I have no background in anything approaching a legal education so I rely on lawyers going over legal documents as I consume true crime. I also listen to those who have a proven track record in covering cases fairly. In my opinion, anyway.
In an opinion piece on Fox News, a couple of podcasters who are or were prosecutors admonish viewers/listeners of this genre. In doing so, they've chosen some of the most problematic cases to use as illustrators. And here is where that record scratch effect resounds in my head as I read. Let's take a look:
Richard Allen - accused of murdering Abby Williams & Libby German
In Delphi, Indiana, Richard Allen, the accused murderer of thirteen-year-olds Abby Williams and Libby German, is preparing for trial. On February 13, 2017, the girls were brutally slain on a public hiking trial not far from their homes. Allen has placed himself on the trail at the time of the murders. Police have forensically linked him to the scene with a bullet that matches a gun he owns, and he has reportedly confessed multiple times to multiple people. But evidence is no match for a shocking story, well told.
Factually, nobody knows where the girls were actually killed. They are presumed to have been on the Monon High Bridge before they were discovered in a nearby forested area. Sometime after this area was released by law enforcement, an unspent bullet was found buried in the ground. This has allegedly been linked to Richard Allen via much disputed tool mark evidence. Allen has been housed in the department of corrections for Indiana, also known as prison, rather than held in a local jail. It is while within these confines that he's supposedly confessed, not in actual documented police interviews.
Allen didn’t kill the girls, according to his attorneys. Rather, they were sacrificed by white supremacist members of the neo-pagan religion of Odinism, aided by a cover-up orchestrated by law enforcement. While one might expect that waking the echoes of the satanic panic would meet with derision, certain corners of the true crime world loved it.
The pagan angle was actually explored by law enforcement early in the investigation. This information was not turned over to the defense during discovery. So it appeared that the prosecution was gatekeeping information which isn't allowed. Personally, my brain just said, "WTF" regarding this odinism stuff until Allen's second set of lawyers, briefly appointed by the judge, also brought the idea up. This is when my interest was piqued. Although it was more about the fact that the judge fired a set of court appointed attorneys who then fought to continue the case pro bono. There was a hearing held by the supreme court of Indiana to have them reinstated. None of this was mentioned by the opinion writers, though.
Recently, Allen’s true crime supporters launched a legal defense fund, advertising it with the hashtag "Justice for Abby and Libby," the names of the girls Allen is accused of brutally murdering. As of this writing, more than 700 people have donated in excess of $40,000 to the cause.
What's been left out is that the judge refuses to approve funds for Allen's defense team to hire experts. In fact, last I heard, the lawyers themselves have not yet been fully reimbursed. Our consititution guarantees a fair trial for all those accused, even men who've allegedly killed young girls. They are also presumed innocent which you'd think supposed prosecutors would understand but it seems not. For this and the other two cases mentioned in this opinion piece, it's shocking how many apparent legal/law enforcement commentators downplay these rights. Keep this idea in mind as we continue on.
Karen Read - accused of murdering boyfriend, Boston police officer John O'Keefe
In Boston, Massachusetts, the trial of Karen Read drags on. The former financial analyst and professor stands accused of striking and killing her Boston Police Department boyfriend, John O’Keefe, with her Lexus. Read maintains her innocence, but true crime bloggers, YouTubers, and podcasters didn’t need a trial to decide what they thought had happened. O’Keefe was murdered by a fellow officer, and law enforcement was framing Read to cover it up. One popular blogger named Turtleboy—Aidan Kearney in his non-true crime life—became so convinced of Read’s innocence that he launched what prosecutors claim was a campaign of harassment and witness intimidation. While Read stands trial for murder, Kearney now faces at least 16 felony charges himself.
I am currently watching this trial and it's shocking just how screwed up this investigation was. People who were reading through filings and watching hearings already knew some of this. This is what Kearny has been covering for awhile now. Massachusettes seems to have a law that labels what citizen reporters do as "witness intimidation." It might behoove certain legal representatives to read through some court documents. Just a suggestion.
Brian Kohberger - accused of murdering 4 Idaho college students
It seems all of the opinion writers' wrath is aimed at a Tik Tok psychic who's made wild claims against a local university professor. The professor is suing the so-called psycic. There may well be problems with the state's case in this instance, too, but those are not mentioned in the article. Neither are the 4 students' names: Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin.
I'm supposing that what sticks in the craws of those writing the opinion piece for Fox News is that the defense attorneys for all three cases seem to absolutely believe in their clients' innocence and are fighting hard for them. However, EVERY defendent is constitutionally guaranteed the right to zealous advocacy which is highlighted beautifully in these examples, IMO. I've learned much watching those covering these cases and have a new found respect for defense attorneys, especially those appointed by the state. Is this idea what is truly bothering the writers?
While I do agree that some of those covering True Crime are exploitative and certain documentaries/docuseries are sensationalistic, many are not. And the more we learn about our justice system, the better, IMO. When seeking justice for victims, it means convicting the right perpetrator. And doing it in the proper way, not by underhanded means.
Blackstone's Ratio says, “the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer.” Every lawyer commentator I follow believes this doctrine to be true. If a prosecution cannot withstand bright light being shone upon it, we're right to ask questions. Our US justice system should also be able to withstand the same. And I think that those that work or have worked within this system and have become content creators do their watchers/listeners a disservice if they refuse to shine a similar light. I also think this is much of what defines a thoughtful true crime consumer.
