In the emotional days following the November 2016 election that put President Donald Trump in power, no one had any idea they might find a shred of solace in words scribbled on a mundane office supply. But underground, in the depths of a New York City subway station, a powerfully expressive initiative fueled by thousands of Post-it Notes was underway. 

In the weeks that followed, thousands of people in search of catharsis paused their commutes to write down rejuvenating messages of hope, solidarity, and reassurance and stick them to the walls for all to read. Soon a colorful mosaic of an estimated 50,000 Post-its, now known as the Subway Therapy project, spanned the walls of Manhattan’s Union Square station.

It was a simple act during an especially dark time, but the colorful collection of Post-its helped the country’s outlook seem a little bit brighter. 

SEE ALSO: NYC’s ‘Subway Therapy’ wall is transformed into a brilliant interactive holiday card

For nearly 40 years, Post-its have been a go-to resource for annotating documents, writing to-do lists, and leaving reminders. But somewhere along the line people around the world realized just how multi-functional the sticky squares could be. 

In pop culture, Post-its have been used for infamous break ups and vow writing, and in the real world, people use them to pull pranks, make grand romantic gestures, create art, and even mourn lost icons like Apple’s Steve Jobs. In the past few years, sticky notes have also been used to aid in something far more impactful: peaceful protest. 

The power of post-election Post-its 

I first spotted the Subway Therapy Wall on Thursday, Nov. 10, my first day back in the Union Square station since the Nov. 8 election.

Happening upon the words of complete strangers — simple messages like, “Your emotions are valid,” and “We need each other,” — was a reminder that goodness still existed. And after talking to others who contributed to or encountered the wall, it’s clear I wasn’t alone.

“I was in a state of shock,” said 23-year-old Chelsea from Yakima, Washington (who preferred not to share her last name,) recalling how she felt in the days after the election. “It felt as if the floor had been pulled from underneath me — like I was going through the five stages of grief simultaneously.”

“I could write anything I wanted and not have to worry about feeling alone.”

In an attempt to do something productive with her negative feelings, Chelsea traveled New York City for the first time.

“I actually stumbled upon the wall without even knowing it existed,” she said. “That moment when I looked up from what I was doing and I saw that wall filled with those colorful bits of paper was indescribable. It was as if I could see the strings connecting everybody in their need for change. It was a therapy session that was free and I could write anything I wanted and not have to worry about feeling alone.”

Chelsea read as many notes as she could, absorbed the messages, and says she finally felt like things might be alright. “Those pieces of paper were tiny messages to us as humans that we can be change. If we try hard enough.”

“To see it manifested in one place was viscerally powerful.”

“It was a coming together of strangers across the country who wanted to make a simple statement that this is wrong and not normal, and we don’t need to accept it,” Sarah Flourance, a 31-year-old from Alexandria, Virginia said.

Flourance, who traveled to New York to visit a friend after the election in hopes that it would lift her mood, said she spoke with a few strangers at the wall, some of whom were in tears. “Right after the election, the isolation is what got to me and a lot of other people,” she said. She felt the display helped ease her feelings of hopelessness.

Kevin Nadal, psychologist and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center at City University of New York says he also contributed a Post-it to the wall.

He wrote a message of solidarity to “the most marginalized populations whose rights would be threatened” by Trump’s rise to the presidency, and said the expansive unity of strangers helped restore hope for him.

“I wanted people to know they weren’t alone,” Nadal said. “I definitely felt scared, betrayed, and angry. The Post-it wall was validating.” 

And while he knew others in New York City would share his post-election sentiments, Nadal said seeing seeing all those emotions “manifested in one place was viscerally powerful.”

So why Post-its?

In early 2016, well before the November election, “Subway Therapy” creator Matthew “Levee” Chavez set up a table, two chairs, and a sign that read “Secret Keeper” in a New York City subway station.

His setup included a blank book in the hope that passerby might decide to unload some internal stress by writing their secrets down on paper. Despite this, he often found that people preferred face-to-face conversations.

“For the next eight months or so, I had individual conversations with people that would stop by to sit and talk…About whatever they wanted to talk about.” 

After the election, he said things changed.

Chavez says he believes that “during crisis, writing can be a more effective and accessible form of expression than conversation.” It’s what inspired him to bring sticky notes and writing materials into the subway that November. The Post-its helped him reach a wider audience, since several people could write their thoughts down simultaneously, rather than waiting to chat with him one-on-one.

“The wall took a form that was fun, beautiful, and expressive,” Chavez recalled. “In mass, sticky notes are incredibly inviting and they definitely helped people to open up.”

A history of Post-it protests

Though it’s been nearly two years since Chavez’s Subway Therapy project, many of the notes have since been archived online and in several books, and memories of the wall remain for those who contributed or passed by. Though Chavez helped create one of the most memorable Post-it Note protests in recent history, his was far from the first.

In 2011, Wisconsin residents used the tactic when they protested policies by Republican Gov. Scott Walker that would weaken in-state unions. In addition to months of marches and other organizing efforts, protesters left hundreds of Post-it Notes at the Wisconsin State Capitol entrance in an attempt to share their concerns. Despite the protests, Walker’s proposal ended up passing.

Later that year, Post-its made their way to London to serve as a beacon of light in the wake of a divisive act of violence. In August 2011, riots broke out across London in protest of a deadly police shooting that killed local resident Mark Duggan. In Peckham, London, thousands of community members responded to the tragedy with a “Love Wall” covered in notes with messages of hope and unity. The sentiment was so powerful that it spread to walls in Manchester and in other areas of London.

The people of Hong Kong also used Post-it Notes to show support for the pro-democracy movement of 2014, when many called for the resignation of leader Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. During what’s since come to be known as the “Umbrella Revolution,” activists and protesters wrote words of encouragement and their reasons for demonstrating on Post-its, creating a colorful display outside government offices. People in Sydney even covered the walls of Australia’s Hong Kong House in solidarity.

The benefits of sticky note self-expression

While expressing oneself via Post-it Note has shown to be a therapeutic and unifying response to large-scale events, these notes can also provide comfort to individuals on a day-to-day basis.

“Self-affirmations are really helpful in helping to negate any harmful self-doubts or cognitive distortions,” Nadal said, explaining that writing positive, reassuring messages on Post-it Notes “can help in increasing one’s self esteem and decreasing any cognitive distortions.”

A 2007 study by Gail Matthews, a psychology professor at California’s Dominican University, found that the act of writing one’s goals down seems to make a person significantly more likely to accomplish those goals. The study also found that writing reminders or to-do lists before bedtime may help people fall asleep faster. 

It’s clear the humbler Post-it has made the transition from bland office supply to powerful statement maker. Remi Ken, the global Post-it business director for 3M, said that the product’s move beyond the confines of the workplace has only encouraged the brand more.

“Everyone who uses a Post-it Note puts their own unique touch on it — and it’s exciting to see how consumers make it their own,” she wrote in an email. “We believe in getting your thoughts out and your voice heard — and our products are the tool to help people do that.”

Post-it Notes may be small, but they have the power to make mighty statements.

Twenty-one children, adolescents, and young adults — all between the ages of 11 and 21 — were set to face off against the United States in an Oregon courthouse on Oct. 29. 

But instead, the highest court in the land has temporarily halted the unprecedented climate trial after the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court — in a 38-page request — to put things on hold. 

The young plaintiffs, some still in grammar school, are suing the U.S. government for supporting a national energy system that emits prodigious amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, thus stoking human-caused climate change and endangering their futures.

The group argues in Juliana vs. United States that, as the adverse consequences of such a climate disruption mount, the government is depriving them of their guaranteed rights to life, liberty, and property.

But allowing the trial to proceed is almost certainly a dangerous or uncomfortable proposition for the Trump-led government, which is candidly opposed to widely accepted climate science. 

A trial would give scientists and government officials an opportunity to take the stand, forcing a federal court to consider sworn testimony about the accelerating rate of climate change, which is now unquestionably human-caused. 

“The federal government is scared to put climate science on trial,” Philip Gregory, an attorney representing the 21 young plaintiffs, said in an interview. 

“They’re very, very scared that the public is going to hear witnesses under oath,” said Gregory. “Anyone who gets up on the witness stand and takes an oath is forced to tell the truth about the current state of our climate based on climate science.” 

“The federal government doesn’t want that.”

To prevent a landmark trial, Department of Justice lawyers have now argued that defending the U.S. against these young plaintiffs will cause “irreparable harm” to the United States. Specifically, the Justice officials are speaking about the government’s inability — financially and personnel-wise — to take on such a trial. 

As the U.S. government claims: “It could well be years into the future before the government could appeal as of right to seek relief from such an egregious abuse of the civil litigation process and violation of the separation of powers. That is plainly irreparable harm.”

SEE ALSO: This scientist keeps winning money from people who bet against climate change

“I find this argument absurd,” Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law who has no role in the case, said over email.

“To me, that’s ludicrous,” said Gregory.

“It’s utterly absurd and has no legal merit,” Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute who has no involvement in the case, said in an interview.

These attorneys are perplexed by the government’s unusual argument because the Department of Justice — backed by the deep pockets of the federal government — largely exists to go to trial, and in many cases, decides whether the case should be tried in the courts. It’s what they do.

“The Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice conducts hundreds of trials each year,” noted Burger. 

“To me, that’s ludicrous.”

“The Department of Justice trial lawyers — who try cases every week — would have to try this case,” said Gregory. “But that’s what they do for a living.”

What’s more, the government did not present any new evidence that proves going to trial will inevitably hit the government with untenable levels of harm or burdens of work. 

Back in July, the Supreme Court already rejected the Department of Justice’s attempts to stop the trial.

“They need to show irreparable harm,” said Siegel. “Money and damages generally are not irreparable harm.”

If all had gone according to plan, the trial would have already have started, on Monday, Oct. 29.

“There is simply no reason to depart from standard court procedures here,” said Burger. “And, to the best of my knowledge, the court has not done so before.”  

The Supreme court — by halting the trial — is now acting inconsistently, as it previously gave the case the go-ahead, just months earlier in July. 

But, notes Siegal, there has been one significant change: The addition of the conservative judge, Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“The only thing that’s different is the composition of the Supreme Court,” said Siegal.

And since Kavanaugh’s appointment, which gives the Supreme Court a conservative majority, the Department of Justice has now halted or asked the Supreme Court to stop certain trials now taking place in lower federal courts. 

“The federal government, since the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh, has taken to seeking to have the Supreme Court review decisions by the district courts and to stop district courts around the country from having trials,” said Gregory, citing a developing case in New York involving citizenship.

The kids’ climate trial is another casualty. 

To be fair, however, the Obama administration also opposed the kid’s climate suit against the U.S. But circumstances were a bit different. 

The Obama government sought to curtail greenhouse gas emissions, but didn’t want to hand the reins to the courts. 

Instead, Obama unveiled climate regulations through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — regulations which the Trump administration now intends to eliminate.

And critically, the Obama government didn’t deny nor question the realities of human-caused climate change.

“Its argument was not climate denial — it was ‘let us do things our way,’” said Siegal.

It remains unclear how soon the Supreme Court will make up its mind on whether to let the trial resume or not. 

“They’re the masters of their own calendar, shall we say,” said Gregory.

The high court stopped the trial on October 19. Then, Gregory and his co-counsels provided a required response, quite detailed at 103-pages long, a few days later. 

“We’re hopeful they’ll make a decision promptly to allow these young plaintiffs to proceed with the trial,” said Gregory.

Siegal, like the plaintiffs, is also eager for the trial to get underway. 

She notes the recent special report released by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — the global agency tasked with providing objective analyses of the societal impacts of climate change.

The report states in no uncertain terms that modern civilization needs to promptly transition to clean energy to fend off the worst consequences of climate change, which include the melting of Earth’s great ice sheets, drought, imperiled crops, and unprecedented heat.

“We’re all in a bus speeding towards a cliff and the administration is driving,” said Siegal.

“And the Trump administration is flooring it.”

“You call ‘em strays. They were disposable. Human life meant nothing and that’s what he tried to teach, that people—once you got what you needed from them—the best thing you could do was get rid of them. That way, it would never come back onto you.” 

That’s Jacob, a middle-aged man from upstate New York, recounting a childhood consumed by terror. Jacob sits alongside his mother and aunt, Sadie and Terrilyn. A camera pans across their gaunt faces as each subject recounts the realities of living with their family patriarch—a man responsible for dozens, if not hundreds, of murders. 

Jacob continues to paint a horrific, vivid portrait, detailing what it was like to be “groomed” by his serial killer grandfather. He has nightmarish anecdotes of abuse and theories on where many of these victims are buried. Jacob even has memories of destroying hundreds of grandpa’s “trophies” following his death.  

This is blockbuster stuff. Discovered by Netflix’s new paranormal docuseries Haunted, this family’s account, titled “Slaughterhouse,” unearths the grisly story of a previously unknown, bloodthirsty killer—possibly one of the worst this nation has ever known.

But, shortly after “Slaughterhouse” began streaming, skeptics hit back hard. Never mind whether you believe in ghosts. These viewers are saying there is precious little evidence any of the alleged, real-life crimes ever occurred.

SEE ALSO: Critics love Rami Malek, but think ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ is an underwhelming mess

The story of Haunted’s “Slaughterhouse”

Terrilyn, Jacob’s aunt, is the primary narrator. She walks the audience through a painful childhood, similar to that of her nephew. She describes her father and mother bringing “strangers picked up at bars or found on the road” to their rural family home. There each visitor would be killed and their body discarded. 

There each visitor would be killed and their body discarded. 

Terrilyn isn’t reimagining a boogeyman or offering a new take on the haunted residence trope. She is revealing dozens of alleged cold cases in the style of a true crime report.

But, Terrilyn, Sadie, and Jacob have no last names. The location of this house of horrors is ambiguously placed in “upstate New York.” And, while the story begins in 1972, we have no real concept of how long this supposed pattern of abduction, murder, and cover up went on.

Brett-Patrick Jenkins, one of the series’ more vocal executive producers, has a history of working in the arena of fright; he serves as an executive producer on Amazon Video’s Lore which revives legends and myths in a semi-docu style. 

Even as viewers howl over the lacking details, Jenkins claims that the events of “Slaughterhouse” as well as those of Haunted’s other episodes are “100% real” and “verified on multiple levels.”

The fact-check

Every episode of Haunted begins with “The following is a true story.” And the series’ tagline is: “Real people, real stories, real horror.” 

That confident packaging seemingly invites viewers to attempt debunking these eye witness accounts. But unlike “Slaughterhouse,” plenty of Haunted’s tellings fall into the category of unverifiable ghost stories, making the feasibility of a true fact-check fairly limited for most episodes.

A cursory Google search of Haunted’s “Slaughterhouse” shows viewers aren’t buying the alleged story of true crime.

“There would be some kind of rumors circulating at the very least if this actually happened.” 

“I just watched the episode and tried to frantically search for more information,” One Redditor writes. “I hope we get some answers but my bullshit detector was ringing pretty much the whole episode.”

“After watching episode 2, I guarantee the entire show is scripted,” another comments. “I grew up and currently live in upstate NY. There would be some kind of rumors circulating at the very least if this actually happened.” 

On Twitter, reactions to “Slaughterhouse” have ranged from skeptical questioning to dismissive labeling—one user called it “absolutely fucking horse shit.”  

As best as these internet sleuths can tell, the mass murderer of “Slaughterhouse” does not exist—or, at least, public records of his killings are not readily available. 

Netflix’s response

Considering the lack of public information on the now decades-old string of alleged killings, those of us on the outside of the Netflix bubble are forced to assume Haunted’s creators were the first to hear from Sadie, Terrilyn, and Jacob. And, if that is true, then one obvious next step needs to be taken. Netflix needs to call the police. 

Jenkins says they did just that. 

However, when Mashable asked Netflix which authorities were approached by the show, Netflix declined to comment. 

“They have not received any information from the producers or Netflix in regards to the alleged crimes that were portrayed on this program.”

When Mashable contacted New York State Police and asked the Public Information Office to confirm that Netflix had made the report, Director of Public Information, Beau Duffy, responded.

“I spoke with our Bureau of Criminal Investigation and they have not received any information from the producers or Netflix in regards to the alleged crimes that were portrayed on this program.”  

He then suggested we try asking Netflix which law enforcement agency they contacted. 

Stuck in a cyclical “check with the other guy” loop, we turn again to the only member of Haunted’s production team publicly defending the legitimacy of the account: Jenkins.

Jenkins firmly and continuously asserts that the events of “Slaughterhouse” are true on social media, but he isn’t providing additional evidence. Jenkins declined to speak on the record to Mashable.

Over the course of the show’s first week of streaming, Jenkins linked his Twitter followers to a Wikipedia list of unidentified serial killers, accused The Sun of using their “Slaughterhouse” fact-check coverage to feed “the trolls for cheap clicks,” and posted the following cryptic tweet. 

A reasonable person cannot assume that Jenkins speaks for Haunted’s entire production team and he certainly doesn’t speak for Netflix. But, those groups aren’t saying anything on their own accord.

Propagate, the production and development office behind Haunted, did not respond to Mashable’s call for comment. Furthermore, Netflix declined to explain how the stories of Haunted were vetted and did not confirm whether or not a research team was ever consulted during production. 

SEE ALSO: Ariana Grande’s ponytail is so magnificent it can get drinks and fight crime

What are we actually seeing?

So, how can we figure out what actually happened here? 

The first approach is to accept Jenkins’ ominous “trouble” tweet at face value; the stories of “Slaughterhouse” are true and there is a legal or investigative obstacle preventing the Haunted production team from revealing its research.

In other words, maybe something bad happened, but not as big or bad as they’re claiming. 

Another, slightly more accusatory perspective might contend that Haunted used real interviews from genuine subjects and blurred the boundaries between artistic license and dramatization. In other words, maybe something bad happened, but not as big or bad as they’re claiming. 

Or, perhaps, the show’s producers were simply told some stories and took the tellers at their word—which might have been a mistake. 

Per a Twitter conversation with this reporter, the subject of Episode 3, Eryn McGarry, contends that her experience of being continually haunted by a specter since childhood is entirely true. However, she also admits that she approached producers with her story and, outside of “a lot of chats and interviews,” she doesn’t describe a particularly rigorous fact-check.

And then, there are those who say the show is entirely scripted. In other words, that Netflix just made it up. The occasionally stilted and unnaturally descriptive language of many of the interviewees raises an obvious red flag. 

But, according to Haunted’s viewer-turned-investigators, the casting is even more problematic. A number of Haunted’s subjects, McGarry included, work or aspire to work professionally within the horror industry—a reality that has led plenty of viewers to conclude they are not witnesses, but hired actors.

Sure, perhaps this is just supposed to be a spooky Halloween show to give viewers fictional freights. But if the “Slaughterhouse” story is untrue, then that comes with real consequences and real victims. 

The reality of cold case crimes

Far away from the Haunted headquarters and all across the country are verifiable loved ones of cold case victims. And, if the “Slaughterhouse” story is true, it represents a string of genuine victims and families desperate to know what happened to them.

“There’s a very thin line when you’re dealing with the loss of a loved one to an unsolved homicide between hope and false hope,” warns Ryan Backmann, the Executive Director and Founder of Project: Cold Case. “This is not something to be taken lightly and to be played with.”

“There’s a very thin line when you’re dealing with the loss of a loved one to an unsolved homicide between hope and false hope.”

Backmann, a survivor of his father’s unsolved homicide, adds, “It’s a very traumatic experience to lose somebody that way… We have a lot of people who are almost stuck in that moment where their loved one was killed and unable to move forward, waiting for something, anything, sometimes the smallest little thing to grasp onto with hopes of getting some kind of resolution.” 

Moreover, Kenneth Mains, the Founder and President of The American Investigative Society of Cold Cases, stresses that the creation of false narratives can negatively impact the likelihood that a case will ever be solved. 

“These falsified true accounts hurt the investigators who put their heart and soul into investigating the truths in the case to begin with,” Mains notes. “The last thing we need as investigators is to have to deal with falsified truths.” 

With these grave stakes at hand, Mains asks the question many disturbed by the possible false account of “Slaughterhouse” have already raised.

“Why would someone create this fake discovery? Have our standards for entertainment dropped to a level where re-victimizing and creating falsehoods have become our standard for entertainment?” 

SEE ALSO: Things you didn’t know about Sonic the Hedgehog 2 — Games to Play Before You Die

The series’ other subjects

When Mashable messaged with Eryn McGarry, the subject of “Demon in the Dark,” Haunted‘s third episode, one of her first concerns was harassment. In coming forward with her story of ghostly haunting for the Netflix show, McGarry knew she would face nonbelievers. 

Haunted has put its subjects in a particularly precarious position, intertwining the facts of their lives with fiction. 

However, the backlash she received online is taking its toll. She describes the digital landscape as “brutal.” McGarry has been accused of being an actress and been called a liar as well as “a few other colorful names.” She has deleted her Reddit account. 

“But, to me, it’s worth it if I can help at least one person know they aren’t alone in dealing with these things,” she says. 

“These things” are ghosts. Not homicides. McGarry’s story does not allege any victim other than herself; she recounts her lifelong experiences with a ghost she believes has stalked her since childhood.

If we assume McGarry’s personal story was not fabricated, but that the events of “Slaughterhouse” were made up, then Haunted has put McGarry, as well as its other subjects, in a particularly precarious position, intertwining the facts of their lives with fiction. 

In effect, the troubling questions about “Slaughterhouse” may be undermining not only that episode’s credibility, but also the five other “true stories” of Haunted.