why?
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“The central premise of this podcast is that shoddy police work, unethical prosecutors, incompetent experts, witnesses with false memories, partial jurors and pre-judging judges combined to result in a miscarriage of justice. And then the journo engages in exactly that which he accuses others. He accuses one key witness who had seen RF driving erratically of not being able to see into RF’s car. His own experiment proves the witness could have done so but he ignores that. He interviews a criminologist and tells her I will not give you my version of the case to avoid any bias, and then does exactly that. The defence’s expert witnesses on RF’s physical and mental state are interviewed without question. The prosecution’s dismissed without question. He says that there was no psych report but in the same breadth admits that RF’s psychologist supplied evidence. The Age should really consider withdrawing it.”
Patrick Podcast via Apple Podcasts ·
Australia ·
06/24/24
More reviews of Trial by Water
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Needed more”
Master Betty17 via Apple Podcasts ·
Australia ·
06/13/24
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“I found this persuasive enough to conclude that there is reasonable doubt. I found it to be thorough and good investigative journalism.”
Drt134f via Apple Podcasts ·
Australia ·
06/29/24
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
Listen now
Links
Genres
Artwork or description wrong?
Request an update »
Updates may take a few minutes.
Do you host a podcast?
Track your ranks and reviews from Spotify, Apple Podcasts and more.
