Admissible: Shreds of Evidence

Update: I’ve finished the first season, and while I still stand by my opinion below, I am happy to find they’ve discovered the abysmal state of how we go about enacting criminal justice (and a more perfect double entendre has never existed). Consider this fact. Every single time we engage this system, it has already failed us. The very use of this system is the admission that something that we assign a catastrophic outcome to has happened in spite of its goals of protecting us. Instead what we are really doing is enacting a ritual of gotcha where those who cannot hope to have the same power as the state are at the mercy of a system designed to bring all its guns to bear onto each individual who has the bad fortune to find themselves in the crosshairs. Then we can implement a punishment that will supposedly prevent them and others from ever doing such things again; a premise that assumes people behave antisocially due to their disregard for law and order and everyone else fears the repercussions so much that they behave. It’s quite the abusive philosophy. In regards to the labs, they should be independent entities that are not only reliant upon the state for funding and that defendants have an equal opportunity to use in addition to equal access to experts. It’s the entire system that is wrong, not just the parts or some individuals. It’s constantly doing exactly what it was designed to do. In fact it’s the reason why we found it necessary to include individual inalienable rights into our constitution to give ourselves some cover and protection from this kind of state control. Otherwise what exactly would we be needing protection from? Once you zoom way out and think about the “but why?” of how we are governing ourselves, it’s just taken for granted. First, this story is incredibly important for true justice and the lives of those who have been broken on all sides. There’s nothing more gratifying than finding a lost crime that can still be resolved. Also the clarification and making history more accurate and therefore more useful to our present. My frustration, which I find in so many podcasts, is the assumption that the audience is ignorant and uninformed. Just because the podcaster is not aware of something doesn’t make it necessary to speak to the audience as if they need spoon feeding. It’s the patronizing way that much of what is crucial to this story is conveyed by the narrator. It’s so infuriating to hear the snide judgment calls from these two people before they even spend time learning on their own about the issues that are germane to the story they are trying to tell. For example after finding this Pandora’s Box they spend, according to them, 4 (not 7, not 12 etc) hours digging through these vintage documents and because the evidence is not immediately clear (which due to their admission of scientific ignorance is not surprising) they leave immediately afterwards doubting the credibility of the woman that they tracked down, not her coming to them with her story, they found her. Then she mentions the documents and miraculously they still exist and they even more miraculously get them without any pushback. Everything this woman has said so far has been true…. Why are they suspiciously doubtful about her? Anyway, I am only 3 episodes in and even though I want to hear this story from original participants, the snark factor and the “I’m so confused, I can’t be bothered to research basic serological facts, it’s so hard..” nonsense and the assumption that this audience is just as dumb and lame and therefore will somehow relate to her narrative told in this chummy “ha ha, we’re all dumb about this, am I right” manner, obviously I am at least irritated enough to feel compelled to write this out. Great story, but never patronize your audience or find yourself with the best story in the world but no one wants to listen to you tell it. Stop pretending to be dumb. I hope it’s pretentious. Otherwise…..?

This is one of the best told, throughly explained, carefully researched podcasts I have heard. What sets it apart from many others is the interest not just in what happened but why, and what could or should happen next (sadly, don’t hold your breath — the levers of justice are nearly stuck)

It reminds me of “in the dark,” except this narrator has a much better/less annoying voice. You can tell they really did their homework, and it’s a fascinating story! It really shows that people aren’t just good or bad, they’re complex and flawed. Good people do bad things for strange reasons.

It’s extremely disappointing that so little care was given to how this important story was presented. The podcasters present as both immature and unprofessional. Extremely difficult to listen to the upspeak, vocal fry, and absurd way they insert themselves into the story.