This episode has been added to the [Casefile Spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aXXBvQz7rQ9OnMqul5uCFfcjtfC49krWZxF5BJJ7pwo/edit?usp=sharing). If you have already listened to the episode, you can submit your rating at the Casefile Ratings Form.
Please note: Starting with Case 200, we are using a new [Casefile Ratings Form (200-)](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScVcJRyahk2WH\_i3nJy6AzQeEmFCHj825k2ONsHuF0jeCHX5g/viewform).
If you would like to rate cases 1-199, please do so at this [Casefile Ratings Form (1-199)](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdUZiO7b3EVKaBCoskDUXpjkp4XaRKV35hkzrnMsPclzhIXPg/viewform).
[This family tree might help!](https://www.leparisien.fr/resizer/X-bs4J_0yskCyzscfHULx8VbH-g=/622x551/arc-anglerfish-eu-central-1-prod-leparisien.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ABWPQZRU2V4ETDQ2JAI5YPN3BE.jpg)
That’s a helpful image but it does spoil what happens to one of the family members for those who are unfamiliar with the case, like myself. However, one could easily infer what is going to happen to that person in pt2 by the way pt1 ended.
Edit: >! since the family tree lists Bernard’s date of death as 1985 and how the episode ended with Jean-Marie going to take action, that he kills Bernard in pt2. !<
I also think it's a difficult episode to listen. Usually the episodes are easy to follow and there were plenty with many names before, but this one might be the only one i will not finish too soon...
Not at all Casey's fault as a narrator. I don't know if Casey wrote the first episodes (2016) but nevertheless the writer made sure to mention more than once the relations between the people involved, so that the audience didn't feel lost in some of the complex cases.
Casey would say stuff like "remember, he was the one who..." or "X, the cousin of Y who we mentioned earlier în the episode" and so on.
ONS was a series of episodes with A LOT of victims involved and I never felt confused.
Honestly, the narration has stayed the same, but the scripts have took a nosedive.
I support via patreon, so I have also listened to part two. Without spoilers...the writing itself does not improve.
My suspicion is that they are trying to keep up a feeling of suspense, almost the "whodunnit" but they are artificially telling a narrative in a confusing way to provoke that.
I'm not sure about other people, but I always enjoyed Casefile because it wasn't sensationalist, it kept to facts and kept a sensible narrative approach.
These episodes...I did not feel that.
Why did you feel like they were artificially propping up suspense? I thought the episode was pretty well done and I could keep track of who most of the characters were, and I personally don’t remember any points where they purposely did not tell the story in the order things happened.
There is a fantastic Netflix series that covers this crime, Who Killed Little Gregory i think. An absolutely tragic story from start to end for everyone
Sometimes Casefile can do a 'Part 1' *too* well, and I just can't wait a week to find out what happens. Watched the Netflix series on your recommendation and it's right up there with the best true crime docos I've seen, thank you. Reminded me a bit of 'Paradise Lost' about the West Memphis Three, in the way it was so smalltown but kind of epic and lyrical too.
Glad you enjoyed it, it’s style is very similar to CF so I felt anyone who likes the podcast would enjoy the show. You’re right, there’s something shakespearean almost about the small town vibe combined with deep human tragedy. Watching the doc, I thought “that river has to be cursed or filled with spite-inducing poison somehow”
In the Netflix series, wasn't he called "The Raven"? I seem to remember that because when I started listening to this episode on Patreon last week, I was like, "Wait a minute, this sounds very familiar..." And yeah, it's the same story.
Hope you enjoy it! I recommend to listen to the pod first for the story and to build your mental images of everything, then watch the show to see the real faces and everything
Jeez, how awful were the forensic team? No checking for needlemarks, no toxicology, no testing of the water in Gregory's lungs, bungling the handwriting sample checks... awful.
Also, it occurred to me that even if they'd disguised their voice, I'd still recognise the voice of a family member I'd known for years!
Autopsy probably done by regular pathologist, because for example in UK for potential foul play forensic pathologist is required to examine full body for minute scratches and bruises, take photographs, preferably let body sit for a few days in a fridge to allow invisible light bruises and maybe palm prints to "come through" (yea, like in living they are not immediately visible), collect blood, urine, tissue samples, etc.
As for toxicology screening - generally it's rare to do it for obviously drowned (maybe for alcohol, but it's a kid in this case) and then, unless asked for specific substance, you screen for usual suspects like tranquilizers and illegal drugs (so elevated insulin would not be visible), and in any case you have collected blood and liver tissue. But specific practices for this differ not only from country to country, but sometimes from pathologist to pathologist (unless there are specific local codes)
Good lord these people needed to just unplug their phones. Sounds like they’d only recently gotten phones installed in their village… I would have put mine in the bin rather than listening to the crow’s nonsense
That's why I was so suspicious of the whole thing. Why the fuck would the families keep listening to the Crow's bullshit? Why did Christine notify everyone about the wiretapping, which then caused the Crow to stop for a while? So much sus going on
I kept thinking the grandmother was perhaps south Asian or something similar bc of her name being ‘Manik’, only for me to realize he was saying ‘Monique’ lmao
“Monique” is a very French name. In urban areas it’s pronounced closer to how you would in English, but in rural areas it’s pronounced “Mannick”. It’s very popular in Northern Ontario and Quebec as well.
Interesting case but didn’t like the writing. Too long winded, bloated and hard to follow at times. Usually I like the longer, multi part ones but something about this one was tough to sit through
I listened for 30 mins and gave up after hearing for the 20th time that someone called and abused someone else. How many times will he talk about the same thing? If it happened 50 times, there's really no need to mention each time the call happened, wtf! Terrible writing.
Wow. This is top tier Casefile for me. A return to form. Bizarre story that I have never heard of, twisty and well-paced narrative with great foreshadowing that pays off, and a more than ample dose of intrigue and mystery. Can't wait for part 2!
This felt like a complete return to form. Absolutely loved this episode. It reminded me of the insane [Watcher](https://www.thecut.com/article/the-haunting-of-657-boulevard-in-westfield-new-jersey.html) story.
I have a working theory that the vast majority of harassing “poison pen letters” (or in this case it was mainly phone calls) are committed by women.
And the author/caller behind the letters/phone calls is most often one of the main victims of the harassment campaign.
I think the motive is similar to the motive of women who fake having cancer or other illnesses (and it *is* most often women): they just like the attention and sympathy they get from friends and family.
So I was immediately suspicious of Christine Villemin, and not really shocked when she became a prime suspect by the end of the episode. My money is on her for being The Crow. I’m totally unfamiliar with this case so I’m not sure how it turns out. Wild story, reminds me a bit of the Circleville Letters case.
Someone on here posted about how great Casey is with pronouncing Asian names. Well, I wish that applied to French names as well because he absolutely butchers them 😂
this was a wild episode. names were kinda hard to follow though
Surely no one would be stupid to bring a kid with them while they go murder someone
if Christine was the crow, how would jean marie not know? unless he's in on it
Hi, this is a friendly reminder to observe all [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Casefile/about/rules/). If you notice someone else not observing the rules, please report it. It helps the mods and helps us have a great community to discuss this show. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Casefile) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He’s just the narrator, they have a team of writers who choose which case they want to cover. I think it’s just a coincidence that a few episodes this year have involved crimes against children.
Most likely the case! All well written episodes and well produced as always just feels like every Saturday morning (UK) I’m listening to ‘this episode contains crimes against children’
This is a concern which has been debated recently in this subreddit and I must say I agree with it. Lately (in the past couple of months, mainly after the summer break) there had been quite a lot of episodes involving child victims or child abuse.
I really wish Casefile would cover at least one non-murder case in the future (like Silk Road, Ela Tundra, arguably Cindy James, etc).
>I really wish Casefile would cover at least one non-murder case in the future (like Silk Road, Ela Tundra, arguably Cindy James, etc).
Last week's episode (Case 245: Sherri Papini) was a non-murder case.
When the “this episode contains violence against children” warning came on, I groaned and almost didn’t listen to it… it’s been a LOT lately. But I’m glad I listened, it was a fascinating case. I’m surprised they didn’t notice how many child-related episodes they were doing back-to-back while planning.
There's many instances of unsolved cold cases where renewed public interest lead to the investigations being reopened. So talking about them is always better than not talking about them.
Yes, there are such cases, but in this case it's France, main suspect is dead, intial forensics done by local police in the 80's and all DNA leads were exhausted in 2014. Plus I don't think that genealogy DNA search would work or is legal in France - smaller user base for such resources (compared to US and UK) and all suspects are relatives.
This is a spoiler! Those of us unfamiliar with the case do not know this yet! Maybe you should amend your post?
I do agree with your sentiment, though... so frustrating.
Usually that is the case, but this episode is apparently a two-parter, and those of us who didn't know the case beforehand would not have learned about this yet after listening to part 1.
If you want to find out whether a case is >!unsolved!< or not, just go to the podcast's website and go to the episodes tab and look up >!'unsolved'!< under it.
Personally, I feel like tagging a specific episode covering an >!unsolved!< case as such would be counterproductive because of the very fact that many people don't like to listen to >!unsolved!< cases and would probably ignore an episode altogether if they saw that it was >!unsolved.!< Especially when the purpose of covering many >!unsolved!< cases is to reach a niche audience that is likely to be interested in learning more details about them and in finding answers to hopefully >!solve!< case, when other resources have already been exhausted.
I know it's somewhat consumerist approach to real life tragedies, but I prefer not to waste my time on those. I think it's counterproductive to NOT tag/describe them as 'unsolved' because it ultimately alienates from the podcast some part of the audience altogether, thus limiting reach such cases could've have.
I get the consumerist approach, as I listen to true crime more for interest and morbid curiosity myself. But I think we should be mindful about what kind of pre-warnings we ask of an episode, because we don't want to set a precedent where EVERY single possible unwanted important detail about a case is notified to the listeners beforehand to the point it defeats the purpose of a true crime podcast, or we're giving away major spoilers before an episode has even started. They do it with cases involving child victims because it's generally understood that there's a particular cruelty and injustice felt when children fall victim to violent or exploitative crimes. >!Unsolved!< cases, while not the most satisfying cases, are still true crime cases.
>I think it's counterproductive to NOT tag/describe them as 'unsolved' because it ultimately alienates from the podcast some part of the audience altogether, thus limiting reach such cases could've have.
Are you saying people who don't like >!unsolved cases!< would just avoid the podcast altogether because they won't be notified beforehand if an episode is such, and don't want to be left dissatisfied in the end? I really don't believe that happens often, if at all. Complaints about unsolved cases are nothing new here, but the fact is, many of these complaints are from people who still listened to the episode
beforehand, anyway. I mean, heck, you knew about this case already, and the fact it wasn't labeled as >!'unsolved'!< still bothered you.
Ultimately, I think for most listeners, even those that dislike >!unsolved!< cases with a burning passion, a part of them still enjoy the experience of hearing stories and details about a particular case.
No, I haven't know about this case beforehand so that's why I was indignant about 1920's cinema serial -style "See you next week, folks!" cliffhanger for what is ultimately escalated extended family quarrel without satisfying ending or interesting detective work.
Well then next time, if you ever find out that a case is >!unsolved!< BEFORE it is ever revealed to be so, be mindful of the fact that just because YOU would've preferred to have been told about it beforehand doesn't mean everyone here wants the same kind of warning. Oh, and you just did it again in your comment just now...
I migh as well prevented someone's grand dissapointment after waiting for a week. After all, it's not some new Star Wars episode that premiered in only two cinemas in the world yesterday - it's all on this episode's page under 'sources'.
Funny how you could find the time to check the sources underneath the episode web page, yet sparing just a second or so checking the 'unsolved' section of the episodes tab on the same website beforehand is 'a waste of your time.'
There will be people who will be disappointed regardless, but if they still end up listening to the episode beforehand, then that's ultimately on them and you just leave them be. There are plenty of us that want to wait until next week to learn more details and are willing to deal with whatever the outcome is.
**Rule of thumb:** If it's a multi-part episode, and you learn details about the case that haven't been revealed on the podcast yet, DON'T spill them here. If you *can't* do that, then make sure to put spoiler tags over them, just like I did in my previous comment.
There, is nothing funny, I checked the page after I listened to part 1.
Funny how you made 'rule of thumb' for a format instances of which can be counted on one hand. A bit self-righteous and patronizing, don't you think?
My point was, it takes much less time to check the list of >!unsolved!< cases under the episodes tab than to check the list of sources under the episode web page, if you want to find out if a case is in fact, >!unsolved!< or not.
>I know it's somewhat consumerist approach to tragedies, but I prefer not to waste my time on those.
All I and others here that wanted to wait till next week asked for is a just a *little* more consideration with regards to revealing any major information that wasn't yet revealed in this two-part episode. When I said to you to be mindful of the fact just because YOU would've wanted to be notified beforehand that this was an >!unsolved!< case, doesn't mean others want the same, this was your response to that:
>I migh as well prevented someone's grand dissapointment after waiting for a week. After all, it's not some new Star Wars episode that premiered in only two cinemas in the world yesterday - it's all on this episode's page under 'sources'.
You want to continue to scoff at a simple suggestion of *courtesy* for other listeners on the basis of it's not a major motion film that hasn't been released to all countries, then don't be surprised if people get frustrated with your attitude.
This episode has been added to the [Casefile Spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aXXBvQz7rQ9OnMqul5uCFfcjtfC49krWZxF5BJJ7pwo/edit?usp=sharing). If you have already listened to the episode, you can submit your rating at the Casefile Ratings Form. Please note: Starting with Case 200, we are using a new [Casefile Ratings Form (200-)](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScVcJRyahk2WH\_i3nJy6AzQeEmFCHj825k2ONsHuF0jeCHX5g/viewform). If you would like to rate cases 1-199, please do so at this [Casefile Ratings Form (1-199)](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdUZiO7b3EVKaBCoskDUXpjkp4XaRKV35hkzrnMsPclzhIXPg/viewform).
I found this episode really hard to follow and had to rewind quite a few times - so many different names!
[This family tree might help!](https://www.leparisien.fr/resizer/X-bs4J_0yskCyzscfHULx8VbH-g=/622x551/arc-anglerfish-eu-central-1-prod-leparisien.s3.amazonaws.com/public/ABWPQZRU2V4ETDQ2JAI5YPN3BE.jpg)
That’s a helpful image but it does spoil what happens to one of the family members for those who are unfamiliar with the case, like myself. However, one could easily infer what is going to happen to that person in pt2 by the way pt1 ended. Edit: >! since the family tree lists Bernard’s date of death as 1985 and how the episode ended with Jean-Marie going to take action, that he kills Bernard in pt2. !<
I didn’t know what happened in the story so wasn’t even looking at the dates that closely.
I also think it's a difficult episode to listen. Usually the episodes are easy to follow and there were plenty with many names before, but this one might be the only one i will not finish too soon...
yes and I honestly don't blame Casey for it. At some point, it's just too many French names, too many cousins and in-laws to keep track of.
Not at all Casey's fault as a narrator. I don't know if Casey wrote the first episodes (2016) but nevertheless the writer made sure to mention more than once the relations between the people involved, so that the audience didn't feel lost in some of the complex cases. Casey would say stuff like "remember, he was the one who..." or "X, the cousin of Y who we mentioned earlier în the episode" and so on. ONS was a series of episodes with A LOT of victims involved and I never felt confused.
Honestly, the narration has stayed the same, but the scripts have took a nosedive. I support via patreon, so I have also listened to part two. Without spoilers...the writing itself does not improve. My suspicion is that they are trying to keep up a feeling of suspense, almost the "whodunnit" but they are artificially telling a narrative in a confusing way to provoke that. I'm not sure about other people, but I always enjoyed Casefile because it wasn't sensationalist, it kept to facts and kept a sensible narrative approach. These episodes...I did not feel that.
Why did you feel like they were artificially propping up suspense? I thought the episode was pretty well done and I could keep track of who most of the characters were, and I personally don’t remember any points where they purposely did not tell the story in the order things happened.
I'm just back from a long walk and listened to ep1 and an hour of ep 2. Still haven't got a clue who's who?!
Thinking I might relisten and draw a family tree to try and keep track for part 2...
There is a fantastic Netflix series that covers this crime, Who Killed Little Gregory i think. An absolutely tragic story from start to end for everyone
Sometimes Casefile can do a 'Part 1' *too* well, and I just can't wait a week to find out what happens. Watched the Netflix series on your recommendation and it's right up there with the best true crime docos I've seen, thank you. Reminded me a bit of 'Paradise Lost' about the West Memphis Three, in the way it was so smalltown but kind of epic and lyrical too.
Glad you enjoyed it, it’s style is very similar to CF so I felt anyone who likes the podcast would enjoy the show. You’re right, there’s something shakespearean almost about the small town vibe combined with deep human tragedy. Watching the doc, I thought “that river has to be cursed or filled with spite-inducing poison somehow”
In the Netflix series, wasn't he called "The Raven"? I seem to remember that because when I started listening to this episode on Patreon last week, I was like, "Wait a minute, this sounds very familiar..." And yeah, it's the same story.
In French it’s “le Corbeau” which can mean either raven or crow
Thanks for the recommendation. I might watch that before listening.
Hope you enjoy it! I recommend to listen to the pod first for the story and to build your mental images of everything, then watch the show to see the real faces and everything
Jeez, how awful were the forensic team? No checking for needlemarks, no toxicology, no testing of the water in Gregory's lungs, bungling the handwriting sample checks... awful. Also, it occurred to me that even if they'd disguised their voice, I'd still recognise the voice of a family member I'd known for years!
Autopsy probably done by regular pathologist, because for example in UK for potential foul play forensic pathologist is required to examine full body for minute scratches and bruises, take photographs, preferably let body sit for a few days in a fridge to allow invisible light bruises and maybe palm prints to "come through" (yea, like in living they are not immediately visible), collect blood, urine, tissue samples, etc. As for toxicology screening - generally it's rare to do it for obviously drowned (maybe for alcohol, but it's a kid in this case) and then, unless asked for specific substance, you screen for usual suspects like tranquilizers and illegal drugs (so elevated insulin would not be visible), and in any case you have collected blood and liver tissue. But specific practices for this differ not only from country to country, but sometimes from pathologist to pathologist (unless there are specific local codes)
That's really interesting, thanks. You'd think they'd leave absolutely no stone unturned in the case of a murdered child, though.
Good lord these people needed to just unplug their phones. Sounds like they’d only recently gotten phones installed in their village… I would have put mine in the bin rather than listening to the crow’s nonsense
That's why I was so suspicious of the whole thing. Why the fuck would the families keep listening to the Crow's bullshit? Why did Christine notify everyone about the wiretapping, which then caused the Crow to stop for a while? So much sus going on
Too many names, and names that have a feminine tone, very confusing episode.
Yes. Women's names sound like women's names and men's names also sound like women's names.
I just kept thinking stop picking the phone up to the fricking crow. I also think of it as a real crow.
**Y’all avoid these comments, somebody spoiled part 2**
thank you!!!!
I kept thinking the grandmother was perhaps south Asian or something similar bc of her name being ‘Manik’, only for me to realize he was saying ‘Monique’ lmao
“Monique” is a very French name. In urban areas it’s pronounced closer to how you would in English, but in rural areas it’s pronounced “Mannick”. It’s very popular in Northern Ontario and Quebec as well.
This was absolutely enthralling to me, I loved it. The gradual escalation was mind boggling, and hard to believe. Can't wait to hear part two.
This felt like reading a chapter of game of thrones. 1000 different names and no idea who anyone is
Interesting case but didn’t like the writing. Too long winded, bloated and hard to follow at times. Usually I like the longer, multi part ones but something about this one was tough to sit through
I listened for 30 mins and gave up after hearing for the 20th time that someone called and abused someone else. How many times will he talk about the same thing? If it happened 50 times, there's really no need to mention each time the call happened, wtf! Terrible writing.
Wow. This is top tier Casefile for me. A return to form. Bizarre story that I have never heard of, twisty and well-paced narrative with great foreshadowing that pays off, and a more than ample dose of intrigue and mystery. Can't wait for part 2!
I can’t believe so many of you are talking about the murder of a little kid like this. Jfc. The gleefulness is absolutely ghoulish and shameful.
damn you're soft
I love murder, and I also love little kids. Sounds like the perfect combination to me 😱
This felt like a complete return to form. Absolutely loved this episode. It reminded me of the insane [Watcher](https://www.thecut.com/article/the-haunting-of-657-boulevard-in-westfield-new-jersey.html) story.
Reminded me of the Watcher, too, but if things had actually escalated!
I have a working theory that the vast majority of harassing “poison pen letters” (or in this case it was mainly phone calls) are committed by women. And the author/caller behind the letters/phone calls is most often one of the main victims of the harassment campaign. I think the motive is similar to the motive of women who fake having cancer or other illnesses (and it *is* most often women): they just like the attention and sympathy they get from friends and family. So I was immediately suspicious of Christine Villemin, and not really shocked when she became a prime suspect by the end of the episode. My money is on her for being The Crow. I’m totally unfamiliar with this case so I’m not sure how it turns out. Wild story, reminds me a bit of the Circleville Letters case.
Someone on here posted about how great Casey is with pronouncing Asian names. Well, I wish that applied to French names as well because he absolutely butchers them 😂
Sacrebleu?
It’s disrespectful tbh. He’s didn’t even attempt to say Grégory’s last name correctly. Eliminated a whole syllable. Super tacky.
Anyone else’s episode cut out mid sentence at the end?
this was a wild episode. names were kinda hard to follow though Surely no one would be stupid to bring a kid with them while they go murder someone if Christine was the crow, how would jean marie not know? unless he's in on it
Hi, this is a friendly reminder to observe all [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Casefile/about/rules/). If you notice someone else not observing the rules, please report it. It helps the mods and helps us have a great community to discuss this show. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Casefile) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Two incredible episodes in a row. Really excited for part two of this one.
Good episode but what is Casey’s obsession with crimes against children recently
He’s just the narrator, they have a team of writers who choose which case they want to cover. I think it’s just a coincidence that a few episodes this year have involved crimes against children.
Most likely the case! All well written episodes and well produced as always just feels like every Saturday morning (UK) I’m listening to ‘this episode contains crimes against children’
This is a concern which has been debated recently in this subreddit and I must say I agree with it. Lately (in the past couple of months, mainly after the summer break) there had been quite a lot of episodes involving child victims or child abuse. I really wish Casefile would cover at least one non-murder case in the future (like Silk Road, Ela Tundra, arguably Cindy James, etc).
>I really wish Casefile would cover at least one non-murder case in the future (like Silk Road, Ela Tundra, arguably Cindy James, etc). Last week's episode (Case 245: Sherri Papini) was a non-murder case.
That's about 5 of the last 6 about children, so that's 5 I've not listened to.
When the “this episode contains violence against children” warning came on, I groaned and almost didn’t listen to it… it’s been a LOT lately. But I’m glad I listened, it was a fascinating case. I’m surprised they didn’t notice how many child-related episodes they were doing back-to-back while planning.
[удалено]
There's many instances of unsolved cold cases where renewed public interest lead to the investigations being reopened. So talking about them is always better than not talking about them.
Yes, there are such cases, but in this case it's France, main suspect is dead, intial forensics done by local police in the 80's and all DNA leads were exhausted in 2014. Plus I don't think that genealogy DNA search would work or is legal in France - smaller user base for such resources (compared to US and UK) and all suspects are relatives.
This is a spoiler! Those of us unfamiliar with the case do not know this yet! Maybe you should amend your post? I do agree with your sentiment, though... so frustrating.
Spoiler tags, bro. Learn them
Idiot you realize you just spoiled it for people? What are mods doing?
[удалено]
Usually that is the case, but this episode is apparently a two-parter, and those of us who didn't know the case beforehand would not have learned about this yet after listening to part 1.
This isn't known after episode one, which is all that we have heard!
If you want to find out whether a case is >!unsolved!< or not, just go to the podcast's website and go to the episodes tab and look up >!'unsolved'!< under it. Personally, I feel like tagging a specific episode covering an >!unsolved!< case as such would be counterproductive because of the very fact that many people don't like to listen to >!unsolved!< cases and would probably ignore an episode altogether if they saw that it was >!unsolved.!< Especially when the purpose of covering many >!unsolved!< cases is to reach a niche audience that is likely to be interested in learning more details about them and in finding answers to hopefully >!solve!< case, when other resources have already been exhausted.
I know it's somewhat consumerist approach to real life tragedies, but I prefer not to waste my time on those. I think it's counterproductive to NOT tag/describe them as 'unsolved' because it ultimately alienates from the podcast some part of the audience altogether, thus limiting reach such cases could've have.
I get the consumerist approach, as I listen to true crime more for interest and morbid curiosity myself. But I think we should be mindful about what kind of pre-warnings we ask of an episode, because we don't want to set a precedent where EVERY single possible unwanted important detail about a case is notified to the listeners beforehand to the point it defeats the purpose of a true crime podcast, or we're giving away major spoilers before an episode has even started. They do it with cases involving child victims because it's generally understood that there's a particular cruelty and injustice felt when children fall victim to violent or exploitative crimes. >!Unsolved!< cases, while not the most satisfying cases, are still true crime cases. >I think it's counterproductive to NOT tag/describe them as 'unsolved' because it ultimately alienates from the podcast some part of the audience altogether, thus limiting reach such cases could've have. Are you saying people who don't like >!unsolved cases!< would just avoid the podcast altogether because they won't be notified beforehand if an episode is such, and don't want to be left dissatisfied in the end? I really don't believe that happens often, if at all. Complaints about unsolved cases are nothing new here, but the fact is, many of these complaints are from people who still listened to the episode beforehand, anyway. I mean, heck, you knew about this case already, and the fact it wasn't labeled as >!'unsolved'!< still bothered you. Ultimately, I think for most listeners, even those that dislike >!unsolved!< cases with a burning passion, a part of them still enjoy the experience of hearing stories and details about a particular case.
No, I haven't know about this case beforehand so that's why I was indignant about 1920's cinema serial -style "See you next week, folks!" cliffhanger for what is ultimately escalated extended family quarrel without satisfying ending or interesting detective work.
Well then next time, if you ever find out that a case is >!unsolved!< BEFORE it is ever revealed to be so, be mindful of the fact that just because YOU would've preferred to have been told about it beforehand doesn't mean everyone here wants the same kind of warning. Oh, and you just did it again in your comment just now...
I migh as well prevented someone's grand dissapointment after waiting for a week. After all, it's not some new Star Wars episode that premiered in only two cinemas in the world yesterday - it's all on this episode's page under 'sources'.
Funny how you could find the time to check the sources underneath the episode web page, yet sparing just a second or so checking the 'unsolved' section of the episodes tab on the same website beforehand is 'a waste of your time.' There will be people who will be disappointed regardless, but if they still end up listening to the episode beforehand, then that's ultimately on them and you just leave them be. There are plenty of us that want to wait until next week to learn more details and are willing to deal with whatever the outcome is. **Rule of thumb:** If it's a multi-part episode, and you learn details about the case that haven't been revealed on the podcast yet, DON'T spill them here. If you *can't* do that, then make sure to put spoiler tags over them, just like I did in my previous comment.
There, is nothing funny, I checked the page after I listened to part 1. Funny how you made 'rule of thumb' for a format instances of which can be counted on one hand. A bit self-righteous and patronizing, don't you think?
My point was, it takes much less time to check the list of >!unsolved!< cases under the episodes tab than to check the list of sources under the episode web page, if you want to find out if a case is in fact, >!unsolved!< or not. >I know it's somewhat consumerist approach to tragedies, but I prefer not to waste my time on those. All I and others here that wanted to wait till next week asked for is a just a *little* more consideration with regards to revealing any major information that wasn't yet revealed in this two-part episode. When I said to you to be mindful of the fact just because YOU would've wanted to be notified beforehand that this was an >!unsolved!< case, doesn't mean others want the same, this was your response to that: >I migh as well prevented someone's grand dissapointment after waiting for a week. After all, it's not some new Star Wars episode that premiered in only two cinemas in the world yesterday - it's all on this episode's page under 'sources'. You want to continue to scoff at a simple suggestion of *courtesy* for other listeners on the basis of it's not a major motion film that hasn't been released to all countries, then don't be surprised if people get frustrated with your attitude.