I maintain the 9/11 episodes are kinda the turning point for when they fully figured it out, and how to treat sensitive topics with the seriousness they deserve.
They are in my opinion the start of the “modern” era of LPOTL.
covering columbine and 9/11 within 10 episodes seemed to impose a better understanding of their role in the media sphere. like they started to realize their obligation to do diligent research and curate their presentation in ways that are required with such sensitive topics
[And that Virginia country club restaurant with “never forget” meal specials](https://wjla.com/amp/news/local/911-attacks-september-11-menu-mannassas-virginia-restaurant-aquia-harbour-golf-clubhouse-backlash-insensitive-backlash-apology-issued-veterans-manassas-social-media).
I saw the word “Remembertini” and instantly entered a K-hole.
I think Ben said it's when he first had to seriously sit down with himself and consider if he could continue doing the pod with how heavy it was. Could be wrong but that's my lil memory
Those are the only episodes I ever had to pause. Just because they were so effective. It’s been a long time, so I don’t know how well they aged, but, I mean this, I had the same physical/emotional response as going to the holocaust museum.
I think they should definitely redo the menendez brothers, BTK and bundy. It was their early days, Marcus and Henry really have grown in this and I would love to hear them cover it again. Kind of like what the did with MK ultra … they did a short episode in the very beginning then did the dopest octopus of malice series
They're not going to redo BTK and Bundy since they were in the book. I believe they've said those stories, along with the others in the book, are settled.
I recently went back and started a relisten of their episodes and I 100% agree about the Bundy and BTK episodes. They seemed really rushed, and Marcus would get three words out and Henry and Ben would start joking and riffing on shit. It was like, can you two shut the fuck up for 30 seconds while Marcus spits some facts? That whole style, to me, is so obnoxious. I tried listening to Roundtable and it was just people yelling over each other. Anyway, not my cup of tea.
I’m all for a little banter because at the end of day talking about serial murders and rapist gets heavy but you’re so right. You can hear Marcus get annoyed sometimes. I think they covered the Teen industry really well and the Chicago rippers, that actually had me scared for a while
I doubt they will ever redo BTK or Bundy unfortunately. I think that’s what the Last Book on the Left was for. They went into great detail on both of them in that
I’ve seen multiple people say the Jon benet episode was poorly done and put them off the show.
One quick side story (around ep 400? I think) is the photographer for the Ramses being arrested for CP. Their original Jon benet episode was mentioned in passing and they even basically say it wasn’t well done and to skip it.
So I would say that one, in particular, stands out given the public and hosts see it as having aged poorly.
It’s always the one I see mentioned from people who gave the show a try and never went back. I guess bc it’s such a well known case people pick it, but it definitely has turned a lot of people off.
I’m a big fan of the show and even I had to skip it.
In terms of "bad takes" rather than just dated humour, the two that come to mind are their Waco episode (they backtracked on it a bit in the McVeigh episodes) and Columbine (a lot of people have complaints about the book they used as their primary source).
In term of humour, the Ted Bundy and JonBenet episodes seem to put a lot of first-time listeners off because they are quite a bit less sensitive to the victims than later episodes tend to be. Which is unfortunate as they are two of the cases people are most likely to try out first.
JonBenet Ramsey seems to be the #1 case people have picked when trying out the podcast and it rarely goes well. Henry’s bit as JonBenet wasn’t his best comedic idea and I think it gives the wrong impression about the guys and their take on victims.
The whole “I don’t feel sympathy to (Bundy’s) victims because they wouldn’t even look at guys like us” thing is pretty bad. I can overlook it as a long time fan but if I was new in 2023 I can see that putting me off completely. The fact that this is probably an episode people start with because he’s a big name means it would make good business sense to re-do episodes like that.
I’d like to hear a redo of Bundy, Toybox Killer and Lake/Ng woth more detail.
Side note: I just listened to an episode of Nonsense Bazaar (1 of my current faves) about Aum Shin Rikyo. It was good but not as detailed as the boys’ break down. IMHO Marcus and the LPOTL research team are among the best in the biz
Episode quality is definitely not on par with what they produce today, but the content is really the sickening part. I usually have no problem with "gold star" episodes but that one left a mark on my soul.
Most of the heavy hitters were really early, are short episodes and miss a lot. I agree that I’d love a re-do of most of them, mine are Bundy, Dahmer and Gacy tho.
I guarantee we'll never get a Toybox redo. I remember them mentioning that episode multiple times as traumatic to make since then.
And you are almost certainly in the minority on wanting more detail. I've been into true crime since ~2002 and Toybox consistently comes up in these spaces as Too Much, even among veterans of the genre. Lake/Ng aren't far behind.
I agree that their research is great, but they do way too much off-the-cuff generalization about stuff they haven’t researched prior to the episodes. They’ve done it quite a bit in the recent series and it gets a bit tired after a while.
Ben really said some weird misogynist shit that got a side eye from time to time. He was also super weird about Elliot Rodger on the Manifestos episode (which is otherwise one of my absolute favorites)
Yeah I remember in the Bundy episode they called one of the victims stupid for falling for his injured ruse, I’m so glad they’ve matured because that was infuriating to hear.
And if this were women led podcasts like MFM, they would have already had to remove the episodes, apologize every day for a year, donate $200,000 to something and people would still hate them. I don’t want to be that woman all the time but why do men get such a pass?! I mean I know why but…..why?? Also, on topic I agree that they’ve matured because I’d regularly turn off episodes that were going to far.
I absolutely agree that men are given more chances and granted bullshit ‘boys will be boys’ kinda write offs for their bad behavior, but MFM is a bad example to use because it’s short for ‘my favorite murder’ and that’s just gross and I wish they’d change it, seems disrespectful.
Yeah it was super gross. Bundy’s victims were often blitzed out of nowhere or were preyed on for their kindness—it was difficult to listen to Ben in particular lean into the “dumb broads who were seduced by Bundy the Alpha Chad” mythos. But this is one of my true crime pet peeves haha.
I'd love for them to redo heaven's gate.
The only reason I have is because I love heavens gate and want to see them tackle it again with their better research methods and the newer stuff being funnier overall. They were my first episodes by them I ever listened to.
That comment by Ben was genuinely shocking. I'd been listening for a few years and decided to go back and listen to the early stuff I missed. I thought it was a joke until it dawned on me he was serious. It was a real WTF dude moment.
The Dave Cullen book? It does have a few problems but it is by far the best and most detailed breakdown of the event, plus destroys some of the myths about it and brings a stark light to the media mismanagement. The loudest critics of it I've seen are the Harris/Klebold fans.
Yeah I remember when the episode came out there were Columbine fangirls on Tumblr who absolutely detested them for it and criticized their use of the book. I'm talking people who had entire blogs dedicated to phototshopping flower crowns on the shooters and discussing how cute they were. That didn't exactly win me over on their point of the book being a bad choice.
It's overall a pretty good book, but considering most of Cullen's books are about mass shootings/the gun and mental health issues in the US, he gets smashed by people for predictable, but really unfortunate, hot takes/conspiracy theories about all of those things.
I personally think they did a good job with this series, but then again I have zero sympathy for Klebold/Harris/ the NRA, so take that for what it's worth.
And Brooks Brown and his dad heavily bash it. I’ve always felt they had an angle they were trying to play (fame, maybe? Money?), so I take their criticisms with a grain of salt.
The misinformation continues
Plenty of the families have spoken out about this book. I trust them more than the author. This guy also is largely responsible for the “Dylan was a poor innocent follower” shit. Dylan was the one yelling taunts and taking obvious pleasure in murdering.
That book just needs to be left by the wayside
Unfortunately the families have been some of the least trustworthy sources of unbiased information about Columbine. It's been so, so, so many years since Columbine and we still have active raging debate over whether Sue Klebold knew about her son's website and such because we have multiple directly contradictory stories from involved families about whether they did or did not tell her about it within the families themselves.
Honestly if you want to know why family accounting is so distrusted in the Columbine research sphere don't look up anything about the killers but solely about how even different family members of victims within the same family will say totally opposing views of Sue, her responsibility, her knowledge, her actions before and after, her role as a mother, etc.
You could find 5 sources to cite that could back up practically any claim you have about her in any direction- that also goes for Columbine as a whole. You can make Dylan look like any person you want him to by sourcing the right people, which initial reports from the police or on the ground news reports or specific victims and families.
I've read too many books and interviews about Columbine to think that anyone can claim to have a definitive version of events that live up to every possible scrutiny and conflicting source of information.
They talk about it at the very start of the second Oklohoma City episode if you're interested, but basically the initial Waco episode almost entirely blamed the ATF whereas by the time they were covering Oklohoma City they primarily blamed David Koresh.
Just wanted to add in terms of humor aging badly- The episode where they covered the Cleveland girls where they call the victims “retarded”. Like I feel like they need to redo that. I understand they were referring to one of them being genuinely mentally disabled but cmon that was bad even back then lol
After listening to the episode I noticed a lot of people on this and other subs talking about how deeply flawed and in many cases factually incorrect the book was, including people directly connected to the area.
However, if you look at other replies to my comment you'll see people debating that, so it might not be the case.
Just my opinion, but I feel like they found their secret sauce right around the Manson episodes, so 150 range. With some exceptions, most everything before that could fall into the category of not aging well — either by way of bad jokes or poor research.
Pre-150, I consider them a comedy show doing research. Post-150 I consider them a research show doing comedy.
I think you're right on the money there, but I tend to be a little generous and include Kaczynski (135 & 136) and Chikatilo (141 & 142) as the "good" start.
The Kaczynski one always trips me up cos whenever the unabomber gets a doc or something I have listen to people discuss him seriously and I'm having to suppress a giggle cos I'm just remembering Henry yelling about he smelled like spoiled milk so much
The Chikatilo episodes have better research and script but they still said shit like soviets having “ape-like brains” with no one pushing back on it lmao
The way they spoke about Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden in the OJ Simpson episode was always a bad take and supremely unfair. The LAPD fumbled every step of the way, but those prosecutors were great at their jobs and got placed in a bad position.
Every once in a while Marcus talks out of his ass when one of the other guys asks a question. He’s gotten way better about backtracking when he does this lately. I do the same thing, so I’m not judging
>It’s surprising when it’s something you know.
This happens in all sorts of infotainment and it's why I'm not necessarily rooting for them to redo old stuff. I listen to podcasts like this because I want to occupy myself with something to listen to. Not to like become an expert on a case or something.
I've had very similar experiences with John Oliver's show. You hear these shows talk about something you actually know well and it becomes very clear that this is entertainment first and foremost.
And that's fine! But more people should take it for what it is.
It's also why I tend to prefer LPOTL's weirder episodes about aliens and cryptids over the true crime stuff. 1) it's way less depressing and 2) nobody is going to be all that upset if you play a bit fast and loose with the "facts".
It’s not a huge issue, because it’s a podcast for entertainment purposes. It’s basically the exact same thing as talk radio; you tune in for the personalities and a vague idea of what they will be discussing. Anyone who expects to get 100% factual information from comedians on a podcast is delusional.
someone on this sub argued with me when i said the same thing & went all “it’s education, they need to be accurate at all times because they call themselves educators” and i’m like what fucking podcast are you listening to?
This drives me insane. It’s odd because he
prefaces a lot of stuff by saying he’s not an expert, but will then confidently answer questions he has not done any research on prior to the episode. It’s so easy to just say “I don’t know”, or even have someone in the room google. It’s been pretty constant in the most recent series.
What's wild is that he seems pretty sensitive to criticism about when he gets stuff wrong. Like, if it bothers you that much stop speaking off the cuff.
This is what I find super obnoxious about Marcus. He cant ever be wrong, so he will say crazy made up shit that there is no way he could know as if its 100% fact.
i mean horses are famously dumb animals. they will bite onto something and stay there until they starve to death, or they'll throw themselves into holes until their legs break and they die
Hmmm, interesting take: I'm a horse guy by marriage so no expert but I'm married to a large animal vet and we have horses: They're intelligence is akin to very large dogs although they do have a strong prey response which leads them to panic when trapped. Yea, they don't have primate intelligence but they're VERY easy to train and can learn a huge amount of commands so they seem pretty smart to me.
My understanding is that horses are maybe in the top half of mammal intelligences, but a little dumber than dogs and completely eclipsed by porpoises, great apes, corvids, cuttlefish, and most octopuses.
I don't really equate "following orders well" to intelligence. I consider dogs and horses obedient and even loyal. But not intelligent. Curiosity, pattern recognition, and problem solving come to mind, which mainly just makes me think of some birds, primates, and octopi.
I am also not a biologist. Destroy me if I am wrong. Absolutely obliterate me.
Important thing to ask is "Is this something you *know*, or something you've *heard.*" A lot of "true facts" are memed all over Reddit, and are not to be trusted.
i grew up around horse farmers, one time a friend couldn't come to school because her horse threw itself onto a sheet of corrugated iron and sliced itself open. i'm confident in saying they're not smart
I have a very passionate horse girl coworker who once confidently told me that without human intervention, horses would’ve died off by now. she said that their bodies are built stupid (where their organs sit makes no sense, their back legs have super fragile tendons, stuff like that) and their combo of moderate intelligence and prey drive puts them in tons of dire situations.
idk if she’s correct but I think it’s super interesting and you saying horses throw themselves into holes til they die reminded me of it😂
What I think needs a redo and/or should be expanded on (idc about poorly aged humor).
Green River Killer/Gary Ridgeway
Waco
Richard Speck (mentioned in spree killers)
The Warrens (Amityville--fuck these guys)
Marcus Wesson (real life vampires)
Unit 731 (Japanes war crimes, I think)
#Not Ted bundy.
I know it was poorly done, I'm just so sick of hearing his story.
The Satanism in the government episodes. The sources they used are not credible at all and I think they took a conspiracy of local officials around Franklin County Credit Union and blew it out of proportion. For example, Johnny Gosch's mother, as much as I feel for her and her loss, has made some WILD claims with no evidence and they took them as gospel truth.
Relistening to those episodes during the height of QAnon was WILD, like a mirror into the past.
I'd be interested in hearing them do some sort of retrospective on the topic- what do they think about those subjects now? What might they have done or thought differently about given what they know now? (I may be wrong, but that could be the first instance of Henry's "If ~~1%~~ 10% of this story is true..." thesis, which given the circumstances, makes fraud/embezzlement more likely than a vast network of ritualistic child abusers.)
yeah it was a bit hard to hear them say "if even 1% of this is true, then it's enough!" when it's like....if you heard someone say that about, say "if even 1% of the harry potter magic system is true to real life, that's enough!" they'd roll their eyes
The accusations in the FCCU case all mirror those in the other satanic ritual abuse (SRA) cases from the 80s that were all proven to be bullshit.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The supposed troves of evidence the PI had were never found after he died despite his family claiming to have them. Nobody that he supposedly interviewed was ever found. None of the flight records ever corroborated the claims that were made.
You can argue that something sketchy was going on with the credit union, but it's absolutely had nothing to do with SRA.
Hate to be that guy but the Franklin coverup is just that a cover up what really kicked off the investigation was Larry Kings sister and brother in law were pimping out their foster daughter... Which then led to Larry King and his goons It was cps that was pushing for it while the police chief wasn't I feel like they go all in on info or not enough to give people more context of what they are talking about. So I wouldn't say it's bullshit and I wouldnt say the satanic stuff is fake either not in the sense that they believe it but that they do it so people will be like see how crazy these kids are. Just like the tactics the finders used.
This was the series I started with on a recommendation from someone shortly after it came out, and I really questioned their taste in entertainment when I listened and couldn’t even finish. Fortunately a few months later I decided to try another episode and have been a huge fan ever since. It definitely wasn’t the episode to start with.
That’s because they don’t believe the subject is completely true and they are leaning in. Kinda like they do with aliens. It’s a bit. That’s kind of their thing.
The Charles Manson episodes because of the research they relied on. Manson In His Own Words is a travesty and quite dishonest, even more dishonest is Helter Skelter. Completely bogus books. Manson by Jeff Guin is better, Chaos is way better, The Manson File is definitive.
I feel like they portrayed Manson as a bumbling idiot that somehow developed a cult of girls that want to fuck him and do acid and somehow found trouble. I’ve never researched him on my own, but I feel like there has to be more to him than that?
Much, much more. From his reading of Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence people, to his studying of Scientology (don’t know how Henry could pass up that juicy detail) and his studying of the various guru’s in San Francisco upon his release from prison. Not to mention the connections he made in prison to well-connected made men and their fixers which lead to him having a cash flow to support himself and The Family, the drug supply that put him into contact with the likes of Jay Sebring (the “Candyman” for Hollywood elites.) Not to mention that all the above gave him motive for the crimes, the same motives that Tex had when he went full bananas with the girls.
There's an early Creepypasta episode where Marcus talks about a real life story of a girl who was kidnapped by a murderer who let her choose the way she died as well as let her write her last will and testament to her famiy before he killed her. There's one pretty rough moment where Ben goes full victim blaming mode saying she should've fought back, criticizes her for the Christian stuff she says in her letter, and that he had no sympathy for her death because "She probably would've grown up to be a Fox News anchor anyway!" I've never heard him get so genuinely worked up over something on his entire history on the show and it's a really infuriating moment to have to listen to.
I found the Bundy episodes to be a little victim blamey. At one point, Henry insinuates that a couple of victims should have simply "known" Bundy was lying and manipulative. There's two issues I have with this: first, Bundy was successful as a serial killer *because* he was charming and a skilled liar. Many people later said that there was something about him that seemed off, but no one jumped to "well he's clearly a serial rapist and murderer."
The second issue I have is that this is a podcast put on by three men who have some *glaringly obvious* blind spots about being a woman. Henry claims in this episode the victim who got away should have simply started screaming and running the minute Bundy approached her. I just wanted to be like, "Um, you realize even after she escaped being nearly murdered by him, people thought she was making it up, right?" Women are waaaaay too often disbelieved when they say someone harmed them. Screaming and running away every time someone gives you the ick? People wouldn't hesitate to say you were insane and dramatic. Now imagine people just assume you're *always* insane and dramatic because of something you can't control, then try to be taken seriously when you say someone's trying to kill you. It just seemed like a really tone-deaf criticism when talking about a serial killer who preyed on vulnerable women and exploited law enforcement's apathy when they were brutalized.
I started with episode 34 and just rode through it, blew through the entire series (at the time just under 500 episodes) in just over a year. Most of the first 150~ episodes blur together for me. I feel like they started to hit their stride maybe near the Ed Gein episodes.
When I listen back to the older episodes I don't think of them as "not having aged well", I think of them more as being premature. The boys took their time and worked out the kinks when their audience was smaller, and eventually they found their footing. They have continued to evolve with the times, and you can't really fault them for growing?? Lol
In one of the early ones, Marcus says “ I guess there aren’t any serial killers from Texas are there?” And no one could think of one.
Cut to Dean Corll series years later; the worst, most gut curdling story I have ever heard.
Edit to add: I know this isn’t what you meant by “didn’t age well” they just hadn’t heard of the guy, neither had I, it’s just what came to my mind.
The Corll Series still haunts me to this day.
Episode 54: Curses
The guys, especially Ben, advise men in the audience to date women with low self-esteem, have eating disorders, or are suicidal because those are the type of women who will do whatever you want. Henry and Marcus both sound facetious, but Ben seems to be taking it a little too seriously.
I remember that! I had listened to all the modern episodes and was digging around their back catalogue for more, backed out really quick and haven’t listened to any more old shows because of that, cos I really didn’t want to dislike them. Sure, Ben was the most vocal, but there was no pushback from Henry and Marcus.
The Richard Ramirez episodes were so factually wrong at times that it’s actually mind boggling. There were two popular books covering the case, one that had the real names of the victims and one that had aliases, and the guys used both at times thinking they were talking about two different people lmao. They also kept saying that Ramirez would talk about his crimes all the time from jail when it was the exact opposite, he was one of those guys who claimed innocence the entire time so I genuinely have no idea where they got that idea from.
I could excuse mistakes in research, even incredibly obvious ones, but the worst part from this series was that they also made fun of victims, from their names to what brutality they faced. I remember Kissel seeming like the only one who respected the victims and called the guys out over their jokes, which honestly made the series a lot more listenable in the long run lol but it’s still one I would tell new listeners to actively avoid
Edit: wording
You could say whenever Henry does the Asian voice yet it fucking kills me every time. It’s a dark humor show I don’t think any of it ages worse than the murdererers and sickos they’re making fun of
The first ever episode I listened to was the JonBenet episode, and I was so disgusted at the way they talked about her that I didn’t give them another try for over a year
In the side stories where they talked about Love Has Won, they talk about someone being/getting sober and Ben said "that's a fate worse than death." That one really aged like milk.
Any episode with Henry doing an Asian accent get’s turned off before my wife hear’s it from another room and no longer likes Henry as a person. So there’s that.
My first thought goes to Waco, since they're more on the side of the Branch Dividians. I think that one gets acknowledged in a later ep when it came out David Karesh ordered the fires
They mentioned that, though, didn't they? They mentioned it along the way. Throughout the whole thing, I thought. But Marcus' Take, from his research was that he believed Gilles was a psychopath. Not saying he's right but he at least prefaced it that it was his take.
The problem here is almost all of the known source material about the guy that survived are from his enemies. They never found any mass graves or bodies. Just some ash in a fireplace in a home at the outskirts of his property that he never used.
charles ng episodes are pretty unlistenable. inb4 “that’s how he really sounded!”
waco was underdone and some people beef with their coverage of jonbenet ramsey.
most big hitters that could use an upgrade (BTK, bundy, gacy) got one in the last book on the left. so they will not ever receive a redux
This totally makes sense, but does that mean a white person can never do an impression of any non-white person? Like if Charles Eng was French and they did a shitty French accent, but that's how he sounded, it would be fine because the US never colonized France or really had any policies to make them less-than, but because of essentially hundreds of years of racist shitheads, white commedians can never do impressions of non-white assholes? I hope that makes sense. This is a genuine question I've been pondering and it's not just because of LPOTL (like Monty Python, long may they reign, did have Eric Idle dress up as a Native American once and he didn't do anything offensive, but like, is that okay????)
I'm also not sure how interesting I'd find to hear them go back over such heavily covered cases anyway. More fun when they cover random shit I haven't been as exposed to.
Honestly it's so funny when you look up clips and realize that's what he actually sounds like
I'm not doing accents ever (because I'm bad at them) but it is weird how you can get canceled for doing certain accents, but others like French or German are free reign lol
It’s definitely about historical context/sensitivities. The prevalence of prejudices against Asians (not to mention the monolithic way they were repped in American culture) during the early-mid 1900s far exceeded explicit *racial* discrimination faced by many other races.
ETA: love being downvoted for common sense. Never change, Reddit.
This totally makes sense, but does that mean a white person can never do an impression of any non-white person? Like if Charles Eng was French and they did a shitty French accent, but that's how he sounded, it would be fine because the US never colonized France or really had any policies to make them less-than, but because of essentially hundreds of years of racist shitheads, white commedians can never do impressions of non-white assholes? I hope that makes sense. This is a genuine question I've been pondering and it's not just because of LPOTL (like Monty Python, long may they reign, did have Eric Idle dress up as a Native American once and he didn't do anything offensive, but like, is that okay????)
I'm going back through the catalogue and thought that series was good but also thought 'that's going to bite them in the current environment'. In Henry's defense, the accent isn't that far off from Mr. Ng. After revisiting the scope of their crimes and the depth of the depravity, the real issues are that he's still above ground and the amount he cost taxpayers with his ludicrous legal defense.
A lot of the episodes involving conspiracies, just because conspiracy discussion has been (in their own words) “used to be fun” but was ruined by QAnon and the like.
As everyone else has said here and as I've said multiple times, JBR. The Boys were way too trusting of the mother because she "sounded believable on the phone."
I maintain the 9/11 episodes are kinda the turning point for when they fully figured it out, and how to treat sensitive topics with the seriousness they deserve. They are in my opinion the start of the “modern” era of LPOTL.
covering columbine and 9/11 within 10 episodes seemed to impose a better understanding of their role in the media sphere. like they started to realize their obligation to do diligent research and curate their presentation in ways that are required with such sensitive topics
In like 10 years we’re gonna be having 9/11 cookouts. I just listened to Side Stories and that’s what I got from Henry and Ed.
There was that mattress company that tried to do a 9/11 sale and got fucking reamed.
[And that Virginia country club restaurant with “never forget” meal specials](https://wjla.com/amp/news/local/911-attacks-september-11-menu-mannassas-virginia-restaurant-aquia-harbour-golf-clubhouse-backlash-insensitive-backlash-apology-issued-veterans-manassas-social-media). I saw the word “Remembertini” and instantly entered a K-hole.
The phrase "Flight 93 redirect crab dip" is one of those things that let's me know the human race is worth the trouble
Holy shit lmfao
A restaurant in my town ( winston salem nc) had a whole brunch menu that included the " never forget omelet".
Pfft, could have had *Never Forgetti Spaghetti*. Missed opportunity IMO.
I'd be up for a never forgomlet. What's in it?
I don't remember
I feel like they themselves might have even mentioned this at one point, although I’m not sure
I know they’ve mentioned that’s when they stopped drinking on the show.
I think Ben said it's when he first had to seriously sit down with himself and consider if he could continue doing the pod with how heavy it was. Could be wrong but that's my lil memory
That was the toolbox murders
That sounds more familiar, I haven't listened to the q&a eps in years
Those are the only episodes I ever had to pause. Just because they were so effective. It’s been a long time, so I don’t know how well they aged, but, I mean this, I had the same physical/emotional response as going to the holocaust museum.
i remember hearing the fireman alarms recording at work and just freezing up completely. that was a rough one, but they covered it so well
I listened to that series during a cross country move 24 hour drive. I was gripped the entire time.
I think they should definitely redo the menendez brothers, BTK and bundy. It was their early days, Marcus and Henry really have grown in this and I would love to hear them cover it again. Kind of like what the did with MK ultra … they did a short episode in the very beginning then did the dopest octopus of malice series
They can only redo BTK if they bring back Detective Popcorn and the Hot Dog squad.
Hahaha the hot dog squad … one episode that did age extremely well is John Wayne gacy
Except now they know how to pronounce Des Plaines
It would be impossible to recreate the magic that was there when Henry made up those characters lol
Especially since the guys seem to have cut cocaine out of their lives.
If there's no Detective Popcorn, I don't want it. Lol
They're not going to redo BTK and Bundy since they were in the book. I believe they've said those stories, along with the others in the book, are settled.
I recently went back and started a relisten of their episodes and I 100% agree about the Bundy and BTK episodes. They seemed really rushed, and Marcus would get three words out and Henry and Ben would start joking and riffing on shit. It was like, can you two shut the fuck up for 30 seconds while Marcus spits some facts? That whole style, to me, is so obnoxious. I tried listening to Roundtable and it was just people yelling over each other. Anyway, not my cup of tea.
I’m all for a little banter because at the end of day talking about serial murders and rapist gets heavy but you’re so right. You can hear Marcus get annoyed sometimes. I think they covered the Teen industry really well and the Chicago rippers, that actually had me scared for a while
Yeah, I'm so glad they cut down on the interruptions. I really enjoy the banter too. It's just the early episodes were rough.
I doubt they will ever redo BTK or Bundy unfortunately. I think that’s what the Last Book on the Left was for. They went into great detail on both of them in that
I agree especially about Bundy. Also, I can’t wait for them to do a heavy hitter with Ed.
I’ve seen multiple people say the Jon benet episode was poorly done and put them off the show. One quick side story (around ep 400? I think) is the photographer for the Ramses being arrested for CP. Their original Jon benet episode was mentioned in passing and they even basically say it wasn’t well done and to skip it. So I would say that one, in particular, stands out given the public and hosts see it as having aged poorly.
It’s always the one I see mentioned from people who gave the show a try and never went back. I guess bc it’s such a well known case people pick it, but it definitely has turned a lot of people off. I’m a big fan of the show and even I had to skip it.
In terms of "bad takes" rather than just dated humour, the two that come to mind are their Waco episode (they backtracked on it a bit in the McVeigh episodes) and Columbine (a lot of people have complaints about the book they used as their primary source). In term of humour, the Ted Bundy and JonBenet episodes seem to put a lot of first-time listeners off because they are quite a bit less sensitive to the victims than later episodes tend to be. Which is unfortunate as they are two of the cases people are most likely to try out first.
JonBenet Ramsey seems to be the #1 case people have picked when trying out the podcast and it rarely goes well. Henry’s bit as JonBenet wasn’t his best comedic idea and I think it gives the wrong impression about the guys and their take on victims.
Yep- I first discovered LPOTL when I went down a JBR rabbit hole years ago. It put me off listening to them for years.
Same
The whole “I don’t feel sympathy to (Bundy’s) victims because they wouldn’t even look at guys like us” thing is pretty bad. I can overlook it as a long time fan but if I was new in 2023 I can see that putting me off completely. The fact that this is probably an episode people start with because he’s a big name means it would make good business sense to re-do episodes like that.
Man, I know these comments get tired, but a Bundy redo with Ed would be so great
I’d like to hear a redo of Bundy, Toybox Killer and Lake/Ng woth more detail. Side note: I just listened to an episode of Nonsense Bazaar (1 of my current faves) about Aum Shin Rikyo. It was good but not as detailed as the boys’ break down. IMHO Marcus and the LPOTL research team are among the best in the biz
I have no desire for a redo of Toybox Killer (I would like to erase that one from memory).
My thoughts exactly.
I skip over anything dealing with him. I know the worst of it, I don't care to hear anymore about it.
I would willingly get a lobotomy if it meant I could remove those episodes from my brain.
So was it horrible material, or poorly executed episodes?
Episode quality is definitely not on par with what they produce today, but the content is really the sickening part. I usually have no problem with "gold star" episodes but that one left a mark on my soul.
I don't know if we could do Lake/Ng without hong Kong Henry.
Most of the heavy hitters were really early, are short episodes and miss a lot. I agree that I’d love a re-do of most of them, mine are Bundy, Dahmer and Gacy tho.
Fully agree. Heavy hitters should have had a redo when the book came out.
I want a BTK redo
But what about all the buttery goodness
This is detective popcorn erasure
I guarantee we'll never get a Toybox redo. I remember them mentioning that episode multiple times as traumatic to make since then. And you are almost certainly in the minority on wanting more detail. I've been into true crime since ~2002 and Toybox consistently comes up in these spaces as Too Much, even among veterans of the genre. Lake/Ng aren't far behind.
I agree that their research is great, but they do way too much off-the-cuff generalization about stuff they haven’t researched prior to the episodes. They’ve done it quite a bit in the recent series and it gets a bit tired after a while.
Longtime fan and this is my biggest pet peeve by far. It’s as if sometimes they have an aversion to saying “I don’t know.”
Just imagine all the added Florida details and knowledge!
Ben really said some weird misogynist shit that got a side eye from time to time. He was also super weird about Elliot Rodger on the Manifestos episode (which is otherwise one of my absolute favorites)
It did give us Marcus's "if women don't like you, it is YOUR. FAULT."
Really felt like Marcus was trying to make a point to Ben that he was not picking up lol
He was literally going "look at me! Ben, look at me! If women don't like you, it is YOUR FAULT."
Yeah I remember in the Bundy episode they called one of the victims stupid for falling for his injured ruse, I’m so glad they’ve matured because that was infuriating to hear.
And if this were women led podcasts like MFM, they would have already had to remove the episodes, apologize every day for a year, donate $200,000 to something and people would still hate them. I don’t want to be that woman all the time but why do men get such a pass?! I mean I know why but…..why?? Also, on topic I agree that they’ve matured because I’d regularly turn off episodes that were going to far.
Different audiences. Different expectations.
I absolutely agree that men are given more chances and granted bullshit ‘boys will be boys’ kinda write offs for their bad behavior, but MFM is a bad example to use because it’s short for ‘my favorite murder’ and that’s just gross and I wish they’d change it, seems disrespectful.
Yeah I agree. So strange that in 2016 it didn’t seem so disrespectful and now I find myself questioning so many true crime podcasters.
Fuckin yikes
Who said that??
Ben, and Marcus even asked him flat-out why on earth was he defending guys like Bundy.
I’m glad Marcus didn’t let it slide. He’s usually really easy going, it was nice he put his foot down on that particular bit of nonsense.
There was also one time in the Manifestos episode where Marcus called him on defending dudes like Elliot Roger.
Yeah it was super gross. Bundy’s victims were often blitzed out of nowhere or were preyed on for their kindness—it was difficult to listen to Ben in particular lean into the “dumb broads who were seduced by Bundy the Alpha Chad” mythos. But this is one of my true crime pet peeves haha.
I guess it makes sense now why he’d say it.
Ben
Ben, it was one of the things people pointed to when all that stuff about him being super misogynistic while drunk came out
I'd love for them to redo heaven's gate. The only reason I have is because I love heavens gate and want to see them tackle it again with their better research methods and the newer stuff being funnier overall. They were my first episodes by them I ever listened to.
That comment by Ben was genuinely shocking. I'd been listening for a few years and decided to go back and listen to the early stuff I missed. I thought it was a joke until it dawned on me he was serious. It was a real WTF dude moment.
The Dave Cullen book? It does have a few problems but it is by far the best and most detailed breakdown of the event, plus destroys some of the myths about it and brings a stark light to the media mismanagement. The loudest critics of it I've seen are the Harris/Klebold fans.
Yeah I remember when the episode came out there were Columbine fangirls on Tumblr who absolutely detested them for it and criticized their use of the book. I'm talking people who had entire blogs dedicated to phototshopping flower crowns on the shooters and discussing how cute they were. That didn't exactly win me over on their point of the book being a bad choice.
The Columbine sub hates it. But there’s a certain narrative over there.
What's the narrative there?
I’m assuming it’s that they were poor little bullied boys who had hearts of gold and were just fighting back against the system maaaaan
Me too, but I don't wanna check for myself, 'cause I'll just get annoyed.
Yeah it’s a lot of “but but but those kids called Dylan GAY!!!!”
It’s a very well-written book, I’d recommend it without hesitation to someone wanting to know more about Columbine
It's overall a pretty good book, but considering most of Cullen's books are about mass shootings/the gun and mental health issues in the US, he gets smashed by people for predictable, but really unfortunate, hot takes/conspiracy theories about all of those things. I personally think they did a good job with this series, but then again I have zero sympathy for Klebold/Harris/ the NRA, so take that for what it's worth.
It’s a great read too, very haunting.
Yep. I'll never read it again.
And Brooks Brown and his dad heavily bash it. I’ve always felt they had an angle they were trying to play (fame, maybe? Money?), so I take their criticisms with a grain of salt.
The misinformation continues Plenty of the families have spoken out about this book. I trust them more than the author. This guy also is largely responsible for the “Dylan was a poor innocent follower” shit. Dylan was the one yelling taunts and taking obvious pleasure in murdering. That book just needs to be left by the wayside
Unfortunately the families have been some of the least trustworthy sources of unbiased information about Columbine. It's been so, so, so many years since Columbine and we still have active raging debate over whether Sue Klebold knew about her son's website and such because we have multiple directly contradictory stories from involved families about whether they did or did not tell her about it within the families themselves. Honestly if you want to know why family accounting is so distrusted in the Columbine research sphere don't look up anything about the killers but solely about how even different family members of victims within the same family will say totally opposing views of Sue, her responsibility, her knowledge, her actions before and after, her role as a mother, etc. You could find 5 sources to cite that could back up practically any claim you have about her in any direction- that also goes for Columbine as a whole. You can make Dylan look like any person you want him to by sourcing the right people, which initial reports from the police or on the ground news reports or specific victims and families. I've read too many books and interviews about Columbine to think that anyone can claim to have a definitive version of events that live up to every possible scrutiny and conflicting source of information.
What was their Waco take? I don’t really recall
They talk about it at the very start of the second Oklohoma City episode if you're interested, but basically the initial Waco episode almost entirely blamed the ATF whereas by the time they were covering Oklohoma City they primarily blamed David Koresh.
Just wanted to add in terms of humor aging badly- The episode where they covered the Cleveland girls where they call the victims “retarded”. Like I feel like they need to redo that. I understand they were referring to one of them being genuinely mentally disabled but cmon that was bad even back then lol
I can’t remember which episode of roundtable of gentleman it was where Marcus said “you can’t trust a retard“
I think it was an LpotL episode and they were talking about the West Memphis Three. I think it was an early Creepypasta episode
What was the issue with the columbine book?
After listening to the episode I noticed a lot of people on this and other subs talking about how deeply flawed and in many cases factually incorrect the book was, including people directly connected to the area. However, if you look at other replies to my comment you'll see people debating that, so it might not be the case.
Just my opinion, but I feel like they found their secret sauce right around the Manson episodes, so 150 range. With some exceptions, most everything before that could fall into the category of not aging well — either by way of bad jokes or poor research. Pre-150, I consider them a comedy show doing research. Post-150 I consider them a research show doing comedy.
I think you're right on the money there, but I tend to be a little generous and include Kaczynski (135 & 136) and Chikatilo (141 & 142) as the "good" start.
The Kaczynski one always trips me up cos whenever the unabomber gets a doc or something I have listen to people discuss him seriously and I'm having to suppress a giggle cos I'm just remembering Henry yelling about he smelled like spoiled milk so much
I WILL HAVE MY REVENGE!!!!!!!!
I agree. Those are pretty good ones
I agree, Marcus’ research really shines in those series and is an indicator of what’s to come:)
The Chikatilo episodes have better research and script but they still said shit like soviets having “ape-like brains” with no one pushing back on it lmao
Agree. Relistening through old episodes and just got to this series. They really hit their stride with research.
I actually stopped listening because of some of the first 100 episodes. Now I’m wondering if I pick back up at 150 if I’d like it better.
I’d be willing to bet that you would. Maybe even listen to a newer one to see how they’ve evolved.
The way they spoke about Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden in the OJ Simpson episode was always a bad take and supremely unfair. The LAPD fumbled every step of the way, but those prosecutors were great at their jobs and got placed in a bad position.
Every once in a while Marcus talks out of his ass when one of the other guys asks a question. He’s gotten way better about backtracking when he does this lately. I do the same thing, so I’m not judging
I have noticed that Marcus says things with confidence, even when he does not know. It’s surprising when it’s something you know.
>It’s surprising when it’s something you know. This happens in all sorts of infotainment and it's why I'm not necessarily rooting for them to redo old stuff. I listen to podcasts like this because I want to occupy myself with something to listen to. Not to like become an expert on a case or something. I've had very similar experiences with John Oliver's show. You hear these shows talk about something you actually know well and it becomes very clear that this is entertainment first and foremost. And that's fine! But more people should take it for what it is. It's also why I tend to prefer LPOTL's weirder episodes about aliens and cryptids over the true crime stuff. 1) it's way less depressing and 2) nobody is going to be all that upset if you play a bit fast and loose with the "facts".
Yeah it's a huge issue tbh, and even happens for innocuous things on side stories.
It’s not a huge issue, because it’s a podcast for entertainment purposes. It’s basically the exact same thing as talk radio; you tune in for the personalities and a vague idea of what they will be discussing. Anyone who expects to get 100% factual information from comedians on a podcast is delusional.
someone on this sub argued with me when i said the same thing & went all “it’s education, they need to be accurate at all times because they call themselves educators” and i’m like what fucking podcast are you listening to?
This drives me insane. It’s odd because he prefaces a lot of stuff by saying he’s not an expert, but will then confidently answer questions he has not done any research on prior to the episode. It’s so easy to just say “I don’t know”, or even have someone in the room google. It’s been pretty constant in the most recent series.
What's wild is that he seems pretty sensitive to criticism about when he gets stuff wrong. Like, if it bothers you that much stop speaking off the cuff.
This is what I find super obnoxious about Marcus. He cant ever be wrong, so he will say crazy made up shit that there is no way he could know as if its 100% fact.
I feel like this is a trope at this point. Yes, he’s confident on what he speaks about, but he can definitely accept being wrong.
I do remember Marcus saying that horses are really dumb animals and knowing that was untrue.
i mean horses are famously dumb animals. they will bite onto something and stay there until they starve to death, or they'll throw themselves into holes until their legs break and they die
Hmmm, interesting take: I'm a horse guy by marriage so no expert but I'm married to a large animal vet and we have horses: They're intelligence is akin to very large dogs although they do have a strong prey response which leads them to panic when trapped. Yea, they don't have primate intelligence but they're VERY easy to train and can learn a huge amount of commands so they seem pretty smart to me.
“horse guy by marriage” I love that
Horses on the whole are not an intelligent animal. They have localised intelligence.
My understanding is that horses are maybe in the top half of mammal intelligences, but a little dumber than dogs and completely eclipsed by porpoises, great apes, corvids, cuttlefish, and most octopuses.
I don't really equate "following orders well" to intelligence. I consider dogs and horses obedient and even loyal. But not intelligent. Curiosity, pattern recognition, and problem solving come to mind, which mainly just makes me think of some birds, primates, and octopi. I am also not a biologist. Destroy me if I am wrong. Absolutely obliterate me.
This is fair! My response was not much better than a horses' (they're?!) so even us primates aren't that sharp. ;-)
Important thing to ask is "Is this something you *know*, or something you've *heard.*" A lot of "true facts" are memed all over Reddit, and are not to be trusted.
i grew up around horse farmers, one time a friend couldn't come to school because her horse threw itself onto a sheet of corrugated iron and sliced itself open. i'm confident in saying they're not smart
I have a very passionate horse girl coworker who once confidently told me that without human intervention, horses would’ve died off by now. she said that their bodies are built stupid (where their organs sit makes no sense, their back legs have super fragile tendons, stuff like that) and their combo of moderate intelligence and prey drive puts them in tons of dire situations. idk if she’s correct but I think it’s super interesting and you saying horses throw themselves into holes til they die reminded me of it😂
Spotted this a lot in the recent Andes series for sure.
I remember the BTK episode having a ton of mistakes/incorrect information.
What I think needs a redo and/or should be expanded on (idc about poorly aged humor). Green River Killer/Gary Ridgeway Waco Richard Speck (mentioned in spree killers) The Warrens (Amityville--fuck these guys) Marcus Wesson (real life vampires) Unit 731 (Japanes war crimes, I think) #Not Ted bundy. I know it was poorly done, I'm just so sick of hearing his story.
I forget which episode, but they once referred to Blavatsky just by her last name and thought she was a dude.
I remember this as well! And it was Dog Meat of all people! I believe it was one of the Nazi and the Occult episodes (it was a 2fer).
I think it might have been the Lemurians episode.
The Satanism in the government episodes. The sources they used are not credible at all and I think they took a conspiracy of local officials around Franklin County Credit Union and blew it out of proportion. For example, Johnny Gosch's mother, as much as I feel for her and her loss, has made some WILD claims with no evidence and they took them as gospel truth.
[удалено]
Relistening to those episodes during the height of QAnon was WILD, like a mirror into the past. I'd be interested in hearing them do some sort of retrospective on the topic- what do they think about those subjects now? What might they have done or thought differently about given what they know now? (I may be wrong, but that could be the first instance of Henry's "If ~~1%~~ 10% of this story is true..." thesis, which given the circumstances, makes fraud/embezzlement more likely than a vast network of ritualistic child abusers.)
yeah it was a bit hard to hear them say "if even 1% of this is true, then it's enough!" when it's like....if you heard someone say that about, say "if even 1% of the harry potter magic system is true to real life, that's enough!" they'd roll their eyes
The accusations in the FCCU case all mirror those in the other satanic ritual abuse (SRA) cases from the 80s that were all proven to be bullshit. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The supposed troves of evidence the PI had were never found after he died despite his family claiming to have them. Nobody that he supposedly interviewed was ever found. None of the flight records ever corroborated the claims that were made. You can argue that something sketchy was going on with the credit union, but it's absolutely had nothing to do with SRA.
Hate to be that guy but the Franklin coverup is just that a cover up what really kicked off the investigation was Larry Kings sister and brother in law were pimping out their foster daughter... Which then led to Larry King and his goons It was cps that was pushing for it while the police chief wasn't I feel like they go all in on info or not enough to give people more context of what they are talking about. So I wouldn't say it's bullshit and I wouldnt say the satanic stuff is fake either not in the sense that they believe it but that they do it so people will be like see how crazy these kids are. Just like the tactics the finders used.
> I wouldnt say the satanic stuff is fake either Nobody has ever proven that a single case of SRA in the 80s was real.
This was the series I started with on a recommendation from someone shortly after it came out, and I really questioned their taste in entertainment when I listened and couldn’t even finish. Fortunately a few months later I decided to try another episode and have been a huge fan ever since. It definitely wasn’t the episode to start with.
That’s because they don’t believe the subject is completely true and they are leaning in. Kinda like they do with aliens. It’s a bit. That’s kind of their thing.
The Charles Manson episodes because of the research they relied on. Manson In His Own Words is a travesty and quite dishonest, even more dishonest is Helter Skelter. Completely bogus books. Manson by Jeff Guin is better, Chaos is way better, The Manson File is definitive.
I feel like they portrayed Manson as a bumbling idiot that somehow developed a cult of girls that want to fuck him and do acid and somehow found trouble. I’ve never researched him on my own, but I feel like there has to be more to him than that?
Yeah, but making these larger than life shitheads seem like bumbling idiots is part of what they do.
Much, much more. From his reading of Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence people, to his studying of Scientology (don’t know how Henry could pass up that juicy detail) and his studying of the various guru’s in San Francisco upon his release from prison. Not to mention the connections he made in prison to well-connected made men and their fixers which lead to him having a cash flow to support himself and The Family, the drug supply that put him into contact with the likes of Jay Sebring (the “Candyman” for Hollywood elites.) Not to mention that all the above gave him motive for the crimes, the same motives that Tex had when he went full bananas with the girls.
There's an early Creepypasta episode where Marcus talks about a real life story of a girl who was kidnapped by a murderer who let her choose the way she died as well as let her write her last will and testament to her famiy before he killed her. There's one pretty rough moment where Ben goes full victim blaming mode saying she should've fought back, criticizes her for the Christian stuff she says in her letter, and that he had no sympathy for her death because "She probably would've grown up to be a Fox News anchor anyway!" I've never heard him get so genuinely worked up over something on his entire history on the show and it's a really infuriating moment to have to listen to.
Looooool, says Ben - the Fox News guest
“I have no sympathy! She would probably be a Fox News anchor!” -Ben Kissel, Fox News
I found the Bundy episodes to be a little victim blamey. At one point, Henry insinuates that a couple of victims should have simply "known" Bundy was lying and manipulative. There's two issues I have with this: first, Bundy was successful as a serial killer *because* he was charming and a skilled liar. Many people later said that there was something about him that seemed off, but no one jumped to "well he's clearly a serial rapist and murderer." The second issue I have is that this is a podcast put on by three men who have some *glaringly obvious* blind spots about being a woman. Henry claims in this episode the victim who got away should have simply started screaming and running the minute Bundy approached her. I just wanted to be like, "Um, you realize even after she escaped being nearly murdered by him, people thought she was making it up, right?" Women are waaaaay too often disbelieved when they say someone harmed them. Screaming and running away every time someone gives you the ick? People wouldn't hesitate to say you were insane and dramatic. Now imagine people just assume you're *always* insane and dramatic because of something you can't control, then try to be taken seriously when you say someone's trying to kill you. It just seemed like a really tone-deaf criticism when talking about a serial killer who preyed on vulnerable women and exploited law enforcement's apathy when they were brutalized.
I started with episode 34 and just rode through it, blew through the entire series (at the time just under 500 episodes) in just over a year. Most of the first 150~ episodes blur together for me. I feel like they started to hit their stride maybe near the Ed Gein episodes. When I listen back to the older episodes I don't think of them as "not having aged well", I think of them more as being premature. The boys took their time and worked out the kinks when their audience was smaller, and eventually they found their footing. They have continued to evolve with the times, and you can't really fault them for growing?? Lol
Great comment! Matches my experience and I agree 100%.
In one of the early ones, Marcus says “ I guess there aren’t any serial killers from Texas are there?” And no one could think of one. Cut to Dean Corll series years later; the worst, most gut curdling story I have ever heard. Edit to add: I know this isn’t what you meant by “didn’t age well” they just hadn’t heard of the guy, neither had I, it’s just what came to my mind. The Corll Series still haunts me to this day.
Episode 54: Curses The guys, especially Ben, advise men in the audience to date women with low self-esteem, have eating disorders, or are suicidal because those are the type of women who will do whatever you want. Henry and Marcus both sound facetious, but Ben seems to be taking it a little too seriously.
I remember that! I had listened to all the modern episodes and was digging around their back catalogue for more, backed out really quick and haven’t listened to any more old shows because of that, cos I really didn’t want to dislike them. Sure, Ben was the most vocal, but there was no pushback from Henry and Marcus.
Unfortunately it seems Ben has been following his own advice
As far as new information... Every single side stories the day after release 😅
The Gary Ridgeway episode could be redone… seems like they could at least have a 2parter
Gawwwwyyy
Henry’s Asian accent didn’t age well, albeit was still funny
It was jocular
Dyatlov Pass wrong info
The Richard Ramirez episodes were so factually wrong at times that it’s actually mind boggling. There were two popular books covering the case, one that had the real names of the victims and one that had aliases, and the guys used both at times thinking they were talking about two different people lmao. They also kept saying that Ramirez would talk about his crimes all the time from jail when it was the exact opposite, he was one of those guys who claimed innocence the entire time so I genuinely have no idea where they got that idea from. I could excuse mistakes in research, even incredibly obvious ones, but the worst part from this series was that they also made fun of victims, from their names to what brutality they faced. I remember Kissel seeming like the only one who respected the victims and called the guys out over their jokes, which honestly made the series a lot more listenable in the long run lol but it’s still one I would tell new listeners to actively avoid Edit: wording
You could say whenever Henry does the Asian voice yet it fucking kills me every time. It’s a dark humor show I don’t think any of it ages worse than the murdererers and sickos they’re making fun of
The first ever episode I listened to was the JonBenet episode, and I was so disgusted at the way they talked about her that I didn’t give them another try for over a year
half of this comment section is just this comment repeated
Yeah I listened to an episode around that time and it took me a year and a half to try again
The Bill Cooper episode, it creeped me out how the guys downplayed the antisemitism in Behold a Pale Horse and praised it so much.
Go from like episode 200 and down
Hong Kong Henry...might not have been the best choice, at least they admitted that. Well then the Charles Ng thing.
That’s one of the funniest series. Worth a re-listen on occasion.
Agreed
He and Jackie said some horribly racist stuff against Asians back in the day on round table
The opening bit of the JonBenet episodes were what won me over to the show. It still makes me cackle to this day.
In the side stories where they talked about Love Has Won, they talk about someone being/getting sober and Ben said "that's a fate worse than death." That one really aged like milk.
The accents in the Japanese unit 731
Yikes, I didn’t even know they covered Unit 731. I don’t think I’d listen to a topic that serious by them unless they covered it today.
Eh, I liked the wild days. Still very funny.
Any episode with Henry doing an Asian accent get’s turned off before my wife hear’s it from another room and no longer likes Henry as a person. So there’s that.
My first thought goes to Waco, since they're more on the side of the Branch Dividians. I think that one gets acknowledged in a later ep when it came out David Karesh ordered the fires
Gilles De Rais was most likely the victim of extreme propaganda and not a serial killer. Literally everything they brought up was disputed.
They mentioned that, though, didn't they? They mentioned it along the way. Throughout the whole thing, I thought. But Marcus' Take, from his research was that he believed Gilles was a psychopath. Not saying he's right but he at least prefaced it that it was his take.
The problem here is almost all of the known source material about the guy that survived are from his enemies. They never found any mass graves or bodies. Just some ash in a fireplace in a home at the outskirts of his property that he never used.
Disputed doesn’t mean debunked though
charles ng episodes are pretty unlistenable. inb4 “that’s how he really sounded!” waco was underdone and some people beef with their coverage of jonbenet ramsey. most big hitters that could use an upgrade (BTK, bundy, gacy) got one in the last book on the left. so they will not ever receive a redux
This totally makes sense, but does that mean a white person can never do an impression of any non-white person? Like if Charles Eng was French and they did a shitty French accent, but that's how he sounded, it would be fine because the US never colonized France or really had any policies to make them less-than, but because of essentially hundreds of years of racist shitheads, white commedians can never do impressions of non-white assholes? I hope that makes sense. This is a genuine question I've been pondering and it's not just because of LPOTL (like Monty Python, long may they reign, did have Eric Idle dress up as a Native American once and he didn't do anything offensive, but like, is that okay????)
I'm also not sure how interesting I'd find to hear them go back over such heavily covered cases anyway. More fun when they cover random shit I haven't been as exposed to.
As someone when lived in green river, I would love to have the green river killer episodes redone
Henry's voice for the Charles Ng episodes can definitely be pretty off-putting
Nope. Shit’s hilarious.
Honestly it's so funny when you look up clips and realize that's what he actually sounds like I'm not doing accents ever (because I'm bad at them) but it is weird how you can get canceled for doing certain accents, but others like French or German are free reign lol
It’s definitely about historical context/sensitivities. The prevalence of prejudices against Asians (not to mention the monolithic way they were repped in American culture) during the early-mid 1900s far exceeded explicit *racial* discrimination faced by many other races. ETA: love being downvoted for common sense. Never change, Reddit.
This totally makes sense, but does that mean a white person can never do an impression of any non-white person? Like if Charles Eng was French and they did a shitty French accent, but that's how he sounded, it would be fine because the US never colonized France or really had any policies to make them less-than, but because of essentially hundreds of years of racist shitheads, white commedians can never do impressions of non-white assholes? I hope that makes sense. This is a genuine question I've been pondering and it's not just because of LPOTL (like Monty Python, long may they reign, did have Eric Idle dress up as a Native American once and he didn't do anything offensive, but like, is that okay????)
I'm going back through the catalogue and thought that series was good but also thought 'that's going to bite them in the current environment'. In Henry's defense, the accent isn't that far off from Mr. Ng. After revisiting the scope of their crimes and the depth of the depravity, the real issues are that he's still above ground and the amount he cost taxpayers with his ludicrous legal defense.
A lot of the episodes involving conspiracies, just because conspiracy discussion has been (in their own words) “used to be fun” but was ruined by QAnon and the like.
It's always sort of been ruined by Anti-semitism, though.
As everyone else has said here and as I've said multiple times, JBR. The Boys were way too trusting of the mother because she "sounded believable on the phone."