The Prosecutors - Podcast Rankings and reviews

I found The Prosecutors because I wanted to do a deep dive into the Karen Read case. I did not share their opinion at first but they certainly convinced me. I find their deep dives fascinating and detailed with a hard look at the actual facts, trying to sort through the red herrings thrown out by a good defense. I was totally won over by their presentation of the Michael Peterson case - they were unafraid to seriously consider the craziest theory that to me actually seemed the highest likelihood. Occum’s razor be damned in that case! I desperately want them to look at the Making a Murderer case and Amanda Knox. Please bring your perspective to those cases! Thank you for what you do!

I only found this podcast about 6 months ago and I’m hooked! I love listening not only to the content but Brett and Alice’s banter makes me happy! This podcast makes my drive to work fly by and I’ll be sad when I catch up on the old ones and have to wait for the weekly show. If one day you could cover the Danielle van Dam, I’d like to hear your take.

With all the recent JonBenet coverage, I decided to go back and listen to the JB episodes in hopes of uncovering more information. I enjoy Alice and Brett and I am very open to my mind being changed re: the ‘whodunnit’ of this case. However, Alice and Brett continually stated that anecdotes are not evidence, while also giving their own personal anecdotes (e.g. ‘my son prefers to wear pants everyday, so it makes sense that JonBenet was wearing size 12 underwear.’) in support of the Ramsey’s. They would say behavior isn’t necessarily evidence, while also justifying the Ramsey behavior as evidence that they were innocent (e.g. ‘Wouldn’t you do exactly what the Ramseys did: hire a PI and the best defense attorney if you had the money?’) It seemed that the entirety of the 9 episodes were spent teeing up their theory while glossing over other evidence. I also waited… and waited… and waited for Brett to provide more information as to why the CBS documentary was a sham. The doc recreated the house, right down to the dimensions of the window that the intruder would have had to enter through. They also recreated the flashlight theory utilizing a skull, a 9 year old, and the exact flashlight in question. The experiments and experts that had weigh in were much more believable than any of this discussion.

I have listened to four episodes. I appreciate the detail they bring to their critical-analysis of cases. I appreciate the enthusiasm they bring to the study of criminal justice processes. They are also enthusiastic about teaching their audiences about the law and legal processes, including correcting depictions in film and television. I was, though, very frustrated by their discussion of Natalie Wood's death. Both of them are constantly using speculation about events, actions, motives. They spin many stories trying to "guess" what actually happened. It's a bit funny since at one point they chastise those who told the first story given to police for ignoring or failing to refer to facts. This is funny because then they continue to imagine what happened, guess what someone might do in similar circumstances, attribute motive and feeling. It is all prefaced by "I think this is what happened." Very different from other episodes. They attribute credibility to the captain's revised story and Lana's theory, and deny credibility to others. They say "It is possible, but I don't think it happened that way." The facts are few. But, one of them is that this case was not prosecuted or ruled a crime. I don't understand why they chose to discuss this "case." I'll listen and hope this celebrity-centered gazing isn't typical.

It’s so funny to listen to other well credited podcasts tell the same story these two do and the outcomes are completely different. Crime Weekly covered the Karen Read case and they look at this case completely different and on of them (Derek) is a retired detective and police officer and gives a completely different conceptualization of that case. Listen elsewhere for non bias in favor of law enforcement #ACAB

I listened to the coverage of the Karen Read trial. I actually watched the entire trial. I was surprised at how much of the testimony was mis-represented in this podcast. It happens so often that I have to think it’s deliberate. So, if coverage is slanted and not factual - then what’s the value?