“While the story of Alcala’s horrors and how he got away with it and was eventually caught is a truly compelling one, this podcast did not rise to the occasion. It’s definitely not one of investigation, let alone investigative journalism. It doesn’t tackle the gaps in law enforcement’s approach, limitations of crime technology at the time, the shortcomings of the justice and judicial systems. It doesn’t raise questions, provoke new thoughts on the topic, the system, the psychology. It’s not for curious minds.
They told a story and didn’t offer much more than what one would find online. Also, there’s a peculiar bias in the storytelling. Case in point: Crapow, the witness in the Robyn trial. Her witness testimony is presented upfront by the narrators as unequivocal fact. Then for two episodes all we hear about is how, in actuality, the witness changed her stories multiple times and eventually would refuse to testify. That’s a big deal! But not how that fact was presented to the audience — I call that unreliable storytelling at best. We were given a neat package of stories in a narrowly constructed frame.
THEN, Joan Renner in episode 7 is invited for her perspective as a “true crime historian.” Who is this person? Distractingly, she used the words “idiot” and “imbecile” pretty often to describe elected officials whose opinions she disagrees with. What does her politics have to do with any of this? Or true crime history? Nonsense. She added nothing and detracted from the otherwise somewhat interesting conversation of the others.
And that iPhone ring tone punctuating certain moments throughout, was that their soundtrack?? And the endless ads. I hope the sponsors reconsider on future productions with similar chefs and recipe.”
javielito r via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
12/20/20