Police Have Evidence Against Joshua Johnson & Brandon Best | BAM Criminal Conduct
Credibility score: 46/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Police Have Evidence Against Joshua Johnson & Brandon Best | BAM Criminal Conduct" and rated it 46/100 for credibility (a BS score of 54/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-25. Its weakest claim — "Claims American Fork Police have evidence of crimes by Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best for false statements." — scored 45/100 and was flagged as confidence mismatch. 9 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 9 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 9 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
The video opens with a rapid-fire exchange about a consignment deal, setting up a conflict. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
This intro is a quick-cut montage of conflicting statements, setting the stage for drama without giving full context. — It's all setup, no punchline yet. 🎬
Why this score: The segment presents a back-and-forth about a 'consignment deal' and a company 'taking it on,' followed by a denial. It's a classic teaser, designed to hook the viewer by introducing a dispute without providing the full story or evidence. It's a dramatic opening, not a factual claim to be verified.
Original quote: “This guy came in, his name is Brian
Manson, was like, "Hey, I had this
consignment deal with Crystal Law."
Well, we don't know about any
consignment.
>> They're taking on the business. He takes
on all that consignment.
>> His own corporation is sitting there on
video saying they're going to take…”
Claims American Fork Police have evidence of crimes by Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best for false statements. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:17
Declaring the police 'now has evidence proving' crimes is a bold statement without showing any actual evidence or official charges. — That's a lot of confidence for zero receipts. 🚨
Why this score: The speaker states with certainty that the American Fork Police Department 'now has evidence proving' specific individuals 'have committed crimes' by making false statements. While police may be investigating, claiming 'proof' of committed crimes without presenting any official charges, police statements, or court documents is a significant leap. It presents a strong conclusion as fact, without the necessary public evidence to back it up, creating a confidence mismatch between the assertion and the presented support.
Original quote: “The American Fork Police Department now
has evidence proving Joshua Johnson and
Brandon Best have committed crimes by
making multiple false statements to
police.”
Questioning police action with a loaded accusation of bias. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 0:30
Asking if police will 'play differently' implies they're already biased or corrupt. That's a loaded question, not a neutral one. 🚨
Why this score: The speaker uses the phrase 'play differently' to suggest that the American Fork Police Department might not apply the law equally, implying favoritism or corruption without providing direct evidence. This framing is designed to cast doubt on the police's impartiality from the outset.
Original quote: “Will American Fork Police Department charge them for making false statements? Hard to say because as we know, they play differently in American Fork.”
Asking if police will charge them, then immediately saying they 'play differently'. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 0:30
Asks a direct question about charges, then immediately undercuts the possibility with a vague, loaded statement about how police 'play differently'.
Why this score: The speaker sets up an expectation of legal action but then quickly introduces doubt with an unsubstantiated claim about the police department's conduct, creating a narrative of potential injustice without providing evidence for the 'play differently' assertion. It's a classic rhetorical move to lower expectations while still making the initial accusation.
Original quote: “Will American Fork Police Department charge them for making false statements? Hard to say because as we know, they play differently in American Fork.”
Calling out the speaker's previous contradiction about who was managing the store. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 2:30
They just said 'other managers' were in charge, but now they're being called out for being those managers. Smooth move, Brandon. 🤡
Why this score: The speaker is directly confronting Brandon Best with his own words, highlighting a clear contradiction in his account of who was managing the store during the transition. This exposes a lack of consistency in his statements.
Original quote: “You guys were the manager's corporate sentin. So when you said other managers were taking over the store, who was it, Brandon?”
Joshua Johnson claims the business absorbs all inventory upon takeover, promises a contract, but never delivers. Classic move. 🤡 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 2:30
Says the business 'absorbs all inventory' and promises a contract, but then ghosts. Big talk, no receipts. 💀
Why this score: Joshua Johnson makes a definitive legal claim about inventory absorption and offers to produce a contract, but the video immediately points out he never does. This is a classic move of asserting confidence without providing any actual evidence.
Original quote: “You guys were the manager's corporate sentin. So when you said other managers were taking over the store, who was it, Brandon? Your alter ego. >> Mr. Best claimed that corporate had seized everything in the store. I advise Mr. Best that if throughout the investigation, someone is determined to have…”
Dismissing Joshua's claim that his police statement was unreliable because he was 'pissed'. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:30
Joshua said his police statement was unreliable 'cause he was pissed. The speaker just confidently declared their own timeline of reliability. 🤷♀️
Why this score: The speaker is asserting that a statement given closer to the event (to police) is inherently more reliable than one given later (to 'Coffee'). While this is a common assumption, it's presented as a definitive fact without acknowledging that emotional state (being 'pissed') can indeed affect the reliability of a statement, regardless of timing. It's a confident dismissal of Joshua's explanation without deeper analysis.
Original quote: “But when confronted about that, he explained what he'd said to police as being unreliable because he was pissed at the time. And he even went so far as to say the police got it wrong. Well, you know what, Joshua? It seems more likely to me that the response given to Coffee a year and a half after…”
Joshua claims his statement to police was unreliable because he was 'pissed'. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 4:30
Dude said his official police statement was unreliable because he was 'pissed.' That's not how facts work, chief 🤡
Why this score: The speaker is highlighting the absurdity of claiming an official statement to police is unreliable due to a personal emotional state. This attempts to dismiss a prior statement without providing substantive evidence to contradict it, relying on a subjective feeling rather than factual inaccuracy. As top comment #3 points out, 'I can't find a law or statute that says you're allowed to lie to the police in an official statement if you're pissed.'
Original quote: “But when confronted about that, he explained what he'd said to police as being unreliable because he was pissed at the time. And he even went so far as to say the police got it wrong. Well, you know what, Joshua? It seems more likely to me that the response given to Coffee a year and a half after…”
Claiming personal involvement to build authority and trust. — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 6:30
He's 'personally taking on this case' — a classic move to make you feel like you're getting the inside scoop from a dedicated hero. 🦸♂️
Why this score: The speaker positions themselves as personally invested and dedicated to the case, which is a common tactic to build rapport and trust with the audience, making them more receptive to subsequent claims. It's a soft sell for their content.
Original quote: “give me a follow as I'm
taking on this case personally and”
See the full analysis with timestamps →