The Binge Cases: Doctor Billions

Has anyone writing these negative reviews about the framing of the story actually listened to this podcast? This is a story of a journalist who got to know a woman in prison and came to the situation wanting to believe her story of victimhood. Then the story completely unravels as she does more digging and we learn that this woman actually is not a victim but a calculated killer. The journalist isn’t making excuses, she’s walking us through the process of discovering this. This is one of the best series I’ve listened to in a long time and I just subscribed to hear the rest because I just can’t wait!

A reason I find this story compelling is the difficulty the legal system finds itself in in bringing cult leaders to justice, given how hard it is to prosecute someone for psychological manipulation that can lead to their followers doing harmful things to themselves and others.

I highly recommend this series. Having known a family directly impacted by this group I was extremely interested in this series. As the series title seems to imply a possible simple “scary” explanation & tone- it actually goes much deeper. As the legal system is just now starting to catch up with new laws in coercive control we have a long way to go. There is a lot to be learned in this series by those in the legal as well as psychological fields. As prevention & awareness is crucial- ways to prosecute evil amongst us must be pursued as well. Great job in getting so much in a 6 part series.

I am honestly at a loss for words. The best podcast I’ve listened to since season 1 of serial. I thought it would be about a murder but it ended up being about the way that pain and hurt resonate through families causing denial, addiction, madness, and hope. Definitely a must listen.

It’s important for journalists to cover the way misogyny impacts women in the criminal justice system, and I respect that this host also finds it an important topic. However, we do the woman of the story, and women generally, a disservice by pretending that we’re all too victimized, too innocent, and too downtrodden to *also* be capable of serious crimes. The host consistently ignores the evidence that doesn’t support the subjects’ innocence, while using logical fallacies to try to support in innocence. For example, “If she were lying, she would have told a better lie. Therefore, she must be telling the truth.” I find it totally disturbing that a journalist would find that a convincing argument.

I went into this story expecting to love it because the underlining story is absolutely fascinating. Unfortunately, I found myself increasingly frustrated by the lens through which it was being told. I appreciate hearing perspectives different from my own, and I actually think examining abuse, incarceration and the way women are treated by the criminal justice system can make for compelling reporting. But a journalist also has to be willing to let the person at the center of the story challenge the worldview they brought into it. From very early on kwaneta struck me as calculated and manipulative, and as the evidence accumulated, that impression only became stronger. What frustrated me wasn’t that the podcast explored explanations for her behavior, it was the amount of resistance I felt towards simply allowing her actions and the accounts of people around her to speak for themselves. There’s an even better story, buried here, a journalist approaches, an incarcerated woman believing she understands the kind of story. She’s going to develop a relationship with her and slowly discovers that her subject may be manipulating her too. It seems like you even enjoyed being called a communist, and is that a factual statement that was made or is that just another manipulation? I wish the podcast had trusted that story more and the ideological framing less. I subscribe because I enjoy compelling thoughtful, true crime storytelling but this one frustrated me enough that I am genuinely reconsidering my subscription. Sometimes the strongest reporting is simply following the evidence wherever it leads.