dumb and dangerous
This is NOT a true crime podcast; it is a podcast that features very fanciful “interpretations” of well-known crimes based on Ryan’s rather random selection of “symbols” and belief that “evolution” (his account of “evolution” has nothing to do with serious science — it is more like magic or theology) dictates everything behind the scenes. In his mind evolution is like a god, conscious and deliberate, pulling strings to force outcomes. Obviously such a presentation of the science of evolution makes it totally unrecognizable — it is fate rather than science, so it can be and do anything Ryan decides it should do or “intend.” This might sound interesting but it becomes a mess that enables easy determinations, and when one is trying to argue for the guilt of real human beings it becomes sloppy and potentially very sinister. Also, beware that Ryan the podcaster ALWAYS totally agrees with the prosecution in the cases he tramples over, even in difficult/slippery (likely) wrongful conviction cases such as the infamous West Memphis 3 case. He takes everything a prosecutor states, as in the Jaime Melgar case (since it was covered extensively by Bob Ruff’s very popular podcast other podcasters have “discovered” it), to be absolutely true (such as supposed marital troubles with the Melgars though no evidence presented in court proved this to be true, and Ryan keeps repeating the prosecutor’s unproven claim here with zero evidence — repeating again and again that Sandy no longer loved her husband — we do not know this to be the case unless we decide we are telepathic). His “insights” are thus nothing more than a long-winded restatement of the prosecution case with shallow, undergraduate interpretations of “symbols” he pulls out of thin air. Ryan makes absurd comments that reveal a sad and very shallow sense of the complexity of real-life events. He also makes the error consistently of stating what he imagines he “would” do and claiming that this is the right action, which is a great way to misread evidence and superimpose “guilt” because the podcaster *thinks* that *he* wouldn’t respond in a certain way given xyz so therefore the other person is guilty... I hope Ryan never serves on a jury! You (Ryan) don’t think that suddenly being accosted by a complete stranger in your home wouldn’t shock you? It’s sad that you mention the GSK as there were times when he subdued victims w/out a gun, based on shock and threats, and left the house leaving no evidence other than the absolute terror he inflicted. There were many victims who realized months later that one or two or three items appeared to be missing — yet according to you no home invader would ever behave in such a manner. Home invaders do not follow one rule book dude. It’s frankly terrifying that you think it’s all so easy. Your constant repetition of the mantra that “Jim didn’t want to hurt the intruder” and/or was “willing to die” is offensive and shows how little you know about how people respond to knife attacks. You have no idea how people respond to knife attacks sorry. Your comments reveal that quite clearly. And saying that Jim didn’t attempt to save his wife and that he was WILLING to die?! How dare you?! You have no idea — you are wildly speculating, and you make appalling comments like this about a victim that you could not possibly know. As if all murders by knife follow exactly the same pattern. No, they don’t — many knife attacks include shallow wounds as well as deeper ones. Jaime did have defensive wounds — you just don’t think they are the correct defensive wounds. Sigh. You do realize that many think that Jim DID go for his gun?! What did Sandy gain? There was no huge insurance policy, and she lost her husband and the father of her child. But...she “gained?” I also love how you know exactly what a “murderer” will do, and that the “murderer” will always behave in the way you believe he/she should behave. Don’t you understand how ridiculous that is? You say over and over that he/she “would have” done xyz. There are many cases in which a victim is killed and another victim is left alive and/or the murderers make all sorts of ridiculous decisions and can just be lucky. You also seem to be swallowing the prosecution’s dumb argument that Sandy could overcome her husband despite her disabilities, and that Jim didn’t defend himself, which he did! Your answer to this hard physical fact is that it is proven “emotionally.” Again, it is terrifying. And um no an ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE DOES NOT MAKE SANDY GUILTY. I quote you: “if the police can’t find another murderer then YOU are the murderer” FFS. That nonsense is how so many are wrongly convicted, and it reveals that you do not understand our legal system. It’s sad that you (Ryan) attempted the Melgar case. You misapplied your abilities to a case in which ZERO hard evidence, and a lot of religious prejudice (why do you think the prosecutor kept bringing up the fact that Sandy and Jim were Jehovah’s Witnesses?), has put a disabled woman in her fifties in jail for life. You seem to have a very poor understanding of how memory works; I know many people who drank or took medications or suffered from a seizure disorder, and blackouts and other impairments of memory can work in exactly the way Sandy experienced the memory loss. The comment that people with seizure disorders must be “timing” their seizures just reveals your utter ignorance about how these conditions work. You do know that massive stress, such as being confronted by strangers in a home invasion, can TRIGGER a seizure? Have you ever known anyone with a seizure disorder?! Your entire silly “psychoanalysis” of this case rests on such shallow assessments of complex conditions. This podcast once interested me,and I enjoyed a few of the (very) fanciful psychoanalysis-fused romps. The snarky comments in this episode have put me off completely. Don’t waste your time!
Reviewed on Apple Podcasts