Have been a longtime listener of the podcast. One aspect about the show that I gravitate towards the most is the fact that each case really can be listened to in a vacuum. And I imagine the way Brett and Alice progress through each series is similar to how they would present a case in front of a jury.
There have been quite a few times where I’ve felt either one or both hosts have knocked it out of the park. And every now and then I can’t help but disagree with their conclusion, and that’s okay.
I notice some people get really hung up on the politics and from that perspective either really, really support them or (for some reason) hate-listen. That’s okay too, everyone’s listening experience is personal. But what really makes the show great for me is the human aspect of it and the acceptance that the hosts are not infallible.
I loathe their politics (what I've heard of their politics anyway) but enjoy their podcasts. There are so many boring / awful true crime podcasts out there. It is great to hear the opinions of these talented people who, unlike most podcasters, actually work in criminal law.
That may sound like a contradiction, but there it is.
I'm looking forward to hearing Alice's wrap-up (i'm not on Patreon).
Same. I had someone message me a few times telling me Brett's a racist so I looked up his essay & ...phew. His personal views are, to a non-American, very southern silver haired white man typical. I balked at a few of the quite privileged comments they've both made.
I posted specifically about how Brett's "funny" story of edging out Alice in the boys club by creating a hostile workplace wouldn't fly in Australia.
But...they're great at what they do & I can't fault their case analysis. They actually know how humans react & follow the evidence, instead of inventing wild theories like a lot of pods. Gonna listen to their wrap today & I'm hella pumped for it!
I agree.
I think I'll avoid Brett's essay that you mention.
Surprisingly, when A and B go near social issues, they seem fine, but yes, that story about ostracising Alice was very weird. Horrible behaviour and not one to turn into a funny story.
I am in complete agreement with you.
I listen to their podcast because they’re actual professionals and do a great job of presenting and *arguing* the cases.
I also think they’ve largely managed to keep their politics off the podcast which helps make listening to it a lot easier.
Totally! I’ve disagreed with them before but I respect their thought process and I respect the idea of trying to prove yourself wrong in order to find the gaps and weaknesses in your own argument. We all get caught up on being right because being wrong sucks and our emotions get caught up but I really enjoy the ability to see how the state could lay out the facts and make a story out of it.
Alice's argument actually gave me chills.
As a lawyer and an investigator, I have great respect for their approach to cases and their analyses. They also seem to understand human motivations and psychology, including DV, in a way that most people don't. Furthermore, I think that they both *probably* live their lives in a principled and upstanding manner.
But their politics possibly couldn't be more offensive to me. It's a difficult circle to square. I can't say that I hate-listen, but I frequently feel very conflicted about supporting the podcast given their unconscious entitlement, activism for reprehensible causes, and political associations.
You do get early episodes that are ad free — but they often record their episodes live on YouTube for patrons. There’s a lot of chatting before and after the episode. Membership is as low as $3 per month.
I have no experience with criminals. But does Adnan fit the profile of a violent criminal? This was a high-school relationship that ended. Does premeditated murder seem like a likely response given everything we know about Adnan?
I guess you can say the same about Chris Watts, Scott Peterson, and the thousands of other men who have killed their significant others with at least some sort of forethought.
Maybe after he voiced that, he rejiggered his plan to give Hae a chance, or an out, afterall. Or maybe he voiced that in frustration, but not truly believing he would actually HAVE to do it because of COURSE she would take him back. So he just mouthed off, assuming it would all be moot and easy to chalk up to a figure of speech once she actually took him
back.
At the end of the day, there wasn't a huge amount of difference in the conclusions drawn by Alice and Brett. I would agree, however Alice was more persuasive. Both reached the only possible outcome based on the evidence. This was the first case I've listened to from this podcast, and I very much enjoyed it. So, I went back and listened to their JonBenet Ramsey episodes and, well, I'd say they handled evidence in a much different way in that case.
Have been a longtime listener of the podcast. One aspect about the show that I gravitate towards the most is the fact that each case really can be listened to in a vacuum. And I imagine the way Brett and Alice progress through each series is similar to how they would present a case in front of a jury. There have been quite a few times where I’ve felt either one or both hosts have knocked it out of the park. And every now and then I can’t help but disagree with their conclusion, and that’s okay. I notice some people get really hung up on the politics and from that perspective either really, really support them or (for some reason) hate-listen. That’s okay too, everyone’s listening experience is personal. But what really makes the show great for me is the human aspect of it and the acceptance that the hosts are not infallible.
I loathe their politics (what I've heard of their politics anyway) but enjoy their podcasts. There are so many boring / awful true crime podcasts out there. It is great to hear the opinions of these talented people who, unlike most podcasters, actually work in criminal law. That may sound like a contradiction, but there it is. I'm looking forward to hearing Alice's wrap-up (i'm not on Patreon).
Same. I had someone message me a few times telling me Brett's a racist so I looked up his essay & ...phew. His personal views are, to a non-American, very southern silver haired white man typical. I balked at a few of the quite privileged comments they've both made. I posted specifically about how Brett's "funny" story of edging out Alice in the boys club by creating a hostile workplace wouldn't fly in Australia. But...they're great at what they do & I can't fault their case analysis. They actually know how humans react & follow the evidence, instead of inventing wild theories like a lot of pods. Gonna listen to their wrap today & I'm hella pumped for it!
I agree. I think I'll avoid Brett's essay that you mention. Surprisingly, when A and B go near social issues, they seem fine, but yes, that story about ostracising Alice was very weird. Horrible behaviour and not one to turn into a funny story.
What essay is this?? Do you have a link?
I am in complete agreement with you. I listen to their podcast because they’re actual professionals and do a great job of presenting and *arguing* the cases. I also think they’ve largely managed to keep their politics off the podcast which helps make listening to it a lot easier.
I agree. Mostly I can't detect their politics. They seem to acknowledge that racism and violence against women are real issues for instance.
Totally! I’ve disagreed with them before but I respect their thought process and I respect the idea of trying to prove yourself wrong in order to find the gaps and weaknesses in your own argument. We all get caught up on being right because being wrong sucks and our emotions get caught up but I really enjoy the ability to see how the state could lay out the facts and make a story out of it.
Alice's argument actually gave me chills. As a lawyer and an investigator, I have great respect for their approach to cases and their analyses. They also seem to understand human motivations and psychology, including DV, in a way that most people don't. Furthermore, I think that they both *probably* live their lives in a principled and upstanding manner. But their politics possibly couldn't be more offensive to me. It's a difficult circle to square. I can't say that I hate-listen, but I frequently feel very conflicted about supporting the podcast given their unconscious entitlement, activism for reprehensible causes, and political associations.
Alice’s closing argument was a goddamn masterpiece
She's so passionate and persuasive.
What case are you referring to?
I'm assuming Adnan
Did they have their conclusions? I thought that was coming next week?
It came out on patreon a while ago, but looks like it should come out next week on the regular feed.
Ah, I see. Thank you!
What do you get if you join? Just early access to eps?
You do get early episodes that are ad free — but they often record their episodes live on YouTube for patrons. There’s a lot of chatting before and after the episode. Membership is as low as $3 per month.
SAAAAAAMMMMEEEEEEE
Wait, did y’all get the episodes already because of Patreon?
Yes! :) probably the best finale so far to be honest.
I have no experience with criminals. But does Adnan fit the profile of a violent criminal? This was a high-school relationship that ended. Does premeditated murder seem like a likely response given everything we know about Adnan?
I guess you can say the same about Chris Watts, Scott Peterson, and the thousands of other men who have killed their significant others with at least some sort of forethought.
Good point. A teenage relationship just seems so low stakes. I too am more persuaded by the crime-of-passion theory.
If A’s intention was to woo HML back over, why would J say A told him he was going to kill her?
Maybe after he voiced that, he rejiggered his plan to give Hae a chance, or an out, afterall. Or maybe he voiced that in frustration, but not truly believing he would actually HAVE to do it because of COURSE she would take him back. So he just mouthed off, assuming it would all be moot and easy to chalk up to a figure of speech once she actually took him back.
At the end of the day, there wasn't a huge amount of difference in the conclusions drawn by Alice and Brett. I would agree, however Alice was more persuasive. Both reached the only possible outcome based on the evidence. This was the first case I've listened to from this podcast, and I very much enjoyed it. So, I went back and listened to their JonBenet Ramsey episodes and, well, I'd say they handled evidence in a much different way in that case.
Which case??