Amateur sleuthing has gone mainstream and we now live in an era where no case has truly gone cold.
The internet is full of unsolved mysteries and 'armchair detectives' trying to solve them. Thanks to series such as Don't F**k with Cats and Trust No One, fans are obsessed with investigating murders, missing persons and fraud.
Streaming platforms like Netflix are full of dramatised documentaries and true crime series turning victims' personal and tragic experiences into public knowledge, without needing to request permission from the families of those portrayed on screen. But what harm can come out of amateur sleuths trying to decipher the missing puzzle pieces in high-profile cases? And what consequential impact can true crime documentaries have on ongoing court cases?
This week, the creator of hit Netflix crime drama Baby Reindeer urged TikTok true crime obsessives not to find the 'real' characters on the show after the horrific plot gripped viewers and frenzied attemps to find the real-life perpetrators ensued. As controversy around the chart-topping show rumbles on, the Mirror takes a look at the dangers of true crime dramas.
Criminologist and crime scene investigator Alex Iszatt has witnessed first-hand sleuths trying to alter investigations. She told the Mirror: "When I worked with the police - before the explosion of podcasts and true crime YouTube - we had problems with the public taking crime into their own hands. Often, they would get in the way of an active case, thinking they knew better.
"Their evidence wouldn't always be admissable in court, especially if they coerced the individual. I had a few occasions when the action of a vigilant group - and the 'outing' of a paedophile - led to their death."
These days, amateur detectives needn't attend crime scenes (though, sometimes they do) - thanks to the internet and social media sites, they can do all of their investigating from behind a keyboard. Alex said: "Self-regarding experts step over the police line when they bring irrelevant evidence and interfere with witnesses. They have destroyed evidence, such as the case with Nicola Bulley, and accused the wrong people, like we saw with the Elisa Lam case."
While platforms like TikTok and Reddit make it easy for unqualified detectives to go viral with their theories, TV documentaries also have a role to play. Alex said: "Viewing too much crime can also make people suspicious and theorise that the police force and justice system cannot be trusted. So, they take the case into their own hands - but they don't have the skills or experience of detectives and don't follow legal rules.
"This amateur sleuthing trend can damage people's lives, especially if the public piles on to families and trolls via social media." Alex highlighted that some armchair detectives have led to investigators catching criminals and renewed interest in some cold cases, but "these are rare".
The Cyber Helpline, a community working to close the gap for victims of online harm, has also witnessed police investigations compromised by online sleuthing, leading to a lack of justice and valuable police resources wasted. Head of operations Charlotte Hooper told the Mirror: "Whilst online sleuthing often comes from a good place and is fuelled by a natural curiosity, there is many an occasion where it has caused more harm than good for a number of reasons.
"'Naming and shaming' can lead to harm to the person accused with harassment, physical threats and harm, and an impact on reputation being real concerns with this amplified in cases of misidentification. In some instances, online sleuths become so engrossed in the case and theories that behaviours become obsessive, amounting to stalking those involved or linked to the incident. This can lead to sleuths not only conducting criminal behaviour themselves, but putting themselves at risk of harm from retaliation.
"We recognise and appreciate the wish for justice for perpetrators of abuse and other crimes, but online sleuthing can do the opposite of what it intends, causing victims and survivors who have taken a big step to share their story to experience further trauma and lose their chance of getting the outcome that they want and deserve."
Baby Reindeer
Earlier this week, Netflix's hit series Baby Reindeer made headlines after two of the stars urged people to not try and find the 'real' characters from the show. Comedian Richard Gadd, who based the drama on his own horrific experiences of getting stalked and sexually assaulted, urged viewers to stop their detective work and insisted that "it's not the point of the show".
Richard issued a warning to sleuths falsely accusing innocent people of being his abuser. Taking to his Instagram Stories, he pleaded: "Hi everyone. People I love, have worked with, and admire (including Sean Foley) are unfairly getting caught up in speculation. Please don't speculate on who the real-life people could be. That's not the point of our show. Lots of love."
His co-star Jessica Gunning, who plays the role of his stalker Martha Scott, also urged watchers to stop as Richard went out of his way to protect the stalker's identity. She told Glamour: "I think they should try and watch the show again and really see what the point of it was – it definitely wasn't that." Richard's stalker sent him more than 41,000 emails, voicemails totalling 350 hours and 106 pages of letters over three years.
Not only did fans try to find the real-life Martha, but they also tried to find Darrien - described as a successful and powerful director in the series - who groomed and sexually assaulted him. Darrien is played by Tom Goodman-Hill, and fans on X and TikTok were convinced they found the 'real him' - who looks almost identical to the actor in Baby Reindeer.
Mark Woloshak, Head of Litigation at Howells Solicitors, has since shared how falsely accusing individuals of such grave offences can have serious consequences. Mark said: "Seeking out and potentially naming individuals involved in a case, especially if they turn out to be the wrong person, carries significant legal and ethical implications.
"In the case of Baby Reindeer, where real-life events are portrayed, it is important to recognise the delicate balance the programme-makers are treading between storytelling and real-world consequences." He added that the frenzy could "undermine the privacy and safety of individuals who may have no connection to the events portrayed".
Mark continued: "In light of these considerations, it is imperative for viewers and the public alike to respect the boundaries between fiction and reality, and to approach discussions surrounding true-life events with sensitivity and caution. Ultimately, the pursuit of truth should never come at the expense of innocent individuals' well-being and rights."
Nicola Bulley
In February 2023, mum-of-two Nicola Bulley went missing while walking her dog along the River Wyre on 27 January. As Lancashire Police launched a huge manhunt to find her, the 45-year-old's disappearance sparked a global frenzy online. More than 6,500 international articles were written in the space of a day.
Vile conspiracy theories ran wild on social media; TikTokers threw themselves into her case; and police were forced to ban amateur sleuths from the search area. After three weeks of investigating, Nicola's body was found on February 19, around one mile from where she had vanished - but speculation continued to plague the web.
The Mirror reported a staggering 387 million views on TikTok videos hashtagged #NicolaBulley 24 hours after her death. Within days, Lancashire's Police and Crime Commissioner Andrew Snowden announced an independent review to understand how the force "lost control of the narrative". He asked: "TikTok, in particular, [saw] online amateur detectives pushing conspiracy theories out, which resulted in vile abuse towards Nicola's family and friends. How did that get so out of hand?"
One TikTok ghoul infamously shared a disgraceful video of police retrieving the body of the missing mum from the river. Hairdresser Curtis Arnold, from Kidderminster, West Midlands, was arrested and banned from entering the county until June, then was arrested again that month for 'stalking the neighbours of Nicola Bulley'. He admitted to earning close to £900 in royalties for the notorious clip, which was posted across his multiple platforms and later removed. His videos, which are no longer online, contained outrageous smears that Nicola's partner, Paul Ansell, was somehow involved in her disappearance.
Another wild conspiracy theory that plagued the net suggested Nicola's friends and family were 'crisis actors' staging events. Former Met Police superintendent Dal Babu said he encountered this theory. Speaking on Good Morning Britain, he said: "It's like the Wild West, the social media companies really need to look at what they've done. Where they've allowed TikTokers to livestream absolute rubbish. With no thought to how it has impacted the family."
At the time of Nicola's disappearance, TikTok said it had "mobilised resources to monitor the evolving conversation" and was taking action against violations of its community guidelines, including "removing content and accounts and limiting the reach of some content". They also explained that they tried to halt the potential spread of conspiratorial content about unfolding events by making it ineligible for recommendation to the For You feed.
Dr Honor Doro Townshend told the Mirror that the lack of publication information and the mum's characteristics had parts to play in the online attention. She said: "There were instances where the police shared seemingly irrelevant information, such as a press release mentioning Nicola drinking alcohol, which many viewed as victim-blaming at the time. This leaves room for, at best, questions - or at worst, misinformation."
She explained that the potential spread of misinformation can threaten the success of investigations. Dr Townshend said: "As consumers of social media, it's crucial to remember that the information gathered on these platforms often isn't fact-checked, can be opinionated, or might lack crucial details. While they often may have the best intentions, armchair detectives can unintentionally hinder active investigations."
She described the wild public frenzy of Nicola's case as the ultimate worst-case scenario - when "people disrupt active crime scenes, risking damaging forensic evidence crucial for an investigation or (when relevant) future convictions" She added: "Misinformation sharing can also be detrimental, especially if the police are trying to gather information and incorrect details lead to missed leads."
But the criminologist highlighted that it's not all negative: "Social media can be instrumental in amplifying cases, a role traditionally held by print media and TV. But unlike these, social media is instant, and this immediate amplification can help raise awareness and identify new leads or information, as well as maintaining pressure on law enforcement efforts. The key is ensuring that any shared information is verified and accurate to avoid causing harm."
What Jennifer Did
Earlier this month, Netflix released What Jennifer Did, a documentary about the fatal hit Jennifer Pan organised on her parents - but her lawyers have since expressed their worry that it will create an unwanted prejudice ahead of her new trial for complete exoneration.
Jennifer was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted murder in 2015 when she arranged the twisted plot to kill her Vietnamese parents in 2010. Pan was convicted of the murder of her mum, Bich Ha Pan, and the attempted murder of her father, Huei Hann Pan, as they were shot in their home in Markham, Ontario.
The documentary painted Jennifer as a baby-faced killer, who alongside her three alleged co-conspirators: Lenford Crawford, David Mylvaganam, and her on-off boyfriend Daniel Wong, were found guilty. However, as Jennifer, now 37, and her co-defendants are set to receive new trials for the murder of her mother, lawyers are worried the Netflix show may sway decisions.
Stephanie DiGiuseppe, one of Pan's lawyers, told the U.S Sun that Jennifer is maintaining her innocence and is seeking full exoneration of any criminal charges. She said: "What I can say is that the Netflix documentary tells one side of the story and it's very much the story of the police officers who were involved, their experience of this investigation, and there is, of course, another side to the story - and Jennifer will tell that at the appropriate time.
"The Netflix documentary is concerning in that it's one-sided. It's come out as well when there's an active case before the courts and police officers who are witnesses have participated in it, high-level participation, so there are certainly concerns about prejudice to the retrial arising from that."
DiGiuseppe further claimed: "There's certainly no attempt to look at Jennifer more broadly beyond what the police saw or thought was important in their investigation. So there's definitely more to that story of Jennifer Pan that the public will come to learn in the appropriate way: through the trial process."
Netflix has not yet commented on the controversy. Pan remains behind bars on attempted murder charges and is next scheduled to appear in court in June.
Jeffrey Dahmer
Two years ago, Netflix released Dahmer - Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, a crime thriller based on cannibalistic serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer. The series was hit with criticism from victims' families who slammed the TV powerhouse for not contacting them for contributions.
Shirley Hughes, the mother of victim Tony Hughes, 31, who was murdered by Dahmer after meeting him at a gay bar, expressed her anger that Netflix was able to recreate a difficult part of their lives on screen in such a dramatised manner. She said in 2022: "I don't see how they can use our names and put stuff like that out there."
Monster's creators insisted that their main priority was to tell a version of the story from the perspective of the victims. However, Netflix doesn't have a legal obligation to consult the families of victims as the events brought to life on screen are a matter of public record.
Rita Isbell, the sister of victim Errol Lindsey, 19, who was drugged by Dahmer and abused in an attempt to turn him into a 'zombified sex slave', was distraught after watching an actor portray her on screen. Rita famously gave a passionate statement at the killer's trial and this was recreated in the Netflix show.
Rita said that Netflix didn't attempt to contact her despite portraying her as an emotionally broken person and dubbed the series 'harsh and careless'. She said: "It brought back all the emotions I was feeling back then, I was never contacted about the show. I feel like Netflix should've asked if we minded or how we felt about making it... They just did it."
The sibling's cousin, Eric Perry, also slated the show and said that it is 're-traumatising' for his family. He said: "And for what? How many movies/shows/documentaries do we need?"
Jill Dando
Beloved TV presenter Jill Dando was gunned down outside of her home in April 1999. The newsreader, who fronted hit shows such as Crimewatch and Holiday, was shot on the doorstep of her property in Fulham, South-West London at the age of 37. Her murder remains one of Britain's biggest unsolved crimes and many documentaries have been created about the case.
Last year, Netflix released its explosive series Who Killed Jill Dando? and delved into the theories behind the journalist's death. Her fiancé, Alan Farthing declined to take part, as did her Crimewatch co-host Nick Ross, with both men taking issue with how the story was being spun. They claimed it didn't highlight the clear evidence that was out there.
Nick told the Mirror last September: "It was sold to me as a tribute to Jill. But it was quite clear that what they wanted was a really good story arc. It was always going to be spun out into a classic TV whodunnit giving voice to every conspiracy theory without signposting clear evidence that was out there. Speculation was to get the same weight as fact. Then I learned they were going to interview Barry George - so I decided not to take part, as did Alan."
He continued: "It wasn't just myself and Alan who said no to Netflix. There are a substantial number of people close to Jill who haven't taken part, all for the same reason. There is nothing wrong with entertainment, but you are talking about real pain and grief without brave journalism which would really explain things to your viewers. I didn't want to be involved and though I've had detailed reports on it I haven't watched it."
If you have been a victim of cybercrime, you can get in touch with The Cyber Helpline online.
Do you have a story to share? Get in touch. Email [email protected].