Minimize Harm:
why the podcast, MiA, should not have happened
What happened
The true crime community is still reeling over Obsessed network’s recently wrapped podcast, Murder in Alliance. Written and hosted by journalist Maggie Freleng, MiA followed two private investigators from the non-profit Proclaim Justice, an “innocence” group cofounded by Jason Baldwin of the infamous WM3.
They dug in for over a year, looking for evidence of David Thorne’s innocence in the murder of Yvonne Layne.
Spoiler alert: they didn’t find any.
Now, you’d think this empty handed ending devastating, right?
For Freleng though, this was her chance, the bombshell she needed to shoot MiA and her name up the charts.
And it worked. The discussion groups stopped discussing discrepencies they’d found, stopped firing off labels at each other.
The line demarcating “guilters” and “those who’ve never seen a guilty prisoner”, blurred, ever so slightly.
Folks seemed to be switching sides.
You see, Freleng carved her niche in cases of wrongful convictions. (MiA is a spin-off from an episode of her other podcast, Unjust and Unsolved).
And in the context of the true crime community, there’s not much bigger than a wrongful conviction podcaster admitting their subject might actually be guilty?
If you’re scratching your head thinking,
“What’s the problem here? -sounds like she showed journalistic integrity”,
you are not alone. That particular phrase, journalistic integrity , puncuated TC discussions ad naseum and was even uttered by some “big guns” in TC podcasting.
In the end, MiA became about Maggie Freleng and her bombshell moment; not the accused and certainly not ever about Yvonne as a person.
What’s more, none of the ordeal that is MiA was necessary because —
this podcast should never have happened.
How MiA happened
Proclaim Justice recently released a statement titled “Addressing the David Thorne Case”. In it we learn:
- A single donor heard about Thorne’s case on Unjust and Unsolved. She then reached out via the Free David Thorne website to Sue,(David’s wife), and Lisa,(an advocate), offering up to 25k to help fight for Thorne’s exoneration.
- Lisa and Sue reached out to Freleng, and the three brought the case to PJ.
- PJ agreed to look into the case to see if it warranted their full support.
- Freleng decided to follow this vetting in “real time” with a podcast, hence MiA.
Perception of how it happened
It appears the catalyst for both the podcast and re-investigation, was the availability of this 25k. (Proclaim Justice says only 8k was actually utilized). In a recent Q&A session, Freleng let slip she would normally vet a case more thoroughly, however, there was not enough time before MiA aired.
PJ says they agreed to a partnership with Freleng,
“because if it turned out either Joe or David were innocent, the coverage could help free them.”
But in the very next sentence, all but blame Freleng in broadcasting the short-lived investigation:
“We let Sue, David, and Maggie know that we usually have more of a comprehensive initial review done before we’re on the ground, but because of the timing of the podcast we moved forward.”
Confused? Me too. Because it seems as though:
- Freleng needed a new podcast
- Pre-sourced funding was available for this case
- PJ agreed to vet the case in “real time” for Freleng’s podcast
Anyway you slice it, MiA was born from oppurtunity, not altruism, as Freleng would have us think.
Justifying what happened
Freleng has spoken extensively about her training as a journalist and the standards she must uphold. It’s clear “journalist” is part of her identity and her credibility is paramount — so much so, we hear her lamenting it in episode 18, the proverbial climax, replete with tears and moody music.
This is the big moment, the one where she asks:
“What if… David did this?…I don’t think he did, but now I’m really like, 'what if he fucking did?’ (big pause) and I’ve just invested all of this..(bigger pause followed by a long sigh) ..yeah it’s just like it’s my credibility and (tearfully) I think I just went really hard believing them”
But it’s what I did not hear that concerns me.
I did not hear tears for Yvonne; no tears for her surviving five children, family or friends either. Freleng wails about the impending conversation she needs to have with Sue, but her sobs for others end there.
Why MiA should not have happened
Minimize Harm is a tenant of ethical journalism. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) advises :
- “Balance the public’s need for information against potential harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance or undue intrusiveness.”
Freleng and the PIs say they have “no regrets” both in the podcast and subsequent Q&A. They speak of the whole thing like I imagine scientists might when an experiment doesn’t uphold a hypothesis- lots of back patting, consoling, and talking about lessons learned.
But I am struggling to see why the public needed to know “half the police force was sleeping with her (Yvonne)”, Freleng’s loose interpretation of hearsay evidence from a previous reporter.
Yes, there were rumours the victim was prostituting herself to make ends meet.
There were rumours she was mixed up with one (possibly more) Alliance police officers.
But Freleng treated these rumours as fact, used them to further speculate Yvonne was “shaking down” men for money:
‘Perhaps she shook down the wrong officer and he killed her?’ -this type of thinking, but aloud, to thousands of listeners.
- “Weigh the consequences of publishing or broadcasting personal information.” (SPJ)
These episodes about Yvonne and her alleged lifestyle came fairly early in the podcast. As it progresses, we hear Thorne corroborate some of the rumours, the same Thorne who later sits squirming under a mountain of omissions and lies.
Fans of MiA predictably point to the podcast’s format-
listeners learning what the team learns “as they go”-
to defend the half baked conclusions drawn early on. Freleng says ,
“I think that’s why people really liked it; because it’s raw, and it’s real, and it’s not, you know, packaged up in a pretty little bow like a lot of podcasts are.”
Yes, many slueths enjoyed getting the inside scoop on what a re- investigation looks like but at whose expense?
Who benifited here?
Who profited?
The only possible public good to come out of MiA , is the realization Thorne may not be worth precious resources going forward. But given this case is 22 years old,
Did we really need to hear Yvonne slandered in “real time” to get there?
And Yvonne wasn’t the only victim of MiA. Former Alliance police chief, Larry Dordea, filed a defamation suit. Sue, Thorne’s wife, is justifiably feeling betrayed and Yvonne’s children, after re-living the trauma, are left with this portrayal of their mother.
David Thorne paid Joe Wilkes to slit Yvonne Layne’s throat, twenty-two years ago as of April 1st of this year. She will forever be remembered as an object acted upon and tethered to the men who took her life.
Yvonne was more than her alleged risky lifestyle, much more than photos of her body and blood splayed out for all us slueths to see.
(Freleng published the crime scene photos behind a paywall on her Patreon account. She encouraged listeners to view these photos throughout the season)
MiA’s treatment of Yvonne’s alleged prostitution furthered her objectification. By reporting in “real time”, they advanced and broadcasted speculation and listeners heard conclusions.
Yes, they needed to mention the rumours as these opened the pool of suspects. But Freleng and team’s time spent ruminating on who Yvonne might have been screwing, far exceeded any time spent on anything else about her. This is hardly minimizing harm.
The public has the right to be informed not entertained, especially at such a heavy price for a murder victim and their family.
MiA had the chance to humanize Yvonne Layne, tell the story of her life, not just her brutal death. Freleng should have waited for the full package and the “pretty little bow”. Instead, MiA’s format reduced Yvonne to a prop in Freleng’s story; the story of the wrongful conviction podcaster who did not shy away from the truth.
