I have overlook little errors in this podcast because overall it seemed decently researched until the Howard Bloom episode. Such reckless journalist to introduce his book, written PRIOR to a trial that’s under jag order. Howard speaks on tidbits from rumors and PCA then assigns those words to the victims & defendant/defendant family members as though he was there to witness theses utterances, thoughts & actions. This sensationalism is disappointing at best. Do better for all involved!

This interview with this writer really soured me on this podcast. No one backs any of his wild theories or accusations and none of his timeline matches official records. This interview really made me give this entire podcast a side eye. Will stick with the Idaho Massacre podcast instead.

This podcast is mostly about the host and not the murder victims. I have never heard a good journalist make the story about their actions and how great they personally are more than this woman does. It is so bizarre and unattractive. ABC hasn't been first about anything in years, and when they are it's usually untruths/fake drama pretending to be is journalism. Wake up! It's not about you.

It’s so nice that you get straight to the story instead of rambling on about a bunch of other nonsense or bantering with a co-host. It’s very refreshing. Great writing with great delivery. The music is strategically placed and just right…not too hot, not too cold. Perfect voice for storytelling…clear and concise.

Highly recommend its very informative and helps you visualize the crime

God willing most of us will never know what it’s like to be a family member tied to a tragedy such as this. But this was, for the most part, a gratuitous episode. The trial updates were useful but the rest of the episode should have been covered in mere minutes. The latter part of the episode was sensationalized by the host and did not feel like journalism to me.

just binged this podcast in a day. this was the most insightful, educational, well-provided podcast on the murders. i learned the most info about this case from this podcast.

I just binged all episodes. Excellent reporting and fair coverage of the suspect. Highly recommended.

This sucked. Inserting yourself into someone else’s trauma is clown behavior. “*I* was first on the scene” was said multiple times, who cares, good for you. You’re annoying. Believe it or not it’s possible, and better, to make a a quality true crime podcast without using the word “I” when you have nothing to do with it. This was as annoying as the guy that made the Nexium podcast bc he went to grade school with one of the women and therefore he gets to involve himself completely in their trauma. Garbage. Listen to something else.

Love this reporter and her previous coverage in Bad Blood, but there have been several updates in this case and it’s disappointing not to have any updates here.

This case is very sad!! ABC news did a great job gathering all the information and making it into a podcast!!!

Typical ABC…. Be at the forefront of sensationalism, but talk with disdain about when other “media” badger and harass citizens for their story. Report the story and stop praising yourself. You’re no better, or no worse than the “media”. Why? Because you are the “media”.

Wonderful journalism, respectful to the victims and there families.

Thank you for this podcast.

I enjoyed it and it moved me I felt emotion and sadness

This podcast is very informative for anyone that didn’t know anything about The King Road Killings.

It was well done and a bit informative, but it wasn't anything that I couldn't just read about quickly on the Internet and bring myself up to speed. There wasn't a lot of meat on the bones of this one.

The humble brags about being ‘the first’ to get an interview or break news or ‘ most ethical’ on the subject just rub me wrong. You’re not getting a cookie for being the first to get an interview with the victims sister or police Chief. You’re making a podcast - just get the facts right and have some tact

Enjoyed this one. My only critique is how they brushed over the detectives zeroing in on the subject in the first place. I might have missed it, but they jumped to the FBI going through the trash at the parents house in PA for the DNA match. The podcast did not describe the initial clue that brought the investigation to look at the subject in the first place. Assume it was looking at owners of a white Hyundai in the area then seeing he matched the bushy eye brows description then pulling his cell phone records?

For a moment, the speaker (lightly, but rightly) castigates online “sleuths”. Meanwhile, the scarcity of facts and data before the trial makes this podcast feel like a high-brow version of exploitation completely in denial about what it actually is. Had this not been stretched to six episodes, it would have been just as informative without the cringe.

I’m not a true crime junky I happened to stumble on this but we’ll done extremely well done I truly hope there’s more to come from this creator ! Very captivating

This podcast is informative but the presentation is trying to have its cake and eat it too.

Truly enjoyed listening to this podcast. I liked the fact that everything was fact checked. You know you’re hearing truth and not a fabricated story. Also, Kanya was very respectful to the families and friends that this tragedy touched. So appreciated it! 🤗

I found the pace perfect. Not slow at all for me. I was totally intrigued. Definitely among the best podcasts I’ve listened to

What sets this podcast apart is the sense that it was written and recorded with a good balance of interest in the story and respect/care for the victims and their families. Lots of people in the reviews are missing the point in the podcast’s critiques of sleuths and other media outlets. The problem obviously isn’t that people are reporting the story — that’s what journalists do, after all — but more that many true crimers and sleuths wanted so badly to insert themselves into a story or get an interesting scoop that they didn’t stop to think about the impacts their accusations would have upon those they accused or how their intrusiveness might hurt families and community members. If you’re interested in a look at this case that gives the community and families room to breathe and that speaks kindly and holistically about the victims rather than shamelessly exploiting the tragedy for shock clicks, this is a good choice.

This podcast is very hypocritical. Do they realize they are the media? And that their audience is people who listen to true crime? I don’t know why they are acting high brow here. Maybe point out that there are irresponsible people instead of saying “all media”. Because you are media.

If you are interested in a sound consolidated set of data which is well organized and factual, select this podcast. Far superior to any competitor.

Try listening on 1.75 or double time. way too much time spent talking about all the suspected but wrong answers. my podcast time is limited so I prefer tight well edited shows

This podcast is an organized, thorough and objective summary of this horrific crime and investigation. I will definitely listen to any follow up episodes and part 2.

I thought this was done very respectfully for the victims and their families. Well done and we’ll put together.

I think this is beautifully done. Informative, interesting, and moves along quickly. If you’re interested in this case, you definitely want to listen to this podcast.

will ruin a podcast. Also hate the faux intimate intonations of podcaster. Taken together, I’m finding it difficult to listen to.

Every cent you made off of this will be weighed against your soul. If you had a modicum of shame you would run into the woods and never take off your ashes and sackcloth.

This podcast is so good! It’s very informative and not gossipy.

If you’ve followed this case at all, most of this podcast is nothing new to you, although the interviews, especially with friends/family are always interesting and bittersweet. The host does focus quite a bit on her negative feelings towards the true crime community. Who does she think is listening to her? She also emphasizes quite a bit that she was the first reporter on the scene, while chastising the media for being intrusive. She also seems confused why the investigators didn’t share anything with the media (they were getting their man, Brains). It’s an odd take. Lastly her voice. It’s not terrible but it is monotonous, with the very occasional oval fry. It didn’t bother me much, but her odd way of phrasing did. She would only say a few words before a noticeable pause. Stay tuned for a season two brought to you by the nonintrusive media the first reporter on the scene.

When will there be more on this case??

I liked the approach to this podcast. Not focused on the obvious gore. Focused on people and events leading to the murders, the impact on community, “life” after the murders, and especially the respect for the victims. I will remember the victims for more than their death - I will remember sibling bonds, pink cowboy boots, good vibes, and friendships that are like your chosen family.

A little slow, but worth the time

Sometimes informative, but Kayna really just likes the sound of her own voice. And by continually saying she was the “first reporter” on the scene, she’s trying to make a gross claim on the story. I think she wanted to get her podcast out before anyone else which resulted in a not so great podcast.

Should have had a Moscow community member or u of i student review this. Lots wrong about the minor details and details of the town

Staggering lack of self-awareness for a reporter & podcast to condemn “online sleuths” while making use of said sleuths’ reporting scoops without crediting them. (To name but one example: it was a pair of YouTubers—one of whom is a former reporter herself—who unearthed Brian Kohberger’s years-old posts about visual snow.) The reporter chastises people for having an interest in true crime. Who, exactly, does she perceive her audience to be, if not people interested in ture crime?

Enjoyed the integrity of reporting the events.

Loved it. Nice job

Excellent

A breath of fresh air after all the initial reporting; more professional than many other similar podcasts

Incredibly well done podcast. Very informative and fact driven. perfect presentation.

This podcast needs to release some episodes. There have only been a couple so far, and I’m trying to figure out why you’d start a podcast if you don’t have anything to say.

It's tasteless to brag about being the first reporter on the scene, when in the same breath, you condemn the media for being intrusive. Then blast the true crime community for spinning rumors that you make an episode out of repeating? Gross dude. Do better.

I was so excited for this podcast and it’s just crappy. It seems very disorganized and I feel like the host just tries to fill the air by repeating the same things over and over. Podcasting is an art, when done right they are so entertaining. I feel this host thinks because she is a reporter, that she can take a sensationalized story and just put a podcast out there. FALSE! No new information, dull reporting. I wouldn’t recommend.

I am fascinated by this case because so much of it doesn’t seem to make sense. Is there any evidence that Bryan kohberher had been to Moscow at any time?Did he have any connections to Idaho university? Did any of the victims have connections to WSU? Their majors were not similar to Kohberher’s. Was there surveillance video of his vehicle leaving WSU or on the way to Moscow at times consistent with murders or his traveling ng back to WSU? Any evidence he owned a knife or of his purchase? Just a few questions that came to my mind along with what happened to delay 911 call, as mentioned.