Defense Diaries

I decided to start with season one, and I’m so glad I did. The Gacy case seems so straightforward. Until you hear this information presented by the son of Gacy’s defense lawyer. This is incredible. I’m looking forward to successive seasons.

I've listened to every episode and have come to love Bob and Ali. I've read previous reviews of how Bob and Ali bicker to each other, and quite honestly I love their realness. But Bob will go to war for his wife. They bring so much material and explain everything to the listeners so they understand. Thank you guys for the in depth pod. I will always share DD. Keep up the good work 🤘🏻

I really appreciated the episodes released during the Delphi trial, not summaries but literally reporting on almost everything that was said abd done in court every day. Kudos to Bob for the incredible focus and energy he brought ( and Ali too.) There’s nothing like the insights a seasoned criminal defense trial lawyer can bring to a case. I was really enjoying the Steven Avery analysis too, looking forward to getting back to that series. As a Chicagoan I want to say, Bob you’re a true representative of our city - hope you get a street named after you one day!

The Defense Diaries podcast offers an intriguing perspective on the legal process, particularly from the viewpoint of a defense attorney. While I find this lens valuable and insightful, I believe it’s important to address certain inconsistencies and claims made by the hosts. One major concern is the podcast’s assertion that it provides “unbiased and objective” reporting. This simply isn’t the case. The show operates heavily through the lens of a defense attorney’s perspective, which inherently introduces bias. While this angle is not inherently problematic, it becomes an issue when the hosts claim they are presenting purely objective facts. For example, the podcast criticizes the prosecution for a police officer paraphrasing something the defendant, RA, allegedly said, emphasizing the importance of using direct quotes in such a significant case. However, in their own reporting, they frequently paraphrase or interpret events from the trial to report, rather than quoting directly from trial transcripts. Bob, one of the hosts, often says things like, “And basically, the guy said…” rather than sticking to exact words. This is far from objective and contradicts the standards they advocate for in the trial itself. Another issue is the podcast’s selective presentation of evidence and arguments, which can feel inconsistent. Early in the trial, Bob stated that the “bridge guy” was too far away for any recording to capture what he said. Later, he claimed the trail was so quiet that it was impossible for others not to have heard the victims say anything. These contradictory statements undermine the credibility of the analysis and highlight how they sometimes shape narratives to fit their argument. Despite these flaws, the podcast does provide an interesting and detailed defense-oriented view of the case. However, listeners should approach it critically and balance it with information from multiple sources. By doing so, they can form their own opinions, informed by diverse perspectives, rather than taking any one interpretation at face value.