Hucksters

"So yeah it's just a big question mark.  It wasn't until two weeks ago this all came up, you know, when I saw that you were starting this podcast.  It was the first time I knew the person's name--Ralph International Thomas--the man that was convicted for the murders." ("Robert" Dead and Gone. Episode 3 "The Human Condition")

What's that old saying?  Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story?  Or in the way of a good conspiracy theory?  I'm going to circle back to this quote...

Two pieces of satire poked my ego during the past few weeks.  The first jab came as I was reading Ed Watt's novel U.S. Blues.  The second came as I listened to a parody of true crime podcasts from Onion Public Radio called A Very Fatal Murder.  

U.S. Blues

The plot of Watts's novel begins with the murder of a taper at one of the Alpine shows in '85.  The protagonist, Peter Van de Carr, is an aging Deadhead who decides to investigate the murder for the sake of "restoring Truth to the scene." He’s a caricature of an aging hippie--a throwback to a very different time, when people still believed in truth and justice.  He dreams he's Socrates, in search of the truth and persecuted for it.  As Watt describes Peter, he might as well be Diogenes, just hanging out under his tarp, or wandering around the lot, lighter lit, looking for an honest man. The times have changed and Peter Van de Carr has failed to keep up.  Walking around whacking-off is as equally meaningful or meaningless as trying to restore Truth to the scene and being persecuted for it.  Spreading rumors about someone suspected of committing a murder is just as meaningful as establishing who really committed it.

I realize that, to some, this blog may seem as ridiculous as Van de Carr's attempt to restore Truth to the scene. I'll cop to a charge of grandiosity.  I deserve to be ridiculed.

A Very Fatal Murder

This brings me to A Very Fatal Murder and its send-up of the hucksters who produce some of the true-crime podcasts.  A huckster is someone eager to profit from anything, sometimes at the expense of human decency.  Of course, not all true-crime podcasters are hucksters.  But some are, and they deserve to be ridiculed for the ways in which self-interest leads them to exploit victims and their families.  They deserve to be ridiculed for perpetuating rumors and conspiracy theories for the sake of telling a captivating story.  They deserve to be ridiculed for ignoring the facts and not giving balanced reporting.  Or do they? Isn't perpetuating rumors and conspiracy theories for the sake of telling a good story and getting good ratings just as meaningful as following the facts and establishing that someone did in fact commit a murder?  Why not half-ass it when getting ratings and sponsors is good enough?

So at this point I'll just say it:  I tried to give Payne Lindsey the benefit of the doubt.  But now I just think he's among the hucksters.

Circling Back

As I've discussed in another post (which, for some reason, has received far more views than any other) Payne Lindsey failed to tell his listeners that he was drawing on testimonies given during an evidentiary hearing back in 2002.  Among those who testified, or had their testimony entered during that hearing, was a man by the name of Robert Herbert, who told a story very much like the one that the "Robert" interviewed for the podcast told.  I've assumed that they're the same person.  Since Robert Herbert's testimony in 2002 did not seem to get mentioned during the podcast, I'm assuming that that fact didn't get mentioned because it would have gotten in the way of telling a good story.  And I'm assuming that, when "Robert" tells Lindsey that he didn't know the name of the person convicted of murdering Mary and Greg, this was probably included for the same reason.  It's very difficult for me to believe that (as it may be for you, assuming you're as ridiculous as me) if "Robert" is the same person as Robert Herbert, he didn't know the name of the person on whose behalf he gave testimony in 2002, until 2020.  Of course, it may be that he only knew the man as "International"...

Let me be perfectly clear:  I may be totally wrong about all of this.  I'd very much like either to be corrected or know the truth.  I'd very much like to have somebody say, "Hey dumb-ass, you don't know what you're talking about" and set me straight, 'cause I'm not interested in hearing a good story.  And let me also be perfectly clear about this:  I believe that the evidentiary hearing testimonies referred to in the court documents are all true.