In a chilling culmination of nature’s relentless transformation, a retreating glacier in Switzerland’s Alps has uncovered a decades-old mystery. The remains of two Belgian climbers, who disappeared over 30 years ago, have been found, Swiss authorities confirmed on Wednesday.

The remarkable discovery was made by a hiker navigating the Trift Glacier on July 26. The melting ice had revealed what had been hidden for so long, prompting the hiker to alert the police in the Valais canton of Switzerland.

Swift action ensued as authorities retrieved the uncovered remains. These were subsequently transported to Sion’s hospital, where the forensic medicine institute took over for further examination and possible identification.

Compelling evidence emerged from DNA testing, linking the remains to two Belgian men who mysteriously vanished in the Weissmies region back in 1992. At the time of their disappearance, the men were aged 39 and 41, Swiss police confirmed.

Valais police have kept records of missing-person cases dating to 1925. Many involve people who disappeared in the mountains or in bodies of water.

As glaciers retreat, remains hidden beneath the ice for decades can emerge, police said.

Similar discoveries have been made in Switzerland in recent years. In 2023, DNA testing identified a body found on a glacier near the Matterhorn as a German mountaineer who disappeared in 1986.

Switzerland’s glaciers have been melting at an increasing rate, a trend some scientists have linked to rising global temperatures.

A recent study highlights a significant trend in public opinion: nearly two-thirds of Americans think kids younger than 16 should be kept off social media platforms.

This survey, encompassing the views of 2,000 Americans, found that 62% of participants support the idea of prohibiting children aged 15 and below from having social media accounts.

As the debate over social media’s impact on youth heats up, the research explores whether there is widespread approval for such restrictions.

The results showed that 35% of those surveyed advocate for a national policy banning individuals under 16 from social media usage.

Meanwhile, 27% agree with the age restriction but believe that parents should retain decision-making power regarding their children’s social media engagement.

One in five (17%) believe that it should be a family decision whether or not a child is allowed on social media, and 11% believe that children should be free to use social media if they want.
Interestingly, when asked who should be responsible for children’s online safety, only 4% of those polled pointed to the government.

An overwhelming 55% believe that it’s still the parents’ responsibility to protect their kids online, with just 10% saying the duty should fall to social media companies.

Some respondents believe that social media bans could be a net good for kids and young teens.

A quarter of those polled (25%) believe that a social media ban would lead to improved mental health and 23% think it would lead to more in-person socializing.

However, another one in four (25%) think that kids would simply find ways around the ban and remain on the platforms.

Michael Reynolds, Lead Social Media Strategist & Platform Analyst at Socialeum, commented on the data by Talker Research:

“The data highlights a massive friction point: parents are desperate for structural guardrails but deeply distrustful of government execution. While 62% favor some form of age restriction, the fact that 55% place safety responsibility on parents — and 25% acknowledge kids will easily bypass bans — shows we are dealing with an enforcement paradox. In social media mechanics, age verification is notoriously easy to circumvent via VPNs or self-reported birthdates, meaning a hard ban would likely just push underage usage into unmonitored, third-party spaces rather than stopping it.

“Instead of a flat ban, the industry needs to shift toward ‘safety by design’ standards, such as disabling algorithmic recommendation engines and infinite scroll by default for accounts under 16,” continued Reynolds. “This addresses the mental health concerns and encourages offline socialization without creating a cat-and-mouse game of digital evasion that parents ultimately have to police anyway. A government ban on social media is a blunt instrument for a sharp problem; without hardcoded platform design changes, it will only turn kids into digital outlaws and parents into full-time IT police.”

The Department of Homeland Security recently stirred controversy with assertions that Nevada’s voter registration system included thousands of noncitizen voters. Although this notion was echoed by Donald Trump last month, emerging details suggest it may be unfounded.

In a high-profile address from the White House on July 16, Trump alleged that nationwide, voter rolls were tainted with hundreds of thousands of noncitizens.

Following his statement, the White House unveiled documentation referencing the Department of Homeland Security’s discovery of approximately 278,000 noncitizens supposedly ‘registered to vote in federal elections’ across the United States.

These documents, shared on the official White House website, estimated that around 16,000 noncitizens might have been registered within Nevada’s electoral framework.

Nevertheless, Nevada state officials have countered these allegations, and recent revelations from the New York Times show that DHS has pinpointed only 185 ‘potential’ noncitizen voters in Nevada’s records, casting doubt on the much larger claims previously circulated.

The disclosure from the department came during a private meeting between DHS officials and Nevada officials last week.

The discrepancy could open the president to claims that he presented incorrect data, which could anger Trump. 

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 

‘The 185 are the individuals that had gone through manual review,’ a DHS spokesperson told the Daily Mail. 

‘The list shared with Nevada also included 6,218 other individuals with the highest number of matching attributes. This was at the request of [Nevada]. They wanted to start with a subset less than the 15,903.’

The spokesperson claimed the insinuation that their numbers were incorrect as ‘false.’ 

During the virtual meeting between DHS and Nevada officials, department staffers said that the 16,000 figure touted by the White House was ‘the ceiling’ of potential noncitizen voters, according to a recording obtained by the Times. 

Federal officials relayed in emails to their counterparts in Nevada that 14,000 names still need further review, according to an email reviewed by the Times. 

The list of noncitizen voters DHS shared with Nevada is reportedly incomplete and does not include names.

In response, Nevada officials have requested additional information from DHS. 

Nevada’s Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, claims that the numbers provided from DHS are ‘preliminary.’

‘There is not high enough confidence to be able to share the full data set with Nevada officials,’ Aguilar said in a recent statement.

‘The Secretary of State’s office will not risk disenfranchising eligible voters and ripping away their constitutional right to vote without the highest confidence of their ineligibility,’ he continued. 

The inconsistent numbers open up questions about the remaining nearly 260,000 noncitizens that DHS has claimed are registered to vote in federal elections. 

In addition to Nevada, DHS published a review stating that ‘there may be as many as’ 190,832 noncitizens registered to vote in California, 35,152 in New Jersey and 14,576 in Pennsylvania.

‘To reveal just how vulnerable our elections continue to be, we are releasing the results of a stunning investigation by the Department of Homeland Security,’ Trump said during his July 16 White House address. 

‘According to the DHS review, state voter rolls and public records, they identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections.’

The White House has claimed that there could be many more noncitizens who are registered to vote but that Democratic-led states have refused to share their voter files. 

While Nevada has a Republican governor, its Democratic secretary of state, who is responsible for voting, has combatted DHS’s claims.

On Friday, Karmelo Anthony’s efforts to overturn his murder conviction will proceed in McKinney, Texas. This development follows allegations by his former attorney regarding an unwritten agreement that reportedly prevented Anthony from testifying on his behalf.

The case is now under the scrutiny of retired District Judge Michael Chitty, who will consider Anthony’s plea for a retrial. This shift in judicial oversight comes after Judge Sid Harle decided to remove Judge Roach from the case earlier in the week.

Judge Harle concluded that an unbiased observer might doubt Judge Roach’s impartiality, particularly after Roach publicly declared that the jury’s decision was correct and supported several of his own trial rulings.

Anthony, aged 19, was found guilty in June for the murder of Austin Metcalf, a 17-year-old. Prosecutors argued that Anthony stabbed Metcalf to death during a confrontation at a Frisco track meet. His conviction resulted in a 35-year prison sentence handed down by a Collin County jury.

At the center of the new-trial hearing is an oral agreement between Anthony’s original defense team and prosecutors to keep potentially damaging character evidence about both sides from the jury.

Former lead defense attorney Mike Howard testified Thursday that he understood the agreement to allow Anthony to testify if his testimony remained focused on the confrontation under the tent at the track meet.

Howard said that changed on the final day of trial, when prosecutors told the defense the agreement would not apply if Anthony took the stand and that the defense had already opened the door to character evidence.

He said the dispute led to a heated break in the proceedings and made Anthony unwilling to take the stand.

Under cross-examination, Howard acknowledged the lawyers never expressly agreed on whether a testifying defendant was covered by the arrangement. He said he could not say whether prosecutors acted in bad faith.

Lead prosecutor Bill Wirske said the agreement was mutual and that the parties were aligned on the need to keep character evidence out of the trial. Wirske said the state did not believe the agreement applied to Anthony’s testimony.

Wirske said the agreement kept jurors from hearing allegations involving Anthony’s history with knives and violence. Anthony’s new legal team has argued it also excluded school records, social-media posts and videos that they say could have supported his self-defense claim by showing prior aggressive behavior by Metcalf and his twin brother, Hunter Metcalf.

The court has not made findings on those allegations.

Anthony’s motion also argues that courtroom-access restrictions violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial and that jury instructions limited jurors’ ability to consider his self-defense claim.

Howard testified that the lawyers and Roach held more than a dozen off-the-record meetings before trial. He said no pretrial motions were formally filed because the parties used what he described as an “old-school” system of filing materials directly with Roach.

Howard also said the defense discussed waiving some public-trial access because of security concerns, but that no Sixth Amendment waiver was made on the record. He testified that the decision not to use an overflow room was tied to technology concerns, not a specific security threat.

Former defense attorney Toby Shook is expected to testify Friday. It was not immediately clear how many additional witnesses Anthony’s lawyers planned to call.

Chitty must rule on the motion by Monday under Texas rules. If he does not grant it by then, the motion will be denied by operation of law and Anthony’s direct appeal will continue.

News Media has reached out to Anthony’s defense team for comment.

There are those who are still cheering over John Harbaugh’s departure from the Ravens.

Veteran receiver Rashod Bateman and offensive lineman Ronnie Stanley have openly critiqued Harbaugh, offering high praise for the approach of new head coach Jesse Minter.

“From our head coach to the offensive coordinator and even down to the receivers coach, there’s a strong emphasis on details and the finer points,” Bateman remarked on Thursday. “This wasn’t something that defined us in the past.”

Stanley echoed this sentiment, telling The Athletic, “[Minter] truly appreciates the finer details.”

While these comments aren’t exactly explosive, they do offer a glimpse into the differing coaching philosophies.

But for coaches, it’s certainly a blow to be considered as lacking when it comes to being detail-oriented — and hearing it come from a multiple-time All-Pro left tackle carries weight.

Not stressing details can be viewed as a lack of preparation, which is quite the dig against a coach.

Bateman certainly had the more pointed comments of the two, and it certainly makes it seem that he welcomed the coaching change.

He previously expressed some frustration with Baltimore’s coaching staff in 2023, with the former first-rounder venting about playing to player’s strengths and calling out finger pointing.

Bateman said Thursday he could “definitely benefit” from the coaching change.

“Wherever these coaches and staff put me,” he said, “I think this team is bound for success.”

There had been some rumblings about a split being needed in Baltimore with Harbaugh after 18 seasons, which included one Super Bowl win in 12 playoff appearances.

NFL Network reported after the Ravens fired Harbaugh following a Week 17 loss to the Steelers that cost them a playoff spot that “simply Harbaugh lost the locker room.”

There had also been rumblings of a rift with star quarterback Lamar Jackson.

Minter, the former Chargers defensive coordinator, replaced Harbaugh, and one big storyline of the season will be whether he can guide Jackson to an elusive Super Bowl appearance.

Harbaugh, meanwhile, has been welcomed like a king to New York, although expectations are far lower and Super Bowl contention is not realistic for at least one more year.

Nick Reiner is rapidly approaching his trial date, facing charges of allegedly murdering his renowned Hollywood parents. In a bid to fund his legal defense, he is scrambling to access his $1.63 million trust fund, but his efforts are being thwarted by his siblings, according to Daily Mail sources.

Jake and Romy Reiner have joined forces to prevent Nick from depleting his inheritance to cover legal fees.

“It’s not about whether they care for him or not; it’s about setting boundaries on what someone can take from you,” a close family friend of the Reiners revealed to the Daily Mail.

The friend added, “They find the idea of the inheritance being used for Nick’s defense unbearable. They are determined to stop it if they can.”

Now 32, Nick has entered a plea of not guilty to charges of murdering his parents. Prosecutors allege he fatally stabbed his father, acclaimed director Rob Reiner, aged 78, and his mother, photographer-producer Michele, 70, within the confines of their Brentwood residence on December 14.

His legal team filed a probate petition in June to give Nick access to his trust fund, claiming his siblings backed out of an initial verbal agreement to pay for his legal defense. 

During a Monday hearing in a downtown LA courtroom, Nick’s attorney, Anita Wu, said there have been multiple delays to resolving Nick’s petition. 

‘The trust is being consumed and depleted by attorneys’ fees with all of this delay and work,’ Wu said, arguing that attorneys for the trust are spending Nick’s money to keep him from accessing it. 

Jake, 34, and Romy, 28, have not responded to Nick’s petition, which Wu claimed has caused even more delays. 

‘More than $200,000 has been spent to try to block my client’s petition by hiring attorneys to fight the same petition. The clock is running out on his defense. This is something that cannot continue to wait,’ she claimed.

Wu argued Nick should have received the first payment from the trust, which was set up in 1993 by Rob and Michele, two years ago when Nick turned 30.

Attorneys who represent the trust, however, have filed an opposition to Nick’s petition, citing a California law known as the ‘Slayer Statute,’ which says a person cannot be paid the funds if they killed the person who established the trust.

The judge set the next hearing on the trust petition matter for October 23. In the meantime, Nick is scheduled to appear back in criminal court for a pretrial conference on September 15.

Nick is facing two counts of murder with the special circumstance allegations of multiple murders, murder by means of lying in wait and use of a deadly weapon. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Sources close to the Reiner family told the Daily Mail that while Jake and Romy have not written off their troubled brother entirely, they have drawn hard lines in the sand.

‘I wouldn’t say [they] abandoned him for good. I’d say that they are setting boundaries that are appropriate for their healing, and Nick is not a part of their healing,’ the family friend said.

Another family source said Jake and Romy are remaining firm on cutting off their brother from access to the trust.

‘Their parents never turned their backs on their kids and were the best parents,’ the source said.

‘[Rob and Michele] would do anything for their kids but Romy and Jake, who are extremely close and similar, are not budging about helping their brother access the trust. And who would blame them?’

The Daily Mail understands that Tracy, the trio’s older half-sister, was also OK with Nick being cut off from his inheritance.

‘You know people usually fight about money when parents die, but there has been no issues between Tracy, Romy and Jake,’ another source told the Daily Mail.

‘Tracy got a lot of her mom’s money, so she’s doing well. She wanted more sentimental items, not money.’

Tracy, 61, who is Rob’s adopted daughter from a previous marriage with actress-director Penny Marshall, is remaining supportive of Jake and Romy’s decision to cut Nick off from his trust fund.

The Daily Mail has reached out to representatives for Romy, Jake and Tracy for comment. 

Nick was set to receive the entire $1.63 million trust when he turned 35, according to his petition. He was allowed to access $558,000 when he turned 30, but he decided not to touch that money, his lawyers said in the court document.

Lawyers representing a fiduciary, Jodi Montgomery, who is overseeing the trust, said in an August 11 court filing that the outcome of Nick’s upcoming trial ‘will determine who is entitled to the Trust Estate, and an interim distribution would be irreversible.’

‘The disputed property is therefore ‘reasonably in dispute,’ and the governing framework supports the Trustee’s decision to preserve it rather than pay it out.’

On Monday, Wu said Montgomery had agreed to fund $300 for Nick’s commissary and past legal bills when defense attorney Alan Jackson was representing him.

Jackson, a high-profile attorney who has represented Karen Read, Kevin Spacey and Harvey Weinstein, had previously represented Nick before dropping out as his counsel in January, citing ‘circumstances beyond our control.’

Jackson, who stood next to Wu during Monday’s hearing, said he would rejoin Nick’s defense team if the trust issue could be resolved.

The attorney told reporters that Nick’s access to the funds is ‘time sensitive.’

‘He’s made a determination that he wants to be able to use his funds that are in his trust account to decide on his criminal counsel,’ Jackson said. ‘When he is allowed to do that, he will be able to defend himself in the way the Constitution he should and can defend himself.

‘That’s why this litigation is going forward. It’s about Nick Reiner’s money and I think today was an example of the trustee simply obstructing and not allowing Nick immediate access to funds to which he is entitled to.’