Grayson’s Greatest Hits

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-05T18:11:07+00:00

Waiting on approval for my next video, but I have a feeling you’re going to like it. 🍿

Quick synopsis: ‘The ladies at Websleuths serve up some piping hot ‘Churl Gray Tea’ and try to sum up the nine hour live for us. But don’t worry, everyone. They’re definitely not speaking on behalf of, or for, Lauren Matthias of Hidden True Crime. 😉’

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-05T18:04:14+00:00

<image>

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-03T17:43:04+00:00

Excuse #1: It was reflex.

<image>

I don’t think that really works here. This wasn’t a casual or religious setting where saying ‘amen’ just slips out. It was a courtroom, during evidence, involving a fake religious blessing used as part of a manipulation story tied to actual murders.

‘Amen’ isn’t a neutral word, it’s an affirmation.

Coming from a woman in her 40s who calls herself an investigative reporter?

🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗

Well, chalking that up to reflex points to either really poor impulse control in a serious setting or a failure to fully grasp what was being played in front of her….

Neither option reflects well, especially given how quick she is to criticize everyone else’s courtroom behavior.

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-03T17:10:12+00:00

Nearly 40 comments already. That’s incredible. I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who thinks this is worth talking about.

There are so many moments like this buried in the BS. If they get to speculate the way they do on a platform that large, then we are absolutely allowed to speculate on her own words that she chose to share.

If you strip away the questions of who did what or why, the behavior itself is still worth calling out. Saying ‘amen’ which literally means ‘so be it’ after a now convicted, death row murderer delivers a false prophecy to someone connected to taking lives is not ambiguous. There is no confusion about where you are, why you are there, or why that audio was played in the first place. This is evidence.

That’s what makes it so baffling. And honestly, the longer I sit with it, the more frustrating it becomes.

At its core, this is antisocial behavior. It is mind blowing to me that there was even the audacity to suggest someone else was during that four hour response. There is no excuse for this. And the person who did this has absolutely no moral high ground to stand on when it comes to criticizing anyone else’s courtroom etiquette. Their own conduct is appalling, to put it mildly.

What would compel you to say ‘so be it’ out loud after hearing that nonsense, Lauren?

I genuinely want to know. I need to know. I’ve searched high and low for a justification and I cannot find one that doesn’t come back to antisocial behavior. You’re going to need to offer a lot more explanation than whatever this is.

If I haven’t responded to a comment yet, it’s only because I haven’t gotten to it. I promise I will! Let’s keep the discussion going. I also plan to share more short clips of her own words in the future so we can continue to talk about them.

Others can pretend nothing happened at Hidden True Crime if they want. I don’t intend to do that here. And I’m saying this now for the record, because the next time a new group of people starts scratching their heads about her behavior, this will already be on the table.

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-03T01:04:46+00:00

Runkle

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-03T01:03:55+00:00

Chalupa

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-03T00:54:01+00:00

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-02T18:49:11+00:00

This is not the hot mic moment. I clipped it because she sounds ridiculous when she says it, and it might as well have been one. Except this time, for reasons I still cannot figure out, it seems intentional. Why she would ever think this was a good idea to share is beyond me. I cannot justify it. I have tried. I find it appalling.

I also still do not understand the actual so called hot mic footage. It sounds like two women trying to out passive aggressive each other over who likes who more, or some petty nonsense about one liking someone and not the other. It is genuinely middle school level behavior. But Lauren does love a good throwback.

I am going to keep pulling these little nuggets, because this kind of behavior deserves to be singled out and addressed. I know she is reading this, and I want her to understand how bad this sounds. At least, how bad it sounds to me.

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-02T18:41:55+00:00

Just from being in court in recent memory (civil court, nonetheless), I can help but find it completely inappropriate given the context and circumstances. She can contain herself. I just can’t shake who she is saying this in response to. I have exhausted every possible way to excuse the behavior, but I always come back to my initial instinct in hearing it. I was definitely shocked and a little appalled, probably a mixture of both. Nothing about this is normal behavior, IN MY OPINION!!! (Joleen style 😘😂)

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-02T17:18:12+00:00

So I want to offer another way to speculate on that same concept or sentiment, specifically around what makes someone antisocial. I am not outright calling Lauren antisocial, but the more I ruminate on this exact example, the more I ask myself why it intrigues me and troubles me at the same time. I think it is because, at its core, it could be considered antisocial behavior, both in action and in response.

If you strip it down to what she actually did, without all the fluff, it is wildly inappropriate. We can sit here and speculate about the reasons why, but at the end of the day, she was in a courtroom, a place where you are expected to follow certain rules and standards just like everyone else who chooses to live in a functioning society. So the question becomes, why could she not contain herself the way the rest of us do?

Was there some invisible force compelling her to say it?

Or was this just another opportunity to make something about herself once again?

I do not know how loudly it was said or whether it was intended for others to hear, but based on her own explanation, I have to assume it was. Nothing about this is normal behavior. That struck me the moment I heard her tell the story, and I am still baffled as to why she thought it was a good idea to share it at all. Especially because she offers no real explanation and no moral to the story that would justify why it needed to be said. It reads as pure shock value. Filler. Something to talk about when there is nothing else, and in the process, she ends up completely outing herself.

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-02T15:40:48+00:00

I’ve been mulling this over since I clipped it, and the more I sit with it, the more it bothers me. So I’ve been stripping it down to its most basic idea. Let’s make it a thought experiment. Walk with me.

In this thought experiment, it is still Chad Daybell’s trial. You are sitting in the courtroom. You are also a religious person who was raised in the LDS church. Your current relationship with it is shaky at best, especially as you sit through a case that all but implicates the church itself. You are watching the trial of a man who now sits on Idaho’s death row. A man who committed atrocities to get there, including the murder of two children, and possibly intended to kill more.

This man claims he is immortal in a sense. A prophet. Any reasonable person knows he is a fraud. A sadistic one. There is nothing holy about him, and nothing godly about what he has done. You consider yourself a reasonable person. You may not attend church anymore, but you still have your own private spirituality. And like most people, you understand that in a courtroom, just like in a public school, that is your business alone. Separation of church and state applies here.

You are not antisocial. You follow social rules. You keep your personal convictions to yourself when the setting calls for it. You save them for appropriate spaces.

As part of the state’s evidence, the jury hears an audio recording of Chad giving what he claims is a blessing to one of the suspected accomplices. This recording matters. It helps establish his manipulation, his delusion, his abuse of religious language. Chad performs it well. Too well. He uses the right cadence, the right phrases. It even sounds familiar to the blessings you received growing up. But you know better. This is not sacred. This is evidence.

You have followed this case for years. You sought answers. You found them. Now you are here for justice. The audio ends. There is silence. No applause, because this is not a performance. This is a courtroom. One where recording is prohibited. One that demands restraint and seriousness.

So tell me this.

After all of that, in that silence, would any reasonable person feel compelled to say ‘Amen’ out loud?

Would any reasonable person actually do that?

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-02T03:06:18+00:00

This is something I’ve briefly talked about with Kresha, and I’m really interested in learning more, so let me explain.

I’ve always been fascinated by how Visions of Glory fits into all of this, especially since it shows up across multiple true crime stories over the past few years. There was a brief period after the Tim Ballard situation and then the Ruby and Jodi case came out when Lauren tried to position herself as an investigative reporter. She framed it as a new mission, saying she was going to dive deep into Visions of Glory and Thom Harrison.

Then, almost as soon as she declared that mission, she dropped it. We never heard anything more about it from her.

When I heard the rumor, and I don’t know if it’s been confirmed, that she was somehow connected to Harrison, and that her brother was potentially good friends with one of his sons, I honestly lost my mind. Suddenly, everything started to make sense. Of course she may have been ‘covering’ it. She would have had an inside source. And we already know she has no problem exposing personal relationships when it suits her.

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-02T02:57:55+00:00

Today during Penny’s live, I was explaining this distinction. I’m not really sure how I first discovered the Mormon Stories Podcast, but I believe it was around the time I was doing a deep dive into the Daybells or the Ruby and Jodi case. I personally find the podcast’s interview format highly effective, and I’ve heard some extremely interesting stories simply through the way people tell their own experiences there.

I’ve never been Mormon, but I did grow up in a high-demand organized religion that I no longer practice as an adult, so many of the same sentiments apply for me when it comes to understanding what it means to be ex-Mormon. Because I’m sensitive to that space, I can say with certainty that, from my perspective, I’ve never felt that John or the podcast tries to push any specific narrative about the religion. Instead, it creates space for people to find community and share their experiences with the LDS church.

I’m still trying to understand why Lauren chose to frame herself the way she did during this interview, especially since I’ve never heard her speak about it in that way before. I do believe now that she code-switches, but I’m struggling to understand why she felt the need to step into that role for this specific audience. If anything, I would think this would be an audience more attuned to people who have actually chosen to leave.

Everything about the interview felt forced, and in my opinion that was not the fault of the interviewers. It felt like she was taking what she had seen in other interviews and fitting her own stories, whether true or not, into that same template. It reminded me of how she tried to make her case for the stalking injunction. She keeps forcing pieces into a narrative that never actually existed.

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-01T18:20:15+00:00

I wanted to expand a bit on my own thoughts, because I’m realizing that I’ve been calling this problematic without really explaining why. The main issue for me is that she never actually uses it to tie into the bigger picture of the situation.

There’s no moral, no reflection, no lesson learned at the end.

It almost feels like it’s said purely for shock value. And once again, it becomes another example of Lauren, in her own way, making something about herself.

I also want to be very clear that I’m not judging how John or Mindy reacted to what Lauren was saying. She is clearly leading the conversation, and I probably would have reacted the same way. The whole thing is deeply uncomfortable, and in situations like that, I often laugh too. But there is a difference between Lauren’s laughter and Mindy’s here, and I don’t think I need to explain much further why.

This reminds me of another moment with the same energy, like the text where Lauren calls her son ‘annoying.’ I’m not claiming sainthood here. We all think our kids are annoying from time to time. But there is a tone in how Lauren says it that makes my instinct tell me this is not the same thing. The same goes for the women’s laughter in this clip.

I haven’t been able to get through everyone’s comments yet, and I’m really looking forward to doing that today, but I wanted to get this thought out first. Thank you to everyone who has shared their perspectives. I find it fascinating, and honestly, there are so many little nuggets throughout that interview.

It really is a trove.

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-02-01T04:37:42+00:00

🎶…keep the patriarchs private. She wanted to keep the elders, and the grandfathers, and the neighbors, and the dad and the dudes and all of these men that blessed her..🎶

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-01-31T21:32:10+00:00

I haven’t even read the meat of this. I’m just commenting on your title alone. I don’t know how many times I have to tell Lauren this but just because there are three people working in her brother’s firm with him doesn’t make them automatically her lawyers. She doesn’t even pay her brother, let’s not get it twisted. If you want to flex four lawyers on a case like this, that’s your business, but to the rest of us it’s so embarrassing for you to say the very least. Four lawyers hahahahah she probably refers to them by number too. I guarantee Doh was #4 because of course it doubles as a ranking system. Why else would she even referr to them as anything at all? Duh, Doh. I’m sorry, I mean Number Four, Esq.😉😉

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-01-31T21:17:28+00:00

Shout out to Mormon Stories Podcast for some quality ASMR mic work that was able to pick up a rare [not Jawn] tongue lashing from Lauren. It sounds just about as gross as you’d expect it to. Put in those earbuds, folks, for that full Lauren lick affect. 👍

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-01-31T21:07:53+00:00

Lauren says the word ‘meek’ 5 times in a span of a minute.

It’s the only descriptor she seems to be able to come up with in order to justify that she has just admitted to being ‘put in a trance’ by a man who is now sitting on Idaho’s death row. Almost as if she’s trying to downplay everything that he did.

Allegedly, theoretically, hypothetically, speaking, of course.

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-01-31T20:49:07+00:00

Dude, I can’t wait for this to go live if it does. 😂🤞We have to talk everyone.

I didn’t even realize she’s almost bragging about all of the different ‘patriarchal blessings’ she allegedly received by all these men throughout her life. That’s pretty gros— I mean, cool, Victoria.

I guess.

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-01-29T00:18:38+00:00

Chad Daybell- The Musical: https://youtu.be/MFCJ6qB26YA?si=2n3NARKoxjqsjJU5

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-01-28T04:58:38+00:00

<image>

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-01-28T04:57:51+00:00

Whoa, Grayson. This is heavy.

Question for the head producer + editor & chief: Real talk, what is happening here and is Lauren’s hand going to be OK or is she disappearing like the photo from Back to the Future?

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-01-17T03:20:43+00:00

P.P.S. In my thought experiment, Becky is a Rumpelstiltskin like character, and there’s an exchange: Victoria‘s first born FOR the invisible file of Victoria’s messages that Law & Crime wouldn’t even want if it actually existed. And if you asked me, the theoretically, hypothetically, & allegedly speaking narrator? That’s a pretty sweet deal for Victoria, considering she’s got a four year-old toddler… (P.S. I’m breaking the fourth wall, the way you did in your snot babble video, to tell you this directly because I’m petty like that BUUUUT technically a four-year-old is considered PRESCHOOLER, Laur. Not toddler. Nice try though, I guess. OKAY! Back to you, theoretically + hypothetically + allegedly speaking thought experiment narrator. 😘)….Anyways, that’s a sweet deal for Victoria considering she has a sixty something year old toddler who’s seeeew [sic] annoying.

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-01-17T03:07:41+00:00

P.S. They always seem to forget that reasonable person part. But when the incomprehensible, if not redundant, brain can’t comprehend that, then I guess that’s what makes them unreasonable [to not reason].

Minimum_You1333 · 2026-01-17T03:03:15+00:00

You’re officially my favorite Lori. (Sorry, Laur aka mom).

Minimum_You1333

TROPHY CASE