How did fact‑checking organizations determine the viral 'rap sheet' belonged to a different person, and what identifiers did they use?

1. How the claim surfaced and why it drew scrutiny

A screenshot purporting to be a criminal “rap sheet” for Renee Nicole Good circulated widely on social platforms at a tense moment following the fatal Minneapolis shooting, prompting third‑party verification because the post could alter public perception during protests and political debate ^{[3] [1]}.

2. The first, simplest check: name match vs. identity match

Fact‑checkers started with the obvious: the document carried a name very similar to the victim’s, but that alone is insufficient to prove it was hers; professional verifiers therefore moved to cross‑referencing unique identifiers rather than relying on name similarity, a standard step in verification practice ^{[1] [4]}.

3. The decisive identifiers: age and date of birth discrepancies

Multiple organizations flagged a core inconsistency — the rap sheet screenshot listed a date of birth and ages that did not match the known age of the woman killed; one fact‑check noted the image appeared to show records for a Nicole Renee Good born in 1980, an age inconsistent with the victim’s reported age, and Snopes recorded that the screenshot listed an age of 44 while other reporting identified the victim as 37, a clear red flag that the record belonged to a different person ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Document provenance and official records tracing

Beyond age/DOB, verifiers recommended consulting official state criminal‑records databases — in this case Colorado records were referenced as the authoritative source to check against the screenshot — and noted that accurate rap sheets should be obtained from such official sites rather than social posts ^[1]. Fact‑checking methodology emphasizes retrieval of original documents from public repositories to verify chain of custody ^[4].

5. Visual resemblance and why it misled people

Fact‑checkers acknowledged the mugshot in the screenshot resembled Good, which helps explain the post’s virality, but they emphasized that facial similarity cannot substitute for documentary identifiers; visual similarity is often used in viral posts to create plausible but false links between people and records ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Forensic and procedural techniques used by fact‑checkers

The teams applied standard verification techniques described in the fact‑checking literature: tracing the image’s online origin, comparing metadata and text on the screenshot to official record formats, and cross‑checking unique personal data (DOB, age, jurisdiction) against public databases; academic reviews of fact‑checking practices characterize these steps as typical for debunking online rumors and verifying identity claims ^{[4] [5]}.

7. Alternative explanations and the limits of available reporting

Sources present an alternative: the rap sheet could genuinely belong to another person with a similar name and an older DOB, not necessarily a fabricated document, which fact‑checkers flagged by pointing to conflicting age/DOB information and recommending official record checks ^{[1] [2]}. Reporting reviewed here does not provide the original court or booking record to independently reproduce the verification, so beyond the cited discrepancies this analysis relies on the fact‑checkers’ published comparisons ^{[1] [2]}.

8. The broader context: why fact‑checking matters in charged moments

Scholars and practitioners note fact‑checkers prioritize claims with high virality and potential harm, using a mix of manual local expertise and document tracing to stop misleading narratives from shaping public discourse; the rap‑sheet case fits that model — a widely shared, high‑impact claim verified by checking unique identifiers and official sources ^{[5] [4]}.