My Favorite Murder: What Listeners Are Saying

Table of Contents

• TLDR

• What Listeners Like

• What Listeners Don’t Like

• Featured episode

TLDR

"My Favorite Murder" has clearly cultivated a dedicated fanbase through its hosts' personalities and unique blend of humour and true crime, a significant portion of listeners express dissatisfaction with issues ranging from tone and research quality to structural problems and perceived changes in the podcast's focus and authenticity.

What Listeners Like

Despite the criticisms, "My Favorite Murder" clearly holds a special place for a significant chunk of its listeners. The positive feedback clusters around several key aspects of the podcast.

Firstly, the hosts, Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark, are frequently lauded for their natural storytelling abilities and engaging delivery. Many listeners find their style captivating and attention-grabbing. The hosts are described as charismatic, inviting, friendly, and chatty, making the listening experience enjoyable. The conversational style makes listeners feel like they're part of a tight-knit group of friends. Some even feel like Karen and Georgia are their imaginary "wine aunties" or bonus besties.

A significant positive is the incorporation of humour. Listeners appreciate the way Karen and Georgia use humour in their approach to storytelling, preventing the often grim subject matter from becoming too heavy. This delicate balance is seen as a unique twist that lightens the mood without being disrespectful. The laughter provided is even described as therapeutic for some.

The hosts' personalities are a major draw. They are seen as real, honest, and relatable women who share their stories with lightness and humour. Their willingness to be vulnerable and not take themselves too seriously resonates with listeners, making them feel more human. Many appreciate that Karen and Georgia own up to their mistakes and often give credit where it's due, even praising their listeners.

The sense of community fostered by the podcast is another strong positive. Listeners, often referred to as "Murderinos," feel a genuine connection with the hosts and each other. For some, the podcast feels like a true crime family or even a cult (in a lighthearted way). This sense of belonging and shared interest is highly valued.

Many listeners appreciate the hosts' advocacy for victims and their willingness to bring up relevant and important social issues, including mental health awareness. The podcast is seen as a platform for advocating for the less fortunate and supporting important causes, with listeners noting the hosts' donations to various organisations. This commitment to using their voice for good is seen as a significant strength.

The evolution of the podcast over time has also been viewed positively by some long-term listeners. They appreciate the introduction of new formats like the "Rewind" episodes, which offer commentary on past episodes and case updates. These episodes are seen as fun, insightful, and a great way to revisit old stories and see how far the hosts have come.

For some, "My Favorite Murder" serves as a form of escape and comfort. The hosts' voices are described as relaxing and a welcome distraction during commutes, housework, or difficult times. The podcast can make listeners feel less alone in their fascination with true crime.

Finally, some listeners feel they have learned valuable information about self-protection and have become more aware of their surroundings thanks to the podcast.

What Listeners Don’t Like

Despite its popularity, "My Favorite Murder" has garnered significant criticism across a range of issues, leading to dissatisfaction for many listeners.

A major point of contention is the podcast's often irreverent and insensitive tone when discussing tragic events. While some appreciate the humour, many find the frequent jokes and banter inappropriate and disrespectful towards victims and their families. This casual approach is off-putting to those who prefer a more serious and respectful handling of true crime stories.

The research quality is another significant concern, with many reviewers stating that it is frequently lacking. The hosts have admitted to not being journalists or experts, which listeners say is evident in factual inaccuracies and superficial treatment of complex cases. Some feel the hosts simply read off Wikipedia pages or plagiarize others' work with zero due diligence.

The structure of the episodes also draws criticism, particularly the extensive off-topic discussions and personal anecdotes that often overshadow the true crime content. Many listeners find these digressions distracting, frustrating, and making the episodes feel disorganized and unfocused. The time spent on banter often delays the actual discussion of true crime, with some listeners reporting having to fast forward through 20 to 45 minutes before the story begins.

The hosts' tendency to inject their own political and social views is a divisive issue. While some appreciate their perspectives, others feel these opinions are forced, detract from the storytelling, and alienate listeners seeking a more neutral presentation. Some former listeners specifically cite the political content as the reason they stopped tuning in.

The increasing commercialization of the podcast and the deal with Amazon have also been negatively received by some. Some feel that the hosts have "sold out" and that the focus has shifted towards profit rather than content. The increased volume of ads relative to content is also a source of frustration.

Many long-time listeners feel that the podcast has "gone downhill". They cite a lack of new, well-researched episodes, an increase in live recordings and "quilt" episodes (recycled content), and a general feeling that the hosts are no longer as invested in the show. Some feel the stories are now rushed and lack detail.

Some listeners find the hosts' vocal fry and excessive use of swear words annoying and unnecessary.

Finally, some reviewers feel the podcast trivializes the suffering of victims and prioritizes the hosts' personalities over the actual crimes. The name of the podcast itself is considered disrespectful by some.

Featured episode

Episode 79 - Sharpest Needle In The Tack

TLDR
This episode dives into the twisted crimes of serial killer Jerry Brudos, whose obsession with women’s shoes led to a string of brutal murders. It also explores the strange and tragic case of the Erie collar bomb heist, an unbelievable plot that ended in the death of a pizza delivery guy forced into robbing a bank with a bomb locked around his neck.

Synopsis
Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark take a deep look at the disturbing story of Jerry Brudos, known as the “Shoe Fetish Slayer.” They walk through how his obsession with shoes turned into theft, sexual assault, and eventually murder in the late 1960s. They cover Brudos’s early fixations, his controlling behavior, and the horrifying details of his crimes, like keeping body parts as trophies. The episode also covers the 2003 Erie, Pennsylvania collar bomb case, where pizza delivery driver Brian Wells was forced to rob a bank with a live bomb strapped to his neck. It ended with his death and led to an investigation that exposed a strange plot involving Bill Rothstein and Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong, and raised questions about whether Wells was an innocent pawn or part of the plan.

Now let’s look more closely at both of these cases.

The Lurid Obsessions of Jerry Brudos, the "Shoe Fetish Slayer"
The story of Jerry Brudos is a slow, terrifying descent into violence. He was born in 1939, and by age five, he had already developed a fixation on women’s shoes after finding a pair of spike heels. His mom strongly disapproved, but instead of stopping the obsession, it only made it worse. As a kid, he started stealing high heels, from a teacher, then from girls who lived nearby.

In his teens, his fantasies got darker. He imagined trapping women and controlling them. At 16, he lured a girl to his house under false pretenses, attacked her while wearing a mask, and took nude photos. In another creepy attempt, he pretended to be his own twin. It showed how manipulative, and dangerous, he already was.

In 1956, he attacked another young woman and ended up in a psychiatric hospital. He told doctors about his hatred for women and violent fantasies. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia (which later turned out to be wrong), then released. But things didn’t stop. In 1959, he stalked a woman, strangled her until she passed out, and stole her shoes.

He got married in 1961 to a 17-year-old named Darcy Metzler, but that didn’t change anything. He made her clean the house naked while he took pictures, all to satisfy his fetishes. He pretended to have migraines and said the only thing that helped was sneaking out at night to steal shoes and underwear. He kept it all hidden in a secret garage.

Things escalated after they had kids. In 1967, when Darcy wouldn’t let him in the delivery room for their second child, it seemed to trigger something. His crimes became even worse. In January 1968, he killed his first known victim, Linda Slosson, a door-to-door encyclopedia salesperson. He hit her with wood, strangled her, dressed her in lingerie he’d stolen, then cut off her foot and stored it in his freezer inside a high heel. After that, he dumped her body in a river.

Over the next year, more women disappeared, Stephanie Viko, Jan Susan Whitney, and Karen Sprinkler. In March 1969, someone saw a large man dressed as a woman near Sprinkler’s abandoned car, a creepy detail that pointed to Brudos. He tried to abduct more women too. One bit him. Another fought him off.

Later, the bodies of Linda Saley and Karen Sprinkler were found in the Long Tom River, tied to car parts. Sprinkler’s body was especially disturbing, Brudos had cut off her breasts and posed her with one of his bras. Even as police started finding the bodies, he kept going, trying to meet college students through fake blind dates.

It all came to an end in May 1969. A student he tried to meet had already called police, which led to his arrest. Police searched his home and found disturbing evidence. He even told his wife to destroy it before they got there. During questioning, Brudos confessed to killing Slosson, Whitney, Saley, and Sprinkler. He was ruled sane, but diagnosed with multiple sexual disorders. He got three life sentences, Oregon didn’t have the death penalty. He died in prison in 2006 after 37 years, the state’s longest-serving inmate. Still, twelve other women went missing during that time. Their fate is unknown.

The Baffling and Tragic Erie Collar Bomb Heist
This case couldn’t be more different, but it’s just as disturbing. On August 28, 2003, 46-year-old Brian Wells walked into a PNC Bank in Erie, Pennsylvania, with a bomb locked around his neck. He handed over a note demanding $250,000. The device was clunky and homemade, full of pipe bombs and kitchen timers.

Wells said he’d been ambushed on a delivery by a group of Black men who forced him into the robbery. He begged police to believe him, but some thought he might be lying. As they waited for the bomb squad, the device started beeping, and then it exploded, killing him right there on the street. It was all caught on camera.

What followed was a wild investigation. Police found more notes in Wells’s car, making it look like he’d been sent on a kind of scavenger hunt to get clues. But after he died, someone removed the rest of the clues. Then, things got even weirder. A month later, Bill Rothstein, who lived near the site where Wells said the bomb had been put on him, called 911. He said he had a body in his freezer. It was James Roden, the boyfriend of Rothstein’s ex, Marjorie Diehl-Armstrong. She had allegedly shot Roden, and Rothstein said she made him help get rid of the body.

Before Rothstein died of cancer in 2004, he left a note saying Roden’s murder had nothing to do with the Wells case, but that didn’t stop suspicions. Eventually, Diehl-Armstrong started talking. She said Rothstein had planned the whole bomb thing and that Wells was in on it. He thought the bomb was fake. She claimed they swapped in a real one, and he realized too late, possibly while trying to flee at the TV tower.

Another twist came from Kenneth Barnes, a former TV repairman and drug dealer. He said Diehl-Armstrong wanted the money to pay him to kill her father. He also said Wells got involved because he owed money to a sex worker. A lot of the case remains unclear. Some believe Rothstein planned it all, maybe just for attention. In the end, no one knows how much Wells knew, or if he was completely innocent.

Diehl-Armstrong, who had a long history of mental illness and abusive relationships, was convicted and later died in prison in 2017. The Erie collar bomb case is still one of the strangest crimes in recent memory, and a reminder of how dark and chaotic things can get when desperation and cruelty collide.