Crimes of Passion

I respect the attempts to use peer-reviewed studies to add psychological value to the stories, but the host regularly misinterprets studies or applies the findings in inappropriate ways. It’s also clear that the host has little understanding of the scientific process, and that a single study can’t be used as evidence of Truth. Finally, it’s totally inappropriate to apply statistical statements to individuals, as they can only suggest probability. This is why the host having “done a lot of research for the show” is clearly a meaningless statement to try to give the host unearned credibility. It’s concerning that they think this statement is of any value. All-in-all, these are good stories with good research, but the host should accept that she’s out of her depth when discussing psychological sciences and drop the pretense of understanding.

I thoroughly enjoy how detailed each episode is and that it doesn’t just touch on the surface of each crime. I enjoy how the narrator lays out each episode, but I just wish there were more episodes based on “recent” time crimes of passion 😔

I love this podcast. While some of the subject matter isn’t new, many of them are less known and all of the cases are well detailed. I really like the details into the psychology of the cases. The only thing that I dislike is the Crime Bites segments. Because each case is broken up into two, I like to wait until both are available. Crime Bites is included in between the two parts of each case. I don’t find Crime Bites all that interesting and the narrator has a monotonous voice, so I have to stop the podcast and find the next one, which really interrupts the flow. I’d love to see these go by the wayside.

I love the narration, clear and to the point; it’s like listening to a macabre bedtime story. I just found the podcast this week and have been listening while I work nonstop.

After listening to a couple shows on cases I had never heard about, I was willing to give the show a B- Then I listened to 2 cases of which I knew quite well. I started laughing because her explanation was ludicrous! I couldn’t stop shaking my head. Lanie was twisting the forensic, as well as other, facts of the case. I’m assuming to fit a “new” narrative for the murderer. This has shown me this podcast is very liberal with the facts of the cases it discusses. Bottom line, don’t take their narrative as the “truth.” Find another podcast, or search the case online, and you can get the actual details of the case.

I’ve always loved Lanie’s voice and this podcast but the 2nd part of Billy Woodward not playing is annoying and seeing in the reviews that people are telling you about this and reporting it and still nothing is being done to fix it is ridiculous. Listen to your fan base and give them what they want - not a new case but the ending of the case they got left on a cliffhanger what feels like weeks ago! I’ll change my 1 star review to more stars if you ever decided to pay attention to your listeners...