This is pretty poor evidence IMO. I don't know about you but my writing style changes on my mood and current situation. I think all of us have written incorrectly punctuated sentences when in a rush or especially during a live chat/instant message session when the conversation is happening in real time as opposed to posting on social media where people tend to re-read/edit their messages before they post. All of your examples of her writing style were from social media posts yet you are comparing them to her live chat writing.
I didn't claim it was evidence. I stated that it was speculative. Statement analysis is never an exact science and it should never be claimed as such. It merely acts an indicator. Context factors are always taken into account; time, location, age, gender, emotional state, informal or formal. There will always be fluctuations based upon mood and external factors- as I stated. But you look for and identify the patterns over time and come to determine what is likely to stand as a recurring habit. It is, again, not an exact science.
As I stated, I don't have the time or resources, or even the inclination to analyse, for example, the UEA logs. But I have stalked been interested in Chloe for a while now, and I have made several observations about her habits that I don't have the character limit or autism to document here. You're welcome to your opinion - without PLing too hard, I'm slightly more confident in mine, having a background with linguistics.
But again, you're welcome to your opinion, and I welcome evidence to the contrary.
I'm not convinced, personally. I'm perhaps giving her far too much credit, but I truly don't believe she'd be stupid enough to outright deny something when it could be so easily proved that she was lying. I think it's slightly more likely that Twitter got trolled, or that those caps have been amended in some way.
I'd be happy to take it all back if someone could provide the evidence I'm wrong - I'd like her to be this stupid.
Linguistics is an area I have some knowledge in, and whilst I won't PL, I'll take a moment to analyse this with you all whilst I've got time to kill. This obviously won't be an in depths analysis as I don't have the character limit, time, or resources. Consider this a brief and very speculative glance.
We'll establish some 'rules' Chloe uses in her public writing as 'DissociaDID'. Start by analysing the very first word of her statements.
It's
Someone
Trigger
Swipe
Have
A
From this, we can determine that she often capitalizes the first letter of every statement. This is a fairly common writing rule and we would only expect to see this relaxed in informal environments. Even in an informal environment, many people use an autocorrect feature which automatically capitalizes the beginning of a sentence. Regardless as to the reason, we can confirm that Chloe capitalizes the first word of every sentence when writing publicly as DissociaDID. We could go on to examine every sentence and get a clearer grasp on her habits - I've done this in my own time and you're welcome to do the same. For now, we'll keep it simple.
Next, I would look for notable punctuation.
She often uses the ampersand in place of the word and - even in her 'formal' role as 'DissociaDID'.
She does appropriately use apostrophes as demonstrated with we've, can't, you're etc.
She often uses exclamation points. Where does she tend to place them? Anywhere in the text. She does not use line breaks following an exclamation point. Additionally, she often uses exclamation points at the end of the very last sentence as a sign off.
Her use of commas is sporadic though mostly appropriate when utilised. She uses commas to list, and occasionally as a sentence break. It would not be considered a hard rule for her to use commas - there are occasions when she should use a comma and does not. Some sentences run on, though when making a 'formal' statement as 'DissociaDID' this is less likely.
She often uses periods at the end of sentences - she uses them appropriately. Occasionally, she will leave a sentence hanging - for example, when signing off with her name; Nin
Occasionally, she will sign out with an emoji.
Next, I would look at how she writes numbers. 2 year, 39 times, 20 years, 6lbs... she uses her number characters rather than typing the word. We can confidently claim this as a rule.
So, we've established some very loose writing rules for Chloe when acting as 'DissociaDID' on a public platform between 2019 and 2020. Now, we should examine her style in a less formal yet semi-public setting.
It is important to note that these caps are a few years out of date. These samples are taken from the DID Facebook Support Groups. Her typing style has shifted somewhat over time - this is normal.
One exception, but the likelihood is, Chloe will capitalize her first word.
No use of the ampersand. These samples are a few years out of date - the ampersand joined her typing toolkit later.
Her use of apostrophe varies. On balance, in this environment, she is unlikely to appropriately use an apostrophe, with some exceptions.
Very few exclamation points. Never as a sign off. This may have joined her typing toolkit later or may only be reserved for the 'DissociaDID' persona.
Her use of comma is still sporadic. Most often used as a sentence break or listing tool. Commas occasionally bridge an opening statement thank you, how did... or I understand, I just... or Hello everyone, just had...
Her use of periods is interesting here - she rarely uses a period when replying to comment as in, in conversation, but when making a post or 'statement' she will end her sentence with a period.
She often signs off a message with an emoji - this would be in character for her.
Occasionally, she will use two question marks for emphasis.
Again, her numbers are characters rather than words, this can be set as a fairly firm rule.
Of note, she does not always capitalize I, I'm, I've... in these examples. I would suggest that she was browsing these groups using a desktop - she does not have the autocorrect feature that is automatically enabled when mobile browsing. I base this off PL knowledge, and the fact that she did not use lowercase i, i've, i'm frequently in the UEA logs, where she primarily used mobile browsing. Those logs are dated prior to these examples - this is not a habit she has 'grown out of' as it were. This may also explain instances of im vs i'm.
TL;DR - Writing Rules
1. It is highly likely that Chloe will capitalize the first word of any statement.
2. Chloe is likely to use an ampersand (&) in place of the word and... particularly when making statements as 'DissociaDID' from 2019 onwards.
3. Chloe occasionally uses commas to list verbs or break up sentences - it is, however, not uncommon for her sentences to run on. She is far more likely to use commas when writing as 'DissociaDID' in a formal or semi-formal setting.
4. Chloe frequently uses exclamation points or emojis as a sign off at the end of a message particularly when writing as 'DissociaDID'.
5. Chloe is highly likely to use periods appropriately at the ends of sentences. The exception is when she is in direct conversation with others. The exception to this exception is when Chloe is in a hostile conversation.
6. When using the 'messenger' application, or other mobile applications, Chloe is likely to use apostrophes due to the autocorrect feature. She is very unlikely to abandon apostrophes when speaking as 'DissociaDID'.
7. When speaking as 'DissociadDID', Chloe is likely to use emotive language and declarations of love.
8. It is almost always the case that Chloe uses numerical characters; 2 over two.
9. Chloe is far less likely to use formal language when speaking privately.
10. Chloe is likely to bridge opening statements to the rest of her sentence with a comma; hi guys, just...
11. Chloe is highly unlikely to make spelling errors or use out of place language.
With these loose rules established, we should now take a brief look at the caps. I should note - these are very loose rules. There will always be exceptions and this is merely a study of probability based upon subconscious habit. Subconscious habit can fluctuate. This is purely speculative.
She did capitalize this statement, in keeping with her rules. She uses and over & though this is not a hard rule, she has been known to use and from time to time. I may have expected Hey guys, we're... though the lack of a comma is not necessarily damning alone. She does use periods appropriately, in keeping with the rules. She uses apostrophes appropriately, in keeping with the rules. Her sign off is a little unusual, though xxx may stand in place of an emoji, and may stand in for emotive language or declarations of love. Her spelling and word choice is also fine. There are some discrepancies such as double spacing between safe and as which is a quirk I've never really noted with her before. I also feel she would have broken up this message with commas.
On balance, there are four to five things that stand out as perhaps not quite right to me, but there are four to fives things that are in keeping with the rules. I'd say it really is 50/50 and inconclusive as to whether she wrote this message. This is the message that I would be most likely to agree she wrote.
She capitalized this message, in keeping with her rules. She uses periods appropriately, though she does not end the statement with a period. This could add weight to either side; she may be avoiding a period as she is in direct conversation, but her lack of a period in a conflict situation is out of character. She used sent over send which is an easy mistake I feel she is unlikely to have made. Again, inconclusive, but I'm inclined to say that she wasn't behind this.
She did capitalize this statement. Her apostrophe use fluctuated; that's but not we're. I feel she would have broken this up with a comma somewhere. She does use periods appropriately though she does not end the statement with a period as she is in direct conversation. Personally, I would have expected her to end that with a period as it was a conflict point. She used the wrong words twice- we're over were and every one over everyone. I've noted her using the correct everyone in the past. That is not one of her usual spelling inconsistencies.
Ultimately, I feel it is unlikely that Chloe was behind the body of text in these messages. I feel it is likely these are shopped caps. Obviously, take this with a large grain of salt. It is entirely speculative and based on personal observation. I would say it's 30/70 leaning towards she isn't behind this.
ETA - Yes, this is very autistic, and could have been summarised with a simple I don't buy it.
Thanks for the breakdown, i find this kind of stuff really interesting. So will be taking notes for future deep dives.
I do think she is running on emotion though and i know i type very different when im dealing with something stressful, its also the weekend and she could be having a drink, which would make her a bit more loose and bitchy. I dunno, just something to consider too. Her logs in her college chat might be worth a look again, they're a bit looser and would represent what she is like in a group setting...
Thanks for the breakdown, i find this kind of stuff really interesting. So will be taking notes for future deep dives.
I do think she is running on emotion though and i know i type very different when im dealing with something stressful, its also the weekend and she could be having a drink, which would make her a bit more loose and bitchy. I dunno, just something to consider too. Her logs in her college chat might be worth a look again, they're a bit looser and would represent what she is like in a group setting...
No problem, I'm glad the sperging is at least interesting!
Of course, everyone would type differently in any number of circumstances, but some tells appear no matter the context. The most common tells are spelling errors, inconsistencies in word choice, and particularly unusual punctuation choices. Emoji choice is actually rather interesting but that really is another can of worms.
Her 'official' statement was quite interesting too. Both the image and the caption in all caps, certain words highlighted.
WE FEEL IT IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS THIS ONE AS IT GOES AGAINST OUR CORE VALUES THAT WE ARE VERY PUBLIC ABOUT
I was particularly amused with 'this one' as it really does go to show she's aware of the ongoing discussion and the various other 'ones' she has chosen to overlook.
No problem, I'm glad the sperging is at least interesting!
Of course, everyone would type differently in any number of circumstances, but some tells appear no matter the context. The most common tells are spelling errors, inconsistencies in word choice, and particularly unusual punctuation choices. Emoji choice is actually rather interesting but that really is another can of worms.
Her 'official' statement was quite interesting too. Both the image and the caption in all caps, certain words highlighted.
I was particularly amused with 'this one' as it really does go to show she's aware of the ongoing discussion and the various other 'ones' she has chosen to overlook.
Its definitely interesting. Been learning a bit about behaviour too and how to spot people being deceitful and fabricating stories. Its fascinating stuff.
I'm pretty sure Chloe and/or Nan have accounts on here by certain little things they have said in lives. The time in which they brought up the frogs are gay and made a weird point of gigging and saying it over and over really smugly like they knew something. It coincided with the drama here. Felt very much like a message to people that they can see whats going on. Also just the fact that she is soooo quick to delete and private anything we talk about within minutes haha! Notification gang
I just woke up and I don’t understand why no one in the group chat can’t come forward with proof that it wasn’t Chloe. I’m positive the chat happened. I’m positive those messages were sent (why would the person fake them and also put her name in the screenshots?).
I’m a bit confused on who provided the screenshots of the group chat. AllysonBPD insinuated that it was Alexissystem44 who has now been outed as faking hate messages sent to her on twitter — she’s admitted it, so it’s not just speculation.
The Alexis person is now saying the messages had been sent to her sister (who?) and that it’s torn their family apart that she lied about getting hate messages lol, but what’s weird is that the Alexis account was claiming the messages as their own and that they were sent to her inbox. She claims that her dad called the police on her sister over fake hate messages lmao this is rich So just deflection I’m imagining. Her account is restricted now because of “unusual activity”
Again, I’m incredibly shocked that no one from the group’s come forward with proof the screenshots were fake or the account was fake at this point. We know the chat exists, we know the messages were most likely sent, and no one’s proving that the Chloe account was fake. Could it be because it isn’t fake I wonder?
Edit: I did some poking around and here’s what I found.
The person that created the group chat is no longer in any DID groups. I wonder if she got kicked or left on her own. I don’t see any posts in either of the groups she posted in talking about the drama and the two posts about the group chat are still up.
I didn’t notice this when I first saw the post, but there were three people who asked to join the group chat after the screenshots were posted (at the time of these screenshots, the group chat pics were posted 15 hours ago, these comments were 12 and 11 hours ago).
It's really unlikely. I work in secondary schools and each kid goes through the year groups even if they're mentally disabled or have other additional needs. If she went to a mainstream school, she wouldn't be held back it's just not a thing here. Kids who need extra help still go through year 7, 8, 9 etc as they age from 11, 12, 13 etc. They might be taken out of class and put with other additional needs children of different ages but they will still progress through the years. For example, kids who have poor English skills might be taken out of class for extra English lessons or work adapted to their language with other kids on a similar skill level no matter their age. But if one is 11 they'll be in year 7 and if one is 14 they'll be in year 9. She wouldn't have started a mainstream secondary school at 13 if she didn't go to a middle school.
Not necessarily true. Children are held back if there is some sort of disruptive life event (for example a mental health intervention, a social services case being open etc), in both primary and secondary school. It's not common but it does happen. Won't PL but can confidently say that.
However, it's more likely that she's manipulating the timeline and lying.
That Alexissystem44 on twittter changed her username to @aria68843783 within the past hour and a half. I wonder if it’s aria from the screenshots or if she’s just taking the name
Edit: disregard this, I didn’t look at her tweets enough to realize this is a fake account, this is not the Alexissystem44 account
Edit x2 to not double post:
So I’m still on the fence about whether the screenshots are fake or not. Here’s my reasoning
1. Facebook group chats send a notification when someone changes their nickname in a group (I’ve experienced this first hand, I have records in my own group chats on messenger of these notifications, and we saw it in the chat logs from Chloe’s psych group chat)
2. No one has posted proof that it wasn’t her — it’s not hard for SOMEONE to just take a screen recording of the message and click through to the profile, to see if it’s her account or someone else’s
3. Like I said before, Facebook group chats don’t show last names. We saw in the screenshots “Aarif” and not “Aarif Noor.” We saw “Aria” with no last name (though I think that is a nickname in the chat because I still haven’t found that profile). It just doesn’t make sense for it to say “Chloe Wilkinson” versus just “Chloe” unless she or someone else made that her nickname — again, there’d be a chat history showing this.
4. it is possible that someone changed their profile pic to Chloe’s and just sent that message. If that’s the case, the message would still be there, even if the person who sent the message deleted it (messages only delete on the end of the sender, not on the end of the receiver) and we’d be able to still see who sent it.
allysonbpd claims that she’s been in contact with the mod of the group chat, despite previously saying she doesn’t have a Facebook account. Why can’t the creator of the chat just come forward themselves? I have her name if she needs a little push, plus it’s not hard to find. Those DID FB groups are still accepting members. She didn’t delete her posts. Allyson says the admin of the chat isn’t publicly out as a system — that can change in an instant, they didn’t hide their actions well and I’m sure I’m not the only one who knows her name.
however, Allyson has posted proof that it was Alexissystem44 who sent her the screenshots. Again, Alexissystem44 has come out as saying the hate messages she posted were fake, so that’s another sign that the screenshots were fake, too. If these people are really that easily fooled, to have all missed the notification that someone changed their nickname to “Chloe Wilkinson,” how do they expect to be taken seriously?
however, Allyson has posted proof that it was Alexissystem44 who sent her the screenshots. Again, Alexissystem44 has come out as saying the hate messages she posted were fake, so that’s another sign that the screenshots were fake, too. If these people are really that easily fooled, to have all missed the notification that someone changed their nickname to “Chloe Wilkinson,” how do they expect to be taken seriously?
I'm still firmly in the camp that Twitter got played. The fact that this girl is claiming her family has been torn apart over her sending fake caps is actually fucking hilarious and straight out of the tween playbook when you've been caught out - no, I didn't send that message asking you to date me, it was my cousin...unless...
You got played, Малыш.
That Alexissystem44 on twittter changed her username to @aria68843783 within the past hour and a half. I wonder if it’s aria from the screenshots or if she’s just taking the name
Edit: disregard this, I didn’t look at her tweets enough to realize this is a fake account, this is not the Alexissystem44 account
Edit x2 to not double post:
So I’m still on the fence about whether the screenshots are fake or not. Here’s my reasoning
1. Facebook group chats send a notification when someone changes their nickname in a group (I’ve experienced this first hand, I have records in my own group chats on messenger of these notifications, and we saw it in the chat logs from Chloe’s psych group chat)
2. No one has posted proof that it wasn’t her — it’s not hard for SOMEONE to just take a screen recording of the message and click through to the profile, to see if it’s her account or someone else’s
3. Like I said before, Facebook group chats don’t show last names. We saw in the screenshots “Aarif” and not “Aarif Noor.” We saw “Aria” with no last name (though I think that is a nickname in the chat because I still haven’t found that profile). It just doesn’t make sense for it to say “Chloe Wilkinson” versus just “Chloe” unless she or someone else made that her nickname — again, there’d be a chat history showing this.
4. it is possible that someone changed their profile pic to Chloe’s and just sent that message. If that’s the case, the message would still be there, even if the person who sent the message deleted it (messages only delete on the end of the sender, not on the end of the receiver) and we’d be able to still see who sent it.
allysonbpd claims that she’s been in contact with the mod of the group chat, despite previously saying she doesn’t have a Facebook account. Why can’t the creator of the chat just come forward themselves? I have her name if she needs a little push, plus it’s not hard to find. Those DID FB groups are still accepting members. She didn’t delete her posts. Allyson says the admin of the chat isn’t publicly out as a system — that can change in an instant, they didn’t hide their actions well and I’m sure I’m not the only one who knows her name.
however, Allyson has posted proof that it was Alexissystem44 who sent her the screenshots. Again, Alexissystem44 has come out as saying the hate messages she posted were fake, so that’s another sign that the screenshots were fake, too. If these people are really that easily fooled, to have all missed the notification that someone changed their nickname to “Chloe Wilkinson,” how do they expect to be taken seriously?
Allyson has been in contact with the admin who offered to let them into the chat. They confirmed it in the skeptics chat. They don’t have a Facebook but I imagine the admin may extend the invitation to others.
Allyson has been in contact with the admin who offered to let them into the chat. They confirmed it in the skeptics chat. They don’t have a Facebook but I imagine the admin may extend the invitation to others.
no offense to you, but I don’t trust much of what you have to say.
anyway, I’ve been doing research into the creator of the group chat. It’s a fake Facebook account, and she has two in the same name. The accounts have public information on the profiles
dating back to January for both. The account that posted about the group chat has public activity in groups dating back to April. They run MANY group chats (the DID chat, a Harry Potter chat, a meme chat, a chat for a group that’s something like “a group where we pretend to be bees in the same hive”, likely has a DDLG group chat). The two accounts have many mutual friends and I’ve looked through them all and have a good suspicion on who is behind the account.
the person is from Vancouver, Washington and possibly has lived in Oregon, in the Portland area. I don’t believe she went to the high school listed on the fake profiles. I’m going to hold off on putting out the info on who I think it is until I have confirmation, which might not happen because I’m not going to be contacting anyone. One of the bigger factors that leads me to thinking it’s this person is that she changed her profile picture after the screenshots went live. My new conspiracy theory is that the person who made the group is responsible for the fake messages which would explain why they refuse to come forward.
(this next one is a group, but the entry questions mention 4 group chats and the aveline account is an admin)
no offense to you, but I don’t trust much of what you have to say.
anyway, I’ve been doing research into the creator of the group chat. It’s a fake Facebook account, and she has two in the same name. The accounts have public information on the profiles
dating back to January for both. The account that posted about the group chat has public activity in groups dating back to April. They run MANY group chats (the DID chat, a Harry Potter chat, a meme chat, a chat for a group that’s something like “a group where we pretend to be bees in the same hive”, likely has a DDLG group chat). The two accounts have many mutual friends and I’ve looked through them all and have a good suspicion on who is behind the account.
the person is from Vancouver, Washington and possibly has lived in Oregon, in the Portland area. I don’t believe she went to the high school listed on the fake profiles. I’m going to hold off on putting out the info on who I think it is until I have confirmation, which might not happen because I’m not going to be contacting anyone. One of the bigger factors that leads me to thinking it’s this person is that she changed her profile picture after the screenshots went live. My new conspiracy theory is that the person who made the group is responsible for the fake messages which would explain why they refuse to come forward.
Allyson was not in contact with Aveline. A different admin confirmed the hoax. Searching into them is a fruitless effort as they aren’t super active in that chat.
Allyson was not in contact with Aveline. A different admin confirmed the hoax. Searching into them is a fruitless effort as they aren’t super active in that chat.
Maybe I just have a knee-jerk negative reaction to all things Chloe, but I find her emerging from her well of seclusion to make a nice little instagram graphic refuting the screenshots then proceeding to like the posts of people painting her as a poor, poor victim... I just find it all so obnoxious. Like she was sitting there waiting for one thing demonstrably false that she could climb up onto her cross to address.
I absolutely understand the need to stress that the screenshots were faked, (I assume they are. I know there are some conflicting opinions around here and elsewhere.) but that low hanging fruit is the only nasty bit of discourse she's broken her silence to address.
The owner of the account @didexposed (who has referenced being 12 multiple times on the groupchat) has deactivated her account after claiming that there was a dox attempt on instagram by a chloe cult member.
