Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 7
» Latest member: John Andrew
» Forum threads: 1,612
» Forum posts: 5,118

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 14 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 14 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
GSLDPD99178617
Forum: DNA found in panties
Last Post: jameson245
05-17-2020, 01:02 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 105
May 2020 Boulder Camera a...
Forum: odds and ends
Last Post: Dave
05-11-2020, 12:29 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 196
GSLDPD99178617
Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date
Last Post: jameson245
05-08-2020, 08:04 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 113
Bobby Brown = friend of L...
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-05-2020, 05:17 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 113
odds and ends people
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-04-2020, 06:42 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 77
James Rapp
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
05-02-2020, 11:29 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 82
me on Lin Wood
Forum: Some Important quotes
Last Post: jameson245
04-25-2020, 09:45 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 197
announcing appointment
Forum: Police Chief Maris Herold
Last Post: jameson245
04-25-2020, 07:56 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 84
M'Linda Kula
Forum: Discredited and discounted witnesses in this case
Last Post: jameson245
04-25-2020, 07:14 AM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 185
Pete Peterson
Forum: Names to remember
Last Post: jameson245
04-23-2020, 11:36 AM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 2,712

 
  Witnesses CAN talk!
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-16-2019, 10:00 AM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - Replies (1)

[b]2001-07-06: Ruling strikes down ‘permanent’ silencing of grand jury witnesses[/b]

July 6, 2001
Ruling strikes down ‘permanent’ silencing of grand jury witnesses
By B.J. Plasket
The Daily Times-Call

DENVER — A federal judge on Thursday said a Colorado rule requiring life-long secrecy by grand jury witnesses is unconstitutional, paving the way for witnesses in the JonBenet Ramsey grand jury probe to speak about their testimony.

In throwing out the rule, U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel called it an impermissible restriction of First Amendment free-speech rights.

Daniel made the ruling in a suit filed last year by Linda Hoffman-Pugh, a former housekeeper for John and Patsy Ramsey . Hoffman-Pugh’s suit claimed she wanted to write a book but was fearful she would be prosecuted if she divulged information that she shared with the grand jury.

Noted New York attorney Darnay Hoffman, who represented Hoffman-Pugh, said the decision would free others who testified before the grand jury to tell what they know. He said enterprising journalists could “win a Pulitzer Prize” by digging into the testimony of the grand jury witnesses.

Boulder County Deputy District Attorney William Nagel said Daniel’s ruling will be appealed to U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nagel did not request a stay of Daniel’s order until the appeal is decided, meaning any of the Ramsey grand jury witnesses are free to speak.

The ruling does not allow grand jury witnesses to divulge such things as what questions they were asked and does not allow them to comment on the proceedings of the jury.

The Ramsey grand jury met for more than a year before disbanding in October 1999 without returning any indictments. Then-District Attorney Alex Hunter, at the conclusion of the grand jury, vowed that the proceedings would remain secret forever.

In declaring the rule unconstitutional, Daniel said it was “virtually identical” to a Florida law overturned 10 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Nagel argued the two cases were different because the Colorado rule — unlike the one in Florida — did not prohibit witnesses from discussing information they knew before testifying.

The Colorado rule prohibited witnesses from discussing their testimony unless or until an indictment was issued or in the event a report was issued in the absence of an indictment. The Ramsey grand jury was not permitted to issue a report, and those who served on the jury are still sworn to silence.

Nagel argued the Colorado rule provided “a good balance between free speech and the criminal justice system.”

Daniel surprised the attorneys who were arguing the case when he ruled from the bench in granting Hoffman-Pugh’s motion for a summary judgment, declaring the rule unconstitutional. Prior to the hearing, Hoffman said he believed there was “no chance” Daniel would rule immediately and predicted the judge would issue a written ruling days or weeks from now.

Daniel gave an indication of how he might rule shortly after the hearing began. He told Nagel he was concerned the rule constituted an “indefinite and permanent” silencing of witnesses.

Daniel said the federal courts — and courts in 40 states — allow grand jury witnesses to discuss their testimony as soon as it is completed.

“The suggestion here is that there is some sort of problem with the Colorado law,” he said. “What information are they seeking to keep her from revealing?”

Daniel said that in order to restrict free speech, there must be a showing of “compelling governmental interest.”

Print this item

  They tried to block Lou Smit
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-16-2019, 09:58 AM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - No Replies

[b]2000-03-15: Rocky Mountain News: DAs tried to block testimony by Smit[/b]

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/extra/ramsey/0315smit1.shtml
DAs tried to block testimony by Smit
Grand jury finally did hear intruder theory
By Kevin McCullen
Denver Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BOULDER -- Prosecutors last year tried to stop detective Lou Smit from sharing with a grand jury his theory that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey.

Court documents unsealed Tuesday show Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter obtained a court order in February 1999 prohibiting Smit from testifying before the grand jury investigating the 6-year-old beauty princess's slaying.

Smit fought the court order, which was eventually lifted, and in March detailed for the jury the theories he developed during his 18 months as Hunter's special investigator on the case.

Smit's attorney accused Hunter of not wanting to give the grand jury all of the facts in the case, according to the court documents. Authorities have named only JonBenet's parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, as suspects in the case.

"The prosecution is either intentionally or unintentionally emphasizing and focusing upon evidence which points to involvement of the Ramsey family and is not presenting clear evidence of involvement of an intruder in the murder of JonBenet Ramsey," attorney Greg Walta argued in court documents.

Neither Hunter nor Smit could be reached for comment Tuesday.

A source close to the case said prosecutors were concerned Smit, a former homicide investigator in Colorado Springs, would offer grand jurors only theories in the case and not present any factual evidence.

Smit this week publicly revealed the evidence that he believes shows an intruder killed JonBenet. Smit is now helping the Ramseys investigate their daughter's death.

Smit said an aluminum baseball bat with carpet fibers from inside the Ramsey house was found outside a broken basement window. JonBenet's skull was fractured by a blow to the head before she was strangled Christmas night 1996.

He also said packing material and leaves were found both inside and outside the broken window, which indicates an intruder could have entered or exited the house.

He also said marks on the girl's face match marks that would have been left by a Taser stun gun.

Smit's testimony in March 1999 came just weeks after several alternate jurors were dimissed, fueling speculation that the grand jury's work was near completion.

After Smit and others testified, the jury continued to meet until last October, when it closed its investigation without indicting anyone.

Smit resigned from Hunter's office in September 1998, after Hunter decided to take the investigation to the grand jury.

Smit said he quit, in part, because he believed Boulder police and prosecutors "had developed tunnel vision and were focusing only on the Ramsey family and not on other suspects," according to the court documents.

Smit initially asked Hunter for permission to make a three-hour "intruder theory" presentation, but was rejected, court documents show.

Smit made the request to ensure "all aspects of the evidence are presented before criminal charges are filed," records show.

Contact Kevin McCullen at (303) 442-8729 or mccullenk@RockyMountainNews.com.

March 15, 2000

Print this item

  Beckner after GJ
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-16-2019, 09:56 AM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - No Replies

Quote: 1999-10-15: BPD-PR #72 - Statement from News Conference on October 14, 1999

News Release
October 15, 1999
Contact: Jennifer Bray, Media Relations
Jana Petersen, Media Relations, 303-441-3090
http://www.ci.boulder.co.us

Statement from News Conference on October 14, 1999

Mark Beckner, Chief of Police

Ramsey News Release #72

I want to first publicly thank the twelve citizens of this grand jury for their service to the community. Although by law, I cannot comment on the grand jury's work as it relates to this case, I am grateful to the District Attorney, Alex Hunter, for allowing a grand jury investigation. Contrary to public perception, we have made progress in this case over the past 13 months because of the work of the grand jury. If you recall, when investigators asked for a grand jury in the spring of 1998, it was for the purpose of assisting us in our investigation. In this regard, it has been a successful grand jury.

I also want to thank Mike Kane, Mitch Morrisey and Bruce Levin for their hard work. There's been a great deal of speculation about the working relationship between the DA's office and the police. Let me just say that we have a great deal of respect for one another, and the working relationship on this case has never been better. Over the past 15 months, we have worked hand in hand with the prosecutors on this case and have been very pleased with how things have been handled.

There has also been speculation that charges have not been filed in this case because of reluctance on the part of the District Attorney's office. In addition to Alex Hunter, we have had 3 experienced prosecutors working on this case. None of these prosecutors, in my opinion, would hesitate in taking this case to trial once the evidence is sufficient to do so.

The next obvious question is...where do we go from here? From the police perspective, this will remain an open, ongoing investigation. Contrary to the public perception and the rampant speculation that the investigation is over, this case is not dead in the water. I know you have grown tired of hearing this, but yes, we still have forensic evidence we are working on. We are committed to not giving up on this investigation. Like any other open homicide, we will continue to process and test evidence as necessary, and follow any reasonable leads that are developed.

(Anyone who's been in law enforcement can tell you of cases that finally come to resolution, often after many months or years of investigation, and sometimes when you least expect it. That's what keeps us going.)

If you believe what some of the pundits are saying, you might think it's futile to keep trying. Those of us close to the case know better. We know that the right and just thing to do is to keep going. Quite frankly, too much has been made of the conclusion of the grand jury. We have simply completed another phase of this difficult investigation.

In addition to the possibility of new evidence developing, new forensic technology is advancing at a rapid pace. As a result, cases that were once unsolvable have been solved. New technology in the last 2 1/2 years has helped us in this case. We never know what the next month, year, or several years will bring.

As Police Chief, there is something else I know I can count on. And that is the dedication of the four investigators who have been on this case from the beginning.

These four individuals, as well as all members of the Boulder Police Department, are committed to finding a resolution in this case, and they will not be swayed from that commitment.

Much has been made out of alleged mistakes early in this case. Yes, there are things we should have done differently and wish we would have done differently. Any time a crime scene is disturbed, it creates problems for the investigation. However, to say that mistakes have made this an unsolvable case is not accurate. Circumstances and evidence that raise questions for us today are not the result of a contaminated crime scene.

I know that this case has been frustrating for everyone, but I can assure you it has not been more frustrating than for the detectives who have worked full time on this case for almost three years. While we will continue to be criticized by those who fail to understand the complexities in this case, I am proud of the work our detectives have done to get us where we are today. For any mistakes that may have been made early on, there have been many times more right things that have been done in this case.

I would also like to say that while the intense scrutiny has not always been pleasant, there have been positives. We are not the same police department we were 3 years ago. As a result of learning from our experiences, we have taken steps to make some changes in how we operate. We have developed some new policies and procedures, adjusted some of our training, and made some changes in our detective section. And, we have also developed a more open philosophy when dealing with the media. As a result of these changes, I believe we are a better prepared, better trained police department.

I must take a moment to thank the local Boulder community for its support. City council, the city manager, and the many citizens of this city have been understanding and supportive in our efforts. For this, we are appreciative.

In the end, all of the media attention doesn't matter. All of the speculation doesn't matter. Legal analysts who will find fault with the work we've done doesn't matter. What matters is finding justice for JonBenet Ramsey.

To this day, two years and nine months after her death, we are as intent on that objective as we
were from day one.

Print this item

  jameson not a witness
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-16-2019, 09:39 AM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - Replies (1)

[b]1999-03-31: Webbsleuths Community Forum (http://munitrading.com)
on thread titled, "my request to see the grand jury"
[/b]

"my request to see the grand jury"
Posted by jameson on 19:10:55 3/31/99
Include Original Message on Reply

From the TimeLine ©
March 27th
.
personal news - ò¿ó - I received a letter from Michael Kane advising me that my petition to be seen by the grand jury was not acceptable. He was not denying my request, he said, he was simply stating that I had not presented my request properly.
.
"Because this is not a denial of your request to testify, but rather a determination that your petition does not meet the statutory requirements...."
.
I reworded my application and resubmitted it immediately.
(Will it take another month to get a response?)
.
Personally, I am offended by what I see as an attempt by Michael Kane to ignore certain information in this case. I fear Michael Kane is wantonly using his position in order to gain an indictment at all costs.
.
I have reason to believe a certain report that reached the DA's office six months ago through a perfectly legal, respectable and credible source was not followed up on. Was it an oversight or intended disregard?

Doesn't matter which it was. It is not too late to do the right thing.
.
I e-mailed this quote to Mr. Kane today.
.
"The issue is not whether mistakes were made, but how they are addressed when they are discovered."
.
I hope Mr. Kane does the right thing here

I expect the clock has run out and I will not be heard. I have hope that Marcia Clark and the others were right last week when they predicted that there will be no indictment. But I am still concerned that their report will be based on some misinformation.

I can only hope that when the grand jury returns next week they have an agenda and insist on hearing from others who may have something to add to the discussion BEFORE they write a report that will determine the future of this case.
 




3. "The way it is..."

Posted by jameson on 21:40:13 3/31/99

Include Original Message on Reply



I have information that the grand jury should know before they take ANY action - - before they vote OR before they wrote a report.



I have given this information to the authorities and the Ramsey representatives.



The authorities seem to wish I would disappear.



The Ramsey representatives are not yet in any position to use the information I got to them. Since I have never spoken to any of the Ramsey lawyers, I don't know what they can or will do with it in the future.



I have decided to go public with that information. The story will be out in April. It is scheduled to air on 48 Hours. Soon after, it will be on the internet.



This isn't how I wanted it to be, but it is how it is going to happen. I did not want to "go public" but feel forced to do this because it is the "right thing to do".



I have other information that will come out later, some of it is important as well, but the piece I want to bring to the grand jury will be out very soon.







10. "48 Hours, gj and stuff"

Posted by jameson on 07:49:33 4/01/99

Include Original Message on Reply



As it stands now, the show will air by the end of this month. (Yes, you will get to see me - don't get excited about that, I'm just another non-descript middle-aged housewife.)



I won't know what the show actually shows until you do - I get no preview and so I have to trust the editors are going to tell the story correctly.



The whole hour is not on me - (don't blink) - so don't expect to hear all I know - just one piece of the puzzle I felt had to come out now.



I have petitioned again to be heard by the grand jury. I may still get in. I understand it can be as little as 48 hours between the time they decide to let you appear and the actual appearance. Just have to hope they decide to correct a mistake.







11. "Wendy and Mikie"

Posted by jameson on 07:59:23 4/01/99

Include Original Message on Reply



Wendy - my sources clearly indicate who the target of the grand jury is - I think it is well known they aren't about to indict anyone whose name we have never heard.



Mikie - There is a very good reason why I want to personally present my evidence to the grand jury. I can't send them a file directly or I would be arrested for jury tampering.



And I don't trust the DA to give my evidence for me - you see, IMO, the DA has already shown through their actions that they don't want to see, understand, or present all the evidence in this case.
of this case.

Print this item

  Grand Jurors go to house
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-16-2019, 09:34 AM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - Replies (1)

Grand jurors inspect Ramsey house
Panel methodically examines home where child was found dead almost two years ago
By Charlie Brennan
News Staff Writer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOULDER -- Grand jurors took a field trip Thursday, spending several hours inspecting the house where JonBenet Ramsey was found murdered.

Clutching notepads and other printed material, they scoured the 15-room, 61/2-bath house unsupervised while Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter and his team of prosecutors huddled in the back yard.

The tour of the home, which JonBenet's parents sold in February, was supposed to be a secret, as are all grand jury proceedings.

But within 15 minutes of the jurors' arrival shortly after 9 a.m., reporters and photographers began arriving at the home at 755 15th Street. Prosecutors warned the media to stay 100 feet away from the jurors, as required by a court order.

Jurors methodically inspected the grounds, tested different doors, and even examined the southwest window well where the John and Patsy Ramsey have said they believe an intruder may have gained entry to the home.

The jurors, who began investigating the case Sept. 15, were chauffeured to the Ramsey home in a sheriff's van and dropped off in an alley behind the house.

Each keeping to themselves and working quietly, they traipsed for two hours and 20 minutes through all four levels of the residence, which the Ramseys bought for $500,000 in 1991 and called home until the morning of Dec. 26, 1996.

That's the day John and Patsy Ramsey told police they woke up before dawn, discovered their 6-year-old daughter missing and found a 21/2-page ransom note demanding $118,000 for the girl's safe return.

JonBenet's body was found early that afternoon beaten and strangled. Her parents, who moved to Atlanta in the summer of 1997, have been labeled suspects in the case but maintain they're innocent and welcome the grand jury probe, which began Sept. 15.

Legal experts said it's rare for a grand jury to visit a crime scene.

"That's very unusual," said Susan Brenner, a professor and national grand jury expert at the University of Dayton School of Law.

"They normally don't do this, because they normally don't have to. If you have got enough to indict, you don't need to tour the house. And if you don't have enough to indict, touring the house is not going to do it. But it can't hurt."

However, Christopher Mueller, who teaches evidence and procedure at the University of Colorado School of Law, said there's nothing startling about the visit.

"This gives them an idea how isolated the various rooms are from each other, that it would be easy for noises to happen in the vicinity of JonBenet's room that the parents wouldn't necessarily hear. And it's good for them to get a feel for that."

JonBenet's parents have said they put her to bed about 10 p.m. Christmas night in her bedroom on the second floor then went to sleep in their third-floor bedroom and never heard a suspicious sound. Their bedroom was three levels above the tiny windowless basement room where JonBenet's body was found behind a closed door.

October 30, 1998

Print this item

  The Final Suspects
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-16-2019, 06:13 AM - Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date - Replies (17)

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-kil...oplay=true

Episode Info

In this special behind the scenes episode of The Killing Of JonBenet: The Final Suspects, the audience is brought into the inner circle of the investigative team as they listen into a production meeting at the onset of the project. Executive Producers Dylan Howard and Matt Sprouse talk to investigative reporters Doug Longhini and Doug Montero, as well as the mysterious internet expert known only as Jameson, about the upcoming investigation that will utilize deceased lead detective Lou Smit’s list of uncleared suspects. If you have information that could help our investigators and the Ramseys identify JonBenet’s killer, please email us at tips@justiceforjonbenet.com

Print this item

  The CORA files
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-13-2019, 02:58 PM - Forum: Clues in the Case - May 2001 - No Replies

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page...es%20Index

Print this item

  Gary Merriman
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-12-2019, 07:53 AM - Forum: Handwriting - No Replies

[u]PMPT Page 127[/u]

"Several days later, Thomas and Gosage returned to Access Graphics and interviewed Gary Merriman again. A month later, Merriman would be asked by police to write the figure 118,000 over and over again, although he was never asked if he knew the amount of John Ramsey's bonus for the year. He did. It was within pennies of $118,000. After his seventh handwriting sample, Merriman felt he'd written enough to fill the Library of Congress. "If you need more, come back with handcuffs," Merriman told the detectives. That was when they said they didn't think he'd killed JonBenet but that he might have written the note."

My note - I have no reason to believe he was ever checked for palm prints, DNA....

Print this item

  TestiLYING
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-08-2019, 10:27 AM - Forum: Grand Jury Indictments - Replies (14)

   
   

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/18/nyreg...-york.html

‘Testilying’ by Police: A Stubborn Problem

By Joseph Goldstein

  • March 18, 2018
Officer Nector Martinez took the witness stand in a Bronx courtroom on Oct. 10, 2017, and swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God.
There had been a shooting, Officer Martinez testified, and he wanted to search a nearby apartment for evidence. A woman stood in the doorway, carrying a laundry bag. Officer Martinez said she set the bag down “in the middle of the doorway” — directly in his path. “I picked it up to move it out of the way so we could get in.”


The laundry bag felt heavy. When he put it down, he said, he heard a “clunk, a thud.”

What might be inside?

Officer Martinez tapped the bag with his foot and felt something hard, he testified. He opened the bag, leading to the discovery of a Ruger 9-millimeter handgun and the arrest of the woman.

But a hallway surveillance camera captured the true story: There’s no laundry bag or gun in sight as Officer Martinez and other investigators question the woman in the doorway and then stride into the apartment. Inside, they did find a gun, but little to link it to the woman, Kimberly Thomas. Still, had the camera not captured the hallway scene, Officer Martinez’s testimony might well have sent her to prison.

Print this item

  Podcast stuff
Posted by: jameson245 - 12-07-2019, 12:17 PM - Forum: What is in the news - staying up to date - Replies (7)

The JonBenet Ramsey Episode of ‘My Favorite Murder’ Captures the True Crime Podcast at its Dishy, Casual Best
By Nathan Rabin

Pod-Canon is an ongoing tribute to the greatest individual comedy-related podcast episodes of all time.
As readers of this column may have discovered, I am something of a podcast fan. I would even go so far as as to describe myself as an enthusiast. For the last six or seven years, podcasts have been a huge part of my life and career, but my wife, bless her heart, has never quite caught the bug. It might have something to do with her not having an iPod and being averse to change and new technology, but other than Serial the world of podcasting just did not hold much appeal for her.
Until recently, that is. Serial led to an interest in another true-crime podcast, Breakdown, which covers the notorious “hot car death” where a seriously lacking father and human being left his son to die an awful death in a hot car while he was out sexting with a bunch of different women who were not his wife. It was a solid true crime podcast of additional interest because the case is happening not far from where we live, and, as podcasts tend to do, it left her with a hunger for more.
One thing led to another and Serial led to Breakdown, which led to My Favorite Murder, a podcast that combines my wife’s love of true crime with my love of podcasts where funny people bullshit and kibitz about their various obsessions. My wife was not alone in falling in love with My Favorite Murder and its hosts Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark.
The podcast quickly became a pop culture sensation, and I have watched with amusement as my wife threw herself into the rituals of becoming a podcasting superfan. She joined a Facebook group devoted to the podcast, but because she is a neophyte to this world, she is a lurker rather than an active participant. She binge-listened to the back catalog and developed the sense that podcast obsessives have that their favorite podcasters are their friends and kindred spirits even if they never meet.
And because my wife has fallen in love with My Favorite Murder and isn’t much of a fan of headphones I have been listening casually to it and enjoying it as well, although everything did not click completely with me until a recent episode on the murder of JonBenet Ramsey. That is for a very good reason. I have discovered that people are invariably more interested in reading, or listening, or watching, something related to something they know about and the wife’s true crime fixation has led to us watching two of the strange preponderance of mini-series about this decades-old case.
Get unlimited access to Vulture and everything else New York
LEARN MORE »
Our culture’s obsession with Ramsey is maddening on multiple levels. In one of the mini-series’ more egregious moments, JonBenet Ramsey’s death is described as our nation’s biggest unsolved mystery, which is a strange assertion to make when 2Pac’s death is still unsolved. I would argue that despite not being a cute little blonde girl, 2Pac was a more important cultural figure than Ramsey.
But watching these mini-series and listening to the My Favorite Murder, I quickly came to understand why we were, and remain, so fascinated by the death of a tiny little beauty pageant queen. As the hosts hilariously yet casually establish, the JonBenet Ramsey case has everything. It’s about money, class, sex and the disconcerting way we over-sexualize children. It’s violent, it’s mysterious and twenty years on, we still haven’t gotten to the bottom of it even as we’re overflowing with clues, suspects, and red herrings, including a deeply disturbed man who confessed to the killing, despite clearly having nothing to do with it.
But some of the enduring fascination can also be traced to the many incongruous and screamingly colorful elements of the case. My Favorite Murder discusses, for example, the hyperbolic luridness of a ransom note seemingly cobbled together from old action movie scripts like Speed and Dirty Harry. It’s a truly bizarre piece of work that seems to belong in a Cannon 1980s action movie vehicle for Charles Bronson more than an actual murder case. The episode takes its name from a particularly bizarre phrase from the ransom letter, where the non-existent kidnappers professed to be a “small foreign faction,” which is how no one thinks or refers to themselves, criminals or not, but is the kind of phrase you might find in Missing In Action III.
Our favorite podcasters aren’t the friends we have so much as the friends we wish we had. But they’re also fascinating in that they give us a glimpse into the friendships of others and the lived-in chemistry of the hosts is a huge component of My Favorite Murder’s success. These are funny, smart, and engaged women with a real genius for tossing off instantly irresistible turns of phrase, like when the Ramseys are described as “Private Plane rich,” and Patsy Ramsey is described as having “pill eyes.” The hosts capture whole weird worlds in evocative turns of phrase, like when an oddly iconic Southern California shopping mall is described as a small town for people obsessed with shopping and the child pageant circuit is tartly summed up as a “weird commercial for pedophiles.”
In sharp contrast to Breakdown, which adopts something of a rugged, semi-hardboiled tone, or even Serial, which takes itself very seriously, My Favorite Murder is wonderfully casual and conversational, the work of two murder junkies who share a fascination with the uglier, bleaker and more violent side of life that doesn’t get in the way of being funny and relatable and real. Hell, they don’t even begin to discuss the Ramsey murder until after ten minutes of kibitzing about the surreal nature of podcast/internet fame. The subject may be murder, but the tone is totes casual.
I’ve been trying to turn my wife onto podcasts as a medium for over a half decade. Hell, I write an entire column specifically designed to turn people onto great podcasts. You’re reading it now, yet I’m not sure I have ever succeeded in getting my wife addicted to any of the myriad podcasts I love. Yet, my enthusiastic neophyte of a wife has already turned me on to a podcast, and I am glad she did.
Nathan Rabin is the author of five books, including Weird Al: The Book (with Al Yankovic) and the recently released Ebook “Short Read”, vu[p]splitsider-d3d3LnZ1bHR1cmUuY29tLzIwMTYvMTAvdGhlLWpvbmJlbmV0LXJhbXNleS1lcGlzb2RlLW9mLW15LWZhdm9yaXRlLW11cmRlci1jYXB0dXJlcy10aGUtdHJ1ZS1jcmltZS1wb2RjYXN0LWF0LWl0cy1kaXNoeS1jYXN1YWwtYmVzdC5odG1s[i]gGbF0w[t]w&tag=vulture-20]7 Days In Ohio: Trump, The Gathering of The Juggalos And The Summer Everything Went Insane.

Print this item