Interesting story, frustrating crusade
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Interesting as a recap of the case for those (like me) who know it only by reputation. But despite the makers’ insistence of their clear-eyed neutrality (in presenting an experiment to assess visibility while driving at night, which fails to prove that a prosecution witness’s evidence was fallacious, the host repeatedly insists he’s only conducting it because he’s “curious”), what’s clear is that they came in wanting to uncover a travesty of justice. They spend most of the podcast flailing to find one. Despite repeated insistences that our understanding of various sciences has grown more sophisticated since the trial, most of their theories were presented to the jury, and rejected. One of the experts they present is the same guy who gave defence evidence in the trial, rehashing the same theory. There’s a spurious comparison to Lindy Chamberlain (who was convicted almost solely on the basis of her emotions and temperament, rather than on evidence that she committed the act), where the host warns that a person’s emotions and temperament shouldn’t be used to judge whether they committed a crime. In the next breath, he returns to insisting that Farquharson is too loving a father to possibly be guilty. The bulk of one episode is devoted to “proving” the police believed Farquharson was responsible for the crime before charging him. Well, yes. The presumption of innocence doesn’t extend to police investigations. Indeed, the law doesn’t allow them to do most of what they do without believing someone’s responsible. Each “strand of the rope”, as the host calls the different aspects of the case, is unravelled from other strands, reducing the rope to a set of unconnected strings that can be attacked individually. This is how defence lawyers operate, not journalists.”
Ben Sequoia via Apple Podcasts ·
Australia ·
10/30/24
More reviews of Trial by Water
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“How can a supposedly reputable publisher not address the enormous bias and conflict on interest of this child murderers own lawyer being the cornerstone of this “reinvestigation”? This show shouldn’t even be airing, nor should it be referred to as investigative journalism. This man has had his...”Read full review »
Hsjfobac via Apple Podcasts ·
Australia ·
06/03/24
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Just listened to the first episode. It was so moving and the story was so well told. I’m hooked and can’t wait for the next episode!”
Edward L Rosen via Apple Podcasts ·
Australia ·
06/02/24
☆
☆
☆
☆
☆
“Well produced podcast, looking forward to coming episodes”
Treasureslip via Apple Podcasts ·
New Zealand ·
06/19/24
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.
