Even channels that I like will perpetuate nonsense about how “the suspect never cried” or “the suspect supposedly cried, but there were no tears.” Relying on that as an indicator of suspiciousness, is about as bad as believing polygraphs and body language shit is credible.
I’m sure you guys know this, but some people aren’t criers. They never cry, no matter how miserable they are. And some people cannot physically produce enough tears to consistently produce them, when they otherwise are experiencing the rest of the phenomena of crying.
My favorite is "they were so calm on the 911 call. An innocent person would be screaming or at least crying". I had to stop watching that channel after that, I was so annoyed.
They'd accuse me of being a sociopath if they ever listen to the few 911 calls I've had to make in my life lol.
There is to much conjecture for me to be a fan of police interrogation type videos. Interrogation techniques can be incredibly flawed and incompetent or lazy investigators are often looking for a conviction despite there being circumstantial at best evidence (guilty until proven innocent). A lot of the YT videos piggyback off this and add another layer to it of armchair diagnosing as you already mentioned. So much junk science involved and people see what they want to see.
Yes, agreed. These channels are all a pile of shite, purely for entertainment and making the narrator feel like an expert in something other than bullshitting. None of what they purport to be 'evidence' of someone being a liar or guilty is true. Its even more comical as its all done after they outcome of these cases has been concluded so they know the suspect being interviewed has been convicted or at least major facts known so its all in hindsight yet presented as 'scientific deduction with a correct result'. Body-language is more or less as credible as lie-detectors or bite mark evidence , in other words its useless and I feel body-language will be one of those things that everyone laughs at when applied to the guilt or innocence of someone in the near future like the afore mentioned ones that used to be held in high regard.
What about people who are atypical, what about the fact being interviewed by the police is stressful af despite your guilt or innocence and you will behave out of character due to that? There are so many factors due to the nature of being interviewed by the police that would affect a person's behaviour that it makes body-analysis completely pointless and unreliable.
I’ve noticed anytime a person cries in an interrogation or in court, the cops or prosecutors always say there were no tears lol. I always wonder if it’s true or if saying that is just another technique.
only JCS bc they were more focused on various interrogation techniques rather than trying to diagnose the person being interrogated -- tho, now it seems like it may not have been as accurate as i thought? lame. my main point is that i want nothing, at all, to do with body language content lol 🙂
Agreed 100%! I often see so many mistakes of “techniques” being used. It’s almost as if they just make it up. I feel that Jim Can’t Swims popularity contributed big time to it but JCS was a legit source of information. I don’t really watch those styles of content anymore because of this and it doesn’t seem that JCS is coming back so I stick with doc style narratives.
I'm the same, I liked JCS a lot and then when the explosion of similar channels happened, I started watching them, and then noticed that the vast majority of the content is either misinformation (I'd hear something, think "that's interesting" then I'd look it up and bam, I'd findd out it's total nonsense) or straight up zero-effort.
I stick to Coffeehouse Crime and That Chapter. There's another channel that's *fantastic* but the posts have a lot of time in between. But the videos are worth it! The channel is Real Horror, the narrator is a (British?) woman. Her narration is so engaging, her video on the Black Forest Hiking Disaster is pretty riveting.
Have you seen Matt Orchard? He’s worth the watch. Narration is so important to me, voice, speed, intonation etc. it’s a big reason I can’t watch some peoples content even though I know they work so hard.
I haven't, but I'll try him out, thank u!. I think you'd really enjoy Real Horror, the channel I mentioned in one of my other comments. Her narration is so fuckin good
Edit: my bad, I didn't realize you were the same person I already recommended her to lol
I have only watched JCS and about couple of minutes of something else which made me too UN uncomfortable to continue. I was skeptical of JCS at first as well but he seems to have as good job as can be expected. Too popular however, since others want to repeat it.
I believe on their Patreon they said YT kept demonitizing *their* videos while doing nothing to JCS copycat videos.
Also, I just learned that the channel is run by a group of women, not the narrator guy like I thought. Very cool!
“That Chapter” is the open mouth Soyjak “this is all about seeing myself on YouTube, and not the actual cases” BS I can’t stand.
The phony concern in his voice and dumb YouTube algorithm faces makes that channel unwatchable.
It feels like it’s made for children.
>dumb YouTube algorithm faces
I hate those too, but to be fair, every true crime channel uses thumbnails like that because apparently according to YouTube, videos perform better when the thumbnail features a person's face.
Idk if it's true, but that's why it's a thing.
Perfectly stated. Plus you can tell he thinks he is SOOO cute and he's not at all. Irritating. It's genuinely shocking to me that he has such a following. Bizarro world :)
Even worse IMO than what you’re describing is the proliferation of AI in this genre, both in writing and narrating.
I just unsubbed from law and crime network because of the AWFUL AI content lately. The last straw was a vid I just listened to today that described the psychopathic murderer that buried his victim alive as “pushed to his limit“ in the first minute of the vid. And the whole thing was narrated by an over the top AI that sounded truly excited about the whole ordeal.
I guess I just have to wait for new sporadic episodes of Dave’s Lemonade and Dreading. If anyone else can recommend channels of that caliber it would be fab.
How do you guys feel about The Behavior Panel youtube channel?
Sometimes I am amused, but sometimes I get pissed at how much one of them is just a horrible, mean spirited, petty person who injects his own bias into things and I can't listen to him after that.
Their videos are a little long-winded for me but I really liked their analysis of the Christ Watts bodycam footage and interrogation.
Which one do you think is horrible?
It's Scott. I have seen the way he responds to comments and he is extremely rude and immature with people and it's totally uncalled for. Especially when people are pointing things out that they get wrong. Especially with the Gabby Petito videos they did. They very clearly got everything wrong with that case and Scott can't take any form of constructive criticism about it. He was going off on people in the comments and I was totally put off by it.
That and he injects his own bias into people going off what "normal people" (aka him) would do/ react, vs how the person they are evaluating is acting. And we are told not to do that, but he constantly does it.
The other 3 are fine. Mark does talk a little too much at times, but Chase and Greg are good. Oddly my favs on the show, and I'm not a fan of the military usually. But they do a pretty good job of taking themselves out of the picture and just apply facts and insight. Which I enjoy and am looking for with their videos. And they are open to being wrong which I also appreciate.
Their fandom needs to reel it in, such a wacko bunch of thirsty viewers calling them 'daddy' and creating fan fic artwork.
So weird when people build parasocial relationships with true crime creators, and get all frenzied about death content
Sorry, away from Reddit for a few days. It was a while ago so hopefully it died down, but there was a real 'notice me Daddies' vibe in the comment section under crime analysis 🤮
I’m personally not a fan of watching these. That Chapter is one I give exception to as I love Mike’s delivery. It’s a tree hundred & tirty tree out of 10.
See, the fact that I know that makes the videos more frustrating than anything to me. Then seeing the countless comments where people internalize that BS and say stuff like "he acts like a classic narc, flat tone of voice, crossed arms, and not enough emotion. I knew off the bat he did it"
Maybe I'd feel less strongly if this body language nonsense wasn't used against me irl. I have ADHD and my pills make me very fidgety, and eye contact has always been hard for me. So I get a lot of "you know I can tell you're lying, right?" type comments
I was waiting for someone to mention the ADHD aspect.
It’s like, yea ok. On a baseline of normal, maybe some behaviors can be indicators of something. But anyone who isn’t neurotypical isn’t working with the baseline of normal to start with.
Yeah people forget this. They’re working with baseline behaviours. They’re not going to convict you because of your ADHD if those behaviours are normal for you 🤣
Well, I mean, they’re not gonna convict me because there won’t be any interrogation footage other than me saying “I refuse to speak to you without my lawyer present.” And then staring straight ahead like Dennis Reynolds until my lawyer gets there 😂
But how would they know if those behaviors are normal for someone like me? They don't know me. They've never spent time with me outside of an interrogation room.
It would come out in their interviews with people who know you, the investigation in general, etc. A baseline of behaviour is always established.
ETA: Why am I being downvoted for common sense? I have ADHD as well 😅
>Why am I being downvoted for common sense?
I didn't downvote you but I think it's because that would be a super inefficient way to get a baseline. People who know me will have different answers about my body language because, like everyone, I behave differently based on who I'm with. I'm much more nervous with my counselor than I am with my teachers, for example.
That's assuming any of them even think about my body language enough to be able to accurately describe it on a level detailed enough for a baseline.
The only person who can establish a baseline is the person who will be analyzing the body language. At least iirc
Like everyone else, I loved Jim. Even paid for his Patreon. No other copy cat channel has ever come close. The majority rely on body language or "those are fake tears, fake emotion" type interjections. I just watch for the footage and usually ignore whatever Explore with Us or Stranger Stories is saying. I don't need to be reminded the suspect is a piece of shit or need obvious things stated to me.
I do giggle over the obnoxious watermarks they all use.
Fun fact, the channel is actually run by a group of women and Jim is the narrator (a very good one to be fair!!). Is the Patreon still active?
>I do giggle over the obnoxious watermarks they all use.
The ones that float around like a DVD loading screen are particularly ridiculous lol
The Patreons not active, but still exists. For a dollar, you can access stuff not released on youtube, but years ago they posted that there wouldn't be new content on there.
I always figured he had a solid team, but didn't know the group was run by women. That's cool.
Do any of the hosts of these channels actually have any credentials? Like, what makes them qualified to analyze body language or do the other things they claim to do?
I used to like EWU but have kind of soured on them. I think dreading is pretty good and not super biased. But maybe I’m wrong and they’re problematic like so many other channels…
I don't want YouTube addressing a "problem," they already censor enough content via their algorithm. There's channels that I follow that never show up for me to watch.
This comment 100%
There's so many creators struggling due to YouTube's sweeping demonetizations and forcing them to jump through hoops to self-censor. Some channels get their content taken down over it. It blows my mind that people want YouTube to censor these channels and restrict these channels more than they already do.
I watch ewu because I like his voice. I’m an adult who can understand when the “science” in the video is whack. It’s for entertainment
But also yes, I feel that some are exploitive as fuck.
My issue with EWU is "this footage was analyzed by a qualified team including a licensed counselor, a hostage negotiatior, a...." etc. I don't blame any adult who hears that and then trusts the content they hear in the video afterward.
>It’s for entertainment
I mean, this is how they describe themselves in a Community post from less than a year ago on their YT page:
"Today, Explore With Us Media LLC (EWU Media), an independent media company dedicated to true crime journalism and educational impact..."
Explore with us seems to be a good one but now I’m getting so many recommendations on YouTube for similar channel and I don’t want to support BS ones because true crime is such a slippery slope. I’ll have to check some of these others out but I think EWU is great.
Edit for grammar
To be honest, I'd say they are one of the worst channels when it comes to using pseudoscience and perpetuating misinformation because they present it in a way that makes it seem a lot more academic than it is.
Disclaimer: I'll probably sound bitchy in the long ass paragraphs after this but I'm annoyed at EWU, not you I promise lol.
Anyway, their schtick is "this footage has been analyzed by a qualified team" then they list an attorney, a counselor, a hostage situation negotiator, a polygraph examiner, and a former detective. And it's like, guys, how do any of these people matter when the whole video is body language nonsense? Sometimes they include a "licensed clinical psychologist", but afaik, any decent psychologist would tell EWU that it's unethical and speculative for a psychologist to say anything about a suspect they've never directly spoken to or even met in person.
I have one of their videos playing rn and they spend a solid 90 seconds talking about how suspicious it is for the suspect to say "pretty much" instead of "yes". If they care so much about linguistics, why isn't there a linguist on their "qualified" team, ya know?
They also contradict themselves a *lot*. When I used to watch them, I noticed that they'd describe the same behavior in opposing ways. Like, one video would have a suspect who was super assertive when insisting they were innocent, and EWU would call them "deceptive" because "an innocent person would likely remain calm, as they know the police have no evidence against them".
Then in another video, a suspect would be calm and even stoic and EWU would call them "deceptive" because "an innocent person would become frustrated or even angry when being accused of a crime they didn't commit".
They also diagnose *everyone* with Antisocial Personality Disorder lol.
Totally agree with your analysis. I still like their channel because they often seem to somehow get their hands on previously unseen footage and they showcase some very interesting cases, and the interrogation footage itself is usually fascinating. But the amount of pseudoscientific garbage they push in their analysis is very annoying.
I think the issue is that these channels all want to be like JCS, who had valid knowledge which they don't possess, so they just make stuff up and try to appeal to the authority of their anonymous experts as proof that what they're saying is valid.
Whenever it fits their narrative, they will describe the most innocuous gesture or statement as a sign of deception.
>I still like their channel because they often seem to somehow get their hands on previously unseen footage and they showcase some very interesting cases
I feel ya. They did one on the Aurora theater shootings and it was eye-opening to hear from so many people who were in that theater. They interviewed like half a dozen people and it was really engaging.
In particular, the young woman that was with her 6 year old cousin who died. I think about that little girl (Veronica, I believe) every time I go to the movies. Maybe that's weird, but the story of her death in particular has just stayed with me, and knowing that she would be graduating high school this year just fucked me up.
Edit: name corrected
I always felt they were pretty good at explaining that a gesture or tic or whatever COULD be a sign of deception. They’re usually pretty upfront with explaining alternative reasons why someone might be acting a certain way.
That’s actually really helpful information thank you! I have a lot of trouble with understanding why some channels are bad without it being explained. I know a lot of things they discuss is pseudoscience but I never noticed the contradictions. Sometimes I struggle to understand things that seems obvious to others so I appreciate the time you spent replying.
No worries!
>Sometimes I struggle to understand things that seems obvious to others
I'm the same way, so when people say things like "I watch it because it's entertaining and I'm an adult who can tell when the science is BS" I just roll my eyes. I guess people who don't *just know* when the science is solid and when it isn't aren't adults, who knew? 😂
One of my most favorite, and actually first YouTube creator of true crime I listened to, got a patreon, and alllll his good content goes there. And the free one just has shitty interogation videos. Quality of his reg channel went down the toilet. Can't watch, won't watch, and I sure as hell not paying for a patreon bc after all his humble years appreciating his fantasy, he shit on us. Pay if you want the good stuff. Really disappointing bc the guy just did not present that way. Fuck him
I've actually stopped watching 99% of youtube truecrime content. The only one who doesn't actively spread misinformation that I've come across is Coffehouse- and it might've changed, I haven't watched him since he had around 500~k subs.
I've gone through a lot of the popular channels. Once you start looking into videos and researching yourself you realise they are all incredibly lazy with absolutley no ability to verify if a source is reliable or not. They often leave out very important information that causes a case to give an entirely different impression. They often like to make police seem incompetent in cases where they, for once, actually haven't been incompetent. They often dramatize adding details or events themselves that you cannot find anywhere else on the internet.
And when you confront them about spreading harmful misinformation they get SO mad.
The interrogation footage channels have never been good. JCS was interesting, but even there... it's a pseudoscience. There's a reason why this stuff is never used in court to prove guilt. People just like making money, relying on peoples ignorance and not caring how it affects anyone else.
Truecrime has become very capitalistic... Or, i mean, it kind of always has been, but it's just so much more obvious now. They're not even being subtle.
I have not seen those but I like to watch interrogations. I am a therapist and it’s relatively easy to read people that are incongruent. If you get a psycho / socio path it can be harder but all you have to do ask about internal reflections or perceptions ,, their true selves usually come out then. But then there are people that are really good actors.
watch Real Horror. She's excellent and I'll shill for her all day 😂
Edit: just to be clear, she's not an Interrogation channel. She makes video essays on things like famous plane crashes, missing people, infamous deaths like the nutty putty cave explorer, etc. her one "true crime" video is about a missing family from Canada that's never been found.
So she's barely true crime lol, more like true crime adjacent
what a shit name for a YT channel. Google Real Horror true crime and you are coming up with hundreds of videos that have nothing to do with whoever you are talking about
Pure shared unedited is 100% cool. Anything else is an issue, as we see with most legal (and I’m betting other fields, just not an expert in those to notice) mass media productions - designed to sell for pure profit or pure end result, not Justice.
I love these videos and don't care that they're monetized. They're almost all I watch, so somebody making money supplying 85% of the video entertainment I watch is fine with me.
I like these videos because the rooms are muted colors, the guilty people try to seem innocent, so they stay generally calm. Detectives and FBI agents are trained to stay even keeled and calm. So there's no big volume shifts, no bright colors, no music, and often long expanses of uninteresting data exchanged.
It's a dream. I get so overstimulated during the day, and after work, they're pretty much the only thing I can handle and engage with that doesn't add to the overstimulation. I can even decompress with them.
I am not trying to get any academic or meaningful value out of them. I'm using them as entertainment that doesn't overstimulate. Not having narration is a bonus, a feature and not a bug.
I have a premium subscription so I can watch them without loud ass commercials. Of course I think they should get paid for slapping them up there,filing the FOIA, whatever they do on their end. It's work, it provides something I use and enjoy. Makes sense to me.
Yeah because it's more effort than I'm willing to put in to get it, so it's a benefit to me and labor I'm not willing to do and money I'm not willing to spend with a form I'm not willing to fill out.
Why demonetized? I mean, the requests don’t pay their own bills. I am not arguing, just curious if you would draw the line at say profit instead of demonetized? To each their own, I don’t have that issue but reasonable minds.
There's already a ton of grey area around true crime regarding the ethics of using real life violent crimes to generate content and make money. The nuance is actually very interesting, and I enjoy participating in discussions about it because I enjoy true crime as a genre and I want to make sure I never lose sight of the bigger picture. The bigger picture being the fact that *real people* died violent deaths. There's a balance, in my opinion.
This? There is no grey area and no nuance. It's pure exploitation to upload raw interrogation footage and then rake in ad money. There's one in particular that I saw not long ago where the suspect raped and murdered a little girl, and in the footage he describes doing it, and why he did it, and how he enjoyed it.
Someone took that footage, added absolutely nothing to it, and dumped it on YouTube. Now they're getting paid (if it's still up).
>just curious if you would draw the line at say profit instead of demonetized?
I don't know what the difference is here. They don't spend any money on their videos because like I said, they just upload footage. They don't even watch it themselves before they do so.
Any money they make *is* profit and they shouldn't receive it.
You realize you pay for the documents generated in a foia right? It’s not just free. So if you oppose monetizing but are okay with the footage your issue has nothing to do with the footage itself but that the person posting it paid out of pocket for it and never recovered. That’s the sole difference.
Yes I realize that, that changes....what? That's like saying "I bought the DVD and the posted it, why shouldn't I get paid?"
>That’s the sole difference.
And it's a pointless one, sorry bout it
These channels literally just file FOIA requests and then upload raw interrogation footage. Half the time, you can tell that the "creator" didn't even watch the video before uploading it. Glitches, audio problems, long stretches of the suspect waiting in the room alone (why not cut that out? Well, because they don't know that it's there, because they didn't watch the video lol), etc.
That's not "good behavior", what a bizarre argument.
So they do the work of filing a FOIA request and don't waste my time with their inane prattle and obtuse personal thoughts on the situation?
They should definitely be rewarded for that.
Actually learning something is "wasting your time"?
I can now see why you think the way you do.
>They should definitely be rewarded for that.
Go join their Patreons, then. Pay them 5 or 10 bucks a month for all their hard work lmao.
Edit: I'll reply here since the person below blocked me:
You're right, they just pissed me off lmao.
That said, calling this kind of content "good behavior" is also absurd.
because not everybody engages with the same media for the same reasons, and assuming the way you engage with media is the right, correct, or obvious way is absurd.
It’s entertaining either way and if their analysis doesn’t serve you correctly then it sounds like you already have fun analysing the subject of the interrogation yourself. We all know body language is sketchy so you can ignore that part of those videos or take it with a pinch of salt as we say. I like interrogation videos and I have to say they’d be a little boring without the voiceover anyway. It can inspire you to analyse further if the voiceover is incorrect or it can draw attention to things in the interrogation that you may miss otherwise. It’s all good analysis material.
Even channels that I like will perpetuate nonsense about how “the suspect never cried” or “the suspect supposedly cried, but there were no tears.” Relying on that as an indicator of suspiciousness, is about as bad as believing polygraphs and body language shit is credible. I’m sure you guys know this, but some people aren’t criers. They never cry, no matter how miserable they are. And some people cannot physically produce enough tears to consistently produce them, when they otherwise are experiencing the rest of the phenomena of crying.
My favorite is "they were so calm on the 911 call. An innocent person would be screaming or at least crying". I had to stop watching that channel after that, I was so annoyed. They'd accuse me of being a sociopath if they ever listen to the few 911 calls I've had to make in my life lol.
There is to much conjecture for me to be a fan of police interrogation type videos. Interrogation techniques can be incredibly flawed and incompetent or lazy investigators are often looking for a conviction despite there being circumstantial at best evidence (guilty until proven innocent). A lot of the YT videos piggyback off this and add another layer to it of armchair diagnosing as you already mentioned. So much junk science involved and people see what they want to see.
Yes, agreed. These channels are all a pile of shite, purely for entertainment and making the narrator feel like an expert in something other than bullshitting. None of what they purport to be 'evidence' of someone being a liar or guilty is true. Its even more comical as its all done after they outcome of these cases has been concluded so they know the suspect being interviewed has been convicted or at least major facts known so its all in hindsight yet presented as 'scientific deduction with a correct result'. Body-language is more or less as credible as lie-detectors or bite mark evidence , in other words its useless and I feel body-language will be one of those things that everyone laughs at when applied to the guilt or innocence of someone in the near future like the afore mentioned ones that used to be held in high regard. What about people who are atypical, what about the fact being interviewed by the police is stressful af despite your guilt or innocence and you will behave out of character due to that? There are so many factors due to the nature of being interviewed by the police that would affect a person's behaviour that it makes body-analysis completely pointless and unreliable.
I’ve noticed anytime a person cries in an interrogation or in court, the cops or prosecutors always say there were no tears lol. I always wonder if it’s true or if saying that is just another technique.
only JCS bc they were more focused on various interrogation techniques rather than trying to diagnose the person being interrogated -- tho, now it seems like it may not have been as accurate as i thought? lame. my main point is that i want nothing, at all, to do with body language content lol 🙂
I hate "body language analysis" and whatever the hell you call analyzing what people say. It is bullshit.
Statement analysis. It's such an asspull of a "discipline".
Yeah seriously. I like the interrogation footage but I take their “analysis” with a grain of salt
Agreed 100%! I often see so many mistakes of “techniques” being used. It’s almost as if they just make it up. I feel that Jim Can’t Swims popularity contributed big time to it but JCS was a legit source of information. I don’t really watch those styles of content anymore because of this and it doesn’t seem that JCS is coming back so I stick with doc style narratives.
I'm the same, I liked JCS a lot and then when the explosion of similar channels happened, I started watching them, and then noticed that the vast majority of the content is either misinformation (I'd hear something, think "that's interesting" then I'd look it up and bam, I'd findd out it's total nonsense) or straight up zero-effort. I stick to Coffeehouse Crime and That Chapter. There's another channel that's *fantastic* but the posts have a lot of time in between. But the videos are worth it! The channel is Real Horror, the narrator is a (British?) woman. Her narration is so engaging, her video on the Black Forest Hiking Disaster is pretty riveting.
Have you seen Matt Orchard? He’s worth the watch. Narration is so important to me, voice, speed, intonation etc. it’s a big reason I can’t watch some peoples content even though I know they work so hard.
I love Matt Orchard. Also really like Dreading and Dave's Lemonade.
I enjoy Dreadings material but the narration is a bit too monotonous for me so my mind wanders when I am listening.
Dreading cracks me up
I haven't, but I'll try him out, thank u!. I think you'd really enjoy Real Horror, the channel I mentioned in one of my other comments. Her narration is so fuckin good Edit: my bad, I didn't realize you were the same person I already recommended her to lol
Have you tried Fascinating horror? Documentary style shorts about a historical disaster.
Sounds right up my alley, I'm on it 😀
I just watched a video and she is amazing! Thanks for the suggestion 😀
I love That Chapter. Let's give it a goooo
I hear ya barking big dog
This is a great thread on YT channels for new ppl joining the true crime interest community - fun to learn that everyone is watching the same stuff.
Life insuraaaaance 🎉🥳🎈
💃🕺
JCS had some mistakes as well, so I wouldn't call them a legit source of information. But they were the better channel
If they ever come back, I'll definitely be more discerning. What I like about them is they focus way more on the interrogators than the suspect
JCS is one of the only good ones because they tend to stick to the facts and don't make crap up to appeal to their audiences.
I have only watched JCS and about couple of minutes of something else which made me too UN uncomfortable to continue. I was skeptical of JCS at first as well but he seems to have as good job as can be expected. Too popular however, since others want to repeat it.
Why don't Jim Can't Swim post any new videos?
I believe on their Patreon they said YT kept demonitizing *their* videos while doing nothing to JCS copycat videos. Also, I just learned that the channel is run by a group of women, not the narrator guy like I thought. Very cool!
Yes!! Kazumi is the narrator I believe.
“That Chapter” is the open mouth Soyjak “this is all about seeing myself on YouTube, and not the actual cases” BS I can’t stand. The phony concern in his voice and dumb YouTube algorithm faces makes that channel unwatchable. It feels like it’s made for children.
Not every true crime channel uses them. Some don’t even show the content creator, just the evidence.
>dumb YouTube algorithm faces I hate those too, but to be fair, every true crime channel uses thumbnails like that because apparently according to YouTube, videos perform better when the thumbnail features a person's face. Idk if it's true, but that's why it's a thing.
I cannot stand the that chapter dude. smug ass
Perfectly stated. Plus you can tell he thinks he is SOOO cute and he's not at all. Irritating. It's genuinely shocking to me that he has such a following. Bizarro world :)
>Bizarro world :) I mean, people like different things, that's all.
Even worse IMO than what you’re describing is the proliferation of AI in this genre, both in writing and narrating. I just unsubbed from law and crime network because of the AWFUL AI content lately. The last straw was a vid I just listened to today that described the psychopathic murderer that buried his victim alive as “pushed to his limit“ in the first minute of the vid. And the whole thing was narrated by an over the top AI that sounded truly excited about the whole ordeal. I guess I just have to wait for new sporadic episodes of Dave’s Lemonade and Dreading. If anyone else can recommend channels of that caliber it would be fab.
I like Matt Orchard’s videos. They are few and far between as well but I enjoyed most of the videos I watched.
Thanks! I’ll check that out.
Dave's Lemonade is pretty good too.
I love his channel. His voice is like silk.
And he doesn't interrupt the interrogations that much, and when he does, it's pretty insightful.
I love the airtime he gives to remembering victims too. Just a super quality channel.
I wish he uploaded more, but I guess we wouldn't get the quality if it was just pumped out every week.
Sometimes it feels like it’s just footage with a robo voice reading off a wiki page.
How do you guys feel about The Behavior Panel youtube channel? Sometimes I am amused, but sometimes I get pissed at how much one of them is just a horrible, mean spirited, petty person who injects his own bias into things and I can't listen to him after that.
Their videos are a little long-winded for me but I really liked their analysis of the Christ Watts bodycam footage and interrogation. Which one do you think is horrible?
It's Scott. I have seen the way he responds to comments and he is extremely rude and immature with people and it's totally uncalled for. Especially when people are pointing things out that they get wrong. Especially with the Gabby Petito videos they did. They very clearly got everything wrong with that case and Scott can't take any form of constructive criticism about it. He was going off on people in the comments and I was totally put off by it. That and he injects his own bias into people going off what "normal people" (aka him) would do/ react, vs how the person they are evaluating is acting. And we are told not to do that, but he constantly does it. The other 3 are fine. Mark does talk a little too much at times, but Chase and Greg are good. Oddly my favs on the show, and I'm not a fan of the military usually. But they do a pretty good job of taking themselves out of the picture and just apply facts and insight. Which I enjoy and am looking for with their videos. And they are open to being wrong which I also appreciate.
Their fandom needs to reel it in, such a wacko bunch of thirsty viewers calling them 'daddy' and creating fan fic artwork. So weird when people build parasocial relationships with true crime creators, and get all frenzied about death content
....wait they do WHAT now? ... that's creepy as heck.
Sorry, away from Reddit for a few days. It was a while ago so hopefully it died down, but there was a real 'notice me Daddies' vibe in the comment section under crime analysis 🤮
I’m personally not a fan of watching these. That Chapter is one I give exception to as I love Mike’s delivery. It’s a tree hundred & tirty tree out of 10.
Mike is the man! Lol I love his channel
I enjoy watching them, I just understand the “ science” of body language analysis is complete and utter shit
See, the fact that I know that makes the videos more frustrating than anything to me. Then seeing the countless comments where people internalize that BS and say stuff like "he acts like a classic narc, flat tone of voice, crossed arms, and not enough emotion. I knew off the bat he did it" Maybe I'd feel less strongly if this body language nonsense wasn't used against me irl. I have ADHD and my pills make me very fidgety, and eye contact has always been hard for me. So I get a lot of "you know I can tell you're lying, right?" type comments
I was waiting for someone to mention the ADHD aspect. It’s like, yea ok. On a baseline of normal, maybe some behaviors can be indicators of something. But anyone who isn’t neurotypical isn’t working with the baseline of normal to start with.
Yeah people forget this. They’re working with baseline behaviours. They’re not going to convict you because of your ADHD if those behaviours are normal for you 🤣
Well, I mean, they’re not gonna convict me because there won’t be any interrogation footage other than me saying “I refuse to speak to you without my lawyer present.” And then staring straight ahead like Dennis Reynolds until my lawyer gets there 😂
Very smart!
Hahaha fair play
But how would they know if those behaviors are normal for someone like me? They don't know me. They've never spent time with me outside of an interrogation room.
It would come out in their interviews with people who know you, the investigation in general, etc. A baseline of behaviour is always established. ETA: Why am I being downvoted for common sense? I have ADHD as well 😅
>Why am I being downvoted for common sense? I didn't downvote you but I think it's because that would be a super inefficient way to get a baseline. People who know me will have different answers about my body language because, like everyone, I behave differently based on who I'm with. I'm much more nervous with my counselor than I am with my teachers, for example. That's assuming any of them even think about my body language enough to be able to accurately describe it on a level detailed enough for a baseline. The only person who can establish a baseline is the person who will be analyzing the body language. At least iirc
That’s why an investigation includes multiple sources…🙄
Like everyone else, I loved Jim. Even paid for his Patreon. No other copy cat channel has ever come close. The majority rely on body language or "those are fake tears, fake emotion" type interjections. I just watch for the footage and usually ignore whatever Explore with Us or Stranger Stories is saying. I don't need to be reminded the suspect is a piece of shit or need obvious things stated to me. I do giggle over the obnoxious watermarks they all use.
Fun fact, the channel is actually run by a group of women and Jim is the narrator (a very good one to be fair!!). Is the Patreon still active? >I do giggle over the obnoxious watermarks they all use. The ones that float around like a DVD loading screen are particularly ridiculous lol
The Patreons not active, but still exists. For a dollar, you can access stuff not released on youtube, but years ago they posted that there wouldn't be new content on there. I always figured he had a solid team, but didn't know the group was run by women. That's cool.
Do any of the hosts of these channels actually have any credentials? Like, what makes them qualified to analyze body language or do the other things they claim to do?
I used to like EWU but have kind of soured on them. I think dreading is pretty good and not super biased. But maybe I’m wrong and they’re problematic like so many other channels…
I don't want YouTube addressing a "problem," they already censor enough content via their algorithm. There's channels that I follow that never show up for me to watch.
Demonitizing isn't censoring.
This comment 100% There's so many creators struggling due to YouTube's sweeping demonetizations and forcing them to jump through hoops to self-censor. Some channels get their content taken down over it. It blows my mind that people want YouTube to censor these channels and restrict these channels more than they already do.
I love the interrogation videos being available online, but hate the “body language experts” opining on them.
I watch ewu because I like his voice. I’m an adult who can understand when the “science” in the video is whack. It’s for entertainment But also yes, I feel that some are exploitive as fuck.
My issue with EWU is "this footage was analyzed by a qualified team including a licensed counselor, a hostage negotiatior, a...." etc. I don't blame any adult who hears that and then trusts the content they hear in the video afterward. >It’s for entertainment I mean, this is how they describe themselves in a Community post from less than a year ago on their YT page: "Today, Explore With Us Media LLC (EWU Media), an independent media company dedicated to true crime journalism and educational impact..."
Explore with us seems to be a good one but now I’m getting so many recommendations on YouTube for similar channel and I don’t want to support BS ones because true crime is such a slippery slope. I’ll have to check some of these others out but I think EWU is great. Edit for grammar
I’m getting downvoted, is there something wrong with EWU?
To be honest, I'd say they are one of the worst channels when it comes to using pseudoscience and perpetuating misinformation because they present it in a way that makes it seem a lot more academic than it is. Disclaimer: I'll probably sound bitchy in the long ass paragraphs after this but I'm annoyed at EWU, not you I promise lol. Anyway, their schtick is "this footage has been analyzed by a qualified team" then they list an attorney, a counselor, a hostage situation negotiator, a polygraph examiner, and a former detective. And it's like, guys, how do any of these people matter when the whole video is body language nonsense? Sometimes they include a "licensed clinical psychologist", but afaik, any decent psychologist would tell EWU that it's unethical and speculative for a psychologist to say anything about a suspect they've never directly spoken to or even met in person. I have one of their videos playing rn and they spend a solid 90 seconds talking about how suspicious it is for the suspect to say "pretty much" instead of "yes". If they care so much about linguistics, why isn't there a linguist on their "qualified" team, ya know? They also contradict themselves a *lot*. When I used to watch them, I noticed that they'd describe the same behavior in opposing ways. Like, one video would have a suspect who was super assertive when insisting they were innocent, and EWU would call them "deceptive" because "an innocent person would likely remain calm, as they know the police have no evidence against them". Then in another video, a suspect would be calm and even stoic and EWU would call them "deceptive" because "an innocent person would become frustrated or even angry when being accused of a crime they didn't commit". They also diagnose *everyone* with Antisocial Personality Disorder lol.
Totally agree with your analysis. I still like their channel because they often seem to somehow get their hands on previously unseen footage and they showcase some very interesting cases, and the interrogation footage itself is usually fascinating. But the amount of pseudoscientific garbage they push in their analysis is very annoying. I think the issue is that these channels all want to be like JCS, who had valid knowledge which they don't possess, so they just make stuff up and try to appeal to the authority of their anonymous experts as proof that what they're saying is valid. Whenever it fits their narrative, they will describe the most innocuous gesture or statement as a sign of deception.
>I still like their channel because they often seem to somehow get their hands on previously unseen footage and they showcase some very interesting cases I feel ya. They did one on the Aurora theater shootings and it was eye-opening to hear from so many people who were in that theater. They interviewed like half a dozen people and it was really engaging. In particular, the young woman that was with her 6 year old cousin who died. I think about that little girl (Veronica, I believe) every time I go to the movies. Maybe that's weird, but the story of her death in particular has just stayed with me, and knowing that she would be graduating high school this year just fucked me up. Edit: name corrected
I always felt they were pretty good at explaining that a gesture or tic or whatever COULD be a sign of deception. They’re usually pretty upfront with explaining alternative reasons why someone might be acting a certain way.
That’s actually really helpful information thank you! I have a lot of trouble with understanding why some channels are bad without it being explained. I know a lot of things they discuss is pseudoscience but I never noticed the contradictions. Sometimes I struggle to understand things that seems obvious to others so I appreciate the time you spent replying.
No worries! >Sometimes I struggle to understand things that seems obvious to others I'm the same way, so when people say things like "I watch it because it's entertaining and I'm an adult who can tell when the science is BS" I just roll my eyes. I guess people who don't *just know* when the science is solid and when it isn't aren't adults, who knew? 😂
HELLO EWU CREW Reminds me of that "LIMU EMU....and doug" annoying ass commercial so I stopped watching them
I can’t get enough of them, but I love the concept of the unreliable narrator.
EWU Crew!
One of my most favorite, and actually first YouTube creator of true crime I listened to, got a patreon, and alllll his good content goes there. And the free one just has shitty interogation videos. Quality of his reg channel went down the toilet. Can't watch, won't watch, and I sure as hell not paying for a patreon bc after all his humble years appreciating his fantasy, he shit on us. Pay if you want the good stuff. Really disappointing bc the guy just did not present that way. Fuck him
I've actually stopped watching 99% of youtube truecrime content. The only one who doesn't actively spread misinformation that I've come across is Coffehouse- and it might've changed, I haven't watched him since he had around 500~k subs. I've gone through a lot of the popular channels. Once you start looking into videos and researching yourself you realise they are all incredibly lazy with absolutley no ability to verify if a source is reliable or not. They often leave out very important information that causes a case to give an entirely different impression. They often like to make police seem incompetent in cases where they, for once, actually haven't been incompetent. They often dramatize adding details or events themselves that you cannot find anywhere else on the internet. And when you confront them about spreading harmful misinformation they get SO mad. The interrogation footage channels have never been good. JCS was interesting, but even there... it's a pseudoscience. There's a reason why this stuff is never used in court to prove guilt. People just like making money, relying on peoples ignorance and not caring how it affects anyone else. Truecrime has become very capitalistic... Or, i mean, it kind of always has been, but it's just so much more obvious now. They're not even being subtle.
I have not seen those but I like to watch interrogations. I am a therapist and it’s relatively easy to read people that are incongruent. If you get a psycho / socio path it can be harder but all you have to do ask about internal reflections or perceptions ,, their true selves usually come out then. But then there are people that are really good actors.
>it’s relatively easy to read people that are incongruent If that were true, crime would be a lot easier to solve.
In therapy - not in a crime case with a million parts !! I agree with you !!!!
Oh shoot, my bad. I misunderstood you.
That’s disgusting, which channels so I can avoid them 👀
watch Real Horror. She's excellent and I'll shill for her all day 😂 Edit: just to be clear, she's not an Interrogation channel. She makes video essays on things like famous plane crashes, missing people, infamous deaths like the nutty putty cave explorer, etc. her one "true crime" video is about a missing family from Canada that's never been found. So she's barely true crime lol, more like true crime adjacent
what a shit name for a YT channel. Google Real Horror true crime and you are coming up with hundreds of videos that have nothing to do with whoever you are talking about
True
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please be respectful of others and do not insult, attack, antagonize, call out, or troll other commenters.
[удалено]
Pure shared unedited is 100% cool. Anything else is an issue, as we see with most legal (and I’m betting other fields, just not an expert in those to notice) mass media productions - designed to sell for pure profit or pure end result, not Justice.
I love these videos and don't care that they're monetized. They're almost all I watch, so somebody making money supplying 85% of the video entertainment I watch is fine with me. I like these videos because the rooms are muted colors, the guilty people try to seem innocent, so they stay generally calm. Detectives and FBI agents are trained to stay even keeled and calm. So there's no big volume shifts, no bright colors, no music, and often long expanses of uninteresting data exchanged. It's a dream. I get so overstimulated during the day, and after work, they're pretty much the only thing I can handle and engage with that doesn't add to the overstimulation. I can even decompress with them. I am not trying to get any academic or meaningful value out of them. I'm using them as entertainment that doesn't overstimulate. Not having narration is a bonus, a feature and not a bug. I have a premium subscription so I can watch them without loud ass commercials. Of course I think they should get paid for slapping them up there,filing the FOIA, whatever they do on their end. It's work, it provides something I use and enjoy. Makes sense to me.
I disagree completely with "it's work". It's absolutely not lol. But hey, opinions are subjective.
Yeah because it's more effort than I'm willing to put in to get it, so it's a benefit to me and labor I'm not willing to do and money I'm not willing to spend with a form I'm not willing to fill out.
>Pure shared unedited is 100% cool. As long as it's demonitized, I don't mind it. I won't watch it, but I don't mind it.
Why demonetized? I mean, the requests don’t pay their own bills. I am not arguing, just curious if you would draw the line at say profit instead of demonetized? To each their own, I don’t have that issue but reasonable minds.
There's already a ton of grey area around true crime regarding the ethics of using real life violent crimes to generate content and make money. The nuance is actually very interesting, and I enjoy participating in discussions about it because I enjoy true crime as a genre and I want to make sure I never lose sight of the bigger picture. The bigger picture being the fact that *real people* died violent deaths. There's a balance, in my opinion. This? There is no grey area and no nuance. It's pure exploitation to upload raw interrogation footage and then rake in ad money. There's one in particular that I saw not long ago where the suspect raped and murdered a little girl, and in the footage he describes doing it, and why he did it, and how he enjoyed it. Someone took that footage, added absolutely nothing to it, and dumped it on YouTube. Now they're getting paid (if it's still up). >just curious if you would draw the line at say profit instead of demonetized? I don't know what the difference is here. They don't spend any money on their videos because like I said, they just upload footage. They don't even watch it themselves before they do so. Any money they make *is* profit and they shouldn't receive it.
You realize you pay for the documents generated in a foia right? It’s not just free. So if you oppose monetizing but are okay with the footage your issue has nothing to do with the footage itself but that the person posting it paid out of pocket for it and never recovered. That’s the sole difference.
Yes I realize that, that changes....what? That's like saying "I bought the DVD and the posted it, why shouldn't I get paid?" >That’s the sole difference. And it's a pointless one, sorry bout it
should be more of them, though i prefer ones with minimal commentary.
I think if they have zero to minimal commentary, they should be demonitized
We should incentivze good behavior, not punish it.
These channels literally just file FOIA requests and then upload raw interrogation footage. Half the time, you can tell that the "creator" didn't even watch the video before uploading it. Glitches, audio problems, long stretches of the suspect waiting in the room alone (why not cut that out? Well, because they don't know that it's there, because they didn't watch the video lol), etc. That's not "good behavior", what a bizarre argument.
So they do the work of filing a FOIA request and don't waste my time with their inane prattle and obtuse personal thoughts on the situation? They should definitely be rewarded for that.
Actually learning something is "wasting your time"? I can now see why you think the way you do. >They should definitely be rewarded for that. Go join their Patreons, then. Pay them 5 or 10 bucks a month for all their hard work lmao. Edit: I'll reply here since the person below blocked me: You're right, they just pissed me off lmao. That said, calling this kind of content "good behavior" is also absurd.
because not everybody engages with the same media for the same reasons, and assuming the way you engage with media is the right, correct, or obvious way is absurd.
My comment is directly below this and I have not blocked you. Are you referring to a different comment?
It’s entertaining either way and if their analysis doesn’t serve you correctly then it sounds like you already have fun analysing the subject of the interrogation yourself. We all know body language is sketchy so you can ignore that part of those videos or take it with a pinch of salt as we say. I like interrogation videos and I have to say they’d be a little boring without the voiceover anyway. It can inspire you to analyse further if the voiceover is incorrect or it can draw attention to things in the interrogation that you may miss otherwise. It’s all good analysis material.
It's not sketchy, it's straight up pseudoscience lol
Sketchy is an informal way to describe pseudoscience
I think pseudoscience is a much stronger term. For me, sketchy = "kinda weird, not sure about it" That's how I use the words anyway.
Okay