Abstract
Online discourse is a fundamental aspect of digital participation, allowing netizens to freely express their views and interpretations of current events. In the context of criminal incidents unfolding in real time, online platforms often attract extensive public engagement, with individuals contributing their own perceptions, assumptions, and narratives at various stages of the case. In today's digital age, such participation has become a social norm, where criminal cases are not only reported but also actively discussed, debated, and reconstructed by online communities. As a result, each case develops its own distinctive online discourse, shaped by the unique interactions, interpretations, and dynamics of digital audiences. This study examines how citizen-led disclosures on Telegram shape public understanding of ongoing criminal investigations, using the Zayn Rayyan case in Malaysia as a critical case study. Drawing on a qualitative design combining paper tracing analysis, discourse analysis, and netnography, the study analyses three layers of data: Telegram exposés (Edisi Siasat), mainstream media reports, and netizens’ online comments. The findings reveal the emergence of “shadow narratives”, unverified but widely circulated interpretations that gain legitimacy through repetition and emotional resonance rather than legal validation. These narratives operate within a “gray communication field,” where encrypted and semi-private platforms blur boundaries between public and private communication. The study demonstrates how such environments challenge traditional Gatekeeping Theory, reconfigure Public Sphere dynamics, and contribute to affect-driven forms of public judgment. The paper argues that viral, networked investigations are reshaping epistemic authority in digital culture, particularly in non-Western contexts.