Suzanne’s review of Trailed: One Woman's Quest to Solve the Shenandoah Murders > Likes and Comments

Thanks for this information. Since the author claims she couldn’t talk to Lollie’s parents because they had both died I am very disappointed and certainly agree you should have been interviewed. It’s weird when she persisted over and over to get correct information from others.

My niece, a once avid solo hiker on the AT, moved in with me about the time of the murders. We took precautions so I could keep track of her, but she was bound and determined not to give up her right to the woods. She survived and took her baby hiking 3 weeks after he was born. He’s now 3 and loves hiking with his mom and dad. She is also now a certified fly fishing guide. So in the end, I still think about Lollie and Julie, and find contentment that in their memory, many women continue to pursue their outdoor dream.

Yes the author claims to be a rigorous journalist but I simply cannot understand such a grave error. John Winans is very much alive. It calls I to question so much else about the books which is if course super important for raising awareness about violent crimes against women. I’m so glad your niece won’t give up her passion for leading the life that draws her I to the wilderness. Her son is a lucky boy!

I wonder if I have a different copy of the book because it says on page 9: "Lollie's mother brought home a new spouse as well. Lollie would later reveal - and only to a few of her closest friends - that that's when the sexual abuse started." I assumed based on that phrasing that it was implied the abuse was by the stepfather. Does it say somewhere else that it was her father and I missed it? It also says that her stepfather is now deceased but her father was recently diagnosed with alzheimers. I'm just curious - I borrowed this copy from my library, and the publication date says 2022.

It is incorrect that John was recently diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. He, his wife Maureen and I cannot understand where the author got this information. She could easily have reached out to John but she did not. And the ambiguity in the text is just not good enough. After all this, plus my reaching out to the author, her editor and the publisher, no contact with Lollie’s family has been made. Appalling journalism.

As I said earlier, Ted Hobart (a mutual friend) informed the author that I was available to connect her with John and Maureen Winans. She decided to publish a fake diagnosis as a smokescreen to cover up the fact that she had decided never to speak to the family or to look at the file that is in my possession at the family’s request.

How long did she spend “researching” this book? More than ten years as far as I can tell. Zero contact with the family. Just totally appalling.

Here we are again at the annual anniversary. Let’s hope that this mystery is someday solved for Julie and Lollie’s sake.

I just want readers to understand, once again, that I am the sole person in possession of the Winans family file containing documents not made available to the Williams family. Yes Hi art knows this and he asked if I would make them available to the author. I told Ted yes and that John would be willing to meet with her. We were waiting for ten years for this journalist to call us to peruse these files and ci duct family interviews. She wrote this book without them. Based on that information, readers can decide how much to trust the author.

Sorry above *Ted Hobart

Oh man, I'm sorry to hear that. I did find the book very informative as I didn't know anything about the Shenandoah murders, but, obviously would have further benefited from hearing you and the family.

I just finished this book, and she clearly states that it was the Stepfather that sexually abused her. She also attempted to speak to the family. Maybe you just misread (or misheard) information?

Rachel, she did NOT attempt to speak to the family. I know this because I am the family spokesperson. I know this because i spent time with Maureen and John discussing this. So that is untrue, whether it is in print or interviews or both.

Second, I disagree that the language is clear about Lollie’s abuse. John and Maureen do not find it clear enough, the abuser is not named, and there is no way this would have been allowed to stand, had the family been able to work with the journalist and/or review a draft of the book as fact checkers. Sorry. Those are just facts.

Criminal charges were brought in Hawaii against Lollie’s abuser. The file was not sealed, as far as I can remember. It is a matter of public record. Why didn’t the “journalist” report this? Shoddy work.

Just a question, if you're the spokesperson for the family and you're an author, and you can fact check everything, how come you didn't write anything about the case yourself?

Rachel wrote: "I just finished this book, and she clearly states that it was the Stepfather that sexually abused her. She also attempted to speak to the family. Maybe you just misread (or misheard) information?"

Me too Rachel, I clearly got that it was the stepfather not the father. There didn't seem to be any ambiguity to me.

I agree. It is not ambiguous and very clear that Lollie's father remarried and moved away. Then her mother remarried and sexual abuse began - it's clear it is the stepfather.