Our curated selection of reviews
I have been listening for a number of years and I’m always impressed with every episode. I love the banter and the respect Jim and Francey show one another regardless of their political views and beliefs. Keep up the great work!
Read more
I found this podcast when Jim was interviewed on another podcast (I wish I could remember which one).
I decided to check it out and now I am obsessed! I started from episode 1 and am listening in quick succession.
The banter is great! Francie (sp?) is the underdog in many episodes and while I hear and appreciate Jim’s take on the death penalty, I am 100% with Francie on this topic.
I’m thrilled I have 7 years worth of content to listen to.
I even turned my bf onto it with the interview with Tim Voss…..I mean, who likes to split the difference??
Read more
I really liked this podcast when Francie was co-hosting. Today when I heard there was a new host I was a bit wary. BUT, Maureen is the perfect co-host. She’s knowledgeable, intelligent, and has a great podcast voice. Maureen has a ton of experience as well.
Read more
Wow, hats off to Jim C to keep his cool and ability to argue in logical and pragmatic manner when the new host Maureen was blindly defending current administration’s ICE orders and tactics in episode 447. Maureen! It’s not okay to bring politics into this podcast unless you can calmly and logically state pros and cons and rationally explain/ present your views without unequivocally talking a side.
This podcast along with Real Crime Profile are my favorite, especially because of Jim C’s ability to rationally and logically (with extensive operational knowledge) present both sides of the coin of a given issue and analyze the good and bad stating facts not feelings. He does get worked up sometimes, and rightly so, when people ignore facts and proper procedures or even common sense.
Read more
I think I’ve listened to 98% of all episodes, but in the past couple months to a year the quality of the content / insights has gone completely down hill. I understand Jim may have needed to take a step back due to personal issues, but then going in so hard on insights and conclusions based on obviously minimal research is just hard to listen to.
I have listened to Jim on other podcasts for years, and his takes lately are in complete contradiction to what he has said in the past, especially noted in coverage of the Richard Allen trial. I’m not sure what’s going on, but it does seem to stem from a lack of research, preparation before episodes. I would be completely fine with that, but just be upfront, and not so passionate when all your foundation is misinformed.
Either more thorough research is need upfront, or the dialogue needs to leave more room for not being fully informed. I would much rather hear that they don’t know the full case, but here are some insights and arguments from both sides, then argumentative discourse belittling others opinions when you don’t even have all the facts.
I love this show and BOTH of the hosts, I just think a tone reset is needed.
Read more
Used to love the podcast for the original take on their guests personal experiences with their best and worst cases. Then it turned it only having guests who were promoting their own books or podcasts. Now, they haven’t done a best or worst case in over a year. It’s just joined the list of true crime podcasts doing op-ed’s and analysis of current headlines.
Read more
We strive to present a balanced view by showing a diverse range of reviews from Apple Podcasts
