Once again, I am back with another post surrounding the podcast Criminal. Criminal is a podcast highlighting interesting aspects involving crime from all around the world, looking at a new topic in every episode. Host Phoebe Judge narrates, providing key details and fascinating interviews. For this blog post, I have chosen 3 more recent episodes of Criminal, as compared to my last blog posts, where I highlighted some of the earliest episodes released.
The first episode I listened to centered around Sandra Pankhurst, an Australian woman who runs a trauma cleaning service, meaning they clean up after crime scenes. At first this episode seemed strange, as it really did not feature any one crime in particular, but simply a process that happens after many violent crimes. By focusing on this aspect of crime, the listeners get a deeper understanding of the realities of these horrors, something often left out of many shows relating to the criminal justice system. This episode flowed very well, with each point flowing into the next, helping create a narrative for the life of Sandra Pankhurst. As I have mentioned many times in my previous posts, the background music featured helps build this narrative. Sandra Pankhurst, although has quite the serious job, is quite casual in the manner that she speaks of her work, and the music goes along with that vibe quite well. Once again we hear a simple jazzy piece in the background, similar to what I noticed on an episode from my last post. To me, this really helped to lighten the mood, something I think it is vital for the series. One aspect of Phoebe Judge and the Criminal team that appeals to me so much is its varying moods it brings to each story they tell. The variety this brings is able to appeal to a wide range of people, a key feature that I believe contributed greatly to its lasting success.
This next episode caught my eye immediately, being named “Mrs. Sherlock Holmes”. While a fascinating episode, it really does not have anything to do with Sherlock Holmes, but is about a Mary Grace Humiston. Humiston was dubbed “Mrs. Sherlock Holmes” after finding the body of missing teen Ruth Cruger in 1917 NYC. After being frustrated with the NYPD, Humiston took action in her own hands. After narrowing down the body to a motorcycle shop, Humiston employs her “Dr. Watson”, a Hungarian detective named Julius Kron. Kron goes undercover as a mechanic, but strangely is never allowed in the basement. After building trust with the owners, Kron is eventually granted access, but took a suspiciously long time. The boss fired him, as they understood that he was on the right track. After this failure, Humiston and Kron attempted to dig a hole next to the shop on public property, but this ended in failure as well. It may seem like Humiston is running out of options, but no, she has one more trick up her sleeve. Humiston literally just bought the shop. Surely enough, after digging below the basement, the body of Ruth Cruger was found. No other true stories sound quite like this, leading to Humiston’s fitting mokiner. Humiston is quite like Sherlock Holmes is many ways, showing their intelligence from a young age. Humiston graduated 7th in her class from NYU law school, back when very few women were allowed to attend, but took her skills in many directions, helping people along the way. The true difference I see between Humiston and Holmes is their motives. Humiston was selfless, charging the Cruger family nothing for helping them, while Holmes is entirely selfish, solving cases simply for his amusement. Criminal does a fantastic job telling this story, although this episode was largely told by Brad Ricca, who wrote a book on Humiston’s life. This episode brings a whole different vibe from the last one, and with the wild story, brings many twists and turns. The energy that the podcast gave off kept me focused and attentive, something I occasionally can find difficult with podcasts, due to this puzzling escapade. (Word count 684)
Hi Owen!
I really enjoyed this blog post about the podcast Criminal, and the series seems very interesting to me! When you first started talking about how the episode did not go into detail about an actual crime, but more of the realities of crimes that take place, I noticed some similarities to my own podcast. This is because sometimes my podcast does not specifically talk about the ghost stories and paranormal activity, but sometimes focuses on those who are or think they are affected by the incidents and how, rather than just talking about the incident. I think the creators and narrators of these podcasts do a great job of making everything seem more real and relevant to the listeners, and they can be more invested in the cases since it is more realistic.
I also enjoyed in my podcast the background music that adds a lot and creates better transitions. An another connection, there were similarities to Sherlock Holmes in my episodes, although mine was not literally named ‘Sherlock Holmes’. I noticed how a character was similar to Holmes in his mannerisms and actions, just like you. Along with another one taking the Watson role. I think its interesting that the author decided to use Holmes in the podcast, since people who know the Holmes stories well can better analyze the podcast. Just like how without my podcast relating to Holmes at all, I still made the connection. I can tell that you really enjoyed these episodes by how you talked about them, and I think that is something any host would strive for in their podcast, however is not always possible with every genre for podcasts.
Word count: 279
Hi Owen,
Your podcast episodes sound intriguing. They both have to do with crime but seem to have two very different narratives and themes. Something you pointed out that really caught my attention was about Sandra talking and acting casually about her job cleaning up crime scenes. I actually follow an Instagram account that’s dedicated to crime scene cleanups and the way the owner of the account talks about the crimes is also very nonchalant. It makes me wonder if it’s a good idea to address these situations so casually because on the one hand, it helps us to talk about such a sensitive subject in the first place, but on the other hand it might desensitize us to violence and crime. I think it’s important to find some kind of middle ground where a host makes it okay for us to talk about it but also reminds us that it’s still a very serious and scary subject not just meant for pleasurable consumption. Moving onto the second episode, I found it interesting that you think Sherlocks motives are selfish in the books. I actually feel like one thing that Mary and Sherlock have in common is their pursuit of justice in crime. Mary is selfless but I think Sherlock could be considered selfless too, especially after reading the Final Problem. Although I do agree that the way they use their intelligence is similar. I think hiring someone to infiltrate the motorcycle shop is definitely a move Sherlock would pull, but maybe instead of hiring someone he would just disguise himself as a mechanic. Word Count: 264