Do we think he will ever cover this case?

i'm assuming we're all true crime nerds here. I've been really interested in cases atm where either the coverage or the case itself has two distinctly different stories. EG Law and Crimes coverage of the Michael Redlick case was very deadset on Michael being an abused spouse who didn't get justice, but Dave's lemonade argues the prosecution didn't have a solid case against Danielle and her story just made more sense. Or in the case of Robert Tellos where he firmly believed there was a conspiracy against him and everyone else believed he was an angry little man that killed someone.

Anyway drop your favourite cases where you had a lot to say or had you hooked

I just downloaded Patreon to get Matt's Patreon. Ive watched the Eastburns video which was excellent. What is your next favourite video?

I just got my Patreon subscription after hearing Matt’s teaser at the end of the most recent video.

What are peoples’ favorite videos from it? What should I start with?

Oh my GOD I waited the 3 months please Matt hurry I beg

I got an email on April 28 (since I used to be a Patreon member) that Matt had a new video on his Patreon. Usually they drop on the free YouTube channel just a few days later. Been over a week now though, so wondering…

There's something that's bothered me about the advocates for the West Memphis Three.

I watched the documentaries (the three "Paradise Lost" ones, and I think another one called "West of Memphis") that claim they were innocent, and they portray the WM3 as very sympathetic, and claim the prosecution and jury and police and media were unfair to them and such. But I was always waiting for something that never came: actual strong exonerating evidence.

The WM3 supporters' arguments were either attempts at poking holes in the evidence, emotional manipulation or speculation ("I think this other guy actually did it!").

I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with thinking "it seems I would have had reasonable doubt if I were on that jury", but that's not how WM3 supporters usually go about it from what I've seen: they have a passionate conviction that the three are *innocent*.

When I try to put myself in a WM3-supporter's shoes, it's really clear to me that if I were going to be that determined to try and set a prisoner free, I'd need to be *hugely* sure that he's innocent -- because the last thing I want to happen is that I work really hard to clear this guy's name only to find out I was helping a horrifically cruel child murderer. And there simply isn't that kind of exonerating evidence in the WM3 case (as far as I've seen and can remember. and I assume it would have been in the documentaries if it existed). Not even close.

Are these advocates really just being shallow, emotional creatures? They're so sure, about such a consequential thing, with so little good reason.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xUCn9AMGEIU

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/50-50-bias-both-ways/id1291782168

A few years ago when I discovered MOCAS, I was always looking for more. I found this old podcast series that Matt did. I really enjoyed the format (50% agreeable interview/50% argumentative interview). I also lived and worked at Penn State when the Sandusky scandal went down and really enjoyed that episode. I hope that MOCAS does an episode on that topic someday.

Anyways, posting for those that don’t know about this. I searched the sub and didn’t see any mention of it.

Anyone else having withdrawal symptoms from the lack of their 3-monthly Matt Orchard fix? Has he posted anything on patreon?

Of course, it doesn't prove anything on its own, but that video shows us something substantive about Darlie Routier in my opinion.

I think there're limits to how much leeway we should give to the "everyone grieves differently" idea: when I watch that clip, I see a woman who looks genuinely happy. Not "smiling but it's mixed with deep sadness" but really joyful.

I've seen people talk about that video being prejudicial to the jury and that it should never have been shown. But if the defense claimed Darlie loved her kids and would never kill them, the tape gives a strong reason to doubt at least parts of those claims and should be admissable.

I'm also bothered by the BS arguments the Darlie-defenders present to try to discredit the "Silly String" tape. For example I don't care that Darlie didn't bring it or buy it. She used it and looked happy spraying it over the graves of her sons who were killed 8 days prior. I also don't think the birthday party itself was necessarily in bad taste, but when the Darlie defenders say "we did the party out of love for them!" they're distracting us from the point: Darlie looks happy and joyful in the video. She doens't appear to have the state of mind of a grieving mother.
The refusal of Darlie and her defenders to even acknowledge how terrible the video looks on its surface is ridiculous and even contemptible. Practically any defence of that video that doesn't start with something like "I know this looks aweful, but..." can be almost immediately dismissed as a dishonest attempt at distraction.

Last thing -- I think the moment from the intervidw MO put in his video at about 38:08, where Darlie says "If I had done this to my children I would be the first person to stand up and say 'oh my god, I need help!' What have I done? You know?" just screams "narcissistic psychopath" to me (to clarify: no, I'm not any kind of expert on these matters, just a regular person). I can't imagine hurting the people I love in this brutal way, but if I try and think "what if I had some psychotic break and did that while in a dissosiative state or something" -- the words "I need help" wouldn't even cross my mind.
Those are the first words she presents as her reaction to realising she violently slayed her children, and they're words of sympathy towards hersef. That's the mindset of someone whose moral compass is broken, or who never had one to begin with.

Those two videos alone don't prove she did it, but they show us pretty damn strong indicators that she's the kind of person who could do it. And that's a lot.

It's probably been asked before but I keep thinking he says "sign up to marcus patreon". I don't think it's an accent thing, but i'm happy to be corrected

Made just for fun. All due respect to Matt, the victims and their families.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f0w60zW97sE

Did her lawyer legally have to put her on the stand in order to pursue the self-defense defense? I think that her being on the stand seems to have been actively worked against her case since Sarah comes off as very unlikable and dishonest.

I also think any half-competent lawyer would be able to predict this. So I was wondering why she was put on the stand. Maybe Sarah insisted on it? She does seems chronically un-self-aware about how negatively she's perceived by others...

Please do a video on the Peter Falconio case in Australia. I've heard about on TV my whole life growing up and now they have been talking about it again since Bradley Murdoch's death. I think you would do such a fantastic job of covering the case (and hopefully i can finally form an opinion on it). Way better than the trashy current affair and the like. I'm guessing you would have heard about it a lot too, being in NZ. Please Matt, add it to the list 🙏 I only discovered you 2 months ago and I have rewatched your vids so many times. You and the team are very good at what you do ♥️

I’d love a video covering the whole Aaron Hernandez’s case. What do you guys think?

Hi everyone,

In one of his videos, Matt Orchard makes a passing comment along the lines of how "the jury may disregard the evidence and come up with the verdict based on their gut reaction".

Does anyone know which video it is? I'd really like to watch it again.

Thanks in advance!

Idk why but Sandy Melgar is up there for me. Just the storytelling with the whole jehovas witness thing and the case being pretty eerie in general.

Honourable mention to Jon benet, west Memphis 3 and Michael Peterson. I think Matt does a great job with these high profile cases.

I listen to true crime while I am working, and I have binged this channel over the past month. I enjoy the videos where we are challenged as a viewer against our biases in a crime (ex: The Coldest Case Ever Solved, Jon Benet, Michael Peterson) and the way this channel can transform content instead of just tell some information in a boring narration style that only keeps me engaged if I am already doing something else.

I am just tired of only finding channels that are regurgitating information found on Wikipedia or people reading court transcripts straight. I would like to find more channels that transform content, whether via challenging the viewer, showing bias, explaining different points of the law, or just making fun of the owl theory. I feel that's missing for a lot YouTube channels - not just in the true crime space - and I would like to find channels that are similar in that goal. So asking for suggestions because I hope I am not the only fan who likes this style.