B.2.3. Ethics
7. The Viewers
sympathetic manner179. This representation reveals a prejudice against overly sympathetic victim portrayals on Antphrodite’s part, and suggests a shift of the narrative focus from the victim as such, to the victim as it probably or possibly was, allowing for negative speculation on the basis that sensationalized media representations are not fully trustworthy.
In Antphrodite’s video, the viewers are seemingly addressed throughout the video (“Hello, hello, hello, Antphrodite here your pop culture psychic back to you again”), however these few and far between instances are more likely speech conventions (“This alleged crime, darling”,
“this spread that we’re gonna do *…+”, “you know, you get desensitized to this”, “No facts here, girl, all printer.”, “Can I be honest with you?”), rather than genuine attempts at connecting with the viewer through dialogue simulation (in fact, Antphrodite’s speech pattern is more reminiscent of a monologue; see below, Language & Rhetoric).
Only at the end of the video are the viewers consistently addressed, in their capacity to help Antphrodite better understand the case (“if you guys have any help, uh that can kinda help me pinpoint what the fuck I just saw, put it in the comments down below, let me know what you think”) and, more emphatically, to consume his content and financially support him (“I hope you guys liked that, if you did…if you like to send me money directly, so, yeah.”). The viewers are therefore consistently conceptualized as supporters when truthfully addressed, with Antphrodite discursively retaining the central position of the primary case-solver, entertainer-entrepreneur.
Nevertheless, the viewers are also represented as having the power to choose subjects (“the highly requested Black Dahlia”) and psychologically affect the host, albeit negatively (“I’m always nervous now when I do True Crime cause I been getting hate”). In fact, the negative impact of the viewers on the YouTuber is also suggested by the pitch/tone changes in Antphrodite’s voice every time he defensively uses a variation of the word “allegedly” (e.g. at 0:22, 0:43-0:44, 8:48-8:50, 12:13, 12:52-13:00), his effort to preemptively block negative criticism184, and the viewers’ own addressing of the “hate” issue (see Top 5 Comments below).
184 (“I’m not saying that she’s, like, a- a bad person, or anything like that, but to me she’s surrounded by cutthroat energy and I think that she started to adopt that as well”, “I’m not saying she wasn’t innocent, what I’m saying is that there’s more”).
Language & Rhetoric
The Infotainment paradigm video is divided into two segment styles which seem to represent the “information” and “entertainment” aspects of the infotainment genre, respectively: The dramatic voiceover case narration by Ryan, and the casual, comedic commentary by Shane and Ryan, in between. In the voiceover segments -during which Ryan reads a text presumably written by him185-,
o sensational descriptions (“Her body, split in half, at the waist. She was oddly posed, with her eyes open, hands above her head with elbows bent and legs out straight, and spread apart.”),
o emotional quotes (“I glanced to my right and saw this very dead, white body. My goodness, it was so white.”, “Suppose I did kill the Black Dahlia? They couldn’t prove it now. They can’t talk to my secretary because she’s dead.”) and
o suggestive information (“Manley died on January 9th, 1986, after an accidental fall in his apartment in Anaheim, California. 39 years to the day after he last saw Short alive at the Baltimore.”),
are presented in a narratively cohesive way and dramatically emphasized on screen, selectively, in all-caps and red letters (e.g. “HE WAS UNABLE TO CONFRONT HIS SUSPECT”).
The voiceover segments are visually aided by still photography montages, suspenseful music, smooth transitions and, generally speaking, professionally arranged elements (e.g. 3:27-4:05), and read out loud in a clear, expressive and evenly paced manner. The case is presented in the third person, resembling a cinematic voiceover, and the viewer is directly addressed only once (“If that sounds suspicious to you, you’re not alone”). The tone is intriguing, and the narrator appears credible due to the overall, professional presentation.
185 Note how Garett Garner is credited in the end credits though.
The comedic commentary segments on the other hand, mark a change in tone and style, as Ryan and Shane both:
o use profane language (S: “Ah, this guy’s a real piece of shit, Ryan”, R: “His dad *…+ was a bit of an asshole”),
o interrupt each other (R: “That wasn’t my-“, S: “You see her face in these things though, right?”, and S: “I did it to meet people! And I found-“, R: “You followed the white guy playbook in LA.”) and
o do not refrain from stating their personal opinions (S: “Surprised his kids didn’t get together and kill their dad.”, “They (cops) don’t care! They don’t care!”, and R: “Like, that’s something that a normal person doesn’t say, I feel like.”), even going as far as identifying the murderer and passing moral judgement (R: “It’s George Hodel!”, R, S:
“he’s a monster”).
At times, pop culture characters that have nothing to do with the case are being referenced (“That’s some Professor Snape shit.”), as is the pair’s other YouTube web series, BuzzFeed Unsolved Supernatural (“We should inject you full of truth serum and then ask you if you think ghosts are real”). Language explicitly pertaining to sexual violence is omitted, possibly to avoid de-monetization.
In terms of visual representation, the on-screen text of the hosts’ dialogue appears without capitalization or full stops, in yellow font for Shane and blue for Ryan (e.g. 9:10-9:27), further highlighting their relatability, by manner of comically “poor” quality visual aids when the conversation also becomes unstructured and irreverent (note that in contrast to the YouTuber videos that will be analyzed in comparison to the BuzzFeed infotainment format, this video is the product of a team of professionals, and the editing could have been done by someone else other than the narrators).
All in all, this, typical of the infotainment format, discourse encourages the viewer to relate to the hosts through informal, seemingly unscripted speech patterns, colloquial language, personalization and emotionalization.
Sarian’s video is addressed to the viewer as an imagined interlocutor of Sarian who repeatedly breaks the fourth wall (“Is that not fucked up?”, “Also, remember how I mentioned that there was a game of tic-tac-toe cut into Elizabeth’s body?”, “Do you think that maybe there was more than one person involved?”) and generally adopts a lighthearted tone (e.g. she sings her own theme song and makes humorous comments such as “Am I bald?” or “I’m officially a cult leader”). Sarian discursively treats her viewers as friends (“Hi friends”, “Hope you guys have a wonderful rest of your week and I hope to be seeing you very soon”, “Please be safe out there”, “I hope we can get together one day, and I can meet you in person and give you a hug”) and emphasizes the community aspect of her YouTube presence by repeatedly using the first-person plural (“We’re doing it!”, “we are going to be talking about”, “We’re gonna talk about it next week”).
Her personal brand heavily relies on personalization achieved through improvised -rather than rigidly scripted- speech, as a performative narrator. In fact, personalization is the most prevalent characteristic of Sarian’s style. To this purpose she:
o Uses various narrative techniques, such as direct speech fictitious discursive re-enactments in the Present Simple (“they are like ‘yes, bingo’, you know?”, “’We’re gonna solve a mystery today’, is probably what they’re thinking”, “so police are kind of like ‘Yeah, sure lady’”) and personal interpretations (“Police go out to the location, and when they arrive, they are just shocked, stunned, confused, you name it, that’s how they are feeling”, “I thought about, like, the times, I’ve personally, I’ve done this, so maybe she did this…so maybe she did it”, etc.),
o visually complements the narration by showcasing her -irrelevant to True Crime- signature skill, which is applying makeup (4:11-30:30), without feeling the need to customize it to the case (she could be doing 1940’s Hollywood makeup for example), and even
o takes the time to personalize the sponsor presentation discursively (“I’ve been a big Hunt A Killer fan, it’s so fun and it’s nice that you can- like, you have the option to play alone if you want to. I like that you don’t have to wait for somebody, you know?”,
“You’re not gonna solve it in, like, two seconds, you know? Some of those games!”) and visually, by showing a clip of herself interacting with the Hunt A Killer box content (2:49-3:03),
which suggest that her YouTuber persona is deeply integrated to the content she is making and that the latter is arguably tailored to suit her, rather than the other around.
Deviations from Sarian’s typical use of embellished direct speech as a personalization technique, take place when she is providing quotes as proof of wretchedness during the presentation of an actor (“Christine told police that she had, quote, ‘cut some of her goddamn hair off, and shoved it up her effing pussy’, end quote”, “they hear George saying, quote,
‘Supposing I did kill the Black Dahlia, they couldn’t prove it now, they can’t talk to my secretary anymore because she’s dead’, end quote”). In general, Sarian’s embellished narrative style is an effort to keep the mood light throughout the video and is not weaponized for the purposes of malevolent criticism (e.g. ridiculing someone).
Foul language is atypical and Sarian whispers when using it (“Is that not fucked up?”, “told police that she had, quote, ‘cut some of her goddamn hair off, and shoved it up her effing pussy’, end quote”). Sexual abuse is phrased as such (“was accused of sexually abusing his daughter”).
Finally, Sarian exhibits personal bias against “rich people” (“Now George, he was rich, he was loaded, they knew it wasn’t gonna be easy trying to get anything from him, like he’s not gonna just confess, rich people don’t just confess.”) and is critical of media sensationalism (“So of course, the media got a hold of this story, a beautiful woman murdered and cut in half *…+
That’s when the media gave her the name ‘The Black Dahlia’, for her dark, full hair, she was always said to have a flower in her hair, and her love for lacy black underwear, people in the newspaper room were like ‘Let’s talk about this murder, but make it sexy’. It was, like, just based off of what she was wearing that night, you know? Stupid.”).
Antphrodite is a full-time streamer who originally started off on Twitch and now makes his videos available on multiple platforms -including Twitch and YouTube-. The video follows a
comparable to streaming format, in the sense that it is done in one take and, as such, it is full of pauses (1:24-1:28, 1:44-1:47, 2:01-2:05, 2:25-2:31, 2:41-2:45, 2:51-2:56, 4:40-4:44, 5:04-5:20, 7:21-7:26, 8:07-8:15, 10:23-10:29, 11:46-11:50, 14:00-14:04, 16:16-16:20, 16:50-16:55, 17:02-17:08, 17:20-17:27, 18:07-18:16) and pause fillers (“I think she got-oh, uh- she got- I-mmm”,
“uhm, to me it looks like there had to have been some sort of like taboo relationship that she had, uuhm the Three of Pentacles it’s with someone very powerful, uhm, I think it’s someone who is in a relationship, perhaps married, uhm with The Lovers card here”).
The video can be separated into three parts: From the beginning until 1:10, from 1:10 until 18:15, and from 18:15 until the ending. In the first part, Antphrodite briefly introduces himself (“Hello, hello, hello, Antphrodite here…True Crime reading.”) and the video’s subject (“the highly requested Black Dahlia…who committed this crime.”), and states the reason for which he will be doing a psychic reading (“hopefully this will help…get some information on this”), while looking at the camera, which suggests that he is addressing the viewer.
In the third part, he concludes his psychic reading findings (“Uhm but I will stand by…And she was a message.”) and directly addresses the viewers in their capacity to help him better understand the case (“if you guys have any help, uh that can kinda help me pinpoint what the fuck I just saw, put it in the comments down below, let me know what you think”), but, more emphatically, he asks them to consume his content and financially support him (“I hope you guys liked that, if you did…if you like to send me money directly, so, yeah.”), while also looking at the camera.
Nevertheless, whether or not Antphrodite actually addresses the viewers during those two parts is debatable, especially when taking into consideration that as a streamer, he is used to being observed by an audience, without necessarily focusing on establishing a genuine connection with it (repeat viewers could be returning due to his signature skill, making the need for a more personal connection like Sarian’s less essential, as Antphrodite pioneered psychic readings on Twitch, earning the distinction of Twitch Ambassador in 2019).
More specifically, in the first part, which basically serves as an introduction to the video, Antphrodite actually shows a reluctance when “addressing” the viewer: the greeting is
standardized (“Hello… True Crime reading.”), and he appears very uncertain about both how to phrase the case (“So, I’m pretty sure she was 22 years old, I forget her name, uhm, but she was a young Hol- Hollywood hopeful. Uhm, and she was brutally, uh, allegedly murdered, uhm, and apparently all of her blood was drained and she was, like, it looked like she was precisely murdered, anyways, I don’t know the full story, I know a little bit.”) and how to phrase his reasoning for doing a psychic reading on it (“uhm, hopefully this will help uh, get the story out there, to those that don’t know and uh and maybe shed some light uhm on the situation, and maybe help, and my intention’s here is just to help and get some information on this, so (sighs) alright, these readings are all *inaudible+ only and let’s get started.”), while looking at the camera and presumably addressing the viewers. Ultimately, he explains that the reason behind this uneasiness is related to negative viewer responses (“I’m sorry I’m always nervous now when I do True Crime cause I been getting hate.”). This discursive uncertainty and prior negative experience, suggest that a heightened focus on avoiding a poor choice of words will be prioritized, possibly at the expense of a genuine attempt to personally connect with the viewers.
In the third part of the video, when Antphrodite looks at the camera and discursively addresses the viewers in order to ask things of them, his speech pattern is less disorganized, but more standardized too (“help me pinpoint”, “subscribe down below”, “hit the bell”, “follow me”, “you can always tip”), which further suggests that Antphrodite shows limited interest in personally connecting with viewers, since he is only comfortable addressing the latter in their capacity as consumers of his content and services.
That being said, during the second part of the video, when he does the Tarot reading, Antphrodite doesn’t look at the camera at all (with the exception of a few moments towards the ending, at 17:41). The few and far between instances of “addressing” the viewer are likely speech conventions (“you know how sometimes, okay, was she- was there any, like was she indoctrinated to a cult or anything like that”, “This alleged crime, darling”, “We have the World and the Eight of Cups, that’s like running away from someone *...+”, “you know, you get desensitized to this”, “No facts here, girl, all printer.”, “Can I be honest with you?”, “You know, I guess that doesn’t really surprise me right, cause like if you’re trying to make a sensational
story, right? You’re gonna want people to be seen as, like, perfect and flawless and super, you know, wholesome and ‘they were brutally’, you know, ‘destroyed’, when really, there’s a lot of chaos involved, and there’s a lot of like sex, drugs, rock n’ roll, you know, anger, you know, illegal activity on everyone’s part.”, “like- you know when, like- you know when, like, okay, you know in movies, when, like, the innocent girl is, like, naïve and then, uhm, the other person is, like, corrupting them eventually and then when they start, like, to be bad, uhm, they’re like, kinda shitty at it, and then they end up getting caught, and then they end up getting hurt?
That’s, like, basically what I see. Is, like, you are being trained to be a certain type of way and then you, like, you started doing stuff and then it, like, backfired in your face, cause you shouldn’t be doing that stuff in the first place.”), making his presentation style more analogous to monologue, rather than simulated dialogue.
In fact, Antphrodite’s speech style characteristically includes:
o emphatic repetitions (“this has to be a group. I’m sorry, but it’s a group. There’s a group here. There has to be a group *…+”),
o fictional discursive reenactments (“the Hanged Man, is like ‘I don’t want to let go of something, I don’t want to give up something’”, “so they’re like ‘well, if you point the finger at me, I’m gonna point the finger at you. Cause I know what you’ve done. I have your dirt, you have my dirt, what are you gonna do?’ It’s a game.”, “That’s the vibe.
‘Don’t worry’, like, ‘we’ll hustle and we’ll get this and we’ll get that, I got you girl, don’t worry’. And then *blows raspberry+.”),
o rhetorical questions (“because if I’m looking at this, right? The Three of Swords is heartbreak, okay? The Ace of Cups is Love, we have The Lovers here, okay?”, “Can I be honest with you?”),
o jumbled up syntax (“It reminds me of when, like, the Mafia would run, like, secret stuff, or like if a madame had, like, a bunch of like, uh, like worked at a brothel or something, and had like, you know, girls that were prostitutes or something like that, like it’s something along the lines of that where there’s like a group of illegal activity, allegedly,
that I think she was falling either adjacent to or directly in and then… or perhaps they were trying to entice her into that and she didn’t want to, but either way, I do think that she had some piece of information, she bit off more than she can chew-she can chew, she played her cards too early, uhm, someone snitched her out, and then her murder to me is a message to everyone else ‘fall in line or this will be you.’”, “You know, when, like- you know when, like- you know when, like, okay, you know in movies, when, like, the innocent girl is, like, naïve and then, uhm, the other person is, like, corrupting them eventually and then when they start, like, to be bad, uhm, they’re, like, kinda shitty at it, and then they end up getting caught, and then they end up getting hurt?”),
o the repeated use of sensory verbs that emphasize his psychic ability (“I keep hearing”, “I see her very close”, “*…+ is what I’m hearing”, “I’m seeing”, “*…+ that’s what I see”) and o the incorrect use of the word “allegedly” (and its variations), delivered with pitch/tone
changes that indicate his defensive stance (e.g. 0:22, 0:43-0:44, 8:48-8:50, 12:13, 12:52-13:00) against potential “hate”.
He uses expletives (“Yeah…fuck.”, “this girl’s bad fucking news”), and exhibits personal bias against sensationalized media portrayals of victims, not for negatively (e.g. sexualization, victim-blaming etc.), but for positively depicting the victim, in the sense that information is deliberately hidden or altered (“there’s a part of her story that’s not told that’s slightly darker.
You know, I guess that doesn’t really surprise me right, cause like if you’re trying to make a sensational story, right? You’re gonna want people to be seen as, like, perfect and flawless and super, you know, wholesome and ‘they were brutally’, you know, ‘destroyed’, when really, there’s a lot of chaos involved, and there’s a lot of like sex, drugs, rock n’ roll, you know, anger, you know, illegal activity on everyone’s part.”).
All in all, Antphrodite’s unscripted speech plays into its personalized aspect, as it makes his worries about getting “hate” (he consciously tries to avoid negative criticism) or his entrepreneurial intent (he addresses the viewers as potential consumers of his services), all the more evident.
Discursive Strategies
As far as the primary victim is concerned,
In the Infotainment paradigm, the primary victim is represented corporeally as an individual by “Elizabeth Short”, the one who discursively has a body and who dies (“Elizabeth Short was lying face-up and naked”, “her body split in half”), and in more abstract terms as the case/murder by “The Black Dahlia”, the temporally unrestricted pop culture phenomenon (“Do you know the case at all, The Black Dahlia?”, “riveted the nation and continues to fascinate sleuths today”, “the case is still open”).
She has no agency or control over the way she is represented (“some say”, no quotes from her are presented), but in contrast to the main suspect (Dr. George Hodel), she is not morally judged. Moreover, compromising information, such as the fact that Manley was married at the time he went “on dates” with Short, is omitted.
In Sarian’s video, the primary victim is represented in sympathetic (“I mean, this poor Elizabeth”), active terms (“And so, Elizabeth did. She packed her stuff and she moved out”) and primarily discussed in her real name (Elizabeth Short), rather than her given by the media moniker (the Black Dahlia), which is negatively associated with sensationalism (“the media gave her the name ‘The Black Dahlia’…’Let’s talk about this murder but make it sexy’…Stupid.”). This allows for a humanizing, personal depiction of the victim, which is further facilitated by the Jane Doe and Black Dahlia constructs that take on the impersonal, discursively “dead” or notorious murder case representations, respectively. Elizabeth Short is the one who has a story (“Elizabeth’s story”), and about whom the video truly is about (“today, we are going to be talking about Elizabeth Short, A.K.A. ‘The Black Dahlia’” – neither a case, nor a murder, but a person).
In Antphrodite’s video, the victim is presented as the Black Dahlia, and her real name (Elizabeth Short) is not just discursively absent, but actually forgotten (“I forget her name”). No
factual information is provided about her life, other than her age (“she was 22 years old”) and supposed “young Hollywood hopeful” status (for more on this, see Fact-checking below).
She is represented disrespectfully (“It reminds me of when, like, the Mafia would run, like secret stuff, or if a madame *…+ like worked at a brothel or something, and had like, you know, girls that were prostitutes or something like that, like something along the lines of that where there’s like a group of illegal activity, allegedly, that I think she was falling either adjacent to or directly in”), and the discursive attempts to sympathize with her circumstances (“I’m not saying that she’s like, a– a bad person, or anything like that, but to me she’s surrounded by cutthroat energy and I think that she started to adopt that as well.”, “I’m not saying she wasn’t innocent, what I’m saying is that there’s more, there’s a cutthroat energy around here, there’s a- there’s a ‘I’m gonna get what I want’ energy”) are indicative of Antphrodite’s own self-representation, as someone who is thoughtful towards the victims in True Crime cases (note that despite his disclaimers about not saying that she’s a bad person or not being innocent, that’s exactly what he’s saying).
Her agency is not denied, however by presenting her murder as a response to/punishment about something she did (“I see her as overplaying her hand which is why I see her murdered”,
“she had some piece of information, she bit off more than she can chew, she played her cards too early, someone snitched her out, and then her murder to me is a message to everyone else
‘fall in line or this will be you’”), the victim is discursively made responsible for her murder.
Moreover, the Black Dahlia (murder victim) is equated to the reason she was murdered (“she was a message”), which suggests an instrumentalization of the murder victim’s representation in order to explain the crime/murderer’s behavior.
As far as the crime is concerned,
In the Infotainment paradigm, the crime is described sensationally (“she was oddly posed, with her eyes open, hands above her head with elbows bent and legs out straight, and spread apart”), however there is no explicit reference to sexual violence, and the victim’s life is
described modestly (she is described, at most, to have gone to “dates”, and “platonically” at that).
In Sarian’s video, the crime is not discussed sensationally. Sarian brings up details that are of particular interest to her, in order to explain their possible meaning as clues (“police noted that each of her big toes, just the big toes, were painted a bright red…it got me thinking…so maybe she did or maybe some weirdo just painted her big toe”, “there was crisscross cuts on her pubic region and on her hip” - “I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about this…maybe there was more than one person involved?”, “Elizabeth’s body had been lying face down for an extended period of time after her death, because of the lividity on her front side”); “unnecessary” details such as the fact that the victim’s legs were spread open are not revealed.
Moreover, Sarian visually (“There are pictures but I am not going to ruin your day, okay?”) and discursively (“It’s pretty bad, so cover your ears for a second, if you don’t wanna hear this”) protects the viewers from especially graphic content (also note how she gives a viewer discretion warning at the beginning of the video at 3:53).
Therefore, gruesome details are revealed, albeit with a prior warning, only within the context of being important evidence and by literally censoring and whispering sexually explicit language (“It’s pretty bad so cover your ears…Christine told police she had, quote, ‘cut some of her goddamn hair off, and shoved it up her effing pussy’, end quote…When they found Elizabeth’s body, whoever did this, had indeed cut off some of Elizabeth’s hair and shoved it up her lower region”). Possibly because sexual abuse is expressly referred to as such (“was accused of sexually abusing his daughter”), the video is not considered ad-friendly by YouTube, whose policies are applied without making context-based distinctions186.
In Antphrodite’s video, the crime is barely discussed at all (“she was brutally, uh, allegedly murdered, uhm, and apparently all of her blood was drained and she was, like, it looked like she was precisely murdered”). Sensational details (e.g. being naked and posed with legs spread open, etc.) are not revealed, but neither are the most identifiable ones (e.g. bisection, Glasgow smile).
186 See Monetization & Alternative Sources of Income.
This lack of interest to provide some basic details about the crime may indicate:
an apprehension to discuss graphic content (either on principle or due to prior negative experiences - “I’m always nervous now when I do True Crime cause I been getting hate”),
a limited interest in True Crime in itself, but as a commercially exploitable genre instead (as suggested by the fact that Antphrodite is not well-versed in basic True Crime jargon – e.g. note the pleonasm “unsolved…cold case”),
a prioritization of the specific question the host can answer due to his niche, unique skill (“Who Killed the BLACK DAHLIA ?! PSYCHIC READING”) at the expense of the reiteration of a very notorious and presumably known to the viewers (“highly requested”) crime,
or, simply, a narrative oversight that is perhaps explained by Antphrodite’s background in streaming (which is generally characterized by improvisation due to its “live”, unedited format).
Either way, there is not enough information to indicate whether the omission of graphic details is related to an ideological stance on sensationalism or not.
As far as the primary suspect is concerned,
In the Infotainment paradigm, the primary suspect, Dr. George Hodel, is described in accordance with the Theoretical Framework findings on the “ideal” male murderer in True Crime187, namely exceptionality, invisibility, and the propensity to commit a sensational murder (“wealthy doctor”, “high IQ”, “knowledge of the sexual lives of people ranging from sex workers to the city’s elite”, “The gory details and proximity to the glamour of Hollywood, cause Short’s murder to become a huge story”), as well as the lust murderer archetype of the sex
187 See True Crime’s Favorite Criminal Subject.
maniac/beast188, due to the sexually explicit nature of the alleged crimes against his daughter (“reported her father to the police, telling them he had tried to teach her about oral sex at the age of 11, that he had offered her to his friends when she was 14, and that George himself had had sex with her”), the characterization “monster”, and because Short was posed in a sexually degrading manner (“naked”, legs out straight and spread apart”) similar to the Jack the Ripper slayings189.
He is the most negatively depicted character in the video: The hosts use profane language when referring to him (“a bit of an asshole”, “a real piece of shit”) and explicitly call him a
“murderer” (see Top 5 Comments below, on how the viewers respond to this). However, much