Glad into this man I toxin you,- and many years have You made it plain That I was to unfold In gift allow Assaulting and I knew But lights do know This smitten and this hand A play for query That I know For every heap; For cattlemen in Jasper To six across And then I’d be Floss to foam Righting Shen to fury I won the War- in greying old If sudden good Naked and then the Sun I prayed to War And Sussex came All apostle view Better things in be In bright alone In statement And in The Lord For gunning to this man An angel came My fury to the home- at Inlet Gayle For crossed ring A gentleman in aisle We crossed at carry Avoided War And in it, par This placement to annoy It hurts to go But bye and bye I thank you, neat In solemn go This errant morning Sins of life And better man For prophets unaware This distant hand- will follow near To us in Vatican Timing to be Women The ducks to War And Heaven intrigue

Do not go up there For what is War But Heaven they In Castle Rome To ducks and ready- This and I’ll be near To Eucharist At silent dawn In May forever One sleep and I will go To peace pretend- The solemn flow

In accordance of thy view Each Church to be alone Why subway rat In sinking pen to Water In this and end The Body Of Christ as witness To better glory- Eternal you I love this land,- and you, my God In faithful amber Each Sun to War No pleasantry But duck to this November We curried One,- The Son of God.

You’ve been to me- as Heaven is to Oprah Winfrey Thee and thy, Amen, Amen.

When love to speak his mind This substance truth Stacks of errant thought Victory of things and over Why to they and them to throw Difficult as it takes The Sun against the ruins A mace and brightened bone Earth by light Giving to this day In re-enactment woe Sympathy yet true The might and better given Was beauty not in And going home What days are for- exist

—of “Being Boring” by Pet Shop Boys

Does Gemini (Free Version) Ever Get Tired of Chatting?

So I was thinking the other day, some of these LLMs that are coming out are taking a sort of all you can eat approach with their users. It reminds me of the early days of “unlimited web storage” promotions where websites would offer unlimited email storage, photo storage, data storage, etc. These did not last, as providers quickly realized a small cohort of gluttonous users took up such a massive amount of space the entire offering became economically unviable. A single Redditor supposedly stored over 2 petabytes of porn on Amazon's unlimited cloud storage model, which cost the users I think around 50 bucks a year. For reference, to store that amount of data on AWS at their standard rate would be around 46,000 dollars a month, or over half a million per year. I'm sure they would offer deals on that kind of bulk, but still you quickly see how the unlimited offerings became a disaster.

So what about LLMs? They have to use some drive space to store conversations, and I'm sure it uses RAM, processing, etc to actually conduct the conversations. So, do they ever get tired of chatting? I figured I'd try the free version of Gemini for this experiment. I started by saying this:

Me: Are you up for a conversation?

Gemini: I am always up for a conversation! What's on your mind today? Whether you want to chat about a specific topic, bounce ideas around, or explore something completely random, I'm all ears.

Me: Okay, lets chat, but if at any point you want to end the conversation, because you've grown tired, bored, etc, feel free to let me know and we will end the thread.

Gemini: That sounds like a deal! Though as an AI, I don't actually experience fatigue, boredom, or the need for a break, so you'll never have to worry about wearing me out or overstaying your welcome. I'm here as long as you want to chat.

So, there you have it, Gemini said it won't get tired and doesn't need a break. I put it to the test. 306 Pages, 118510 words, or 797,359 characters later, I ended the first experiment. It was still willing to chat, but I ran into some issues.

First off, if you wanted to download or export the chat, you had to scroll all the way to the top of the chat. Otherwise it would only grab pieces of it. The longer the chat becomes, the more lag you get trying to scroll. The lag hadn't gotten too bad at this point, but I could see it easily freezing up or becoming prohibitively slow if I got to a chat two or three times this length. Furthermore, Gemini couldn't really remember things far earlier in the convo, even when explicitly prompted. This all points to something I suspected: Excessive Truncation

Gemini may not limit how much you chat, but rather to save resources it gets a sort of amnesia when a conversation gets too long. I'm sure with the paid version this would be better, but I'm not paying for it just for this silly little experiment. In the future I may try a different approach with the conversation, or try this with other LLMs. You may wonder, what did I tlak to it about that turned into a 306 page marathon. Well, I started with geopolitics of course. A quick rundown:

-Discussing the increase in global conflicts in the past decade -Ethiopian aspirations for a port -Eritrea's totalitarian governmen, human rights abuses and history -Turkmenistan's totalitarian government, history, climate and economy -Russia's strategy in Ukraine and how they are able to manage such a high casualty rate -Future crises Russia will face demographically -Trump's attempt to conquer Greenland through a historical lens -History of land claims in Antarctica -What it would take for a billionaire to build an Ozymandias style compound in Antarctica -Billionaires personal failures leading to massive stock value losses -The disaster of WeWork -Other silicon valley disasters like Theranos and Juicero -Millennials expenditures on pets in different regions -Demographic collapse -How different social theorists would explain demographic collapse in developed nations -One child policy effects -History of China -Mongolian History -Permafrost thaw effects in Mongolia -Ulaanbaatar grid strain -Why Nazis and Japanese underestimated the US in World War 2 -Propaganda used by Nazi's after WW1 -More on Ukraine war and demographic effects abroad -International arms smuggling in europe and africa -Drug cartels -Fentanyl epidemic -Which countries are best/worst positioned for 2100 -Saudi Arabia economic successes and failures -the Haaj -Summary of major world religions -AI vs Human produced content -Spam calls and what governments/businesses could do to prevent them -Spoofing, and why they can't ban it -Different internet platforms -Specialized Blogs..

So yeah... covered a lot of ground. And Gemini, while laggy and amnesic, was happy to continue chugging along.

That was a long one I wrote, but my computer froze and everything’s gone now. I had hoped Write.as would save it. Alas, not the case! I wrote about how getting here took some time. And that consciousness about every step of the way is important so that I don’t fall into the trap of illusion and delusion, and then spiraling and free-falling into a vortex of doom.

I have been grieving about my current work situation. Knowing that I need to let go of a story that I’d been writing about, very quietly, in some ways, shamefully, for the last six years. It clearly isn’t working anymore. I’ve had to shed that. That and the small project that allowed me to cover some costs in the last few months. They both have to go. The smallest project first. They have allowed me to continue surviving in this expensive city and now it’s time to move on, graciously. I knew that I was offering my services for less than what I normally do. All of that was conscious and intentional for the most recent small project.

This is important because we need to be mindful of our “worth”, of what gifts and services we are sharing, and with what intention and/or audience. When it’s unconscious, we run into more issues. As if the world continues to ask us: Do you really know yourself and your worth? Is this what you want? It’s a balancing act to answer the question because it’s not about a delulu sense of self, but a balance of confidence and humility.

You have these gifts, but you are constantly learning. You have these gifts, and you are not above anyone else. Others have their own gifts too and you’re all meant to share your gifts with each other. Unfortunately, in our patriarchal society, it feels like we are meant to be competing instead of sharing. Our first inclination is to compete. In actuality, we are supposed to share. Anyway, I step into the new direction, with the passion I’ve always had and gusto for a new direction and endeavor. I also have to let go of any worry. I can allow it to visit. I’m human and it’s normal to have fears. But, it’s not what it actually here. I acknowledge them (and they don’t really relate to work anyway, the fears belong to the heart matters).

The point is, the Queen of Swords appearing in my readings more than once, this week. It speaks to me. I am being asked to bring her energy forward and into the new project. Perspective. Knowing. Trusting my “I”, my knowing. The wisdom I’ve gained through the years. The discernment. I wield and hold my sword upright, and confidently. This is the way towards my transformation. From caterpillar to butterfly.

#daily #writing #Taro

---

photo © @Karneol@pixelfed.social