Podcasts you like

[Savonarola]

I listen to News in Slow French and News in Slow Spanish.  I'm looking for something a little more challenging in both languages; but still simple enough that someone who doesn't have complete fluency in both languages, could follow.  Does anyone have any recommendations?

Canadian French language baseball.

That's a good idea; thanks Yi.

[Berkut]

Berkie, episode 1 of Serial was interesting.  Will listen to more.

The presentation of the case is slightly annoying to me though, how it's cut up into 12 episodes.  I guess it gives more structure to the podcast, but I'd kind of prefer to just get my big binders of disclosure from the homicide detectives and start reading from the beginning.

You get any further Beebs?

I've started listening to another podcast on the case, kind of run by the accused's aunt. Obviously there is a bias there, but it is pretty interesting to really dig into the nitty gritty details of a murder case, at least I think it is...

For me, it really raises some troubling questions about how crimes are "investigated", or rather, how the prosecution shifts from "finding out what happened" to "creating a case", and how that fundamentally changes their approach to investigation in rather disturbing ways.

Example from this one: A brandy bottle was found near the body. There were skin cells taken from the mouth of the bottle. During the investigation, when the focus of the investigation was on Anan, and investigators found out that he was Muslim and almost never drank, it was clear that it was incredibly unlikely that the bottle was a link to their suspect.

So they didn't do DNA testing on those samples, since it could not help their case, and in fact could very likely harm their case.

Here, the goal is not to learn more about what happened, but rather to construct a conviction. That bothers me....a lot.

[Barrister]

Berkie, episode 1 of Serial was interesting.  Will listen to more.

The presentation of the case is slightly annoying to me though, how it's cut up into 12 episodes.  I guess it gives more structure to the podcast, but I'd kind of prefer to just get my big binders of disclosure from the homicide detectives and start reading from the beginning.

You get any further Beebs?

I've started listening to another podcast on the case, kind of run by the accused's aunt. Obviously there is a bias there, but it is pretty interesting to really dig into the nitty gritty details of a murder case, at least I think it is...

For me, it really raises some troubling questions about how crimes are "investigated", or rather, how the prosecution shifts from "finding out what happened" to "creating a case", and how that fundamentally changes their approach to investigation in rather disturbing ways.

Example from this one: A brandy bottle was found near the body. There were skin cells taken from the mouth of the bottle. During the investigation, when the focus of the investigation was on Anan, and investigators found out that he was Muslim and almost never drank, it was clear that it was incredibly unlikely that the bottle was a link to their suspect.

So they didn't do DNA testing on those samples, since it could not help their case, and in fact could very likely harm their case.

Here, the goal is not to learn more about what happened, but rather to construct a conviction. That bothers me....a lot.

I got through about three episodes.  Sorry.

Tunnel vision is a definite risk in this line of work to be sure.  WHen I was with the Feds we did a one-day workshop precisely on that topic together with RCMP.  In this particular instance though... there are limits on resources.  DNA testing is expensive, and the labs will often reject or limit the number of tests they perform (plus, unlike CSI, results take 3-6 months, not 30 seconds).  In this case the body was found in a park often frequented by winos and drug users.  Even getting a DNA hit on someone else doesn't mean the bottle was in any way associated with Hae's body.

In some ways that kind of frustrated me about the show.  It went off on all these side-routes, when the case lived and died by Jay's testimony.  He was an eyewitness.  Either his story is true, or he is inventing it out of whole cloth.  Let me know more about him, and less about these unimportant side-stories.

Also, it did seem a bit too much like work.  Right now, for example, my desk is buried in the "nitty gritty details" of a string of smash-and-grab B&Es.

[Berkut]

I understand the idea of limited resources. But the bottle was found literally within inches of her body, and the body was only there for a short period of time.

So that means that the bottle was there *while* the killer was burying her, but was not kicked or thrown out of the way while they dug her grave - possible, but not terribly likely, or the bottle was connected, or it ended up there afterwards. Again, possible.

And yes, the case lives and dies on Jay's testimony. You see this as a tangent, because it doesn't speak to his testimony, and hence is not interesting from the standpoint of getting a conviction.

It could be VERY interesting from the standpoint of indicating that there might be a line of questioning that is worth pursuing other than what the investigators seemed to have already locked in on - namely Adnan.

What if they run that and find out the DNA matches to another killer who had abducted and strangled another Woodlawn student 6 months earlier, and dumped her body in Lincoln Park as well...for example?

I think that changes the entire focus of the investigation. I can understand that if you think you know who killed her already, that isn't intereting. But that is my point - at that point you are no longer engaged in an investigation, you are making a case, and trying pretty hard to ignore the evidence that doesn't help you do so.

I get that this is somewhat necessary. You can't just spin your wheels forever chasing down every lead.

[Berkut]

Beebs, I get that this could be incredibly uninteresting to you, btw.

I find it incredibly fascinating - it makes me wish I had chosen a different line of work.

Feel free to blow me off as my participation level is going to inevitably vastly exceed your own tolerance for responding to my thoughts.

[The Larch]

Does any of you follow "When diplomacy fails"? It is apparently highly recommended.

http://whendiplomacyfails.libsyn.com/

[Drakken]

Does any of you follow "When diplomacy fails"? It is apparently highly recommended.

http://whendiplomacyfails.libsyn.com/

I tried WDF. I really tried. However, I just can't stand the podcaster's nasal teenage voice, and most of the content is parts taken word from word from his sources, rather than synthesize it in his own narrative style (like Mike Duncan does for Revolutions and The History of Rome). This is disappointing, because AFAIK it is the only podcast who does the whole Thirty Years War with any level of detail.

[Hamilcar]

The latest Hardcore History is out. 

[The Larch]

Apparently ESPN is shutting down Grantland.  I followed lots of their podcasts, I'm really going to miss them.

[lustindarkness]

The last couple of weeks I've been listening to all of Star Talk (Dr Neil is The Awesome, but Bill Nye is on many of them, and I just can't stand him).

[Valmy]

The latest Hardcore History is out. 

Oh Thank God. I was worried we would only get one all year.

[crazy canuck]

The latest Hardcore History is out. 

This is one of my favourites.  Very well structured.

[crazy canuck]

I started listening to the Revolutions podcast yesterday.  Most of you have probably been listening to it for the last year or so.  For those of you who haven't yet, I highly recommend it.

[celedhring]

Bumping this!

After going through all of Mike Duncan's currently published material, I'm looking for some other good history podcast recommendations. I would be particularly interested in the history of the Americas (north and/or south), since the fragments in Revolutions that touched upon the continent whetted my appetite in that direction, and it's not a part of the world I'm super-knowledgeable about.

[Berkut]

The last couple of weeks I've been listening to all of Star Talk (Dr Neil is The Awesome, but Bill Nye is on many of them, and I just can't stand him).

I really like Tyson of course, but can't really stand Star Talk.

The other people babbling are fucking annoying as hell, and not even close to as funny as they think they are, I just want them to STFU.