Later edit: This post was perhaps over-focusing on the yellow journalism aspect, and through that seemed to justify behaviours which were clearly reprehensible on James Jackson’s part. It wasn’t intentional and I’m sorry.

Even later edit (2025)

I am only leaving this post up to showcase how victims of grooming and abuse are used by false advocates online as props, to make a profit. However, I will edit out any commentary on the experiences of the young women who interacted with this couple, as it’s not my place to elaborate, and I am very sorry for having done so. It was completely wrong.

As the saying goes, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. When writing this post, there was an active harassment campaign against James Jackson and his spouse (I forgot this person’s latest name at the moment), including 10 false calls to the police, false CPS calls, two swatting attempts and numerous threats of arson and murder (their address, home to two minors, was made public by rent-a-mouth former TV star Chris Hansen). It was complete madness and should not have occurred that way. If anything, the public spectacle damaged the actual case. The police opened an information line and random people were sending them links to Lol Cow threads – not kidding.

This should never have diminished the seriousness of the couple’s conduct towards the group of young women who spoke out.

To this effect, a few clarifications are needed, with regards to how these cases are discussed online, and my own errors in judgement back in 2021:

  • Testimony IS evidence;
  • Other types of evidence can be lost or deleted with time (photos, communications); deleting such material for closure is not uncommon; the veracity of someone’s claims doesn’t depend on the evidence standard the public requires online;
  • Regardless of the questionable arrangements the young women were seeking to partake in, it’s important to keep their age in mind and the massive power dynamic;
  • The victims are never equally or more at fault than the groomer/groomers, whatever was proposed to them;
  • The word “voluntary” loses teeth when manipulation is involved, especially of a vulnerable person;
  • The “technically of legal age in this state” shouldn’t matter when there is a pattern of approaching young people to manipulate and use – at least in the perception of the public.

The 2021 post:

To start off, this post is not analysing the personal morality of James Jackson, the YouTube creator known as Onision – it is, instead, a deep dive into a shockingly flawed media production, how it came into existence, the deception it employed and the lack of journalistic standards or accountability. In late 2019, he and his spouse, Kai, were accused by multiple women of sex offences such as grooming and exchanging lewd images with minors (the latter relating to Kai).

After following this situation very closely for more than 18 months, its progression is disheartening, in terms of the general public’s ability to reason their way through fact and fiction. It seems people nowadays hold strong views despite paying very, very little attention to how a situation evolves.

Reversing the criminal justice process

Typically, the system operates as follows, at least in the US – someone makes an allegation, if there is enough evidence the accused is arrested and charged with a concrete offence and the matter goes to court; if pleading not guilty, there is a trial, where all evidence is considered, and they are found guilty or not guilty at the end of it. They are considered innocent up to that point. Simple enough.

Trial by media, especially in this case, has operated in reverse: those targeted were considered criminals by default, after allegations of mistreatment – crowds being convinced crimes they could not determine had been committed, with a criminal case and conviction to follow. The absence of said elements did not deter them. Communal efforts to determine what those crimes were, over the months, bore no success – but that didn’t matter. The drive was for the state to get these people for something, anything at all.

This drive is in many ways symbolic; it encompasses so much of what is presently wrong with western culture in terms of handling allegations, as well as the press and entertainment industry, which probably don’t deserve differentiation at this point. Besides being yellow journalism at its best (the kind you can gorge on in tabloids, next to miracle pills and alien abductions), the hunt for Onision’s head displayed the hysteria of internet mobs, reaching sinister proportions at its peak. The way this man and his family have been treated the past couple of years (harassed and threatened with impunity, with an actual risk to their lives) should ring alarm bells.

If this charade is normalised, it could happen to anyone in the near future. It’s a sign of societal degradation; of the generalised lack of respect for due process, as well as human rights.*

*Later edit:

As a general rule, the above-mentioned still stands: it’s never OK to harass, make false calls to law enforcement or CPS or threaten someone’s life. That should be a given.

In terms of the investigation however, the lack of an arrest was not proof of innocence in this case, as the entire circus impeded the police from handling matters as they normally would. Also, evidence in the form of a laptop was handed to Hansen’s stooge, Vincent Nicotra, to purportedly be passed on to the FBI. Months later, after falling out with Hansen, Nicotra (a fairly sinister character) bragged about having thrown the laptop in the bin and having thrown pasta sauce on it.

The background

As an old generation YouTube creator, Onision put out his fair share of content currently termed controversial, as did many on the platform in the early 2000s. Some of it involved oversharing, whilst another segment consisted of skits, popular at the time. The oversharing aspect (at times revealing off-putting attitudes towards women, with a penchant for control) earned him many critics, some of whom capitalised on continually covering his content, ascribing importance to any minutiae. Like an urban legend, he gradually became one of the most detested figures on the platform, based solely on the abundance of such coverage. Objectively, there is nothing that remarkable about his content or lifestyle (especially in our day and age) deserving of such scrutiny.

Overtime, Onision and his spouse tried their hand at polyamory, which involved approaching a few groupies (a fan who is willing to engage in an intimate relationship, bound to be temporary, can be described as such). As these things tend to go, such attempts fell apart, resulting in mutual resentment and in one case, oversharing once again on Onision’s part, which was justifiably aggravating to the young woman in question.*

*Later edit

Technically, this was correct, as these were fans and the arrangements proposed to them were to be part of a 3-way-relationship, which they accepted. However, they were much younger than Jackson, and at times about the same age as his spouse, whom Jackson met when they were 15, him being far older.

In 2019, in the full throes of the MeToo movement, the last participant in these three-way attempts, named Sarah, came forward with a claim of having been groomed, as she had previously lived with the couple as a minor for eight months, and had later engaged intimately with them after becoming an adult. As you can read below, not only was this crossing of boundaries of her own initiative (and insistence) – she made this claim a mere month after Onision and his spouse broke off the very short relationship she still wanted to pursue.

Pause the moral issue on all fronts for a second – in terms of the grooming allegation (which isn’t a criminal offence in the US, but regardless), what happened here isn’t rocket science. She reacted to being rejected and wanted revenge; the timing and circumstances, plus other evidence, leave no doubt.*

*Later edit

It doesn’t matter why she came forward. It doesn’t change these crucial issues:

  • The couple had known her since she was a minor (14); she had lived with them previously; there was trust and attachment involved on her part;
  • They had introduced her to this lifestyle (3 way relationships);
  • She had lied in the past to cover for them, claiming nothing inappropriate was happening, when it was; her being freshly of legal age at that time doesn’t matter;
  • It’s absolutely normal to react to the realisation of being manipulated, used and discarded, while knowing this had happened to other young women as well, in ways that were at least legally dubious.

Enter Chris Hansen, the former journalist (turned gossip channel) and habitual promoter of scammers.

After a number of legal conundrums and scandals over the years, Chris Hansen, known as the face of To Catch A Predator, sought to capitalise on his reputation by setting up shop on YouTube, other avenues of reviving his career having failed. Once on YouTube, utterly clueless as to the dynamics of the platform, he sought to create a simulacrum of the famous show – only this time, with no team behind him to research potential stories, no technical skills and no connections. He would have to play it by ear, recruiting amateurs, nutcases, crooks and even a sexual harasser to help with his endeavour of “catching predators”. It reads like an episode of South Park – and it would be almost amusing if it hadn’t had real life consequences.

His plan, as he (much later) disclosed to Medium, was to “incubate stories” on YouTube, for pitching to TV networks. All proved to be flops until one case – that of Onision, whose many ex-partners were happy to speak about, alleging improper behaviour and egged on by Sarah’s recent allegations.

In late 2019, a series of interviews began on Hansen’s channel, at first mainly featuring these young women, urged by him to assert that Onision belonged in prison, or that he was running a cult. The women had no idea whether he had committed any crimes against them, or what those crimes might be – but out of sheer resentment, gave Hansen nebulous statements on how “law enforcement should get involved and sort him out”. They were not, at any point, provided by Hansen with connections to lawyers, law enforcement or therapists, as promised by him on a number of occasions. It turned out all Hansen wanted was for them to make acidic accusations of mistreatment in front of the camera, at times half-agreeing, out of politeness, with his preposterous speculation, such as the cult hypothesis.

In January of 2020, as a publicity stunt, Hansen organised a visit to Onision’s home, with a camera crew of 6 and ambulance chaser Mike Morse. In doing so, Hansen (wittingly or not) ensured the public had knowledge of Onision’s address, which resulted in numerous threats of vandalism, kidnapping, arson and murder over the following months. Fortunately, the only actual targeting consisted of people egging his home, as well as trespassing on a few occasions – however, the psychological harm cannot be overestimated. This family was, to put it plainly, subjected to a grotesque amount of harassment. Alarmingly, Hansen was not deterred by a previous incident involving ambushing someone at their home, which ended in this person’s suicide.

Many mishaps occurred over the months, related to handling alleged evidence, as well as police involvement, to be detailed below in the section regarding evidence (or lack thereof). Despite Hansen continuing to make grandiose claims, such as the FBI being involved, it gradually became apparent the so-called criminal case against Onision was mere theatre, ostentatiously prolonged to no end, designed to benefit Hansen financially in the process.

In late spring or early summer of 2020, rumours began circulating regarding a documentary Hansen was discussing with Investigation Discovery; this was confirmed as a closed deal in a Medium article, announcing it was to be produced by Blackfin TV. Hansen candidly admitted this had been his goal from the beginning, as opposed to supporting the so-called victims (of undetermined crimes) in the ways he had promised. Upon realising they had been used from the beginning, most of the women became irate and cut all ties with Hansen, requesting that their image and interviews not be used in this production – which was, of course, not the case in the end, as details of the footage shown in the documentary left them easily identifiable (face blurring was useless).

Again, what happened here is not rocket science. Hansen never cared one iota about the notion of consent, after masquerading as an advocate for these women. He was, all throughout, after footage he could use in his future documentary, discounting not only the absurdity and unfairness towards Onision and his family, but also the psychological damage done to the women who objected.

Initially, only two women agreed to participate – Shiloh, who had been in a relationship with Onision more than a decade prior, and Regina, who… had not been in any kind of relationship with either Onision or his spouse, Kai, and had never met the pair in person. Subsequently, Sarah agreed to be interviewed for a fourth episode, in order to tell her story in person, given that they had used it without permission in the first three episodes regardless.

Update: The police confirmed that out of all the women accusing him publicly, Sarah was the only one who actually called them, and even then what she said did not constitute a crime.

The cult hypothesis

Trying to sensationalise the case as much as possible, Hansen came up with the claim that Onision was in fact running a harem or a cult.

Most embarrassingly, two famous atheistic content creators, Mr. Atheist and Repzion, performed a so-called analysis of the claims according to the BITE model (which proved conclusively they had zero understanding of it).

*Later edit

*A harem, maybe. A cult, not likely – truth be told, fandom can be exaggerated until it reaches irrationality, and the dynamics between an abuser and the victim have elements of a relationship with a leader. There is a grey area here, of spheres meeting. However, the analysis was unconvincing, and I stand by that. The behaviours exhibited by Jackson were run of the mill for abusive men. There was no new reality map, no cutting victims off from the outside world – merely exploiting them and treating them poorly.

Comedy skits portrayed as illustrating misconduct (!)

Presently, for some viewers, it seems difficult to distinguish fact from fiction when watching Onision’s old content – although back then, what was exaggerated or humorous seems to have been taken as intended. The documentary makes ample use of such footage. It’s distasteful. Mixing claims of mental abuse, portrayed as genuine, with skits in which someone acts out ridiculous scenarios, replete with “clowning”, doesn’t encourage the viewer to take everything seriously.

Other illustrious participants

As expected, the farcical nature of this endeavour was fully reflected in the types of people giving their expertise, most of whom had never met Onision in person. Apart from people who discussed tangential issues, not related to the allegations in any manner, participants were the bottom of the barrel. This reached all the way to the policeman now being investigated for falsely accusing someone on racial grounds.

Edwin Costa, professional exploiter of alleged victims

Before re-branding to the most profitable niche (around the MeToo movement), Edwin Costa mostly posted over-sexualised content, some of it admittedly aimed at minors. Claiming to post educational content, he would create short videos replete with vulgarity, infantile humour, as well as revolting discussions about bodily functions and his own male parts. He often filmed himself engaging in behaviour which bordered on sexual harassment, as well as using demeaning language towards women. His newer audience is, of course, unaware of that, as he has since privated the footage. Nowadays, although he portrays himself as an advocate for victims of mistreatment, Edwin shows his actual views in live streams during which he enjoys a good beverage. When intoxicated, he reverts to the same misogyny he was known for in the past. He is, of course, careful to private streams as soon as they are over. Suffices to say this guy is the last who should be speaking about others mistreating or degrading women.

Edwin’s history with the documentary is a colourful one, which included hiding his participation from his audience (who was by then disgusted with Hansen’s exploitation), even insisting to not be featured in promotional materials, so he could find a way to break the news. He was, even after secretly accepting the offer, very vocal against this production in public, urging other content creators not to partake, to reserve the limelight for himself.

They could not find a less credible, less knowledgeable and more fame-hungry creator to feature.

Ed Troyer, the racist sheriff, a proven false accuser

For a crime documentary, scoring an interview with law enforcement should be ideal – unless there is no case, no evidence and the person in question is known to lie against innocent people. Such is the case of Ed Troyer, the local sheriff in Onision’s area of residence at the time of filming, who has been investigated for calling 911 on a Black newspaper delivery guy after stalking him around the neighbourhood. Mr Troyer said the man had threatened to kill him, when in fact, he had merely stopped and asked why he was being followed by him.

In 2020, after appearing on Hansen’s channel, Ed Troyer encouraged any victims to come forward. The police were inundated with emails from all over the world, directing them to look for evidence on gossip sites such as LolCow and KiwiFarms. It was reminiscent of Idiocracy. Troyer’s famous quote, “We’re having trouble finding actual victims”, was plastered all over YouTube.

In the documentary, he referenced the numerous calls to the police regarding Onision and Kai – failing to mention no action had to be taken as a result, and some of the claims had been patently absurd. The public can hear these calls. Two of them were swatting attempts, and ridiculous ones at that. What Ed Troyer and the producers did was spin a targeted harassment campaign into legitimate cause for concern, which is disgusting and insults viewers’ intelligence.

Some fail to realise the sheer absurdity of a law enforcement officer publicly discussing a case with no charges, no alleged victims of actual crimes and no evidence. It was a media circus and nothing more.

Randy Daniel, Onision’s father, once the focus of unproven allegations himself

The cognitive dissonance in interviewing this person was enormous. Many years prior, Onision’s father had been accused of child molestation, with no action taken as a result, apart from the daughter in question not being required by the court to spend any time with him. Could this have been false and a case of divorce/custody retaliation? Of course. Which is exactly what he claimed.

The crux of it is the way producers portrayed the unproven allegations against Onision as true, while giving credence to his father’s claims of the unproven allegations against himself being false. It makes no sense whatsoever, and proves that they too believe alleged victims selectively, according to their chosen narrative.

Steven Asarch, the “journalist”

While working for Insider, a publication with very low standards he was later fired by (which should say something), Steven Asarch infiltrated the YouTube scene, keenly covering the ruckus around Onision and publishing a piece with incorrect information in it.

Gradually gaining the trust of the Hansen camp and some of those who were covering Hansen’s exploitation, he played both sides and became a major pawn in the documentary. The third episode finally revealed his true intentions – depicting YouTube in general as a chaotic, predator-laden platform, in opposition to “old media”, which would be showing this documentary. Notably, the audience Discovery has retained the attention of is middle-aged or older. There was a clear intention of raising panic regarding the “dangers of the internet” among older generations, in order to depict the mainstream media as safe and reliable.

The consequences

After the documentary aired, YouTube removed Onision’s monetisation, meaning he has not been earning money from posting content ever since. This happened in the absence of any criminal proceedings.*

*Later edit

Good. If content creators have a negative impact on the public and do things that are morally repugnant and legally questionable, exploiting their status, perhaps they should be encouraged to find another line of work.

However, this was only the latest consequence. Peaking at the beginning of 2020, there was an enormous harassment campaign against Onision and Kai, complete with regular death threats, malicious phone calls to the police and CPS, their property being trespassed on repeatedly and so forth. It was something out of mediaeval times, which no one should ever have to experience in a civilised society.*

*Later edit

True – individuals and crowds should never behave that way. Nothing good ever comes out of it, and they become as reprehensible as the people they are targeting, up to the point of getting part of the public to sympathise with them, which happened in this case.

Swatting can be lethal and false calls are crimes. Such a call resulted in a content creator being shot and dying; the culprit went to prison. It’s not a game or a joke. Wasting police and CPS time, when they might have urgent matters to deal with instead, is also not a joke.

However, the behaviour of so many profiting from this case, as well as those at home harassing for fun, does not diminish and excuse the behaviour that led to this situation in the first place.