A podcast that really stunned me is "In the Dark."
This one has two seasons. The first concerns a major kidnapping--a child named Jacob Wetterling--from several years ago. After Wetterling went missing, a national buzz began. Geraldo became involved. Sensational stories circulated.
A myth hovered around the case: Law enforcement was doing everything possible. The efforts of "the good guys" were heroic.
"In the Dark" exposes some uncomfortable truths. In fact, the efforts of law enforcement were not heroic. When someone goes missing, your job is to interview everyone living very close by. To focus on the tight circle surrounding the victim. That tight circle often yields answers. Data that might seem meaningless--"I spotted a car I didn't recognize"--could turn out to link to the solution to the case.
You then go back and re-interview all the neighbors. You schedule re-re-interviews. Holes in stories, and discrepancies, turn out to be your bread and butter.
But officials didn't interview all the neighbors. They certainly didn't spend time on re-interviews.
Additionally, officials smeared at least one person who wasn't involved, in any way, in the case. This basically ruined his life: The guy continues to suffer from PTSD. His name will always be connected (wrongly) to the case. Law enforcement has never offered him an apology.
"In the Dark" ends with a damning assessment: We think various mythical cases are crazily complex, and that they involve criminal masterminds, but it's likely that very often the people in power simply aren't doing their jobs. I have a contrarian response to most podcasts, and I wonder if "In the Dark" could work a bit harder to see things from the officials' perspective--but, that said, I have to admit "In the Dark" builds its case really well. It's hard not to walk off with a sense of simmering rage.
The podcast reminded me strongly of Janet Malcolm's writing--finding counterintuitive insights by investigating the investigators. Looking closely at the scripts we tend to recite from. Poking holes in these scripts--scripts that we tend to view as gospel.
It's evident that the podcast is the work of professionals, with vast resources--funds and scrappiness unavailable to most podcasters. Spend your time wisely. Schedule a date with "In the Dark."
This one has two seasons. The first concerns a major kidnapping--a child named Jacob Wetterling--from several years ago. After Wetterling went missing, a national buzz began. Geraldo became involved. Sensational stories circulated.
A myth hovered around the case: Law enforcement was doing everything possible. The efforts of "the good guys" were heroic.
"In the Dark" exposes some uncomfortable truths. In fact, the efforts of law enforcement were not heroic. When someone goes missing, your job is to interview everyone living very close by. To focus on the tight circle surrounding the victim. That tight circle often yields answers. Data that might seem meaningless--"I spotted a car I didn't recognize"--could turn out to link to the solution to the case.
You then go back and re-interview all the neighbors. You schedule re-re-interviews. Holes in stories, and discrepancies, turn out to be your bread and butter.
But officials didn't interview all the neighbors. They certainly didn't spend time on re-interviews.
Additionally, officials smeared at least one person who wasn't involved, in any way, in the case. This basically ruined his life: The guy continues to suffer from PTSD. His name will always be connected (wrongly) to the case. Law enforcement has never offered him an apology.
"In the Dark" ends with a damning assessment: We think various mythical cases are crazily complex, and that they involve criminal masterminds, but it's likely that very often the people in power simply aren't doing their jobs. I have a contrarian response to most podcasts, and I wonder if "In the Dark" could work a bit harder to see things from the officials' perspective--but, that said, I have to admit "In the Dark" builds its case really well. It's hard not to walk off with a sense of simmering rage.
The podcast reminded me strongly of Janet Malcolm's writing--finding counterintuitive insights by investigating the investigators. Looking closely at the scripts we tend to recite from. Poking holes in these scripts--scripts that we tend to view as gospel.
It's evident that the podcast is the work of professionals, with vast resources--funds and scrappiness unavailable to most podcasters. Spend your time wisely. Schedule a date with "In the Dark."
Comments
Post a Comment