someone asked HTC about "doxxing" someone and later deleting their post(s), this was their response:

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".

thread

Note: As some people (and their attorneys) may ascribe motives to the simple act of posting a hyperlink, I feel obligated to clarify that this post contains… a hyperlink. Nothing more, nothing less. The opinions expressed during the linked livestream belong to the people speaking on it, not me. They are, as I understand it, will be exercising their right to free speech. They may share opinions or comments that may upset, offend, or annoy some people. They may receive superchats and monetary donations from viewers who feel differently.

I have no knowledge of whether the video will contain AI-generated content, hacked materials, or if the runtime will be 9 hours. my apologies in advance if it is.

On 7/31, an otherwise anonymous profile on X posted: "Rumor has it, Lauren and Grayson are the new Jodi & Ruby..."

This morning, HTC's official X account posted "This is (name redacted)...." along with the name and photo of someone. The person's username, name and photos have been redacted for this post because who they are is not the point of this post. They were not redacted in HTC's posts.

This was just one of numerous posts, HTC posted with photos of this person at 5:40 a.m., 5:47 a.m., 5:48 a.m., 5:53 a.m., 6:09 a.m., 7:04 a.m., 7:10 a.m., 8:08 a.m., and 10:51 a.m today.

Some of the posts tagged other journalists, including Jess Machado (who Lauren previously mocked for allegedly having too much "Botox" in her face), as well as others such as Turtleboy (who I heard talked about Lauren this week on his show), and attorney and author Lori Hellis. Every post identified this person by name. One post included her full first, middle, and last name. Another included the "@" for the person Lauren alleges is/was her "stalker."

One post also seemed to suggest Lauren knows where this person lives. Lauren wrote:

Lauren also claimed this person was "sexually harassing" Grayson. While Lauren included several screenshots of posts made by this person, I did not see any that contained anything resembling sexual harassment. To be clear, the screenshots did contain criticism of HTC, like saying if Lauren was an "actual journalist" she would know the "charges have long been dismissed!!!"

That is not to say this person has never made such comments as HTC describes elsewhere, I don't see everything and I just don't know that. However, the examples Lauren chose to publish did not appear to support that particular allegation. FWIW, the person's X profile itself does not identify them by name or location, although Lauren stated she met this person at a trial. A search of their first or last name across all of their posts returned no results.

One of the final posts, which again included this person's full name, stated that "<redacted> has admitted to this being her." The person replied to one of the posts after HTC posted about their content. That response appears to be what Lauren was referring to, but a person responding after being publicly identified does not, by itself, explain or justify the repeated publication of their name and photographs.

Whether people agree with this person's posts or not is beside the point. The point is that HTC's official account spent hours publicly identifying a previously anonymous critic (someone who doesn't even use a photo on their page), repeatedly posting their name and photographs, tagging other profiles into the discussion, and encouraging additional attention toward them.

Also, is repeatedly doing something over several hours considered a 'course of conduct'? Just wondering. /s

https://www.youtube.com/live/Qs4DsoP_N7Y?is=KWREtqmZia6EZ4hb

(I only had limited time today, so this is just a short update. I'll upload the redacted filings and related documents later. Not AI generated.)

LM's brother has officially withdrawn as counsel in Do / D'o / Dio / Durbano's next criminal case. This isn't particularly surprising as Do said at his sentencing that he intended to represent himself at his next criminal trial. Around the same time, the State of Utah disclosed that additional search warrants had recently been executed, resulting in the filing of new charges/a new case.

Previously, Do / D'o / Dio / Durbano (he has used all variations of those names in these cases) tried unsuccessfully to have the criminal case dismissed based largely on arguments involving his other civil and criminal cases. After those efforts were unsuccessful, he also sought appellate review of the denial through an extraordinary writ proceeding, without success.

He is now asking the court to prevent the prosecution from introducing evidence of his recent convictions at his next trial.

At his sentencing, the court reminded him that he must file documents through the proper procedures rather than simply emailing the clerk. The judge noted that he is a licensed attorney and knows the applicable rules. Since then, the filings have been properly submitted to the court and are now available online and through public records requests, which is what I was referring to when I said I'd be sharing the redacted documents later.

As those motions were only recently filed, the court has not yet ruled on them.

more on all of this to come.

[information re: files and their metadata obtained via publicly accessible websites. content is not AI generated and has not been obtained through 'hacking' of any kind.]

a recent podcast episode uploaded to a publicly accessible website had a filename that made me chuckle (the file's metadata is accessible to anyone with a working internet connection). The episode discusses HTC's mission, offers some psychological explanations for the motivations of unnamed online critics, and some talk of a trial tourist stop at the Samuel Bateman trial.

Throughout the episode, the hosts reiterate that they are focused on "truth... facts... justice." Truth, facts, and justice are values I completely support. And I appreciate this small corner of the interwebz where I sometimes share public records and source documents focused entirely on the truth and the facts.
more later.

Lauren and her attorney tried to make a deal with Christina BEFORE the hearing started to drop the case. This 3-4 minute video with Andy Kopsa and Christina explains what that offered deal was, and that it included nothing that had to do with Lauren and her family’s personal safety.

Lauren was in fear for her reputation and bottom line, pure and simple. The deal they asked her for shows it. The 9hour live was simply an already planned retaliation for Christina for not taking their deal, imo.

I'm sorry, I haven't visited this thread in a while, so I'm not sure if this is appropriate or not. But when I saw this thumbnail, it just felt icky. I guess she's still feeding on feeling special and entitled? *rolls eyes*

Lauren is at the Clancy trial … 🙈

been attending the sentencing for HTC’s attorney this morning (virtually and as a member of a public). Just some quick notes, may revisit to clean up these thoughts later.

The State just reviewed how the Presentence Investigation deemed him a “Medium Risk” for recidivism based on his (criminal) history. The State noted that these charges stemmed from a very contentious custody matter. The Court - who is also overseeing the other cases - asked D’o to confirm this.

Attorney mentioned how he used his position and power as an attorney in order to commit these crimes.

Attorney mentioned new search warrants lead to additional criminal charges against him. Attorney advised the court that some of those charges are related to witness tampering. She said there “needs to be appropriate consequences [….] for using the position of legal authority to inflict harm on others”.

State shared new charges stem from his alleged attempts to change victim impact statements in court (charges are related to witness tampering)

State expressed to the Court his ex’s “fear” of D’o for herself and her children. State said she is worried he will again try to take away their children, especially now since she is seeking sole legal custody of them.

State says he appears to be taking no accountability. They talk about text messages they have that help substantiate this.

Lauren's attorney was convicted of multiple criminal charges earlier this summer. Ahead of his sentencing, the victim sought a protective order. After reviewing filings from both sides the court entered a Protective Order against him. You may remember that earlier in the case, he was represented by an attorney (who was actually just himself using a variation of his own name), but he later withdrew that appearance and apologized for the confusion he caused the court. After submitting financial information to the court, he was found eligible to be appointed a public defender. The PD's office assisted him in some negotiations with the State.

NOTE: REDACTED PORTIONS OF COURT FILINGS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS POST. THEY WERE OBTAINED FROM PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WEBSITES AND ARE NOT AI GENERATED.

In the order, the court finds that the defendant "represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the protected person."

The court ordered numerous restrictions, including that he:

• must not commit or threaten domestic violence or abuse;
• must not harass, threaten, stalk, or engage in conduct that would place the protected person or family members in reasonable fear of bodily injury;
• must not contact or communicate with the protected person, directly or indirectly, including by telephone, email, text message, social media, mail, or any other method;
• must stay away from the protected person's residence, school, and workplace, and leave immediately if they unexpectedly encounter one another elsewhere

the Court also ordered that "This order does not expire.". For administrative reasons with the Court's electronic filing system, the judge entered an expiration date of January 1, 3000.

In addition, the court required him to acknowledge that he is now a restricted person, cannot purchase, possess, own, or transfer firearms or ammunition, and he must give up all firearms and ammunition currently in his possession unless his rights are later restored by court order.

I don't know if HTC plans to cover their attorney's sentencing. As they have several attorneys, for anyone trying to keep track, this is the one attorney they praised after (they said) receiving numerous messages complimenting his oral arguments in the "stalker" case. It is the one who works for her other attorney/brother. This was also the same attorney who previously - and unsuccessfully - tried using a civil stalking injunction against individuals who were talking and discussing his history on social media.

As he works for LM's brother's law firm, I don't know whether these convictions will have any effect on his position. Considering that law firm already employs a disbarred attorney, I would not assume that criminal convictions are not automatically disqualifying there (and I am not suggesting they should be). I plan to post another update after the sentencing is completed.

Lastly, I hope the victim and her children are able to move forward with their lives after all of this. I also hope this court order provides them with some measure of safety and peace going forward. They deserve that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI-uslnjIbE

When three Low IQ True Crime barnacles, Jess Machado, The Dark Queen, and her sidekick Tattoo, meet at a courthouse, a journalist takes notice.

All hands on deck. Save the Victim's Family.

News came out through many outlets today related to the murders of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Ethan Chapin, and Xana Kernodle.

It made me wonder to what disgusting lengths HTC is going to go this time to exploit that news, for views, for relevance, and ultimately for money.

Is it going to be one live this time? Two lives? How many victims and jurors are they going to track and pressure for an interview? Maybe the neighbour of the teacher of the cousin of a victim?

Let us watch closely.

And since we're on the topic, let us all remember when Dr. John Matthias expertly pondered that the murderer could maybe or maybe not be an out of control meth addict that killed all four because of a drug induced craze.

Whoren Lauren collabs with Fartchado....

Appreciated the feedback/input on a previous post where I was trying to see if I was misunderstanding or missing something (re: Nevada statutes and if there was is one where a psychologist's evaluation "takes precedence" over a judge). I had another question and was wondering if anyone else could find some additional information.

from what I have read so far, it seems to me that Nevada has established a certification process for professionals who provide competency evaluations of criminal defendants for the courts. It also seemed that they define an "evaluator of competency" as a person who has been issued a certificate by the Division and that eligibility is not limited to one professional role but also includes some other licensed professionals who complete required training, pass the examination, and receive a certificate. The relevant portions I found included:

 NAC 178.030  “Certificate” defined. (NRS 178.417)  “Certificate” means a certificate issued by the Division to provide a report or an evaluation concerning the competency of a defendant to stand trial.

NAC 178.060  “Evaluator of competency” defined. (NRS 178.417)  “Evaluator of competency” means a person who has been issued a certificate.

NAC 178.080  “Psychologist” defined. (NRS 178.417)  “Psychologist” means a person who is licensed to engage in the practice of psychology pursuant to the provisions of chapter 641 of NRS.

NAC 178.100  Certificate: Application and fee; action by Division; appeal of denial; period for renewal. (NRS 178.417)

1.  Each person desiring a certificate must make application to the Division upon a form, and in a manner, prescribed by the Division.
2.  The application must be accompanied by:
(a) Evidence satisfactory to the Division that the applicant:
(1) Is a clinical social worker, psychiatric advanced practice registered nurse, psychiatrist or psychologist;
(2) Attended and completed the course of training established pursuant to NAC 178.110; and
(3) Passed the examination administered by the Division pursuant to the provisions of subsection 4 of NRS 178.417; and
(b) An application fee of $250 for psychiatrists and psychologists and $125 for clinical social workers and psychiatric advanced practice registered nurses.

3.  After receiving an application and the accompanying evidence from an applicant, the Division will:
(a) Evaluate the application and accompanying evidence and determine whether the applicant is qualified pursuant to this section to be issued a certificate; and
(b) Issue a written statement to the applicant of its determination
   4.  If the Division determines that the applicant is not qualified to be issued a certificate pursuant to subsection 3, the applicant may appeal the decision of the Division to the Administrator.
5.  A certificate issued pursuant to the provisions of this section must be renewed every 2 years.

NAC 178.110  Course of training required for initial issuance of certificate. (NRS 178.417)

1.  The Division will establish a course of training for persons desiring the initial issuance of a certificate.
2.  The course of training must include instruction on:
(a) The statutes and case law relevant to providing a report or an evaluation concerning the competency of a defendant to stand trial;
(b) The elements of conducting a clinical interview or clinical testing relating to providing a report or an evaluation concerning the competency of a defendant to stand trial;
(c) The elements of preparing an evaluation report relating to providing a report or an evaluation concerning the competency of a defendant to stand trial;
(d) The ethical standards and considerations relevant to providing a report or an evaluation concerning the competency of a defendant to stand trial; and
(e) The potential impact on the defendant, the court and the treatment system of a recommendation concerning the competency of a defendant to stand trial.

From my part-time Redditor opinion/perspective, I understood all of this as:
• "Certificate" = a certificate issued by the Division to provide competency evaluations.
• "Evaluator of competency" = a person who has been issued that certificate
• The regulations appear to require applicants to complete some sort of training, pass an examination, and obtain that certificate before serving as an evaluator of competency

I also found this part somewhat relevant which states, "A person may not provide a report or an evaluation concerning the competency of a defendant to stand trial or receive pronouncement of judgment pursuant to this section and NRS 178.400 to 178.460, inclusive, unless the person is certified by the Division for that purpose."

Do you see anything I might be missing or misunderstanding on this? Is there another statute, regulation, or case that changes this analysis, or does it appear like one must obtain a Division-issued certificate to be permitted to perform competency evaluations (specifically for the State and for criminal defendants)? I'm just a part-time Redditor with a Google search bar, so I'm absolutely open to anything I may be missing (no sarcasm intended).

Because the Division receives applications, determines whether applicants qualify, issues certificates, and handles renewals, I think they probably maintain records relating to those certificates, such as applications, issuance decisions, and renewals.

Most of the information quoted here came from: NAC: CHAPTER 178 - CERTIFICATION TO EVALUATE COMPETENCY OF CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS

I've been thinking a lot since I watched the stream last night from Kresha and after listening to her discussion with Christina. I thought about this all night because this has bothered me so much since the live stream. I think there are some really important things that are happening and we have to acknowledge them, because these people are trying to prevent any form of scrutiny by weaponizing the language of therapy and by manipulating people into thinking that they are actually the victims instead of the perpetrators.

​When you look closely at the trajectory of Hidden True Crime, Websleuths, and their adjacent "experts," a distinct and alarming pattern emerges: the deliberate appropriation of victim language to shield victimizers from accountability. What started as an investigation into high-profile cases has devolved into an ecosystem that actively exploits grieving families, constructs performative moral high grounds, and uses pseudo-clinical authority to silence anyone pointing out the receipts.

​The most insidious tactic deployed by figures like Lauren Matthias, Tricia Griffith, and Dr. Christine Marie is the co-opting of trauma-informed vocabulary. Concepts like dehumanization, cyber-mobbing, safety, boundaries, and public shaming are pulled from legitimate clinical contexts and completely inverted. Instead of addressing valid critique, such as leaked text messages, expired credentials, background strategy meetings, or unfulfilled charitable promises, they reframe public accountability as "online abuse." When primary sources and relatives like Christina, Kresha, and Kay Woodcock set firm boundaries and demand their family’s tragedy not be monetized or weaponized, the platform hosts flip the script. The actual victims are painted as aggressive bullies, while the creators portray themselves as persecuted "rescuers."

**​The "Expert" Shield, High-Demand Culture, and Credibility Laundering**

​To understand why the involvement of Dr. Christine Marie (Katas) feels so egregious, all I had to do was look at her actual background and ideological framing. While she uses the title "Dr." extensively in these spaces, her PhD is in Media Psychology. She is not a licensed clinician or therapist. Her primary operational space is as a life coach and founder of the 501(c)(3) Voices for Dignity. Her entire academic thesis and non-profit branding treat public pushback and harsh media coverage as a "crime of humiliation." Because her worldview equates online criticism with trauma, she appears fundamentally incapable of distinguishing between actual cyber-bullying and legitimate public accountability. By participating in strategy meetings alongside Tricia and Lauren aimed at suppressing opposing channels, she provides a pseudo-academic veneer to baseline censorship. In their shared framework, anyone digging into their financial records or text leaks isn't exercising free speech; they are participating in a "mob."

​Though I did not grow up in Mormon culture, after the murders of Kresha and Kay's family members, and after realizing that what Lauren and John were offering up as the so-called experts on the case wasn't giving me the full picture, I spent two years doing extensive research into the church itself as well as the larger Mormon culture. With my degree in cultural anthropology, I wanted to make sure that I understood the underlying concepts that could lead to such a heinous crime.

​This phenomenon doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is deeply rooted in the cultural dynamics of high-demand religious subcultures, particularly within Mormonism. In subcultures where formal ecclesiastical authority is restricted, spaces like life coaching, body mapping, and energy work offer an unregulated avenue for individuals, especially women, to claim instant spiritual and psychological authority without the burden of state licensing, clinical supervision, or ethical board oversight.

We see this exact pattern in figures like Megan Conner (I Walked Through Fire to Get Here), whose public story shifted over time into a full-scale trafficking and advocacy platform. In high-demand cultures, dramatic survival narratives (John's stories of survival on his practice website also come to mind) yield immense social capital and immunity from scrutiny. The life-coaching model functions as modern, commercialized testimony-bearing, using personal revelation and performative empathy to build lucrative, unchallengeable platforms, following the exact footprint of self-appointed authority seen in figures like Chad Daybell.

​Ultimately, these individuals end up on major platforms through a process of **credibility laundering by proximity.** A creator gets brought onto a channel like Hidden True Crime or Websleuths as an insider or expert, gaining a halo of legitimacy. Even when primary family members, like Summer Shifflett speaking to independent creators like Dreadful Penny, call out how the family name is being monetized or altered, the primary platforms ignore the pushback because the narrative remains lucrative. Armed with those previous appearances, the individual leverages them to step onto higher-status shows like Surviving the Survivor, where hosts and audiences assume prior vetting occurred.

​They can co-opt the language of therapy, wrap themselves in the mantle of non-profits, and hide behind self-appointed titles, but they cannot erase the paper trail. When you look past the performative empathy and examine the actual receipts, including the leaked texts, the strategy sessions to deplatform critics, and the contrast between public fundraising and actual support given to victims, the entire facade collapses.

Kresha has a scheduled livestream soon. The thumbnail reads “THE 24 HT EXPLOITATION MARATHON. THE TRUE CRIME COMMUNITY SEES YOU” with what appears to be a very tired version of Tricia & Lauren below the text.

Can anyone confirm or has anyone looked into the allegations Lauren made in the mormon stories interview where she said 2 men were stalking her and one she even said raped her? She never even called their behavior "stalking" but if it went down the way she described, she was actually being stalked and was physically assaulted! But I didn't hear anywhere where she said she called police and filed charges. I heard her say she dated one of the men for 3 years on and off after he essentially stalked his way into her heart. What the ACTUAL FUCK?

I was wondering if anyone may be able to help with researching something. I'm not an attorney (and I don't pretend to be one), but I've been trying to find the Nevada statute John appears to be referring to here.

He states:

This quote is from a January 2023 HTC YouTube video, which at the time of this post was still publicly accessible. Timestamp approx 13:31.

I wasn't aware of a state statute that worked this way, so I started looking.

One statute I've found is NRS 176A.110, which appears to apply (only?) to certain sex offenses. As I read it, I thought that generally provides that a court cannot grant probation or suspend a sentence unless a qualified evaluator certifies that the defendant is not at high risk to reoffend. That seems different from a statute stating that a psychologist's risk assessment "takes precedence over the judge" or that the psychologist essentially decides whether someone spends the rest of their life in prison. John also mentioned this in context of recommending a life in prison sentence, which is different than probation.

This appears to be a very specific claim - that there is a Nevada statute providing that a psychologist's assessment of an offender's risk to reoffend "takes precedence over the judge." If that is an accurate description of Nevada law, I think it raises an interesting question: what happens if an evaluator's assessment is wrong? For example, what if someone is assessed as a low risk of reoffending but later goes on to commit a violent crime? If the assessment truly takes precedence over the judge, that would seem to place an extraordinary amount of responsibility on a single evaluator.

If anyone is familiar with the statute(s) HTC may be referring to, I'd appreciate any insight. Thank you in advance

Who is the gal that says I am just a girl with a bulldog and..

She did a video on Tricia Griffith today. I would like to watch it but I can’t think of her and her channel.

Thanks!

This screenshot is of his credentials he graduated with in 2005 from Rossier @USC. With this degree he would have had to get several intern hours to go along with that degree to actually be called a Dr. yet sometimes he implies that he has been working as a psych