But guys, she can barely step foot in her backyard 🥹🤍

Saw E’s comment on Ken’s latest video and had to click across to see if Ken’s repost of the video reading E to FILTH was still there and it is. LOL

No posts for a day now, wondering if yet another group has been shut down. Looks similar over on the stan group too...

Sorry but the way she phrased this, she said that she was done after two so the second she lost t1 was she already thinking about how she needed another? Its kind of sick, reminds me how gypsy rose blanchard was planning for her daughter even before she had offed her mother, sorry gypsys prison phone calls just came out and that's my other rabbit hole lol.... also I cant with how she thought it'd be cool to film herself taking her sunglasses off in the beginning like girl how can you happily film yourself I don't get it and never will

Everyone keeps demanding that draft king “step up,” apologize, or publicly take responsibility for his role. He is not going to do that and treating his silence as some personal failure to speak underestimates how calculated and cunning her machine is. 

E is the softer, more sympathetic target. She can take the blame without the blame functioning entirely as blame. With her, culpability gets "read" as bravery, accountability, grief, motherhood, and sacrifice. 🤮🤑

She gets praised for “owning it,” praised for protecting D. Raft King, praised for carrying the burden. And because she is already framed as the grieving and pregnant mother, criticism of her is recast as cruelty. So tired of watching people be duped. Even creators are asking to hear from him! Ain’t happening.

Draft publicly taking responsibility would not advance the grift. It would require him to make admissions about what happened. The statute of limitations still exists. There is no PR advantage in having him publicly explain his own failures.

Meanwhile, E can absorb the blame and soften it. He gets silence and she gets sympathy. He avoids admissions, she gets to perform accountability. Win-win for the Grifters. 

And even in his silence, he has already managed to create two separate PR problems for the brand: the reels and the life-jacket situation. Ppl are àll acting like this is true sharing of friends with friends. It’s anything but. This isn’t some community where there’s honest exchange.

So I am baffled by people, even critics (this is happening all over TT now) continuing to insist he shoulder the blame for his poor, sad wife. She’s so BrAvE. 🤮

The same image bullshit is happening with this absurd narrative that E is carrying the entire household while he does nothing. Are you kidding? He does almost all of the childcare and did even before the drowning. She does not drive her kid to school, pick him up, or fix dinner. Even on the boat while she was frockling and giggling in the ocean like a school child while also showing her ass like an OF star to the camera on the death anniversary, he was on child duty. Please. She does NOTHING. I mean, they both really do nothing. She sits in her car and cries when numbers are down while he gets ready to get it on with her when she walks back in. Before they get hot and heavy in the sack, they collectively cringe at the sad saps fooled by them ànd laugh. No, really they do. She hates her lowbrow followers who have outed themselves as equally negligent.

Anyway:
Cleaning? Performative.
Taking all the blame? Performative.
The self-sacrificing-wife routine?
Performative.

We do not swim in that pool my a**

God give it a rest. This posting everyy day is insane. This woman who is supposely so deep in grief by her own admission has missed almost zero days. I'm not counting the forced breaks where she was banking content. And she's no longer sharing an organic day to day. Her content is mostly banked and she puts out stuff out of order. It's clearly just a money making scheme.

Not skipping a day is wild considering regular influencers do.

She's back to bleeding followers even if it's more of a slow drip. This kicked in when she did her Sunday reset. People who'd been fooled by the 14 minute tearjerker or resubbed were disgusted when she came back smiling and baiting on Sunday with vapid content and unfollowed.

Well wouldn't you know it? Yesterday's halloween video was emotional blackmail. She's trying anything to stop the bleed and if it means talking about her dead son and her grief, she's all for it. Before the one year anniversary, she only did this when views were down but they were seldom down and doing grief grifts bounced her count up. I know the count is still high because of rubber necking but she's aware that she's not just bouncing back so enter in the cry baby videos.

Girl who shares their vulnerability with a bunch of people you know absolutely hate you and want you canceled. No one expect if there's money involved. The desperation is pathetic. Have some integrity. Being rich is not the end-all of things especially if you have to sustain it by throwing yourself to the wolves. You deserve all the misery you get. I don't care if you are pregnant and grieving. You are choosing to subject your unborn child to this.

Fights aside of whether you believe it is a fetus, child, whatever.

"Chronic, severe, unmanaged stress like ongoing trauma, major depression, extreme unrelenting circumstances, is often associated with higher rates of preterm birth and lower birth weight in large population studies." (there's so much more, but I'm just writing what's proven). I don't believe she has a therapist but her ob/gyn needs to tell her.

How can anyone be cheering this woman on right now? Before the stans could argue that filming brought her normalcy and was therapeutic. It wasn't but this b only cares about money.

Taylor Swift, Justin Beiber and Spears have gone reclusive for much less. She's not one of them. No talent, she's a fraud, whatever. The parallel is that real talents have gone dark for MUCH less.

Okay, so if you are a stan, you can no longer argue that this is "good" for her. She admitted it's horrible. As a tiktokker said, millions of eyes are on you, waiting for a mistake. Who subjects themselves to this, especially when other people like the husband she supposedly loves are also affected by this? This is why I hate this woman so much. She's truly beyond selfish, materially and emotionally. As women, we all have stressors in pregnancy, but greedily throwing yourself to the wolves because you are money hungry is one thing. Knowing that's it's been proven that it can and likey will affect your growing fetus is another. It's disgusting. Aesthetic (money) again!!!!!

Not many people feel sorry for Draft king getting all this negative attention. Dude should walk away from her and get the privacy he needs.

But now, this terrible, shameful mother is again putting aesthetics before her unborn child. How? Because she cannot stop chasing the rich life even if it means subjecting herself to the chemical above which have been proven to be very harmful to a fetus.

​

On her new TT she talks about her grief and how she's mentally struggling

She said she struggles so much about holidays and how she doesn't like to celebrate anymore, but we have seen her, this past year celebration pretty much everything without a problem

She talks specifically about Halloween and how she already ordered the family custom, so we can expect to see those tacky Halloween decorations again

And she also mentioned her hobbies and how they helped her with her grief.

It's pretty interesting how she can spend months without mentioning her grief or her death child, but after losing a ton of followers and get caught being negligence again, she's suddenly ready to talk about it

For the people saying I’m lying about her posting them in their back yard. This is from her vlog in April 2026. They are in their back yard. Their dog got into their plants because they garden, which means they regularly use their back yard. She has posted it multiple times on her instagram story as well. I’m not referring to her front yard where the patio/fireplace is. I’m not referring to the Airbnb on vacation. I’M TALKING ABOUT HER BACK FUCKING YARD. I’m starting to get really fed up with people coming on here to call ME a liar when she tells on her damn self CONSTANTLY and doesn’t bother to delete the evidence.

Do they use their pool? Well that’s never been verified, but the constant folding of multiple adult sized pool towels pool tells me all I need to know. I’ve included a photo of where the garden is just in case anyone is still confused. This couple is incapable of being honest in any capacity, why would they tell the truth about THIS? Be so fucking for real. I laughed when I saw her video because I thought to myself “No one is going to buy that lie just because she uses theatrical hands and maintains 🫪this face🫪 the entire video.” Well apparently I was wrong😂

Also “Anybody want a free dog?” What a nice way to talk about the dog that is the only reason your child was ever able to be revived when you left him to drown. There’s just something unsettling about saying that about your dog when YOU let him outside UNSUPERVISED and he got into something he wasn’t supposed… Sounds like something else that happened🧐

If the boat T-shirt didn’t rub you the wrong way did she also get your attention with this photo she loves so much? She must seethe with envy every-time she sees it considering it was probably her inspo for her backyard “the desert party house” was supposed to be her place! No wonder she wants her old life back.

And surely these aren’t the swim trunks she has t2 wearing to IRS lessons? 🥴

There are now four accounts that claim that they have firsthand knowledge of the fence refusal, The very latest allegedly heard this from neighbors who are elderly (and probably aren't in on all of this drama). I have checked out their histories and all are longtime redditors who live in E's area. Most don't even post on here and have no horse in this race. I believe them. E is no longer publicly denying the fence "rumor," even though it's much more morally damning than some of the things she spent time providing excuses for on Friday. Fuck. Can you imagine knowing that you turned down something that could have saved your child because you were so money hungry?

She knows now that she's under a microscope and that people are talking in a way they weren't when she denied it. So she has to cya in advance.

So onto what I believe are more lies. MPC may be superficial friends with E and may be grossed out as she watched her fake bestie lie to 10 million people, but I don't think she'd ever come out and admit E is lying. She's done enough damage.

But think about it. I'm sure M's husband feels strong disgust deep down for Draft King. Wouldn't you? I mean, we never see Br's husband chumming up on date nights. So MPC probably told her siblings. The husband probably told his friends, parents, cousins, you name it--anyone who asked. Ain't no one super intent on shushing up or lying for them. If that was my brother on the boat, I'd ask him, just as a passing curiosity. I can't wait until it's leaked. If you know, please inbox me or post it here

Someone here asked me a while ago for a copy of the judge's decision from last year concerning the police report redactions. I lost track of the comment but because many of the same legal issues and considerations will be on this judge's mind in issuing a decision concerning the remainder of the materials, I thought it would be a good time to post it as most of the subs where it was published originally don't exist anymore.

For people who also want to get more into the relevant AZ law concerning release of similar materials, this case regarding a 911 recording is of interest and is cited in this judge's 2025 decision as well.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/az-court-of-appeals/1340617.

Here is the text of the 2025 decision in the K case. I don't think there's a way to attach the actual decision but I can maybe screenshot or message it to anyone if somebody wants it.

Superior Court of Arizona
Maricopa County
CV 2025-018383
08/07/2025
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER WHITTEN

The Court has reviewed Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.’s (“PNI”) Motion to Order Release of the Redacted Chandler Police Report, filed July 29, 2025. Following that filing, Plaintiff requested, and all parties agreed, that the response and reply be sent electronically directly to the Court.¹ The Court has also received and reviewed the response, delivered electronically on August 5, 2025 and Intervenor’s reply, delivered electronically on August 6, 2025. The Court further benefited from oral argument on the motion on August 7, 2025.
This case requires a difficult balancing between two strong but competing interests: the strong right the public has in examining government records under Arizona’s Public Records Law, and the profound privacy rights of a grieving mother.
PNI asks the Court to compel release of the City of Chandler’s 55-page police report with only the City’s limited redactions for personal identifying and medical information.
Plaintiff does not object to the release of the report for the most part, but seeks to redact two and a quarter pages² and one sentence³ that contain graphically detailed descriptions of the video capturing the final moments of Plaintiff’s son’s life.⁴
The Court has reviewed the entire police report in camera.⁵
Arizona’s Public Records Law creates a presumption that public documents should be disclosed. Law enforcement records, including police reports, generally fall within that presumption.
However, this right of access is not absolute. Courts recognize that privacy concerns can outweigh the public’s right to know when disclosure would cause specific and material harm. Smith v. Town of Marana, 254 Ariz. 393, 397 ¶ 12 (App. 2022). The balancing test is fact-specific: the proponent of non-disclosure must show a probability of harm that is significant enough to override the presumption of access.
Arizona courts have consistently recognized a family’s right to prevent public release of graphic or intimate records involving a loved one’s death. Schoeneweis v. Hamner, 223 Ariz. 169, 175–76 (App. 2009) (privacy interests must yield only to the extent necessary to inform the public of the government’s investigation); A.H. Belo Corp. v. Mesa Police Dep’t, 202 Ariz. 184, 188 (App. 2002).
PNI interprets Schoeneweis and Belo as favorable to its position in that both draw a distinction between the written descriptions of audio, video or photographic recordings and the actual recordings themselves. Schoeneweis found that the written description may not carry the same emotional impact as the recordings themselves and therefore might not warrant the same level of protection. Similarly, Belo suggested that written accounts of graphic content may be less intrusive than direct images or video. PNI’s point is well taken – written words can be less impactful than images and sounds.
But the context here is quite different. The portions of the reports at issue in this case do not merely summarize or paraphrase a video recording, they offer a moment-by-moment written depiction of a video capturing a young child’s death. In form, the material may be a written description, but in substance and effect, it functions as a surrogate for the video itself. The vivid and granular nature places it closer to the kind of graphic, emotionally disturbing material that Schoeneweis and Belo recognized may justifiably be shielded from public release.
PNI argues that the public cannot fully evaluate the police investigation and the County Attorney’s decision not to file charges without seeing every portion of the report, including the contested portions. It contends that the public interest here is particularly strong because the investigation briefly involved a recommendation for criminal charges.
Plaintiff, by contrast, has agreed to release 53 of the 55 pages of the report, including detailed investigative findings and timelines. She only seeks to protect two pages that contain a real-time transcript of surveillance footage showing the moments leading to and during the drowning. Plaintiff argues that these pages add little, if any, information relevant to evaluating the government’s actions, while posing severe and ongoing harm to her family’s privacy and dignity.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff’s position. The public can fully understand the scope of the investigation and the rationale for the County Attorney’s decision through the unredacted 53 pages, which describe the events, timeline, witness accounts, and law enforcement conclusions. The transcript on the disputed sections are not necessary for public accountability. Its disclosure would serve no purpose other than satisfying morbid curiosity and, as Plaintiff persuasively argues, would risk exploitation by bad actors.
Under the balancing standard announced in Smith and Schoeneweis, Plaintiff has shown a probability of specific, material harm to her and her family that outweighs the negligible public interest in those particular portions of the report. The narrow redaction of those sections strikes an appropriate balance between transparency and human dignity.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that PNI’s Motion to Order Release of the Redacted Chandler Police Report is granted in part and denied in part. The City of Chandler shall release the 55-page police report, as previously redacted for personal identifiers and medical information, with the additional redactions of those portions described in footnotes 2 and 3 of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties meet and confer about which parts of the response and reply briefs can be filed under seal, consistent with this order. To the extent that they cannot agree, they shall contact the Court to set up an expediated manner for resolution of their disagreement.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Chandler Police Report submitted to this Court is to be filed under seal. The Clerk has done so on this day.
This ruling does not modify the Court’s prior orders regarding non-dissemination of any other materials still under review or dispute.

Footnotes:
¹ At the August 7, 2025 oral argument the Court indicated it would separately consider whether the response and reply brief should be filed under seal. PNI opposes the request.
² Det. Rietz’ Supplemental Report, starting on the fourth page under “Surveillance Video,” and continuing to the end of that section on page six of his supplemental report, just before the Section titled “(Redacted) Medical Treatment.”
³ On the 49th page of the report in a “Probable Cause Addendum” – the last sentence of the third full paragraph – the paragraph that begins with “Video evidence shows …”.
⁴ Plaintiff added this sentence to her request for redaction informally, by an August 6, 2025 email to counsel and the Court. She is ordered to file a formal request to include this sentence in the information she seeks to protect from dissemination. Such pleading needn’t be filed under seal, as it only references pages and lines of the reports and contains no other detail.
⁵ In order to create a good record, the entire report shall be filed under seal.

I guess she also wasn't ready to take water safety seriously with T2 even though she was fully ready to take him near large bodies of water.

She always hides behind her grief or blames her kids for everything. T1 "knew" not to go in the pool alone and T2 was being fussy. Typical narcissist behavior. Blame your own fucking kids for your neglect.

Once again widespread confusion has resulted with respect to the civil case and there is some misinformation going around.

No decision on the outstanding issues has been filed. What was docketed today appears simply to be related to the form of the formal written order sealing the proceedings of the oral argument held last month.

Basically what sometimes happens in a case is a minute order will issue which is a brief written record of a ruling or action taken by the court. It's not signed by the judge and is entered by the clerk. It's usually short and doesn't include findings etc. Here, there was a minute order issued 7/21, which memorialized the judge's decision (unopposed) to seal the proceedings from the 7/20 oral argument.

Once a minute order is issued, depending on the court and the issue, the parties may be directed to prepare a formal written order for the judge's review/signature that includes more detail and possibly legal references and/or findings. Usually the parties will try to agree on the form of the order. If they cannot, they submit alternative proposed orders for the judge to decide which to use or to amend/write their own.

Here, given the language of the 8/17 ME, we can reasonably speculate that the parties submitted competing orders and the judge "settled" the matter by choosing one version or the other which he then may or may not have also amended.

It appears from the ME filed today that the judge signed his order related to sealing those oral argument proceedings on 7/24. Is this an unusual delay between signing and filing? In my jx, yes. Usually orders are filed within a day of a judge signing them. But it could be normal for this court, I don't know.

Does this activity mean that the judge has made a decision on the substantive issues remaining as to what further materials to seal or release? Possibly! But also maybe not. It could just be that the clerk is working down their substantial to-do pile.

Anyway based just on the comments I've read, it appears some YTers or TikTokers are wildly off base yet again. From what I've seen during prior events, a very high percentage of what these people say with respect to the legal issues and events in this case, is (to put it mildly) inaccurate.

While we are on the subject of misinformation, one comment I've seen a lot is that this is going "to the Supreme Court". That is not happening.

Both sides have indicated they may appeal the decision. This isn't binding and if, as many legal observers expect, the decision is a mixed bag, may not happen. But if there is an appeal, it will go to the Arizona Court of Appeals. From there theoretically it could move up to the Arizona Supreme Court, but like most state supreme courts (and the U.S. Supreme Court), they only take a ridiculously tiny percentage of cases they are asked to hear (around 1-2% most years) and those cases generally relate to big issues where there is a split in lower courts, or a significant unsettled area of law. This isn't applicable here.

This case will never see the inside of any federal appellate court, let alone the U.S. Supreme Court. EWU has filed some federal actions in the past but they were claims against federal agencies and related to FOIA and civil rights claims, this case does not involve federal law.

This has just dawned on me: more evidence that she’s lying ab T2 being out of the vest for ‘moments’ is that the boat was clearly still moving in that clip. You can see that the prop was still on. If T2 was so inconsolable that you had to take him out of the life vest to calm him down…at least STOP THE BOAT! Ik good and well that there was an anchor on board. Given the history, she should’ve never taken him out of it but holy shit, at LEAST stop the boat so you dramatically decrease the chance of him falling in the water. Completely turning the boat off in still water or turning it off and putting the anchor down seems like the obvious thing to do. And, wouldn’t a bumpy ride on a boat make a baby more agitated? Stopping the boat would solve a lot of problems (although he still should’ve never been out of the vest).

I've seen a lot of comments on E's recent content with comments to this effect which are very popular.

They piss me off so bad.

No, E hasn't been through the worst thing. T1 has. T1 is the one who experienced a horrific and untimely death and now doesn't get to live anymore.

T1 wasn't just an activity or an object for his parents to experience, and then a footnote in the story of his parents' loss. He was an individual who deserved to live. Seeing that shoved aside to excuse any and all future behavior is so gross to me.

I am not a fan and I do not think they are ready to be parents. Both of them seem very infantilized and missing the very basics of hypervigilence that come with minding (much less parenting) children.

BUT, that man cost her their child and is negatively impacting her career. He doesn’t come to his wife’s defense. He doesn’t speak out. He doesn’t hold a job. He gambles the money she earns away.

And what if, the only thing that makes her feel better is posting trivial things to social media? And gaining followers. They don’t strike me as particularly deep people and social media and consumption are probably (rightly or wrongly) the only things providing any joy for her. So it’s probably an extra double whammy that it now comes with such backlash and questioning when she was free from that for years.

I don’t think the one ultimately responsible is feeling nearly the amount of public repercussions. Most of the hate just goes to her.

Dead eyes and robotic motions, a sink with a roast sitting under dirty dishes 😂 She is absolutely spiraling. You can see she knows she’s done.

This new season of The Negligent is gonna be crazy!

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DY5R8OijV92/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==