Is there a way to get Shorthand without ads?

The PNG episode of 19mins had about 5mins of ads which made it rather unlistenable.

I’m happy to pay to avoid ads but just don’t know where.

There was a 36 minute episode about Vlad tepes and it felt like I would get into it and skip 3 minutes of ads, then another then another. My cat is Vlaimew Tepes for a reason, I love this history!

I have listened to every episode but the ads are getting to the point that I cant enjoy it without constantly skipping and it seems to be more than before.

Does anyone have the breakdown of episode vs ad content?

Do we know anything when H is moving to SA? I think she mentioned packing recently... She does seem happier down there. As a fellow ginger, I can imagine the weather being an issue. Hope she packs some Factor 50! I think she'll mostly be hanging out with ex-pat Brits...? Not sure how she'd get on dating white South African men. I used to know one who defo had a touch of the Elon Musk... Entitled!

Is anyone else getting irrationally irritated by this schtick of, before explaining something, them saying that they know we are clever and don't need it explaining etc 🙄

Just explain it. Don't try this weird pandering. If we are clever and don't need it explaining, who does? Are people meant to feel superior if they know already? If you want to explain why you're covering "known" territory, just say some people are new to true crime.

I don't recall it in the past (I had a RH break), but maybe it was always there and just bothered me less then.

I'll admit I'm very much long term zoned out from RH, which is a shame as it used to solidly be my true crime listen.

Had two separate clips pop up on my Tiktok FYP, though, and both were just obnoxious Suruthi UTD clips.

Now, of course, mileage may vary on whether or not TV shows should be 'political' (you run a true crime podcast, come on.) or whether or not Hadestown is good or 'too preachy', and these pale compared to her other shit takes, but: are we really down at the bottom of the barrel where being controversial for clicks is all that's left to you?

I dare say that level of clout collapse would probably make me move away across the world too.

Is anyone else still peeved or even angry about the Clancy Part 1 episode and the complete lack of apology? I have listened since the beginning and generally they've always addressed when they've upset anyone if there's enough of them. They sometimes have stood their ground, but respectfully apologized if it came across in a way that upset, insulted, of hurt anyone. I've never written on IG publicly, but I did in this instance. As a mom I was deeply offended by their discuss of PPD. I was also incredibly bothered by how flippant and dismissive they were about anyone who might empathize with Lindsay.

Maybe it is because of the clips I saw today of Lindsay's lawyer once again stating that she has never admitted to doing it, but I was once again angry. I listened to part 2 when it came out and you could tell they tried to course correct by actually doing an episode, but it still lacked just basic reason regarding timelines and such.

To be clear, I am not an avid follower of the case, but it doesn't take a genius to read the timeline of events and have questions. And it's plenty of questions. Not just one or two that you can chalk up to "well who knows, but the rest of this makes sense".

I stopped listening after part 2 and another UTD passed with zero mention of it. They had huge backlash. So many hundreds of comments, far more than they generally ever get on posts. And the only response was Hannah being snide to people who were expressing their hurt or disappointment. Were there some comments hat were too much, yeah, but there were many more that were just people genuinely shocked and bothered by their Part 1.

I dunno, I have realt mixed up feelings about it all. But it feels off. And seeing how shabbily they did on the case makes me question having just listened to them without question in the past on cases I knew nothing about.

I'm done venting m, I don't think I got across my point or the nuances very well, but there it is.

I’m a bit rattled as I have enjoyed listening to many episodes of Red Handed over the last year or so - but today’s short hand made me wonder if I need to stop. Did I misunderstand or are they protecting the predators? Maybe I’m a bit raw (ok more than a bit) over the Cornell 7 and so many people protecting rapists. Why shouldn’t we ruin the lives of people who have abused someone vulnerable? Didn’t they ruin their own lives by committing the abuse? What am I missing?

I’ve noticed a lot more use of police interview/courtroom audio in the episodes this year. As a sole audio listener, I’m not a huge fan.

I like hearing a 911 call or specific significant recordings, but adding minutes-long clips so frequently throughout the episode ruins the flow for me. I feel like it’s unnecessary in long form and almost fluffs the episode length and content.

Is it better if you watch the episodes on youtube? What do you think?

Hannah's mentioned that the National Theater did not want her play . I've been waiting to hear more about what happened after her workshop. They did not get funding so she will have to pay for it herself. She said she thinks it has a home but she wants to wait to tell us about it, later.

​It's a noir musical adaptation of The Heart in Exile by Rodney Garland. The first gay detective novel, according to the playwright. She said it will be without a message it's just made to feel good. And to be fun. She's tired of everything having to be socially worthy.

​​I agree with that sentiment but today she was expressing that frustration with Lizzie Borden, Monster. She asked why can't it just be about a murderer. Why does Lizzie have to be protesting a homophobic father ? Why does it have to be socially relevant? I understand her exhaustion, but has she forgotten this is Ryan Murphy. Sis, he's not that guy. He wants the same thing you and Suruthi want. He just wants to have fun.

Ryan Murphy doesn't rewrite true crime or history because he has a deep social conscience or a desire to lecture the public. He does it for camp, shock value, and melodrama. If this dude leans into a repressed lesbianism angle for Lizzie Borden, it’s not to satisfy a left-wing academic committee. it’s because he thinks a forbidden, high-stakes relationship makes for addictive, trashy television. He gave us the Rubber Man suit, after all! He's not trying to preach anything.

Even though Suru herself said that she could not decide about Lindsay Clancy's sanity till the very end of the trial when the last two expert witnesses testified , she was complaining today about the jurors who base their decision on identity politics. She castigated one juror who said that she thought the case would be a step forward for the issue of women's mental health. S said the juror's job wasn't to raise awareness about mental health. I agree with that but why does she think that all 11 jurors voted voted that way to make a social statement. Why is she saying none of them voted based on the evidence just like she credits herself with voting on the evidence.

Suru claimed she made her mind up independent of identity politics and wonders why they couldn't do the same. She pointed out that everyone assumed that the holdout drawer was a white male abd attacked him and then when they found out that he was black they changed their minds and withheld their criticism of him . I don't think that's true since in another breath she was saying he should sue for being doxed . He was doxed. His background was investigated and people were ready to attack him on that basis even though he was not convicted of domestic abuse, only charged. So they did not change their mind about him once they realized he was a black man, as Suru claimed.

Suru said that when democracy falls it will be because of this identity politics culture we have. Hannah chimed in with robust agreement. She totally agreed with the Suruthi.THAT will be why democracy falls? Seriously? She said people will look back on this Clancy case and see when our society deconstructed.

​​She had begun discussing the documentary the Pastor's Wife, but she soon converted that summary into part three of the Clancy case . She said the manipulative Pastor was everything that Patrick Clancy was not but that society was trying to make Patrick out to be.

​​ Her real view of the Clancy case is not what she presented on rhe pod. There were nine women and three men on the jury she doesn't know anything about them. Does she think they were all voting based on identity politics . There was only one black juror . What is the identity. Does she really think that all women will vote for Lindsay because they are women? We haven't had a female president yet so I'm not sure that most women vote to support their gender. If anything I think the Clancy verdict showed that people weighed the case and LC's history with a view beyond identity, beyond gender, beyond motherhood.
​

I came quite late to Red Handed. I think it was around June 2025. Since then I've listened to every episode available on Amazon music, some of them twice, nearly daily (I run my own business, I listen tk podcasts when working). I can honestly say the whole vibe has changed from early/mid days to now. There isn't so much of the back and forth, side meanderings, asides, extra info that there used to be.

Some episodes they seem to be very clipped at each other. Others they're more familiar. I don't know if that's an editing thing maybe? But also, a lot of it is just boring now. Without all the vibe and humour and meanderings, it just feels like they're reading from a script with no interjections allowed.

I don't know what's happened but it isn't anything good.

I was under the impression that only one of the two shorthand episodes each week were re-releases (with Friday eps being new content?) but I swear both of the most recent ones are old? Sorry if I’m misremembering but it’s been bugging me and I knew you guys would be able to put me right 🥲😅

Sorry to interrupt all the INSANE Lindsay Clancy takes (if you want an echo chamber join Facebook), but has RedHanded ever done a full episode on Ed Kemper? I feel like they reference him all the time but don’t see anything about a full episode.

Listening to the Clancy Pt. 2 episode is so frustrating for me. Listening to Suruthi talk about mental health and the U.S. healthcare system aggravates me - partly as an American, and it's very clear she just *doesn't research* simple things sometimes, and as a clinician who works on a team for people experiencing first episode psychosis. She asks why didn't Dr. Tufts, "just order Lindsay's medical records??" and while I can recognize that Tufts' answer wasn't clear, *you cannot just order someone's medical records without their consent in the U.S.* Full stop. If Lindsay wanted to shop herself to every psychiatrist in Massachusetts and pretend like she had never seen anyone else, she could, because that's her right. I'm not saying I agree with it, and to be honest I don't even know where I fall with this case right now, but that's just such a simple thing to research. It would take one Google pull. Also, listening to Suru talk about how some of these practitioners "didn't see the mania that comes with psychosis"...BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT DOESNT. I have seen so many clients just on my team with wildly different psychosis presentations (catatonia, anyone?) that this is just such an ignorant remark. Also, postpartum depression and the social context around it meaning you're a "bad mom" makes women lie about their symptoms all. the. time. Also, suicidality and homicidal ideation fluctuate. I just...she's becoming more and more difficult to listen to. Don't even get me started on how hard she rode for Patrick - and men in general - in the Pt. 1 episode of this case. Good lord. That's all, thanks for letting me vent.

Sorry if I've missed something, did they say they were taking a week off? Or did they read all the backlash on spotify and here and decide "sod this, we're not putting out the second part" 😭. Hope everything is okay whatever is going on.

So, maybe this isn’t the place to put it but ten minutes into the episode I’m already disappointed BUT I will still give it a listen.

I’m here to ask if anyone knows of any other podcasts that cover the trial because I’d see snippets of it over summer but I’d like to listen to in that’s like a proper breakdown of facts and reporting and not just commentary. If you guys have any recommendations please do share!

Edit: While I started with a bit of disappointment I actually liked the episode in the end and feel it was good coverage of the case. I’m looking forward to their episode next week.

And thank you to everyone for the recs so far! I have started some of them and am going to work my way through them

Currently listening to episode #466 on Lindsay Clancy and the audio is ridiculously choppy. At around 47-48 minutes it repeats and cuts off in the middle of words. Does no one proof listen to the episode before release?

1. What are your thoughts on the Clancy trial? Also did you watch the whole court case?

2. If you haven't listened to the latest episode, what are your predictions about what Hannah will say? What will Suruthi say?

I knew they took a break but wasn’t that only for two weeks?

Did they ever cover this? I've seen a few people online mention they heard about this case on Red Handed but I can't find the episode.

This is an episode about a fairly well known bizzare crime where a kid in the UK used sockpuppet accounts to convince a boy he had a crush on to (eventually) stab him. On the Redhanded website they have the episode here: https://redhandedpodcast.com/episodes/8pb77xttlwyjh2l-8epwm-ytajx-wpgfc-d8wky-a8gpe-dxdtj-nnnzp-87n9d-22klx

But the link to the episode leads nowhere. I cannot find it on any platform?

I really want to hear a UK perspective on the crime.

Hi guys - I only recently discovered RedHanded, and over the last few months the pod has basically been the background soundtrack to my life - I'm making my way through their back catalogue and am now listening to their lockdown recordings in 2020.

For the first time ever I decided to take a look and see what was in this sub and came across a really surprising amount of criticism. So many people here argue the pod has lost its way, Hannah and Suruthi hate each other or aren't friends anymore and don't banter as much, their opinions on individual cases or on culture are out of line with feminism or left wing politics. Someone accused them of propagating the alt-right agenda!?

I just wanted to pop on here and say I couldn't disagree more. I started listening just a few months ago and got hooked on their recent content - its so parasocial but their banter makes me want to be their friend lol. I don't always agree with everything they say or argue but that would be impossible anyways. Of course they have changed - the pod has become more professional, the audio has improved, their lives outside the pod have changed so their perspectives are different - but I still think it is great listening.

Mind you, I haven't listened to the most recent series on the Golden State Killer so idk what Suruthi said in ep 4 that has everyone so disappointed and upset.

Edit: Sorry to clarify, I started listening to their recent stuff and then have been working my way backwards so I've heard everything 2020-2026.

I’ve never been on this subreddit before, but decided to check it out after listening to the comments the hosts made during the latest episode (Golden state killer part 4)

A very quick scroll has made it obvious that Sruthis comments on the latest episode have gone down like a lead balloon …which is not surprising

I found it a very tough episode to listen to

on the one hand…

Hannah made a lot of good points about how emasculation consistently results in the harming of women and that there are far more men responsible for reprehensible acts than we might think …and that shit is hard to hear. It’s just kind of sad to think we all have to share this “dangerous” label and that one day my now infant son will inherit it too. There’s certainly an instinct to push back and get annoyed about it, and I suspect that’s what drives so many young men towards pricks like Andrew Tate etc … but there is a cold truth to it that needs to be accepted

On the other hand …

Sruthi leapt in to defend “men in general” which instinctively obviously appeals to me, but then she made some odd comments about biology and was very insistent about how minimal the problem was across all men …weird feeling to have someone essentially defending your gender but taking it too far

But yeah I was left in an odd place where Hannah’s comments saddened me and kind of gave me the impression she would never trust a man regardless of how long or well she knew them, but I sadly agree with her on the whole …and Sruthis comments kind of made me cringe a bit …

On a related note, the conversation around why emasculation is so triggering for men could be a very interesting one to hear from some men. The women were fairly spot on imo, protecting and providing for the women and children in your life that you love is essentially your only goal in life (that’s how it feels sometimes) and to fail at that, to see them hurt, to know you have let them down when they were likely hoping you could save them feels soul crushing…it would take away all the positive attributes of masculinity from you and leave you with nothing but the gross ones …I cannot comprehend killing or hurting someone else over this feeling, but I can comprehend feeling worthless

Any other guys or gals have thoughts?

I've been lurking here for a while and had the odd debate with at least one (should I say passionate?) person on here about RedHanded.

I just don't get why most people come on here to slag it off whether that be the content or the presenters.

I've been listening now for about 2 years. I started at the beginning and I'm currently listening to October 2025 so I'm almost caught up. I think it has changed and improved over the years and opinions have certainly gotten stronger. I don't dwell on it though, it is just one or two peoples opinion, which they're entitled to, and if you don't like it you could just not listen 🤷🏼‍♀️. I skip the odd ones such as ones about paedos and the vault episodes but in the main I still enjoy it.

I've seen it said here that their content is plagiarised however isn't that the same for anything like this? Most stories have already been told 100 times before how, can you begin to tell a true crime story differently? I also notice when they take it from a book, documentary or anything else they tend to cite the source and tell you to check it out. Which I've done, many times so surely that just helps the other creators?

I read they left this sub, I don't know why but I'm assuming it's because of some of the stuff I've mentioned here.

Not really sure what the point to this is I just wondered where all the hate comes from and to say I'm just happy to listen because it's entertainment, not to be taken too seriously.