"Camila" album available at: Spotify smarturl.it/Camila_Sptfy Apple Music smarturl.it/Camila_AM iTunes smarturl.it/Camila_iTunes Google Play ...
In the Dark Podcast Video Statistics
In the Dark Reviews
For me, I want a reporter that tells a captivating story using only facts from the case with insights from qualified professionals. Season Two of “In The Dark” was the opposite of that. If you’re looking for someone to tell you how ludicrous a case was by opinion alone, you’ve found what you’re looking for. The story is enthralling enough, no need to inject unprofessional opinions into it to spice it up.
Just listened to the update podcast where we learn that the Supreme Court has accepted to review Flowers case...on the basis that the DA used an ethical approach by purposely striking out African Americans from the jury selection. If the Supreme Court does not have the authority to remove the DA from being allowed to select the jurors in the same manner he’s done for the last 6 hearings...then couldn’t it be handled by a complaint being filed to the BAR association which would then officially charge him with racial discrimination in the jury selection process? I don’t recall which episode and if I recall the percentage correctly...but we didn’t the data gathered show that this DA removed African Americans around 56% of the time?
Tater head 37
I’ve finished both seasons and will say, this Podcast is the best I’ve listened to. Excellent reporting and investigating, and the production of the PC is excellent. Great job!
Had me hooked from the beginning. Such a well done show.
Any attempt at making men with too much power accountable for their failures and carelessness deserves praise.
This podcast is a beacon of what high quality investigative journalism should be. No fluff, just truthful journalism; what a refreshing approach. Each season's story is thorough, honest and filled with sensitivity to the individuals impacted by the crimes. Well done!
I had a really difficult time listening to episode 6 where it almost felt as though I was supposed to feel sorry for convicted sex offenders because of how they have to live their lives post-prison. I fully understand what the episode was trying to demonstrate and I even agree that some of these registration led are ineffective, but the episode portrayed the sex offender as a victim. The irony of hearing a convicted offender saying "you don't get out of your car at night because it's not safe. You don't know who's out there" is too bitter to comment on. Loved the series but this episode was a little TOO much.
Moving and relevant reporting. Fascinating reveals into the complexities of these types of cases.
There are definitely some good things about this podcast. Madeleine Baran has done a fair amount of digging and some of the tape that she's got is compelling stuff. Her interviews with the victim's mother in particular, and with Dan Rassier, the man who was fingered by the sheriff without due cause, are moving journalism. However, from the beginning, you can tell that there's going to be a slant to this story, and the slant is going to be that the police botched the investigation. That's fine--I'm all for journalists holding police and prosecutors to a greater account and making sure they do their jobs honestly and in the service of justice. But Baran is so clear in her conviction that the police not only did a poor job of the investigation, but also a malicious job, that it colours her reporting. In her interview with Sheriff John Sanner--who has a lot to answer for, given some of the details she's turned up about the investigation--she's clearly not listening to what he's saying, and that causes her to ask the wrong questions. She asks why he declared Dan Rassier "a person of interest," and he says "because of the way he spoke about the case to the local paper." To which she responds, in the tone of an outraged undergraduate arguing with a conservative relative, something to the effect of, "What about freedom of speech? Doesn't he have the right to talk to journalists?" which of course makes the discussion about her and her kind and ends the discussion there, rather than probing what Rassier said, how he said it, and why Sanner felt that allowed him to identify him as a person of interest. That would have continued the investigation and revealed more about the actual story, but Baran leaves it there, convinced that she's asked damning questions showing the sheriff to be an enemy of the constitution. Or something. It's a profoundly self-centred move that acts as a punch in the face of the narrative movement in the story. Similarly, one of her associates is called upon to run a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI to find out the number of children taken by strangers in the US every year: he gets a response from a FOIA negotiator who's evasive and claims she can't provide him information, or she will "get in trouble with her boss." The reporter does not ask, "What is your boss's name? What is their number? Can I speak with them?" Instead, they end the investigation there, for no apparent reason except to show the bureaucracy of the FBI as kafkaesque and apparently hiding something. Which it probably is--but In The Dark doesn't take us there. Instead, they're too busy retreading well-reported territory about the draconian ineffectiveness of sex-offender laws, and hinting at the moral panic over stranger abduction in the 1980s without providing very much in the way of actual facts about what anyone knows about stranger-versus-acquaintance abduction (surely someone knows something?) and why the panic ended. Was it because of Megan's Law? We might presume that but In The Dark doesn't even connect the dots that far: the "stranger danger" moral panic is just a platform for the discussion of unjust sex-offender laws. That persistent lack of questiong led me to a lot of questions about what questions Baran and her team didn't ask, and whether they left behind any leads that might ultimately make their case against the police look less stark and accusatory. After all, Sanner might have said, "Rassier said XXXX in that interview which we found to be extremely suspicious," and that would at least have complicated the narrative of villanous police with no evidence out to frame an innocent man by presenting police as having a reason, however flimsy, for persisting in their investigation. Baran seems not to get that this would be even more compelling listening if not everything lined up, if her hypotheses were tested and some were proven false. Instead, she reads the narration in a version of the outraged "can-you-believe-this-injustice" tone made famous by hacks like Geraldo Rivera. That's all the more brutal considering she (very justifiably) attacks Rivera as a careerist bloodsucker, and also the local TV newscaster who fingers the wrong man for the murder, over their exploitation of a tragedy to further their own careers and public profile. Yet from the sad, serious opening music on this podcast (simultaneously supplied to manipulate and entertain), and the way that Baran writes and delivers her narration, one gets the feeling that this is designed to be Important Journalism, the kind that wins awards and Changes Things. There's a lack of humility to it that makes this a great deal less about Jacob Wetterling, the family who lost him, the other victims of the person who killed him, and other parents of lost children, and more about In The Dark getting to the bottom of it. Baran doesn't seem to remember that her role is simply to tell the story and do right by the truth, not to do all that AND get an award for it.
This is what an investigative podcast should be - fact-based, tremendously researched and perfectly presented.
A shocking portrait of injustice and law enforcement malpractice. Season 2 is some of the best, and most compelling, podcast journalism I’ve heard. If Curtis Flowers is to ever receive a just outcome then this series will have played an important part in that result!
A well researched & presented podcast, that looks at both sides of the story. Pity the prosecutors weren’t so through & open minded about other possibilities. Great work, keep asking questions. A good podcast for true crime enthusiasts.
Chuck Norris once won a game of connect four in 3 moves.
Definitely worth subscribing too. Might make you upset at what can happen when the justice system relies on flawed investigations, prejudice or individuals more interested in defending their position than in getting things right.
I really liked the stye of both seasons. It felt like this podcast focused on the human cost of two extreme types of terrible flawed investigations. Season one is the cost of a bungled investigation that might have been able to prevent tragedy. Season two is also a bungled investigation, but of a different sort; a DA with an apparent vendetta absolutely set on seeing one person convicted, going to whatever lengths necessary. It is an exploration of the racial policitics of 1990s Mississipi and provides context for the history and experience of those in the area. I binged both seasons over a weekend. Utterly compelling, brilliant journalism. This is a different type of true crime podcast than fixating on gory details. The level of research and thought put into each episode is stunning.
You must listen to this. Very well investigated.
Well executed and oragnized - this podcast provides an interesting investigation into the failures of a sheriff's office in rural Minnesota. The effects of which will leave you debating whether the American approach to sheriffs is the best way to handle law enforcement and if you or a loved one was murdered, would your local police likely be competent in solving the case?
Great story telling by an amazing journalist who left no stone unturned
Really interesting. Binged on this podcast. Can't wait for the next series.
A wildly skilled team of researchers, reporters and producers have put in a mind boggling amount of work to produce these gripping, heart-wrenching pieces of investigative journalism. Cannot recommend highly enough. GB
Fantastic... I listened to the whole lot in a very short period... simply brilliant journalism... I lost my twin through murder in 1998 and as a result I so much relate to crime stories. The story of Curtis injustice makes you cry at the incompetence and bias of the prosecutors. Can’t wait for series 3. GB
Ghost of Eric
Totally blown away by series 2, having also enjoyed series/season 1. The first series perhaps had the wind taken out of its sails by the culprit being found just before they went to air, but season 2 is a Herculean feat of investigation that should be required listening on all journalism courses around the world. And that doesn’t make it dull, either - every episode seems to have a new jaw-dropping revelation about the many instances of ineptitude and corruption that led Curtis Flowers to be in jail for decades despite being repeatedly judged innocent. Hope someone is managing to get paid for all this work... The case of Curtis Flowers looks for all the world like a shocking miscarriage of justice, and the story of how it happened is a startling insight into the way justice works (or often doesn’t) in the US - and the attitudes, prejudices, complacency and cover-ups that probably uphold such errors not just in America but in many other countries. An incredible achievement and a gripping podcast. GB
Anything you really want, you can attain, if you really go after it.
In the Dark Wiki
IN, In or in may refer to:. camila cabello, camila, camila full album, havana, never be the same, all these years, she loves control, inside out, somethings gotta give, in the dark, into it, crying in the club, i have questions, camilizers, fifth harmony, harmonizers, consequences, Camila Cabello, In the Dark, Pop, Syco Music/Epic,
In the Dark Podcast News
- Make Korean Sauna Eggs in Your Instant Pot - Photo: Claire Lower I am forever surprised by how many different ways you can cook and eat eggs. Within the scrambled genre alone, I have three favorites ( super slow, whipped with an immersion blender, and blended with with cheese ). Recently, I’ve been real…
- I'm Actress Anjali Bhimani, and This Is How I Work - You might recognize Anjali Bhimani’s voice from Overwatch. You might have seen her on Broadway, or in shows like Modern Family, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend, and Silicon Valley. And you can see her in We’re Alive: Frontier, the live-action RPG web series from Geek &am…
- The Best Apples, Ranked - Photo: Noam Cohen (Reshot) We all have opinions on the best apples, but these are the correct opinions. My qualifications: I have eaten a lot of apples. I’ve been lucky enough to taste antique varieties of apples and experimental research varieties of apples.…
- How to Create Less Waste This Holiday Season - The holidays are the most wonderful time of year, unless you are the planet. To get to actual holiday joy, you’ve got to tear through several layers of waste: disposable wrapping, frilly ribbons, packing tape, wads of plastic shopping bags, mountains of clams…