In this crime junkies blog post I will be covering two interlinked episodes on the disappearance of Alissa Turney. In 2001, 17 year old Alissa Turney was reported missing by her step-dad, he told the police that he was almost certain Alissa ran away to live in California with her aunt. Alissa’s case was not investigated thoroughly and was not opened again until 7 years later when a massive amount of information was uncovered that suggested Alissa may have been a victim of foul play.
The structure of the two episodes really pulls the listener in. With minimal music being a key part of Crime Junkie podcasts, the appeal of the podcast comes only from the voicing of the story. The co-host Brit Prawat also adds helpful commentary to engage the listener and support Ashley’s claims. Gasping at the right moments, asking Ashley to relate information she just said to information previously stated, etc. While the first episode gives more background information on Alissas life and story, the second episode is actually an interview with Alissa’s step sister who explains her theory on what happened to her sister. What’s especially compelling, is in the first episode the facts are laid out in a more neutral way. It seems probable that Alissa just ran away from home with no foul play involved. There is some evidence included such as home videos that hint at the disturbing relationship between Alissa and her step father but, the listener still has room to form their own opinion and theories. It isn’t until the end of the episode when a bomb shell is dropped and the listener finds out the father of the girls had 26 homemade pipe bombs, a manifesto, and a clip from a snuff film in his home. Now that the narrator, Ashley Flowers has influenced the listener to form an opinion, the episode ends with an introduction to the next episode which is a long interview with Alissa’s step sister.
The second episode consists only of Ashley Flowers and her guest Sarah Turney. Interviewing someone on the podcast is rare occasion, and just the fact that the interview was done over the phone and the sound quality is significantly lower gives it a much more… interview-y feel. The whole episode consists of Sarah giving reasons why she believes her father actually killed his step-daughter Alissa and used running away as an excuse for her disappearance. Her claims are especially powerful because in the first episode, statements from Sarah show that she thinks her father is an innocent man. For years, she is convinced her father has nothing to do with his daughters disappearance. The first episode ends with a statement from Sarah on a 20/20 special, “the public makes him look you know, horrible… it’s not him. Everyone who knows my dad is shocked,” it’s clear she wants to defend him. Then, the second episode starts with her stating the opposite of what she previously believed, “when I saw myself on the 20/20 episode now as an adult… I look so naïve and it’s just really sad, I really believed that my father had nothing to do with it…” Her outlook on her fathers involvement in the case does a complete 180, really adding to the shock value of this case. The rest of the episode is an information dump of strong evidence against Alissa’s step father as the reason for her disappearance, but, it also provides a very human aspect to this particular story since the listeners get to hear from a primary source on the case. Sarah explains how as a child she couldn’t see what was in front of her eyes but years later she is able to point out how her father was a manipulative man who didn’t care about his children. Listeners can hear the pain in her voice as she talks about her missing sister and how much she regrets ever believing her father was a good man.
One especially beneficial part of this two episode story is Ashley uses her huge media platform to try and spread awareness about Alissa’s story. At the beginning and end of the podcasts she emphasizes that she does not want her podcasts to be purely for entertainment purposes, but should also push listeners to take action when they can. She gives information on websites about Alissa that Sarah has made and, a petition listeners can sign that would push law enforcement officials to take action on the still open case after serious neglect of the case. Listeners get to hear Sarah plead to her audience for action to avenge her step sister by prosecuting her father.
Hi! You wrote a very interesting analysis! One of the features of the podcast that you highlighted was how the information is first presented with a more neutral tone and then seemingly out of nowhere a bomb is dropped that entirely changes the story. I discussed a similar formatting in my analysis and I agree with your conclusion that this structure helps draw listeners in and leaves the yearning to hear the next episode. I think that is it especially important that this “bomb” was dropped at the end of the first episode that you have describe. I think that this cliff hanger makes it hard for listeners to resist the next episode, but I also think this is a risky creative decision from the creator. This decision demands a certain amount of patience from the listeners for them to wait till the very end of the episode for it to really pick up and speed or intrigue. Regardless, this was a great feature for you to discuss because it does have great implications in the draw of the podcast.
Another interesting choice was the heavy use of interview in the second episode. The interviews with the victim’s sister provide some much more insight than what is presented in the first episode. The podcast that I am listening to also features many interviews and I think that this element is important because it present information to the reader in a way that allows them to draw their own conclusion and decide which sources they want to trust. With the information presented about the various items found in the father’s house I think it becomes even more apparent that Sarah is telling the truth about her father and what happened to her step-sister. Once Sarah becomes a trusted source, her first-hand account of the story provides a nice change of pace from the more narrative heavy style of the first episode. I am curious as the whether this change in formatting was exciting or more of a source of distraction for you as you listened to these two episodes. I find that structural consistency allows me to focus more on the content of the podcast that I am listening to, so I can imagine that a stark change in the podcast’s format could draw away from what is actually being described. I can also see how the variety of structure is interesting and refreshing, and prevents the podcast from getting repetitive.
-Colleen