Wellness Scams · Dershowitz · Forensic DNA
Plus: Get to votin' for January's bonus review
the true crime that's worth your time
Here’s a recommendation for folks interested in that grey area between deception and full-on crime, with a timely twist. I wish I could remember who recommended Maintenance Phase to me so I could credit them here — the podcast from Michael Hobbes and Aubrey Gordon is ostensibly intended to debunk weight loss and “wellness” myths, so it doesn’t seem like an obvious pick for the true-crime fan. But if you’re into scams, grift, or smalltime cult stuff, this show is a very solid find.
(I also found it a nice antidote to the overwhelming Jan. 1 pressure to make oneself promises about health, exercise, and other so-called virtues, but I’m not going to presume that you care about resolutions or not, nor am I qualified to talk to you about your body and/or how you might think about it! So consider that a casual side note.)
Hobbes and Gordon are both writers and journalists; and that background is evident in the podcast. As opposed to just talking shit abut, say, disgraced self-help author Rachel Hollis, they present hours of rigorously-researched evidence that many of her claims of expertise are allegedly inflated or false.
Same goes for a multitude of Oprah-amplified folks, including Brazilian spiritual healer/medium John of God, aka João Teixeira de Faria, the subject of recentish Netflix docuseries John of God: The Crimes of a Spiritual Healer. They also do a great explainer on the concept of the criminal “Twinkie Defense”; another episode features conspiracy researcher Mike Rothschild on “how the road to wellness can be an on-ramp to a conspiracy theory.”
The podcast is also very entertaining and fun to listen to, with a clubby, “chat with excellently-informed friends” feel that seems loose and gabby even though it’s clearly planned down to the beat. Hobbes and Gordon have a crackling chemistry and interplay, which is pretty remarkable for a show that’s only about a year old (it kicked off in October 2020). If I had to make an imperfect comparison, I’d say that this show is the Who? Weekly of fitness, diet, and wooo-ey-ness, but with a much more assertive approach when it comes to calling out scammers and grift.
There are some obvious caveats here: If you’re troubled by discussion of body image or weight loss, this is a skip. Even though the podcast’s thesis is that the wellness/fitness industry is deeply flawed, if you’re working through significant issues around food or appearance, the show still has the potential to trigger. (I mean, we’re all working through issues in that area as people who live in the world. This warning is directed at folks whose mental health might be negatively affected by body image content.)
But for people who are seeking a thoughtful, knowledgeable, and (somehow?) still enjoyable podcast that takes on full-on true crime like cult leaders and Pizzagate, as well as smaller-scale scams like celery juice, Maintenance Phase is a nice change of pace from the procedurals we all gravitate toward. Check it out, and let me know what you think. — EB
It’s not too late to choose January’s bonus review. Checking the poll results today, it looks like Sarah might be on the hook to cover Blue Caprice, the Isaiah Washington (!)/Tim Blake Nelson (!!)/Joey Lauren Adams (!!!) docudrama on the DC Sniper case. That said, “The Last Days of Peter Bergmann,” a short on a mysterious Austrian, is close behind.
Your vote might be the deciding one, or it might tip the BBC’s Fred and Rosemary West adaptation into the lead. Who can say? You, with your vote — and paid subscribers can expect Sarah’s coverage of the winner by the end of the month.
What was the BBC thinking with its Ghislaine Maxwell verdict coverage? If you were taking a break from the news during the holidays, a quick round of previouslies: Maxwell, the former associate of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, spent the last month on trial for six counts of federal charges related to her alleged role in Epstein’s wide-ranging abuse and trafficking of young women and minors.
A jury found her guilty of five of those charges last week: per CNN. “sex trafficking of a minor, transporting a minor with the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity and three related counts of conspiracy.” She was acquitted of a sixth charge, “enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts.”
No date has been set for Maxwell’s sentencing hearing; she faces as long as 65 years in prison. That sentence length, as well as a multitude of other aspects of the case, have been fertile ground for news outlet punditry, especially in the UK press, where Maxwell was well-known as a socialite and scion of a wealthy family. Also feeding that beast: the headline-grabby role Prince Andrew played in some of the claims against Epstein and Maxwell, though incidents that allegedly involved him were not presented in court.
That combo meant slews of iffy tabloid coverage, but the BBC can be relied on for a solid presentation of the case, right? Uh, maybe not! Viewers that turned on the Beeb last Wednesday ended up with former Epstein defense attorney/alleged buddy Alan M. Dershowitz, who was presented as an analyst without revealing his ties to Maxwell, or that Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre — yes, the same woman who says she was trafficked to Andrew — has also alleged that “Dershowitz was one of the Epstein friends to whom she was offered for sex.”
That above quote is from a NYT story published nearly two years ago, so it’s not like any of that information was hidden or obscure. And yet, Dershowitz was introduced only as a “constitutional lawyer” for his BBC segment, during which he made some seemingly self-serving “observations.” From the New York Times:
In the BBC interview, Mr. Dershowitz said that Ms. Maxwell’s trial undermined the credibility of Ms. Giuffre, and her case against Prince Andrew, whom she has also accused of sexually abusing her when she was still a minor and he was a guest of Mr. Epstein. Prince Andrew, the second son of Queen Elizabeth II, denies that claim.
Ms. Giuffre did not testify at Ms. Maxwell’s trial. And Mr. Dershowitz speculated that the prosecutors had concerns about Ms. Giuffre’s credibility.
In a report published on its own website, the BBC says that it will “look into how this happened,” but didn’t provide any additional details. It also quotes several notables who expressed outrage over his inclusion:
Labour MP Nadia Whittome said: "I can't believe this needs to be said but the BBC should not give a platform to people accused of child sexual abuse," while SNP shadow culture secretary John Nicholson added: "The BBC is right to apologise. Interviewing Dershowitz was a mistake. Failing to contextualise (he's one of those who has been accused) was even worse."
Caoilfhionn Gallagher QC, a human rights lawyer, tweeted that Mr Dershowitz was introduced "without any reference to his background; he's simply introduced as 'constitutional lawyer' as if he's a neutral expert", adding: "Shocked. Utterly bizarre decision and does the audience a disservice."
For his part, Dershowitz said his interview was fair play, but acknowledged that his relationship to the case should be disclosed. He, like Best Evidence, has a Substack, where last Thursday he wrote a brief statement:
Following the Maxwell conviction, BBC requested an interview, during which I explicitly stated that I , Prince Andrew and other people had been accused of having sex with Virginia Guffre. I commented on the prosecution’s wise decision not to use her as a witness because of her lack of credibility. The media has repeatedly interviewed victims of Epstein’s abuse. It is entirely appropriate for the media to interview victims of Guiffre’s false accusations as long as there is full disclosure and no one is misled.
Presumably, the BBC will offer an additional explanation of how all this went down at some point (?). Meanwhile, the AP reports that misinformation and false claims about the case are proliferating across social media, and though they don’t say “Facebook” anywhere, you can kind of hear them thinking it. The outlet just published a helpful fact check/debunk explainer on the trial that might be handy if you feel like correcting folks. One of the rising rumors is apparently “The CEOs of Twitter, Walmart and CNBC all resigned on the first day of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial,” which, where to even begin... Good luck, and god bless you if you try to set someone who believes that one right.
Brace for those tales to continue to be told in 2022, as Giuffre’s civil case against Andrew has another hearing scheduled for today, during which his lawyers are expected to argue that a 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre (released Monday; you can read it here) frees Andrew from liability in the case. — EB
A free online event Wednesday promises new details in a 1980 cold case. Best Evidence pal/subscriber Beth Spotswood is the host of the Alta Live web show for Western U.S.-focused magazine Alta Journal, and she asked us to flag this show for you all. Not a problem, as it is very cool-sounding! From the event page:
Advances in DNA technology helped Steve Rhods discover who killed Jane Doe Ventura County, but they have yet to help the experienced detective identify the young, pregnant murder victim, discovered near a high school football field in 1980. In her latest for Alta Journal, writer Louise Farr examines Rhods’s exhaustive efforts to hunt down a murderer and find justice for his victims, despite not knowing their names. Rhods has solved numerous mysteries in his storied career—is he closing in on the answer to another? Farr and Rhods join Alta Live to look at law enforcement’s use of genetic databases, discuss the challenges unidentified victims present in criminal cases, and see whether you recognize the latest—and hopefully most accurate—artist’s rendering of Jane Doe Ventura County. Join us.
Via email, Beth says that during the discussion, “we're going to share the latest artist's rendering of Jane Doe.” She also says that she’s “especially excited to meet Steve Rhods, who uncovered an old rape kit that helped match the Golden State Killer's DNA.” According to Beth, Rhods “agreed to this interview in the hopes that our viewers can help identify a pregnant woman who was found above a high school football field in 1980. In 2013, DNA from her body was matched to that of a convicted rapist — but we still don't know who this woman was, other than she was one of the countless murdered women of color whose lives have been all but forgotten.”
The Alta Live event is scheduled for Wednesday, January 5, at 12:30 p.m. Pacific time. You can register to attend here. — EB
Wednesday on Best Evidence: Paid subscribers will get Sarah’s early review of this season of American Greed. Want to make sure you can read it? You know what to do.
What is this thing? This should help. Follow Best Evidence @bestevidencefyi on Twitter and Instagram. You can also call or text us any time at 919-75-CRIME.