Previously, I really enjoyed and appreciated the level of in-depth reporting from this team. However, the second season regarding the Idaho case adds nothing to the story. The whole season felt like a desperate effort to fill air time. The most confounding to me was the interview with a pop culture expert on the history of horror. What? And how could you let him mispronounce psychopathy so many times on the record? I’m not even going to discuss the amount of air time given to the women obsessed with Kohberger. I would have much preferred to wait for a second season with actual new information.

Latah = Lay-taw, not law-duh. Step one of any reliable journalist is asking how to pronounce the key places and names correctly.

I like this pod and I’m specifically listening to the seasons on the Idaho murders, but my god, the amount of times the host says, “Stephanie and Jeff, again,” is so annoying and unnecessary. Otherwise it’s a compelling and interesting listen.

Has it not crossed anyone’s mind that Bryan Kohberger wanted to take photos of his kills and that is why he had his phone? Or the idea that although he had planned it out that moment or that night was still semi impulsive and he was very passionate and angry in that time and space and not thinking as clearly as he had been during the planning.

Just like other reviews here, I really enjoyed this podcast but episode 10 is where it lost me. The guest reporter is terrible. She seems to be fan-girling the case and Moscow almost giddy in sharing details of seeing Kohberger for the first time. And why are we hearing about your airbnb? This isn’t reporting. They should have cut her interview out all together! Then the hosts delve into a Christian church, Scientology and the Handmaid’s Tale? Pretty clear they’re just filling air time. Just wait till you have something concrete to share with listeners! It’s an unfollow for me sadly.

The episodes play the same clips over and over again. If you don’t have new material, why not just condense it all into a few episodes rather than drag it out over seasons?

“It’s funny, you mentioned the handmaid‘s tale.” Sure, we all believe that came up organically…or the law of Occam’s razor suggests you couldn’t wait to mention it and draw analogies from it, like every third wave feminist, and progressive pseudo-intellectual journalist does. You’re so concerned about church indoctrination but fail to see how you’ve been completely indoctrinated by Marxist ideologies in university. I don’t know you, but I’m confident I could list your stance on a range of controversial issues based on this conversation. You’re predictably in lockstep with the culture of modernity. Post modernism cannot be a sustainable basis for morality, take it to the extreme and you’ll see you cannot condemn anyone for anything. Everyone will do what’s right in their own eyes. Progressivism is regression, equity and equal of outcomes is communism. Gods Word is true. Jesus is King.

In my opinion, this podcast started off really well when they were sticking to evidence, facts, investigation, and crime. Season 6 was the start of the regression. I believe episode topics are now being picked just so the host and guests can preach about their politics and social justice issues. In a small town where a large percentage of the population goes to the same church it’s obvious those church members will be a larger percentage of property and business owners. I’m not religious, but this is middle school level math. This podcast is edging closer to the conspiracy theories they once complained about.

I have really enjoyed listening to and learning about this case, Till you decided to go on and on about a church that appears to have nothing to do with the case. It feels like you were looking for something to fill in with between hearings. I’m obviously horrified with the things that were happening at the church but again it has nothing to do with the case. Stick to the story and the case.

About Moscow have been pretty gross- trying to generate news and content where there isn’t any. Comes across as just trying to capitalize off of tragedy. The guests have not added anything of substance. Better off taking a hiatus until actual movement in the case happens.

I’m really enjoying this show but getting irritated with episode 10. So much better when you don’t try to pass judgement on religion, politics etc. You will insist you’re not judging, but you are. When you’re so sure you have the only correct viewpoint on religion and politics you don’t see your own assumptions and bias.

Piketon was middle of the road re: crime reporting. Vocal fry, pronunciation, annunciation, diction and episode planning all seem to be weak points. Idaho Massacre is literally awful. Just repeating the same suppositions and opinions over and over and over. This is not reporting and it’s really annoying.

This is the show I listen to when my other shows don’t have new episodes. It’s been decent until the episodes where they veered away from the subject matter to defame a local Christian church. I wonder if the same negative attention would be given to a fundamentalist mosque? I’m not a religious person at all but tired of the media villainizing people who have different values than me or them. The church didn’t murder 4 college coeds. Your show is predictable and boring.

Sitting through this vocal fry in exchange zero content … what’s that, your air bnb faced the jail…wow so interesting! Why not just wait to do a show until new information is available.

I couldn’t finish the episode “Boots on the Ground”! The guest “journalist” seemed giddy when discussing this massacre of the four young students. Her excitement of chasing a victim’s family from the courthouse, eating at the restaurant where one victim worked, to renting an Airbnb that faced the accused’s jail cell, came across more like a groupie following a band on tour. She has preconceived notions of the town residents and seemed to speak down of the blue collar workers, even visiting a church so she could belittle the members. ALSO, her sing-song speech… ICK! I will not continue following this show but I hope they will be a bit more selective when allowing biased opinions and unprofessional reporting on their future shows. Hitting the unfollow button!

Hard to take what they are reporting as accurate and objective when they spend episodes trashing people and things they don’t believe in like the Christians in Moscow. Who cares if you didn’t like the church service you’re not a member of.

Wildly distracting host with whispery vocal fry and at least 50% is filler. Piketon was was better. Skip this.

“Boots on the Ground” did it for me. I thought there would be information about the trial, rather than just a deep-dive by biased “reporters” about religious conservatives in a liberal college town and a church body that has nothing to do with this crime. A lot of our country is religious and conservative, it’s amazing how many podcasts go in this direction and lose listeners, should’ve stuck to the actual story!

Why spend a huge portion of the episode talking about a local church? It has zero to do with the case. Just stick to the case, ladies. No one cares about your social commentary.

I truly want to learn about these cases, and this podcast is one of the more thorough sources of information, but it feels like a lot of things played up for dramatic effect which feels disrespectful to the people involved. Also, WHY IN THE WORLD would you not think twice before hosting a guest from the HERITAGE FOUNDATION?! The Project 25 people? Really?!? Find someone who can explain DNA but isn’t representing an organization that’s trying to deconstruct basic human rights in the U.S.

That episode is a prime example Of vocal fry making something unlistenable.

I like the cases -especially Piketon - Idaho storyline fell flat for me - but so much of the show is repeating and re-repeating info that has been covered. The show could be half the length.

This season has fallen off quite a bit, but I was still listening hoping it would pick up again. After hearing the guest from the Heritage Foundation, I’m out. Super disappointing. Much better options out there.

This season is full of filler with no substance. And Stephanie seems to like to hear herself talk a lot but doesn’t really contribute anything interesting. I don’t think I’ll keep listening, maybe when the trial actually starts.

I have really been enjoying this podcast until the last episode, “Boots on the Ground”. What in the world? I just can’t believe you are deep diving into a religious organization that has nothing to do with this crime. Let them live their religion in peace and don’t exploit it just because it’s different than your beliefs. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with this case and is terrible and dangerous journalism. You have a pointed agenda against them and you are using this platform to get it out. Shame.

Love your podcast however, PLEASE do not invite this Journalist on your show again. Her sing-song valley girl recount of her time in the town of Moscow and her tone when talking about rural Idaho was telling of her bias, lack of experience, and immaturity.

I liked the Piketon Massacre seasons but I am not crazy about the Idaho Massacre seasons. The Piketon episodes kept me riveted and I could hardly wait to listen to the next episode. Please research the area better if you are not familiar with the location. It could be that I am very familiar with the area in Idaho. One of the guests who wrote a book kept pronouncing Moscow (moss-co) as moss-cow. The school across from the Latah County Courthouse is a high school. High school students in Idaho don’t get recess. Moscow is a small town when the university isn’t in session however, Latah County contains several other small communities that they can pull from for the jury pool.

The opinions coming out of the mouths of these so called trial followers are CLUELESS about how legal decisions are made about change of venue. Justice will occur whether in Moscow or Boise. The facts are the same. Sounds like the so called expert claiming a change of venue is more worried about her hotel options than what the people who really live this case. What about the families who lost their children? The entire state has been impacted thanks to the media.

Loved loved loved the Piketon Massacre but this season has gone downhill. Feels like they’re grasping for content and the choice of “experts” is horrifying. Unsubscribed.

Of all the resources in the country you ask the heritage foundation to be on the podcast. The heritage foundation is working to end our democracy as I am sure you know which makes this move all the more egregious. Stop trying to normalize and legitimize who and what they are. You’ve lost another listener.

Ignore the fake reviews where snowflakes are butthurt someone disagrees with their politics. Solid podcast

This season has been super disappointing. It’s just speculation of what might happen with random “experts”, unlike prior seasons where they were telling the story through facts and giving updates.

Boy could this season be any worse??? They came out too early on a case that isn’t moving really yet and they are stuck with recycled generic tropes of crime podcasts- ie nature vs nurture. Season is terrible no new information stuck in the mud. Bad choice team. Unlistenable anymore

I really enjoyed this podcast, but the last couple of episodes made me question your integrity. The Heritage Foundation? Immediate unfollow.

… they dovetail. Not fishtail. The victims deserve better than people promoting books or pimping for the Heritage Foundation. Do better.

I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who lost all interest after learning they interviewed Cully Stimson from The Heritage Foundation (who is more than happy to introduce himself with that). I already felt uncomfortable with the previous episode’s interviewee, Howard Blum, who felt compelled to write a novel about a case that hasn’t even been to trial yet. Not only is it ethically dubious for a journalist to treat the accused as though they’ve been convicted, it’s clear he doesn’t see the victims as real people. He then questions why the victim’s family would be upset by this after explaining his book is going to be made into a TV show as well. What’s worse is the interviewer makes no effort to question anyone they interview, they simply nod along in awe at speculative claims and hearsay. I was willing to look past all of this as I enjoyed the majority of this series, but interviewing Stimson made lose all interest and respect. I hope they do better.

Platforming a guy from The Heritage Foundation? Yikes. Unsubscribing.

I was into this pod until the episode with a lawyer from the Heritage Foundation. Was really hoping it was not the same Heritage Foundatjon that is behind Protect 2025- but alas it is. Unsubscribe and will not be listening. Gross.

I assumed this series so far had good journalistic integrity and fact-checking, but the most recent episode featured a lawyer from the Heritage Foundation that clearly didn’t know what he was talking about regarding forensic science. PCR is not “polychromase… reaction” and his definition of it was also incorrect. The producers didn’t bother to fact check anything he said, and the choice of “expert” is questionable considering he presented incorrect information & what the Heritage Foundation does. The producers chose to platform an influential fascist & far-right organization trying to turn America on its head… during an election year where this org is rapidly trying to gain influence. A bizarre choice considering this series has nothing to do with politics. Due to the clear lack of journalistic integrity & complete lack of fact-checking, listeners can no longer trust any information or “expert” presented on this podcast.

I think they dropped the ball on this one. "Dude or dudette who killed these people?" Very disrespected statement. I'm not sure why they had this man on. He's no scientist and he's from a horrific organization who is responsible for Project 25. Do better, guys.

Don’t listen to the naysayers . The podcast is really good . It’s amusing that folks so obsessed with “democracy” immediately tar and feather those that don’t share their world view— all because you had a guest on they don’t like . Don’t be controlled by these folks. These hypocrites label anyone with a different opinion as a threat these days . Regular folks aren’t falling for it anymore . The folks upset are literally terminally online that they think “democracy is at stake” when it’s really just a scare tactic by national dems to keep them in line . Rubes . Keep up the great work!!!

The tone is completely inappropriate. The host and guests speculate wildly. It felt disrespectful to continue listening.

Having the fan girl sounding college student was annoying. Completely unprofessional guest. Hearing someone from the Heritage Foundation being interview and I am done. I will not support a podcast that relies on such a disgusting hate group that is destroying this country.

Book plugs that seem like he just made up everything he said, the heritage foundation being presented as a reputable source? No thank you at all!

I was all in on this until you decided to platform somebody from the heritage foundation— a group that is literally trying to undermine democracy and establish a Christi-fascist state. The lawyers at the heritage foundation work on every single oppressive, regressive legal fight in the US today. Gross.

I’ve been enjoying the content up until today when there was an interview with a lawyer who works for The Heritage Foundation (producer of the blueprint for a fascist takeover of the US - Project 2025), who claims to be a DNA expert but he didn’t know that PCR stand for polymerase chain reaction, and it’s not a test per se, it’s a method of amplifying DNA so that you have a lot more to do sequencing or other testing on. Please get a forensic scientist to explain DNA evidence, rather than a lawyer?

This entire season just feels like trial by media for a man who is still innocent until proven guilty. The book author episode was the worst but the whole season has had very little discussion from a perspective other than “we think he’s probably guilty and here’s why” and it just gives me the ick. Not to mention that most of the discussions are just repetitive and uninteresting. (With the exception of Joseph Scott Morgan, who I love hearing from.) Even if I agree that there is a good deal of evidence against him, come on. Due process. Without an actual trial to analyze like was done - and done very well - for the previous season for Piketon - this whole season just feels like unnecessary filler content for contents sake. I’m not going to bother listening to any more until there’s an actual trial to discuss.

Having a lawyer from the Heritage Foundation on while they are pushing Project 2025 and we’re on the brink of losing our democracy is at best shortsighted and at worst, malicious normalization of fascists.

not good. Lots of unimportant info (a lot of info on the Poconos ?? Why??), interviews with extraneous people with no first hand knowledge. Podcast version of - if it bleeds it leads. There’s a much better podcast on this case.

I’ve been listening for years. Seasons 1-5 were great. Sometimes they had their misses but overall they were extremely informative. But there hasn’t been enough new information for a season 6 but they did it anyway. Rumors, wild speculation, bad editing, the freaking HERITAGE FOUNDATION lawyer. It went from wondering how they got new information for a full season to knowing it’s just irresponsible speculation and wondering if seasons 1-5 are trustworthy.