Karlie’s Angels: Facts Not Included… (only b’cuz they care)

Throughout my coverage of Karlie Guse’s disappearance, I have encountered questioning, skepticism, disbelief, and pushback. That’s fine with me, I’m a sturdy guy and I can back everything up with documented facts. I encourage healthy skepticism – question everything, especially when it involves reporting.

Here at ACJ, we’ve been keeping an eye on other published information regarding Karlie – as we have done and will continue to do. There are a handful of platforms that are host to unsubstantiated conclusions concerning Karlie, Karlie’s mother, father, stepmother, and brother. They have published opinions, rumors, and gossip as if they are fact. Most unnerving, is that some will do so under the guise of anonymity – banking on the general public’s willful ignorance. We think it’s pretty obvious who’s behind these sites and so we know how uninformed they truly are, but that is not the case for every viewer and reader.

There is a disconnect between the thousands of people following this case and the case itself. Somewhere along the way, while rummaging for answers in the trashiest parts of the internet, a group of people (including a woman that allows her followers to believe she is a qualified statement analyst by playing Cyrano de Bergerac to her own fake Facebook persona) latched onto the idea that they are the most qualified individuals to represent Karlie’s interest. It’s a dangerous, slippery slope to blindly follow the rants of a woman claiming to be knowledgeable in a field of study that in and of itself is questionable even at its most sophisticated levels.

Statement analysis, while fascinating and certainly compelling to study, is not a science – it is a tool for law enforcement to employ during an investigation and/or questioning of a suspect. It is not a super cool hobby that allows any anonymous, untrained person to declare a child dead and a woman a murderer in public forums. Language is individual specific and constantly evolving. Peter Hyatt (one of the more well known analysts) only stands by analyses that have been reviewed by two additional analysts. A quick gander at Hyatt’s website and you’ll notice he is often analyzing statements of closed cases…did he know the outcome when he wrote his opinion? He has also suggested, more than once, a person being complicit in or having guilty knowledge of a crime, but come to find out – the judicial outcome was not in his favor. Other people were arrested and charged with the crime. Examples include: Sergio Celis and Shane Carey. Feel free to research them.

The slickest part about statement analysis, is that when it is incorrect, the analyst could simply say, “well, the cops got it wrong – I stand by my analysis”.

There is no recourse and the target of the analysis is left being dragged around the internet by their pauses and dropped pronouns. Being called a pedophile because they said the word “door”. Being called a murderer because they used the term “dead end”. Tossing accuracy and credibility aside in order to feed one’s curiosity does no one any favors. Statement analysis is best left to the professionals and to be utilized during questioning, investigations, and interrogations. Otherwise, mistakes and inaccuracies condemn innocent people in the public’s view, which is something that cannot be undone. Peter Hyatt posts his work online to sell classes. Why anyone else does so (especially while undercover) is up for debate. Claiming that it’s helpful is comical, it serves only to feed the already frenzied trolls…and they eat it up like candy. No questions asked.

We enjoy shutting down false content, think of ACJ each time you get that email and notification that your “work” has been removed. The record will always reflect that we were there and the trolls weren’t.

Liked it? Take a second to support American Crime Journal on Patreon!
Share:

Leave a Reply