The Danger of Parasocial Investigators:

Let’s clear something up:

There’s a big difference between watching crime shows and knowing how to analyze a crime scene. And just because someone hits "record" on a phone and speaks confidently to the online audience does not mean they’ve earned the right to dissect someone’s life.

But that’s where we are now.

We’ve entered an era where the loudest self-appointed “investigators” are strangers on the internet — people with no forensic training, no ethical guardrails, and no understanding of how much damage one misfired accusation can cause.

• They are not part of law enforcement.
• They are not qualified analysts.

What are they?

They’re just faces on a screen who build “parasocial loyalty” by subtly (or not so subtly) giving the impression that they’re somehow part of law enforcement — or that they’re licensed investigators.

FYI: being emotionally upset does not count as credentials.

Real investigators know how to control their emotions. They do not name-call. They do not weaponize tone. And they definitely do not try to solve cases by yelling into a camera.

Yet people are buying it. And the ones who do? They become flying monkeys — part of an echo chamber that rewards outrage, defends misinformation, and attacks anyone who questions the ringleader’s version of events.

What Is a Parasocial Investigator?

Parasocial relationships are not new. It’s when people feel connected to someone they’ve never met — usually a public figure, celebrity, or personality online.

Nothing inherently wrong with that since hmans are wired to bond. But when that bond gets mixed with obsession — especially in the true crime space — it can turn real-world investigations into digital theater.

• These people are not asking real questions. They’re performing certainty. Loudly. Dramatically. And almost always based on incomplete or misunderstood evidence.
• Some actually claim to solve cold cases from their couch. All I can say to that is ROFL — or LMAO, depending on the day.
• Others push edited theories with cherry-picked “facts” to fit whatever narrative supports their goal, which is usually more self-serving than justice-oriented.
• And the most dangerous ones don’t even realize what they’re doing.

The Real Cost of Online Speculation

Here’s what parasocial “investigation” actually does:

• It re-traumatizes surviving victims and families.
• It spreads misinformation that muddies legitimate evidence.
• It pressures professionals to publicly defend their neutrality.
• And it opens the door to digital lynch mobs, often targeting the wrong people.

In forensic circles, we call this contamination — not of a crime scene, but of the public’s perception. And once perception hardens into belief, it doesn’t matter what the facts say. People don’t want truth anymore. They want confirmation of their beliefs.

I’ve Worked Cases. I’ve Seen What This Can Do.

Let me be specific without being dramatic:

In one high-profile case that recently resurfaced, I was asked by someone close to the situation to review a set of documents. I did a forensic handwriting analysis, compiled my findings, and turned them over to the appropriate professionals. Privately. Quietly. Without fanfare.

That’s how legitimate forensic work is supposed to be done.

I did not go on YouTube to exploit victims who are hurting and trying to heal.

I did not drop hints for engagement.

I did not declare guilt or innocence online or offline.

Because the second you do that, you stop being a neutral analyst — and you start being an entertainer with an agenda.

And trust me, once someone is in performance mode, facts become props. They’ll contort whatever they find to fit their narrative because that narrative gets them likes, followers, maybe even a bit of money.

But it doesn’t get justice.

This Isn’t About Jealousy. It’s About Jurisprudence.

Let’s kill this straw man before someone builds it.

This isn’t about feeling “threatened” by influencers. I’ve spent decades building a career rooted in forensic science, trauma counseling, and ethical analysis. My career started way before the internet existed.

What someone with a YouTube channel says about me — or about a case I worked — does not change the integrity of my work.

What does concern me is what it does to public understanding of how forensics and criminal justice actually work.

We’re watching an entire generation of content consumers confuse charisma for credibility. That’s not just embarrassing — it’s risky. Some of these parasocial personalities speak with more conviction than prosecutors. And because they’ve cultivated emotionally attached audiences, they can push almost any narrative — no matter how reckless — and still be believed.

And if someone like me pushes back with facts? Well then, we must be hiding something, right? Isn't that how it works now?

Truth isn’t compelling enough unless it comes with dramatics and a branded thumbnail.

Investigating Requires More Than Opinions

Genuine investigative work involves restraint, peer review, and boring stuff like paperwork and chain of custody. It’s not sexy. It doesn’t trend.

And that’s why parasocial investigators skip all that and just… talk.

Loudly.

But here’s the problem:

• Talking loudly without accuracy isn’t just harmless. It’s negligent.
• Imagine if your loved one were accused based on speculation that spread faster than the real case file.
• Imagine if your sibling’s trauma was turned into someone else’s brand strategy.

That’s what’s happening right now — and most people don’t even see it.

Parasocial Doesn’t Mean Professional

• You’re allowed to care about justice.
• You’re allowed to question what you hear.

But if someone’s entire identity revolves around “solving” crimes they were never invited into and are not qualified to do, then they have built a fanbase off of emotionally charged declarations and often, victim exploitation. That is not a public service. It’s content marketing dressed up as concern.

Before you hit share on another video that claims to have “the truth,” ask yourself three things:

• Are they using facts, or just making it sound like they are?
• Do they have any actual qualifications to interpret what they’re saying?
• Would you want this person speaking on your behalf if the roles were reversed?

If the answer is no, then stop helping them spread it.

There’s enough noise out there. Truth deserves oxygen. And victims deserve better than someone’s side hustle.

Sources That Don’t Suck:

• Horton, R., & Wohl, D. (1956). Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction: Observations on Intimacy at a Distance. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215-229.
• Lee, D., & Chae, Y. G. (2017). Exploring the Role of Parasocial Relationships in Social Media Celebrity Endorsement: A Case Study of YouTube Influencers. Journal of Internet Commerce.
• Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policymaking. Council of Europe.
• Pew Research Center (2023). Americans’ Views of Online False Information and Harassment in True Crime Communities.
• National Forensic Science Technology Center (NFSTC). Guidelines on Forensic Evidence Handling and Ethics.