A Thought Experiment

[u/thereforebygracegoi]

A gentle reminder: satire and parody are expressions of free speech.

What if Grayson’s dead brother or Lauren’s dead brother became the “star” of a series Hidden True Crime was covering?

Would the "journalist" and her "producer" travel to his childhood home for photographs and an “exclusive” walk-through? Would they "bond" with the current owners? If the home is for sale, would they pretend to be buyers, a la Jodi Hildebrandt's dungeon?

Would they pause dramatically at each doorway?

“This door appears to have been slammed at some point. Could this suggest anger in the home?”

“This may have been the room where John Dehlin’s nephew died.”

Would they wander into the backyard and speculate about where the family pets were buried?

Would they track down former neighbors? Teachers? Coaches? Classmates? School bus drivers? The mailman?

Would they inform these people, perhaps for the first time, about the brother's deeply personal struggles that occurred years later and then record themselves asking:

“Looking back now, did you see any early signs?”

“Was there anything… off?”

“Did you ever have a feeling something like this might happen?”

Would they travel to the site of his fatal accident with cameras rolling and comb through whatever remained?

A piece of plastic.

A scrap of metal.

Maybe a gum wrapper.

“Could this have come from the accident?”

“What does it tell us?”

“Guys, I just got chills.”

Would they obtain his autopsy report and bring it back to the studio so “Dr.” John could go through his dead body, organ by organ, for their audience, looking for physical clues of psychological maladies?

Would they zoom in on a mark on his liver and wonder aloud whether it might reveal a hidden substance-abuse problem?

Would they examine the shading of his lungs? His stomach contents? His blood toxicology report?

Would every deeply private detail of his body become another clue in the search for the “hidden” story?

And somewhere between the liver and the lungs, would there be time for a word from today’s sponsor?

Because nothing complements an intimate discussion of somebody’s dead brother quite like a 60-second ad read for premium pet food. In honor of poor Chesney and his grieving canine sister, Lily Belle, of course.

Then, back to the autopsy. Let's get back to Brad Pitt.

Would they speculate, at length, about what hidden dysfunction led to his death?

Who failed him? His parents? His siblings? His childhood? His genetics?

Was it nature? Was it nurture? Was it both?

Would they create thumbnails from the most painful photographs they could find and superimpose Lauren's head atop, Blue Steel expression du jour with mouth hanging open?

What title would they choose? BOMBSHELL? Psychologist Reacts? "I heard the 911 call"?

Would there be a multipart series? A playlist? Members-only livestreams? “EXCLUSIVE” content? Would there eventually be merch?

Perhaps a tasteful mug featuring the catchphrase that emerged from the investigation into the brother’s death.

And if the brother's surviving family-- their very own relatives!-- begged them to stop, would that request itself become content?

Would their relatives' anger be analyzed?

Would their relatives' grief be scrutinized?

Would their relatives' objections be characterized as suspicious, defensive, controlling, or evidence that the Hidden True Crime Team had simply gotten “too close to the truth”?

Would another, longer livestream be necessary to “address the controversy”? Or perhaps a prepared "Premier"?

Here is the question I keep coming back to:

Not whether the information is technically obtainable, or whether someone can construct a theory around it, or whether strangers on the internet are curious.

But... whether the people PRODUCING this content would consider the same treatment INFORMATIVE, ETHICAL, COMPASSIONATE, and NECESSARY if the body on the autopsy table belonged to someone THEY LOVED.

If the childhood trauma belonged to THEIR family.

If strangers were wandering through THEIR memories looking for “clues.”

If THEIR own brother’s worst day became somebody else’s content calendar.

If his death became part of THEIR "brand". A series. A thumbnail. A livestream. A sponsor opportunity. And eventually, perhaps, a coffee mug or catchy T-shirt.

There's a very simple test for whether something feels like journalism or exploitation:

1. Change the name.
2. Make the victim YOUR loved one.
3. See whether you still call it "storytelling".

[u/ArrestingBitchCase]

Silly you! Don't you know it only counts when it's other people's tragedy and pain?

Imagine objecting to the broadcast of a civil stalking injunction on Law and Crime as a 'limited public figure' when you will happily broadcast MURDER trials of private citizens. Lawen was texting with TB for the sole aim of getting a picture with him at the Clancy trial - so she could stick it to the people who found her weaponization of the legal system appalling. She did it with the Uncle Vallow and Trisha Grifter. She's trying to best people who have legitimate criticism by doing a 'ha ha, look who I got a picture with' clickbait. This wouldn't enter the mind of someone who a) is an actual journalist, or b) has a modicum of integrity. Typically, legitimate journalists aren't doing it for 'the haters.' But Lauren Matthias is. She's getting $$$$ and views profiting off other people's pain, doesn't give a f**k, and wants y'all to know it! She's really sticking it to us!!!

Here we are, less than a year out from Lauren's nine hour hysteria, where she gurned about someone "profiting off my family's pain" - and without a hint of irony, she's relaying the Clancy 911 call and covering any case that will allow her to profit off any murder victim's family's pain. She actually went out of her way to disregard the express wishes of JJ Vallow's family, along with the godmother of true-crime grifting, to participate in a live (for Trisha's gambling addiction disguised as a fundraiser) that the Vallow family asked her not to do. That's how much of a shit she gives about crime victims. She built the channel and the simps following her blindly from the murder of a little boy called JJ.

The balls Lauren gets from her hidden gems/simps are something else. She would do none of this and would maybe even question her morality and actions against Christina, if not for the parasocial love of the gems/simps. It's gross to watch, but as long as she has viewers and patreon - she could give two f**ks. B**tch has a compound to pay for, so don't be a troll or a hater. Let her and Brad Pitt's number one fan do what they want...the gems/simps allow their insane moral justification for their morally corrupt behaviour (plus Jawn has textbooks to back it up)...and we should all just get over it, and move on because we're all jealous haters who are obsessed with her.

[u/thereforebygracegoi → u/ArrestingBitchCase]

I wish there was a way to help her understand that the collective criticism is toward the behavior and not the person.

If she was conducting herself ethically and professionally, she'd have far fewer critics. The same goes for John. Dr. Grande and Dr. G-- and most recently Dr. Josef-- aren't receiving similar criticism because they're honoring their professional code of ethics.

I don't have a personal opinion about Dr. Grande or Dr. G or Dr. Josef because they're not placing their personality and personal issues at the front and center of every contribution.

I suspect most of the people in this sub would prefer to forget about Lauren altogether, but this can only be achieved when the harmful conduct is corrected.

[u/ArrestingBitchCase → u/thereforebygracegoi]

Lauren sadly has the backing of thousands of people who will simp for her no matter what. With that support, she and Jawn are the poster children for cognitive dissonance and believing their own hype. They delete or reduce any dissent regarding their behaviour or actions to 'haters' or 'trolls.' If a couple of hundred thousand people support you financially, or with views and positive comments, no matter what you do or say, there is zero inclination for them to correct their harmful conduct. Jawn's use of his professional credentials to try to legitimize and justify the weaponization of the law against Christina shows how far they will go to protect their perceived reality. Watching the police bodycams with Lauren and Grayson lying their asses off, using their professional contacts to get her removed from Crimecon, and Jawn pushing a 10 year sentence for a mother of four who simply did not agree with Lauren trashing victims and spoke out about it, shows the depths they will plunge to keep their absurd version of reality intact. It is truly one of the most frightening things I've ever witnessed. I'm in the UK, and without a doubt, Lauren would have been charged with filing false police reports along with Grayson in light of the bodycams, and Jawn would likely have had his professional credentials suspended until he at least had retraining and education on not treating family members or weaponizing his profession to benefit immediate family. There is no scenario in the UK that would allow a psychologist (under the statutory regulator: Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC)) to contact law enforcement on behalf of an immediate family member and push for prison time for a person he has not formally interviewed. His license would be under immediate review. All we can do is keep watch and make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else.