From the host's comments at YouTube:
"Oh, Yvonne, I feel sorry for the police in this case who are just being shredded as absolute monsters for railroading this “poor boy.” Now, there are cases I have worked where there has been incompetence (usually due to lack of training), there have been errors (sometimes due to just being human or overwhelmed or lacking manpower or funding), and there have been rare cases of absolute corruption (but this truly are rare although they exist)."
And
"Thank you, Michelle. It is a shame that the wrongful conviction movement doesn’t focus TRULY on clear cases of wrongful conviction and that they are above board and honest in their work to free an innocent person..and they do exist. A good portion of these cases of persons they get out are actually guilty… but they have found some technicality to get them out on along with massive public pressure. Usually if one looks back at the actual case, the appeals, one finds that the guy had incredible amount of evidence against him. But, they hide this and pretend to the public, the fellow was a proper schoolboy and just got grabbed of the street and throw in prison for no reason.
These case taint the whole movement which I would be in support of, if only, they were honest. Once in a while I agree that someone behind bars is not guilty of the crime and should not be there, but, more often, it is not so. And, also - something they don’t admit - might be the wrong guy is behind bars for raping an d killing a woman - but he is already a serial killer and had done time in another case. This they don’t tell the public."
These are two instances in which Ms. Brown comes across as hostile in general to pro-innocence advocates. She attempts to balance this by paying lip service to the notion that there are problematic investigations and a few wrongful convictions, but I found her comments unconvincing. For example, one could have said circa 1985, "Why are there so many people banging on about Lindy Chamberlain? She has used up all her appeals. These folks should focus on someone truly innocent." My point is that unless people advocate over the course of years for a possibly wrongfully convicted person, one will not uncover the evidence to demonstrate it. There is a bit of circularity in her argument.
In the first forty minutes I heard her make some questionable statements about the present case. I will listen to the rest as the week progresses, but I don't have high expectations.
EDT
I watched another hour, and it went from bad to worse. She provides erroneous information and rank speculation.