“Sorry, the writers and narrator need to educate themselves on basic legal concepts and basic criminal law before publishing commentary on it. I noted issues in every episode I listened to, but just stopped halfway through the Watergate episodes. Robbers? How about burglars? This is a very basic distinction. One takes from another’s person by force or threat of force, and the other breaks and enters with the intent to commit a theft or felony. Since when did Watergate involve robbery? Who was robbed? If you can’t screen your material with an actual criminal attorney or consultant, at least do a basic Google search instead of just inflating the terms into something else entirely. Come on...
And indignant? I would imagine many criminal suspects and defendants feel indignant, but that does not qualify or entitle them to free representation. So how about indigent? Doesn’t that make more sense just from context? And “where the evidence and the verdict don’t always line up”... Not all evidence is admissible. And the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a very high burden. This podcast doesn’t seem to contemplate either of those; it just packages a condensed story with often incorrect descriptions of the law or a misunderstanding of investigations, and treats the summary as though the trial result should be common sense.”
Wasting My Thyme via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
10/24/20