“I enjoyed and appreciated this poscast at the beginning when the podcaster stuck to his field of expertise. The commentary analyzing offender behavior in light of diagnostic criteria for various conditions and disorders was quite interesting and enlightening. However, the longer I listened the more he strayed from scientific analysis into questionable opinion. This was particularly noticeable to me when he commented on legal aspects of cases with which I am familiar. One egregious example: in discussing the prosecution of Ross Ulbricht he concluded that there was probable cause to believe that Ulbricht had operated Silk Road but that for various reasons (several of them irrelevant) this fact had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Among other things, he completely ignored, perhaps because he didn’t know enough about the facts, that Ulbricht literally was caught red handed, in possession of a laptop that was logged on to an admin account on the Silk Road site. He also minimized or ignored the fact that Ulbricht paid for the assassination of various enemies and was pleased to receive photographic “proof” that those acts had been carried out. Under federal sentencing law, those acts were legitimately taken into account by the judge (who happens to be female, contrary to the podcaster’s narrative) even though they were not charged. To suggest that Ulbricht’s sentence was excessive under all of the circumstances is a legitimate opinion (which I do not happen to share) but in the case of this podcaster, it is just a lay person’s opinion. I was hoping to hear the podcaster’s behavioral analysis of Ulbricht’s conduct in the manner of his much earlier episodes, where his background and expertise might enlighten his listeners on how an Eagle Scout strayed so far from Boy Scout values, and why having been offered a sweetheart plea deal, he insisted on going to trial. Same issue with the episode on Harold Henthorn, disappointed at the lack of analysis.”
meg-NC via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
11/25/23