Margot Leitman and H. Alan Scott host The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey Response Podcast, dedicated to the CBS docu-series of the same name.
Episode 4 - Subscribe to Talking Crime
Thank you so much for listening. You guys asked us to cover other cases, and we heard you. Subscribe to Talking Crime, it's a "not so serious" true crime response podcast. Our first case we're going to cover is the Amanda Knox Netflix documentary. Again, if something comes up in the JonBenet case, we'll do another episode. But for now head on over to Talking Crime and join the conversation on Twitter at #TalkingCrime with @HAlanScott and @MargotLeitman.
H. Alan Scott & Margot Leitman discuss Burke Ramsey's "Dr. Phil" interview. Over 3 episodes Burke Ramsey professed his innocence and spoke of what he remembers. H. Alan & Margot share their thoughts, share what you guys have said, and compared what Burke said against what Jim & Laura discovered on CBS's "The Case of: JonBenet Ramsey." Follow on Twitter at @HAlanScott & @MargotLeitman.
Margot Leitman & H. Alan Scott watch and respond to the conclusion of CBS's 'The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey.' They discuss the alternative theories (intruder, sex crime, DNA evidence, etc.), and figure out the never before determined timeline of JonBenét's unfortunate death. Rate the podcast on iTunes if you're enjoying it. Follow @MargotLeitman & @HAlanScott on Twitter to discuss everything JonBenét Ramsey.
Margot Leitman & H. Alan Scott respond to the first episode of the CBS doc, 'The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey.' Between commercial breaks they go over the new audio evidence uncovered, the brother, what the parents could be hiding, and Margot's love for the investigators. Follow them on Twitter at @MargotLeitman & @HAlanScott.
The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey Response Podcast Teaser
Margot Leitman & H. Alan Scott welcome you to The Case of: JonBenét Ramsey Response Podcast. Follow them on Twitter to join the conversation at @MargotLeitman and @HAlanScott using the hashtag #TheCaseOfJonBenet
Customer ReviewsSee All
Interesting but patronizing
So I loved the show and was engrossed by it so when I found this thought I'd give it a listen. The format is their discussion following each segment, so it's kind of the discussion you'd have with your friends post the show. They are not professionals who have further insight though they think they are. H. Allan in particular is particularly dismissive of people's contributions, especially the emergency service operator, which made me a bit incredulous. They are funny but contribute nothing new so ultimately a bit self indulgent.
These two are irritatingly clueless. Rambling on with irrelevant points, not knowing all the facts, totally random ideas with no evidence and getting confused with what the other is saying. Painful to listen to.
This couple claims to be obsessed with the case; well, why they hadn’t bothered to read some reputable background on it - from either perspective- before launching a bloody podcast about their “obsession” is as much a mystery as the case itself. They clearly knew nothing of substance before watching the documentary. They spew out spurious speculation whilst piecing together a very skewed version of the case in front of the telly. They don’t even manage accurately to relay what went on on the actual programme they are watching! The slavish devotion to Jim and Laura as gods of integrity; I don’t doubt their integrity but they are in this context documentarians with a juicy tv show to produce to win ratings. Calling expert witnesses “investigators”... Please, watch the documentary itself as it’s really interesting and throws up good facts. But don’t waste your time on this: two borderline nitwits misinforming you about the documentary.