Suspicion

I appreciate the approach of this podcast. They give you all the arguments I’d both the defense and the prosecution, and let you come to your conclusion. It’s good practice, considering most jurors don’t seem to understand what ‘reasonable doubt’ means.

I could not stop listening because the story takes so many twists and turns. One second you think one way, the next you’re mind goes in a different direction. Excellent.

I am so enjoying listening to this podcast! I have heard facts I have never heard before about this case. My only complaint is that it isn't longer!!

It’s a captivating story, but Apple doesn’t follow them well because they’re out of order. So it’s a “hands-on” listening experience. Which isn’t what I was looking for. But the story, so far (4 episodes in) is quite interesting.

The woman might have even done it but the two women who present most of the case really latch onto some sexist conclusions. Ie the really judgey way they talk about Raynella being “domineering” which to me just sounds like a strong, independent woman, to them sounds like a crime in and of itself. Also this weird statement about her “cold blue eyes” that they keep repeating —-why? True crime is only interesting if the narrator presents objectively. This podcast twists so many things to make them all sound guilty. Like I said, she might be guilty but it’s also very clear that anything the woman did is going to be seen from the most guilty light by these podcasters. Ie her buying cremation rights for both of them years before his death, the dual wills, even her diary about his dementia. Actually especially the diary. This is something that ALL family members of those suffering from dementia are asked to do. And physicians will tell you only those who are especially invested in their loved ones care will actually do because it’s hard. Yet, these women are like “look she made this up years in advance to support her story!” Maybe she did but it could be she cared enough to take detailed notes on his disease to help him. If you don’t even present that side, then you’re clearly just looking at her case from a presumed guilty lens. The way they think everything she did was so calculated is hard to take seriously . They don’t support any of it either, it’s all just opinion . Also, why would I think she’s guilty because she hires lawyers?? That’s only the smart thing to do, guilty or not. Law enforcement and prosecutors who say otherwise and draw guilty conclusions from this are being unconstitutional.

I really just cannot. I actually care about this story—as a local, as a fan of Jamie Satterfield’s high-watt crime reporting, as a stickler for hearing accurate and authentic Southern accents voiced whenever possible, and as a podcast gourmand. But listen, producers: you can have all that goodness, but if your narrator is an amateur at voice work and they’re not recognizable as famous or eccentric or something? Well, that will wreck your podcast.