The Prosecutors

I have listened to four episodes. I appreciate the detail they bring to their critical-analysis of cases. I appreciate the enthusiasm they bring to the study of criminal justice processes. They are also enthusiastic about teaching their audiences about the law and legal processes, including correcting depictions in film and television. I was, though, very frustrated by their discussion of Natalie Wood's death. Both of them are constantly using speculation about events, actions, motives. They spin many stories trying to "guess" what actually happened. It's a bit funny since at one point they chastise those who told the first story given to police for ignoring or failing to refer to facts. This is funny because then they continue to imagine what happened, guess what someone might do in similar circumstances, attribute motive and feeling. It is all prefaced by "I think this is what happened." Very different from other episodes. They attribute credibility to the captain's revised story and Lana's theory, and deny credibility to others. They say "It is possible, but I don't think it happened that way." The facts are few. But, one of them is that this case was not prosecuted or ruled a crime. I don't understand why they chose to discuss this "case." I'll listen and hope this celebrity-centered gazing isn't typical.

Are you guys ok??? I have never listened to a more biased podcast- which would be fine if they didn't claim to be objective. They minimize/ dismiss any evidence that contradicts their opinion, tell literal lies, and then laugh at people who don't agree with them? And these people are practicing law??? Big yikes

What’s a skill you’ve always wanted to learn and why?

With all the recent JonBenet coverage, I decided to go back and listen to the JB episodes in hopes of uncovering more information. I enjoy Alice and Brett and I am very open to my mind being changed re: the ‘whodunnit’ of this case. However, Alice and Brett continually stated that anecdotes are not evidence, while also giving their own personal anecdotes (e.g. ‘my son prefers to wear pants everyday, so it makes sense that JonBenet was wearing size 12 underwear.’) in support of the Ramsey’s. They would say behavior isn’t necessarily evidence, while also justifying the Ramsey behavior as evidence that they were innocent (e.g. ‘Wouldn’t you do exactly what the Ramseys did: hire a PI and the best defense attorney if you had the money?’) It seemed that the entirety of the 9 episodes were spent teeing up their theory while glossing over other evidence. I also waited… and waited… and waited for Brett to provide more information as to why the CBS documentary was a sham. The doc recreated the house, right down to the dimensions of the window that the intruder would have had to enter through. They also recreated the flashlight theory utilizing a skull, a 9 year old, and the exact flashlight in question. The experiments and experts that had weigh in were much more believable than any of this discussion.