Transcript
A (0:00)
From unsolved mysteries to unexplained phenomena, from comedy gold to relationship fails, Amazon Music's.
B (0:06)
Got the most ad free top podcasts included with prime.
A (0:10)
Because the only thing that should interrupt your listening is. Well, nothing.
B (0:16)
Download the Amazon Music app today.
A (0:33)
Hi, my name is Nikki, and I'm the daughter of a murdered woman. Welcome back to Poppy Killed Mommy. Trigger Warning. This episode discusses domestic violence, homicide, and trauma. The man discussed in this series is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Listener discretion is advised. In the last two episodes of Poppy Killed Mommy, we explored the complicated relationship between journalism, media, and justice. In my mom's case, episode eight, the Red Rock News, was about erasure, about how the very first article, published after my mom's death in 1993, framed her murder as little more than a domestic dispute, parroting police statements and Russell Peterson's narrative. Without question, that article didn't just report, it shaped public perception. And it was done in a way that erased my mom's identity, softened the reality of her homicide, and left my family's truth outside of the story. Episode eight was about that cycle of silencing how harmful words on a page, whether in a newspaper or an email, can wound just as deeply as the original crime. Then in episode nine, media Pressure, we looked at the other side of the story, the way media, when used responsibly, has the power to change everything. Unlike the Red Rock News articles that once buried the truth, modern coverage has amplified it. Millions of people have seen my story on TikTok. Countless listeners have heard it on podcasts around the world. Shows like Voices for Justice and Morbid have given my mom's case the kind of visibility local reporting never did. And that visibility matters because media is public pressure. It's what forces institutions to answer questions they'd rather ignore. Episodes 8 and 9 paint a full picture. On one side, the damage done when journalism fails. On the other, the possibility of justice when media shines a spotlight. They are two sides of the same the silencing of a story and the fight to make it heard again. This week, I'm going to bring you into an email exchange that was forwarded to me by a listener. She and her partner reached out to the editor of the Red Rock News about my mom's case, hoping for answers, or at the very least, respect. What they received instead were responses that were condescending and dismissive, and they were written by Christopher Fox Graham, the managing editor of that paper. The words you're about to hear are not mine. They are his and after I read them to you in full, I'm going to break down exactly why his responses aren't just dismissive, they're profoundly troubling both ethically and and personally. For privacy reasons, I've changed this follower's name to Jane. Chronological email chain verbatim starting Sunday, August 10th, 2025 at 6:43pm from Jane to Christopher Fox Graham Subject Wassolichen story Do it justice Please share the Stacey Wassolichen story from the family's perspective. This is long overdue response. Sunday, August 10, 2025, 9:23pm From Christopher Fox Graham to Jane sent were two links, nothing more at the beginning of this email. Just one link to the first story, then another link to a second story. And then after that he says no updates from Sedona PD since these signed Christopher Fox Graham. He probably had about 30 minutes to think about that because then he sent another one at Sunday, August 10, 2025 at 10:04pm from Christopher Fox Graham to Jane if there is any update in the case from the Sedona PD or the Yavapai County Attorney's Office, we will report on it. Thanks for reading Christopher Fox Graham the next morning. Monday, August 11, 2025 03:21am From Jane to Christopher Fox Graham I appreciate that you've taken the time to respond. Respectfully, it often takes media pressure for police departments to reopen cases. We have contacted the PD too. There's a story now regardless, particularly the PD's lack of follow up in many areas. And there's a story in what the family is doing. And then attached is the podcast, the link to my podcast. Without media pressure, so many cases across the country would not have been reopened over the years. Thank you for your time, Jane. Monday, August 11, 2025, 10:29am From Christopher Fox Graham no, it takes public pressure, not the media. Government and police are indifferent to media, which I can tell you after 21 years as a journalist. As you'll note in our story, the case is still open, so I don't know why you wrote to reopen cases, which he put in quotation marks. A small podcast notwithstanding, Sedona PD has no updates. If there is an update in the case from the Sedona PD or the Yavapai County Attorney's Office, we will report on it. Not sure who your we is, but best of luck. Thanks for reading Christopher Fox Graham. He also put we in quotes. Monday, August 11, 2025, 8:01am From Jane to Christopher Fox Graham thanks for your reply the we is my spouse and I. I agree public pressure is critical. It appears my email response may have upset you, but that truly wasn't my intent. Christopher I very much appreciate the hard work you and other journalists do every day. Jane Monday, August 11, 2025 at noon from Christopher Fox Graham to Jane no, I am unoffended. I have been a journalist for 21 years and have very thick skin. Aside from a few emails about the case after the stories in 2020, we have had no contact or continued interest from the public other than you and one other person in the last five years. The case was reopened by Dominguez back then, hence the stories, and remains open, but there have been no new investigative developments since then, podcast notwithstanding. Words matter, so use them wisely. Christopher Fox Graham Reading through his emails, he comes across as defensive, almost angry, and I have to ask why? Why is a journalist whose role is to inform the public so upset when a member of that same public is reaching out? He insists that there's been little contact, but since I've posted his email address, I know for a fact he's heard from more than one person. That defensiveness says more about his attitude towards this case than it does about the actual level of public interest. So let's break down his email first. The phrase a small podcast notwithstanding, that's not only dismissive, it's factually wrong. I've done my best to try and stay humble, but now I'm going to bust out a ton of podcast standard industry statistics. I hope you're ready.
