|
Post by cofactorfall on Sept 11, 2018 2:57:24 GMT
i've been enjoying the podcast. i was a friend of matts but am not close with any family members. i've overheard that freddie has not been honest with family members and those close to the family when getting consent for an interview and using their interview on the podcast.
how about with the daughter? sounds like in the end of the last episode shes the one asking him to stop the podcast. again enjoying the podcast but was freddie honest with her when starting the podcast? i believe freddie has good ententions overall so does it even matter?
|
|
|
Post by scarcrow on Sept 11, 2018 10:17:24 GMT
I think he has been m. From the sounds of it, it almost sounds like people were consensual and wanted Freddie to go full steam ahead with it but as time has went on and doors have been open then I thing that is when people have been began trying to crawdad their way out of it. Such as in the second episode when Matt’s sister we’re open to the idea and was going smoothly til she put HERSELF, not Freddie, in a corner. After that episode and the episode with the to professionals is when chatter began to swirl like this. Freddie keep pushing man that’s the problem with this case from the get go is everyone is to scared to step on others toes and upset someone and that’s why it’s been 9 years and there have been no justice brought!!!
|
|
|
Post by wirebender on Sept 11, 2018 12:43:32 GMT
I would say yes he has given no reason so far not to be.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 11, 2018 14:56:20 GMT
First, this is a fantastic post. I want people to be able to actively question things here, including about the podcast, the forums, Freddie or myself! Good for you for bringing this up. There are far too many secrets in this case and adding more would be a horrible idea. With that said, though, I'm going to move this thread to the Unforgotten Podcast section of the forum and leave a note there that it has been moved. This question is not about the case directly and I'd like to keep us as organized as possible. I'm not hiding it, I'm not downplaying it... I'm just moving it from the Questions & Theories section and into the section meant to be about the podcast. Now, as to the comment itself... and I apologize in advance because this is going to be long. i've overheard that freddie has not been honest with family members and those close to the family when getting consent for an interview and using their interview on the podcast. how about with the daughter? sounds like in the end of the last episode shes the one asking him to stop the podcast. again enjoying the podcast but was freddie honest with her when starting the podcast? i believe freddie has good ententions overall so does it even matter? Again, for those of you who haven't heard me say and post this time and again, the forums are not directly connected to the podcast. Freddie and I have been collaborating on the common goal of finding the truth. He helps the forums out by making himself available here, I try to aid the podcast by helping him to generate more frequent content. I consider him a friend now because we've had a lot of conversations about the case, but I don't feel that prevents me from giving an impartial answer to this question. I see more than one element to this question. The first is strictly legal. Did they know they were being recorded? I'm sure they did. If so, then the content was legally obtained and can be used, at least by my understanding. If they were unaware, then that's a different question and they probably could go after him for it. Fortunately, since we're talking about recordings, the truth wouldn't be hard to find. The second element is ethical. Did he mislead people into giving him information about the case? I don't know. I imagine that the early conversations with any family members did not focus on the details of the murder. When interviewing someone about a sensitive subject, you don't lead in with a question like: "Do you know who killed Matt? I want to do a podcast that might make you feel really uncomfortable about something tragic that happened to you in your past." Some level of subtlety seems to be justified in early interviews, at least in my opinion. Questions about the case itself are fairly obvious, after all, and no one could accidentally answer a question about the murder and not realize they were doing it. They could certainly regret their answer later, but that's not on Freddie, is it? I don't know who specifically was making the requests that he stop the podcast, that's for him to disclose if he chooses... but he did specifically tell me that it has been more than one person. It felt like he was implying it was even more than two. If it was Hannah, it's not only Hannah. There are definitely people out there who don't want to have this case talked about any more. Your last question is an interesting one... if his intentions are good, does it matter if he's honest in how he gets results? Yes, I think it does. There are levels to investigation, as most people know. The police, for example, can lie to a suspect to try to get them to say what they want him to say. If they have to tell you that your DNA is all over the scene to get you to confess to being there, they will. This is the law of the land, for better or worse. Whether you think that's okay or not is a personal choice. Does that mean Freddie should lie and tell a possible suspect that 7 people have told him in recorded interviews that he was in the house that night? Hell, no! That's not his place to fabricate information on the case to further his personal goal of finding the truth. Should he be able to start a conversation with a neighbor of the Stewart's by saying he'd like to ask them some questions about what it's like to live in the neighborhood? I don't have a problem with that. When he gets to the part about June 9th, 2009... they know what's up. Let them walk away if they choose to... but if they answer, that answer becomes a legitimate part of the narrative. These are just my opinions, of course.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Sept 11, 2018 18:02:05 GMT
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! Did I hear that right? 7 people said there was a man they know that was there that night??
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 11, 2018 18:07:32 GMT
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! Did I hear that right? 7 people said there was a man they know that was there that night?? Hahaha! You know I was just using that as a ridiculous example, right??? THIS is how rumors get started!!!
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Sept 11, 2018 18:11:39 GMT
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait! Did I hear that right? 7 people said there was a man they know that was there that night?? Hahaha! You know I was just using that as a ridiculous example, right??? THIS is how rumors get started!!! Lol, I was going to ask if that was a hypothetical statement, hahaha.
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 11, 2018 18:24:18 GMT
I tried to make it more clear in my original post. Hope that helps with the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Sept 11, 2018 18:35:35 GMT
I tried to make it more clear in my original post. Hope that helps with the confusion. Hahaha, yeah it's clear now.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Sept 13, 2018 10:58:34 GMT
I was told by someone that MIL was very upset with Freddie after episode 1. She said Freddie was spreading lies about them, taking an interview from Hannah and twisting around to fit his agenda. My response to them was, Hannah's interview stands on it's own. Freddie didn't tell Hannah's story, Hannah did. Freddie just put it out there for us to hear.
|
|
|
Post by scarcrow on Sept 13, 2018 13:21:09 GMT
Sounds like to me someone bringing this back to light and asking questions someone is getting very very skittish. Only one time has anyone said they were uncomfortable speaking and that’s because they dug themselves a hole and crawdaded out of it and Freddie never pushed or anything just changed subjects and went on. There’s something fishy going on that for sure!!!
|
|
|
Post by freddie on Sept 13, 2018 14:01:47 GMT
Of course, my answer for this will be a bit biased for obvious reasons… I can say definitively that everyone who appeared on the podcast agreed to be interviewed, and knew the conversations were being recorded for the purpose of being on a podcast. For this I have ample evidence. I am not sure what the exact details of what you have heard, so can’t respond specifically. Often, projects evolve over time, as was the case with this podcast. While it was always centered on Matt’s murder, in the beginning, the scope was much broader, having to do more with the church, their unique belief system, and testimonies on how individuals in the community dealt with the tragedy. In the beginning, I simply reached out to folks, asking them to share their story about experiencing this tragedy and coming out on the other side. So that lack of clarity may be where some of these claims are derived from. Over time, this shifted for a variety of reasons. 1. I was able to get more input from individuals outside of that specific community. 2. I became more and more puzzled by the details of the crime. 3. I became increasingly perplexed by the fact that this bizarre murder hadn’t been reported on in over half a decade. Etc. As the focus shifted, I informed some of those I was continuing to work with about this evolution. Some of those conversations were recorded (with consent). I was told by someone that MIL was very upset with Freddie after episode 1. She said Freddie was spreading lies about them, taking an interview from Hannah and twisting around to fit his agenda. My response to them was, Hannah's interview stands on it's own. Freddie didn't tell Hannah's story, Hannah did. Freddie just put it out there for us to hear. As for me “spreading lies”… I have no earthly idea what is being referenced here. Obviously, it’s extremely hurtful to hear that. I have no desire (and no reason) to report anything I believe to be untrue. There are MANY provocative claims and statements from individuals that do not make it in the podcast because they are simply hearsay. I am selective with what I put out. Obviously, with an ongoing case, not every claim is verifiable fact, but I allow people to use their own words to describe their own experiences, putting their own credibility on the line. As I have told certain individuals who have reached out with these claims, I would be THRILLED to correct the record on the podcast, include their voice or statement clarifying things that they feel were not presented in the correct way, but those offers have been flat out refused. As for “twisting interviews”, the notion that I edited any interview to make it sound like anyone was saying something they were not saying is absolutely ridiculous and, fortunately for me, provably false. As for using interviews for my "own agenda", I suppose I plead guilty to that charge. My “agenda” is clearly articulated in the first episode; to shed light on this unsolved murder in hopes it will draw public attention to the case and generate leads for the investigation. If there are people that have a problem with that, it's on them. They can listen to another podcast.
|
|
|
Post by scarcrow on Sept 13, 2018 14:48:50 GMT
KEEP PUSHING FREDDIE!!! All this is shaking of the tree and what happens when you do that. The bad apples begin to fall!!! Have faith that this crime is going to be solved sooner rather than later and it’s gonna be because you and others on this forum are pushing for justice for a man who can no longer speak for himself! Keep on shaking brother!!!
|
|
|
Post by curious1982 on Sept 19, 2018 2:41:42 GMT
I feel as though Freddie has probably been brutally honest with this podcast. Probably so honest, in fact that it is ruffling feathers. Probably making certain people shake in their boots. He has been so careful to not state rumor as truth on EVERY episode. He only states the facts, and lets others tell their input on something. If people are thinking that he is lying or being untruthful in this, I'd love to know who they are. Bc IMO he is doing exactly what everyone should be doing in this small town. Trying to get this case solved and Justice handed down for the people that truly love Matt. Like he said in the last Q and A "9 years is too damn long"
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker1 on Sept 19, 2018 15:21:37 GMT
I don’t want to be disrespectful and break the forum rules so I will be careful as I say, “who cares if Freddie steps on toes?” This is directed to those that have threatened him. The family and/or those who have threatened Freddie had 9 years to beat a drum and make something happen. Should the murder go unsolved just because they are uncomfortable? Who is speaking for Matt?? Kudos to Freddy for doing what the rest of us didn’t have he courage or wherewithal or resources to do. God speed, man. We are behind you! It makes me so angry to think about people just “accepting” it.
|
|