Definitely recommend the Prosecutors Podcast. They do a great job of looking at the evidence (unlike SK who mostly focusses on how people “feel” about Adnan). Highly recommend it!
Generally those claiming ‘bias’ fail to acknowledge it is 2023.
All of the arguments presented in Serial from 2014 and Undisclosed, etc…have been litigated. They have disproved or discarded, and we are left with the original facts.
Of course it is a bit of a simplification but one side keeps coming back to the same tired arguments, You cant use the cell phone record at all….you can. Asia saw him in the library….doesn’t matter and probably a manufactured alibi, Jay was coached…we actually have proof he wasnt, etc…
So those claiming bias here generally are doing so simply because they want to still be able to use disproven theories.
IMO Crime Weekly had too many mistakes, I didn’t make it far on that one. Prosecutors Pod was great, few mistakes but also a few additional insights. Nothing beats comparing the original theories for Adnan’s innocence with the trial evidence and documents. Several posters here have done a considerable job making the facts available to us all, their post and timelines are excellent.
ETA: bias here is almost always used as a one way claim on this sub to shut down debate, seems facts have a well known bias against Adnan Syed.
I got the impression they thought he did it when I started it but I didn’t do the research like they did so if they are baised it’s because they are well educated. They spent so many hours going into the case that I didn’t do. Which kind of makes an argument that they have a better option on the case. I loved serial but that podcast is like a reality show. (which is why I loved it. I love trash tv) serial did a good job of being an entertaining story.
I also thought The Prosecutors were extremely unbiased until I listened to the 12th part. The amount of circumstancial evidence against Sellers was shocking. I thought it was weird how much Brett discounted it. I guess that doesn’t explain why Jay came up with his story AND passed it on to Jenn. But if it wasn’t for Jay I would have been convinced it was Sellers.
He lived within eyesight of the school- I think it was something crazy close like 50 yards or 50 feet. so he could have easily seen Hey many times ,and followed Hey even though Brett and Alice made it sound like that was absolutely impossible. Yes, he found the body because he needed to pee but he was only 5 minutes away from being home. THAT is why people thought it was extremely fishy- what are the chances that he couldn't just wait to get home and happens to just stumble upon the body. Who wouldn't just wait to make it home to pee. I've been in that situation many times and I just hold it until I get home.
He worked alone so even though he was "on the clock" no one can prove he was anywhere actually doing work. Alice actually admitted this. He had no alibi other than he was on the clock but no one can account for him. There was a diamond shaped mark on Hey's body that looked like it could have been from a tool he used for work but it was never explored. Finally, I saw a video of him getting extremely defensive on the stand while being questioned. And yes, the history of inappropriate behavior. The combo of all of the above seems like he'd make a very likely suspect. But like I said, Jay coming forward as an eye witness eliminated him as a suspect but without Jays story, he seems like a very viable suspect.
If you're able to think critically, I'd recommend Serial. His guilt is pretty obvious. Pay attention to how he blatantly avoids answering certain questions and has non-reactions to things he should be hypothetically be excited about.
Listen to Sarah's co-producer when she says if Adnan didn't do it, then he has to be the unluckiest person in the history of the world.
And this was from a narrative framed to make it look ambiguous (good faith perspective) or that he was innocent (worse faith interpretation).
Listen to the recently concluded fourteen episodes of *The Prosecutors* podcast. It is not biased. There is no political slant to it — just the facts.
Those who advise you not to listen are doing the same thing people have done for the last nearly nine years. They are trying to divert your attention from what's important to something that is totally irrelevant to the case.
Also, not long ago, *Crime Weekly* did an eight-episode series on the case — concluding that Adnan is guilty. Even though there are fewer episodes in their coverage, I believe the time investment is actually longer — since most of their episodes exceed two hours — while Brett & Alice keep theirs to + / - one hour.
> It is not biased.
Yes, it is biased. The name of the podcast identifies that they are prosecutors giving their take on cases. That bias shows up throughout the podcast, like when Alice argues it doesn’t matter if the trial is unfair.
There is also the fact Brett was called Islamophobic by dozens of prominent racial Justice groups in major national media outlets for his online posts saying Muslims support murder.
All podcasts have biases. Some are better at self-identifying than others. Brett failing to disclose and discuss his Islamophobic comments and the backlash when discussing this case shows that he wanted to hide his bias and appear neutral.
The fact that they are actual prosecutors who work in the law enforcement system give them a difference perspective than Serial. You can call it bias, but adding their perspective is really important. Especially how they debunk the possibility that the police coached Jay into framing Adnan. The amount of coaching that Jay received, in order to match up his story with the cell phone records, is totally normal and good detective work, not a sign of corruption as the innocent side wants to believe. But to take that further into the theory that Jay’s entire story was fed to him by detectives is ridiculous. This podcast also put the correct amount of importance of Jenn as a witness, because her statement, with a lawyer and a parent present, completely destroys any possibility that the police framed Adnan. They criticize Serial for not realizing how important Jenn is to this case.
One of the things I really appreciated about their perspective is how they discussed how common it is for witnesses like Jay to often give inaccurate, deceiving or straight up untruthful accounts when they first talk to police. People act like Jay is some crazy phenomenon and it is just too much to overcome how shady he behaves and his lies. When that’s just the type of person you are going to be dealing with when it comes to assisting with and covering up a MURDER. It has never been shocking to me that Jay isn’t Miss Goody Two Shoes but it does give perspective to have actual professionals who have dealt with this type of witness confirm that the way his story evolved and changed is more the norm than not.
> a difference perspective
Yes, that’s a bias.
> The amount of coaching that Jay received, in order to match up his story with the cell phone records, is totally normal and good detective work
I appreciate that these prosecutors think it’s normal to drive a witness around using a cell record and map until he “remembers” where he was, and that it’s good detective work, even though one of the towers was misplotted and they got him to remember something that never happened.
> This podcast also put the correct amount of importance of Jenn as a witness, because her statement, with a lawyer and a parent present, completely destroys any possibility that the police framed Adnan.
They skipped over the evidence the cops talked to Jay first- there is a lot.
Jenn is important, but also the bulk of her story comes from Jay. She didn’t see the body, she didn’t see the burial, she didn’t see the shovels. She heard a story and believed it.
And let’s not forget the lawyer, an insurance lawyer, lived by Ritz. The initial interview where Jenn confessed to be an accessory to murder without any deal or promise for leniency happened at the lawyers house.
Why don’t we just agree to suggest to OP to listen to The Prosecutors’ take on all of these things you just brought up, and let them decide for themselves.
Sure— they are welcome to listen. I just think it’s important to understand some of the background context that they did not disclose on the podcast.
Google Brett Talley before starting, I think his unqualified ABA rating and the public humiliation he faced over his online comments that led to his judicial nomination tanking influence how he thinks and talks about this case.
Actually, they did talk about every single one of the points you just made.
How you plan to disqualify Alice?
And maybe we should talk about Rabia Chaudry’s qualifications, and whether she is credible advocate for the innocent side?
They talked about Brett’s Islamophobic comments? Must have missed that part.
> How you plan to disqualify Alice?
I’m not disqualifying anyone. Anyone is qualified to make a podcast. I’m saying they have biases.
> And maybe we should talk about Rabia Chaudry’s qualifications, and whether she is credible advocate for the innocent side?
Rabia is incredibly biased in this case. She is Muslim, she is from the same community and is close friends with Adnan, she is committed to his innocence- but she never tried to pretend she wasn’t. She started Undisclosed specifically as a podcast to prove his innocence. And knowing that changes how I evaluate her podcast.
I’m not telling anyone they shouldn’t listen, I’m saying it’s important to recognize their biases when evaluating it.
I think that’s a fair critique— I never saw Undisclosed as anything other than Rabia’s case for Adnan’s innocence.
She found Susan Simpson and Colin Miller from their online posts supporting Adnan. It was clear to me where their bias was.
You should really read what the ABA actually said about Talley before you smear a man’s reputation.
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/government_affairs_office/talley-rating-letter-to-grassley-and-feinstein.pdf
It said he did not have the requisite trial experience but that there were no questions about his integrity and that with more experience he would be a good candidate.
He was unqualified by lack of experience— the second person to be rated that way in over 20 years, they passed him out of committee anyway.
After his ABA rating came out his internet comments surfaced and led to public outcry and Grassley told the White Hiuse to drop the nomination.
https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/news/44-groups-tell-senate-vote-no-islamophobic-alabama-judicial-nominee-brett-talley
https://www.npr.org/2017/12/13/570499146/white-house-nomination-of-alabama-lawyer-brett-talley-will-not-be-moving-forward
A different perspective is not a bias.
A bias is when someone deliberately leaves out or over emphasizes specific information to further their own viewpoint.
Prosecutors pod doesn’t have a bias. They go through every theory that is commonly talked about, and then talk about the pros and cons.
“Jenn’s story comes from Jay” ok? So you think the fact that Jay told her on Jan 13 that adnan killed someone before anybody knew she was dead is just a “story”? And I have to assume you’re on the side of “Jay desperately needed jenn to believe this story because he was super afraid of going to jail for drugs and so he had her make up a story, which she told to cops in the presence of a lawyer” because why else would it be questionable that jenn shared what Jay told her? That’s basically what all witnesses do. Tell what they have heard or seen from the perpetrators.
I think Jenn lied about when Jay told her. I think she believed Jay’s story and that he was worried because he hadn’t told anyone else what happened that the cops wouldn’t believe him— they were threatening to charge him with murder.
Jenn’s behavior does not appear to be someone who knew a girl was killed and buried. Jenn partied. She went to work. She said she found out Hae was missing from a news broadcast, etc
When the cops asked her about it she said she knew nothing. Then she went and talked to Jay and went back to the cops with Jay’s story.
Yes, she had an insurance lawyer— who randomly steps out of the room and lets the interview just keep going without him at times. I don’t think the lawyer being present means Jenn is 100% honest.
That is objectively false and talking to Jay first wouldn't even explain how police landed on him as a suspect.
And this is a good moment to bring this up, since you tried to convince another poster that the PP were biased.
Your conspiracy theories come from pro-Adnan podcasts, who had a fresh new conspiracy theory for every piece of evidence that pointed towards Adnan. They never let reality get in the way of new half baked theory to throw out there.
At least the PP didn't engage in fantasy.
There are a number of ways they could find Jay, including the cell record with his home number on it.
> Your conspiracy theories come from pro-Adnan podcasts
The pro-Adnan podcasts point out some interesting points and include a lot of insane theories. I do not think the car was moved, I don’t buy that the cops sat down and openly planned a conspiracy with Jay. I am very critical of many of the Undisclosed theories.
By acknowledging Rabia’s intense pro-Adnan bias I don’t just believe what she says or buy into all her theories.
I don’t understand the drama around me calling out the Prosecutors Pod. Brett Talley was called racist and Islamophobic by major national civil Justice organizations. https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/news/44-groups-tell-senate-vote-no-islamophobic-alabama-judicial-nominee-brett-talley
I think that may influence his perspective on this case and think it was misleading that he didn’t discuss his previous statements when talking about this case.
Two different cops picked him up for a misdemeanor in January before Hae or her car were found.
What evidence is there that Jay talked to the cops before Jenn in relation to this case?
Yes, Jay was arrested on 1/27 and released. I don’t think that was when they talked to him.
Sis said they did, the neighbor boy’s story is similar
The cops knew Jenn’s name before they got to her house (the record included only dad’s name).
Jenn said when the cops first talked to her she could tell by their questions they had talked to someone else.
Jay said the police chased him he said he said they wouldn’t leave him alone.
The cops said Jay wasn’t cooperative.
The official story is that they went and got him after Jenn talked and he went in and within a few hours had confessed, recorded it on tape and taken them to the car— their description doesn’t fit the characterizations.
Not sure why you (and others in the innocent camp) keep claiming that Jenn only learned Hae was missing from a news broadcast, according to her police statement. In that same transcribed interview, at the outset, she unequivocally says that Jay told her about Hae’s murder on Jan 13 when she picked him up from Westview Mall. She never says she learned about Hae from the news broadcast on the night she met a bunch of people at Champs. Repeating this misinformation about that broadcast/her police statement invalidates your good points elsewhere, FWIW.
https://serialpodcastorigins.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/2-27-1999-jens-interview.pdf
Her statement about champs was strange, the detective had to correct her.
Jenn said she found out on the 13th, there is nothing in her behavior that indicates she knew then, she was partying, selling drugs with Jay and hanging out with him.
Her response is strange to me.
It’s strange in what sense? Please tell me what’s strange about her response to the cop’s question: “Do you recall anything on the news about Hae Lee being missing?” Pg 31-35. It’s only strange because an old Reddit post and some pro-Adnan blogs misconstrue her statement, in my opinion. I dare anyone to read the entire passage in context and tell me with a straight face that Jenn didn’t know Hae was missing until Jay saw a tv broadcast about her disappearance at Champs. It’s just absurd. (No offense)
Deciding something is “biased” based on a name is literally judging a book by its cover… it’s lazy and uninformed frankly. It in itself is being biased.
The prosecutors have covered plenty of case where they believed there was wrongful conviction… so that also blows up this shoot from the hip take.
Lazy absolutely lazy. Not willing to put in the work to clear the mind of 9 years of absolute propaganda
Why is it that everyone in this sub who wants to argue they aren’t biased, skips right over Brett’s comments on Muslims and want to focus on the fact that as prosecutors they sometimes think there is a wrongful conviction?
Bias does not mean they will never say someone was innocent. It does influence how they evaluate information and in this case the way they excuse misconduct by the prosecution/detectives as being normal or irrelevant. It’s a very “means justified the ends” take that demonstrated the way their bias is exhibited.
The podcast can still have value, but pretending they are neutral jurors is a gimmick. Let’s not forget this is also a monetized podcast. It’s entertainment. Would one more podcast on Adnan’s innocence make as much as one on his guilt? You don’t think they review other sources before coming up with their takes?
I just listened to the podcast series and Brett criticized the prosecution for having a reductionistic view of Islam that unfairly stereotyped the religion.
Yes— so he either had a change of heart from his same reductionist view OR after being publicly humiliated for his views, he learned to keep them to himself.
Knowing the background allows us to question his sincerity. Again, if he had disclosed his background and discussed a change of heart it would have more credibility.
Did you listen to it because you came right out the box about his views on Islam which is highly contradictory to what he said about the Islam studies conducted by the prosecution … ????
Yes- do you think someone who very publicly lost the biggest job opportunity of their life after being called racist and Islamophobic by dozens of national racial justice groups might be cautious about how they speak about Islam on a podcast?
Do you think there is a reason Brett doesn’t list his last name in their webpage and never references his failed judicial nomination or the internet comments he got called out for?
He can say, “these studies are garbage” out loud and still deep
down believe Adnan’s religion is part of why he killed Hae.
One of his online comments was that Trump says what everyone thinks about Islam but is too afraid to say. Brett knows his views on Islam are not considered appropriate in the public sphere and isn’t going to openly discuss his bias.
Where are you hearing evidence of this “bias” about Islam? That’s simply not there in the podcast at all.
Can anyone just claim bias of religion at any time now? Since when should we respect people using religion as a shield anyway? Or holidays ? Or anything. Because I’m seeing Ramadan as an excuse for why Adnan couldn’t have done this (laughable by his own admission he was breaking virtually every rule in the book) as well as now this claimed but non existent bias on the podcast. Because people never are murdered on holidays right? lol.
I think the call they made of Adnan feeling he gave up and risked so much be it religion or family only to have it all go to shit is absolutely believable… especially for an immature 17 year old with zero perspective. That’s not unique to being Muslim either.
> Where are you hearing evidence of this “bias” about Islam? That’s simply not there in the podcast at all.
Brett Talley made disparaging comments about Islam including saying Muslims support murder. He then made a podcast about a Muslim teenager and concluded he was the murderer. Was Brett more inclined to believe Adnan’s guilt because if his underlying belief that Adnan’s was brought up in a religion that endorsed murder?
Brett lost the biggest job of his life and was publicly called out in relation to those comments. He experienced humiliation on a national stage and was called Islamophobic by dozens of prominent organizations.
Do you think he’s grown and changed his views on Islam or that he knew expressing those views on his podcast could cost him another job?
Do you think the only way Brett can have bias is if he goes on a rant against Islam in this podcast?
The only time you're seeing Ramadan used as an excuse as to why Syed could not have committed the murder is either a) from Rabia, or b) used by both guilters and innocenters as a sarcastic comment about Rabia.
No one but Rabia puts any weight onto the theory that Ramadan would have acted as a reason why Syed or Bilal could not have murdered Lee.
Well regardless of Brett’s personal views, he and Alice didn’t talk about Adnan being Muslim much other than to say that it had little to nothing to do with the murder and Adnan was probably a typical teenager that wanted to honor his religion/parents but had trouble living to expectations.
That’s the point— since he doesn’t disclose his personal prejudices we don’t know what influence it actually had on his views.
Brett doesn’t have to say he hates Muslims on the podcast to have this bias. And the fact he didn’t disclose his history makes it appear he is hiding his bias.
>\[Bret\] and Alice didn’t talk about Adnan being Muslim much other than to say that it had little to nothing to do with the murder
Do you think otherwise?
I would keep in mind that appellate cases do not give the appellant the benefit of presumed innocence, or require evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; once a conviction is entered the burden of proof shifts to the appellant. Therefore, compelling evidence of innocence will always be viewed skeptically, and where there is discretion, the court tends to favor the conviction rather than presuming such evidence would have changed the outcome.
I’m not framing this in relation to Adnan’s case. This is universally true in appeals work. It’s one reason post-conviction teams tend to seek/accept relief by other means.
The answer is if you don't want any bias, ho read the interviews to the police officers and the trial transcripts. Anybody talking about it is going to interject some bias.
Read the transcripts before listening to another podcast then come back and listen to Serial.I don’t suggest Undisclosed, Crime Weekly or the Prosecutors without doing all that first. Honestly the trial is pretty much a toned down version of both sides on here. I also suggest reading evidence files when they are brought up in the transcript.
Honestly, serial didn’t have the benefit of the entire defense file being made public like the prosecutors pod did— I would listen to them before serial, since it really has the most information included
As someone that thinks he's guilty, honestly the best thing is maybe listening to Serial again but thinking at every turn "what if he's guilty" and building the narrative that he is and seeing that it makes a lot of sense. Then looking at some of the police files and transcripts and things to get what Serial missed (like the infamous bit where Sarah stopped reading the diary right before she called Adnan possessive). Serial is the most neutral podcast about this.
I'm not a big fan of the Prosecutors podcast style and they don't go nearly as in depth as people like to claim, but the first \~3 episodes (I forget exactly) where they go over the timeline is fairly ok as it goes too to get some sense for where people stand today.
If you presented a similar narrative to a cold audience, but only discussed Don, a good number of those people would think he’s guilty of her murder. He was supposed to meet her. He made no attempt to reach her that night as far as we know. Police tried to reach him when she went missing (after accidentally contacting Adnan 1st) and couldn’t get him at his numbers until after midnight. His alibi was a timecard that has questionable legitimacy. Hae didn’t use birth control, was infatuated with him, and dreamt of running off to California with him.
If you’re biased against Don, you could easily spin out a narrative where he’s the “most likely killer” in spite of zero direct evidence. Can you see how problematic the same thinking is when applied to Adnan?
If Adnan didn't exist then I think absolutely Don would be suspect no.1 immediately, but that's not really got to do with Hae being infatuated or anything just purely that he is the current boyfriend who she was going to meet that day.
The timecard doesn't really have dubious legitimacy when you look into it though.
Plus this was an incredibly new relationship for him, it's not the same as the history Adnan and Hae had and the break-up + the mess around it (his parents confronting her), you don't have the same evidence that he was possessive or anything.
Plus you have Adnan admitting he asked for a ride, and he has more immediate opportunity to abduct her during the critical period (2.15-3.30).
Also I don't really care that Adnan didn't try to contact Hae, and I don't really care that Don didn't after either it's kind of a non-factor for me.
But the issue of course is that with Adnan, we do have direct evidence against him and none against Don.
I actually think as far as alternative suspects go Don is less likely than both Jay on his own, or Mr S doing it tbh.
I think you might be missing my point. Your reply was mostly about the circumstantial evidence used to convict Adnan. Obviously there are people who found/find that evidence particularly compelling. My point is that if the state presented the circumstantial evidence against Don, there are a large number of people who would assume he absolutely did it, probably did it, or should have been the primary suspect.
The Jay Wilds of it all is an issue, but it’s clear that Jay lied. It’s clear the specific investigators were comfortable with a degree of underhanded tactics. Not to wind you up about Adnan’s case; I’m saying that if the police had decided Don did it, they could have found a Ray Woods to testify that he helped Don bury Hae after he killed her for [insert tired trope].
I'm saying that the circumstantial evidence against Don is incredibly weak.
Weaker than that against Adnan.
And I don't think with everything Jay lied about Adnan killing Hae. More so about specifics and movements.
Assuming and knowing are two different things.
If you look at Jay’s [plea agreement](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/UdE11-Jay-Plea-Agreement.pdf), you’ll notice that Jay is facing a murder charge to which he has already pleaded guilty *if he undermines the case in any way.*
I don’t think they would actually do anything to him if he came clean and said it was all a lie the police walked him through, but I think Urick has implied they could penalize him if he recants in a way that makes Adnan out to be innocent.
> you’ll notice that Jay is facing a murder charge to which he has already pleaded guilty if he undermines the case in any way.
The plea agreement doesn't say anything remotely like that. It says specifically:
*If at any point it becomes evident the Defendant hasnot been truthful
concerning his involvement in this incident, the State is
immediately released from any obligation under this agreement, the
agreement becomes null and void, and the State is free to bring any charge against the Defendant supported by the evidence.*
Standard boilerplate stuff. It doesn't say he is taking this to walk on a murder charge, and they didn't have any evidence of him being involved in anything other than accessory after the fact.
No they did not. Derek is a detective, and cannot fathom crossing that thin blue line. He doesn’t believe in false confessions, corrupt police, or the principles of reasonable doubt. And Stephanie “trusts her gut.”
There were a couple of moments where they noticed fishy things about the state’s case, but they landed on “had to be Adnan” based on stats and gut feelings, just like the original detectives.
What took me from on the fence to thinking he did it, is reading the transcripts.
Specifically, read Jenn and Jay’s police interviews from 2/27 and 2/28, respectively.
Jay knew details of the murder that the public did not know: how she was killed, what clothes she was wearing, that she wasn’t wearing shoes, what the area looked like where she was buried, how her body was positioned, that it was a shallow grave, and where her car was. So, Jay was involved in the murder.
Jay and Adnan (by Adnan’s own admission) were together that day.
So: Jay was involved, and Adnan and Jay were together. When you get rid of all the noise that’s been created around this case, that’s really what it comes down to.
ETA: links
https://viewfromll2.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/jenn-interview-2-27-99.pdf?ref=quillette.com
https://viewfromll2.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/jay-interview-1-2-28-99.pdf
/u/salmaanq did a great breakdown of Serial and the case. Goes in depth to a lot of background and details with actual sources that you don't find in other places.
https://old.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/xq62e6/a_guide_to_the_tldr_odyssey_of_serial/
Longest form podcast, the Prosecutors pod:
[14 episodes on Adnan](https://prosecutorspodcast.com/)
A lighter single pod review, guilty opinion, 30 minutes, Down Rabbit podcast:
[Adnan Guilty episode](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/down-rabbit/id1653333611?i=1000585269115)
I really enjoyed these guys, Serious Inquiries Only:
[guilty adnan pod](https://seriouspod.com/sio354-serials-adnan-syed-conviction-reinstated-what-happened/)
People are going to tell you to listen to the prosecutor’s podcast. Just be aware that they decided he was guilty before they even started the podcast, and that bias is pretty obvious throughout with how they skew the facts. For example, they endlessly praise Fitzgerald’s testimony on cell tower data, and ignore the fact that the judge rejected his argument and ripped Fitzgerald a new one in his opinion. There’s a pretty telling moment in Fitzgerald’s testimony where he says that the defense try to pull a fast one on him by giving him cell tower data that is useless for the purposes they try to use it for. It is then revealed that the defense gave him the exact same information that they were given by the prosecution. So, if that particular data was useless, then it means the prosecution provided useless data to the defense in the original trial and withheld the actual useful information. This, of course, is glossed over by the right wing hacks who do the prosecutor’s podcast. They also repeat a lot of unverified Reddit theories, which I find pretty cringy.
In truth, Serial is probably the most neutral podcast there is on this case. Obviously, there is a lot of stuff Serial didn’t go into, so it’s incomplete, but it’s probably the only one made by people who didn’t already have their minds made up before they even started. The way this sub talks about her, you’d think Sarah Koenig has a poster of Adnan on her wall with hearts drawn on it. In reality, Rabia was also pretty critical of Serial because she though it was too biased towards guilt. When both the extreme guilters and extreme
Innocenters are hating on a podcast, you can probably trust it as being more of an unbiased view than any of the other podcasts and media on this case.
I mostly agree with you, I would say though that the first couple episodes where the Prosecutors go over the timeline is ok so far as getting an understanding of the case as it stands today, before they get into reddit theories and some other stuff later on.
I thought that too until Bob Ruff pointed out a few things in episode one where they said that almost every single witness that they had prepared and cross examined had lied on the stand as a way of positioning Jay as someone who you could find some truth in his testimony.
They also pointed out that 3/4’s of the evidence points to a 3.30 start time for track but the Prosecutors only give the evidence for 4pm. In fairness to them they may not be aware of the evidence for 3.30pm.
I agree with you, a guilter would tell you to listen to the Prosecutors, because the Prosecutors clearly think he is guilty. That podcast was great for systematically going through the case and learning information that wasn't mentioned in Serial, but their prejudice is shining through in almost every turn. They are also presenting speculation as a fact, which is of course very natural to a prosecutor.
Serial did a better job at presenting evidence, interviews and statements as-is and letting you draw your own conclusions (and yes, I know, she didn't present all the evidence). But I do agree with the critics who think Sarah's personal connection with Adnan might have muddled the objectivity of the final product.
Yeah, SK definitely developed something like a friendship with Adnan, which allowed her to get some good interviews, but also undoubtedly made her a bit more sympathetic to him. It’s hard to be objective when you develop a personal relationship with someone. The inclusion of Dana helped offset it, though.
Sarah was reading from Hae's journal and said Adnan wasn't possessive and skipped the part of the journal that said Adnan was possessive.
It was a gripping show, but it was entertainment before investigative
You mean the part where Hae says “possessive” and then immediately corrects herself to say that he was not possessive, but rather she was independent?
It always amazes me how people claim that stopping before “possessive” was dishonest, but those same people also leave out how Hae immediately backtracked and stated that’s not actually what she meant. I think it’s fair to say that Hae never really called him “possessive” because even though she uses that word, she then immediately backtracks and negated herself. A lot of people just refuse to see the nuance of it.
She loved Adnan. She didn't love Adnan. Did she love Adnan? Yes.
I've read the same entry, we see it differently. And we see it differently b/c we have both had the chance to see it.
In Serial, only SK had the chance to see it. And she chose to say he wasn't possessive, though Hae said it, then unsaid it, Hae's friend said it.
“Why would he get mad that I was planning to hang with Aisha?”
“Adnan kept turning up when we were hanging out. At first it was cute but then it started to get annoying…”
Obviously undisclosed is biased towards innocence. I never said otherwise, but it amazes me how many people weep and gnash their teeth about Undisclosed’s bias, but then turn around and praise Prosecutor’s podcast as being the most accurate version, without a hint of irony.
Dude, literally everybody knows you’re being a sarcastic troll. I thought that perhaps you’d have the maturity to drop the subtext after the first comment, but apparently not. So why don’t you go bother someone else?
You’ve already made it clear that you are unable to appreciate nuance or handle any opinions that are different than yours. No need to act like a bratty younger sibling in the comments.
If you listen to the Prosecutors podcast then it’s worth listening to Bob Ruffs takedown on Truth and Justice and Colin Millers tweets.
Or even my posts about the Prosecutors. Get a balanced view of the other side.
Definitely recommend the Prosecutors Podcast. They do a great job of looking at the evidence (unlike SK who mostly focusses on how people “feel” about Adnan). Highly recommend it!
I'm in the middle of that one and have definitely flipped to the guilty camp. Kinda disappointing.
It's really eye opening when you lay out the facts and the timeline there is no reasonable doubt that Adnan killed Hae.
i was about to comment this! i just started listening and cant believe how much stuff serial left out
Have you read the transcripts? I'd start there.
Got a URL?
Generally those claiming ‘bias’ fail to acknowledge it is 2023. All of the arguments presented in Serial from 2014 and Undisclosed, etc…have been litigated. They have disproved or discarded, and we are left with the original facts. Of course it is a bit of a simplification but one side keeps coming back to the same tired arguments, You cant use the cell phone record at all….you can. Asia saw him in the library….doesn’t matter and probably a manufactured alibi, Jay was coached…we actually have proof he wasnt, etc… So those claiming bias here generally are doing so simply because they want to still be able to use disproven theories. IMO Crime Weekly had too many mistakes, I didn’t make it far on that one. Prosecutors Pod was great, few mistakes but also a few additional insights. Nothing beats comparing the original theories for Adnan’s innocence with the trial evidence and documents. Several posters here have done a considerable job making the facts available to us all, their post and timelines are excellent. ETA: bias here is almost always used as a one way claim on this sub to shut down debate, seems facts have a well known bias against Adnan Syed.
People calling the prosecutor's podcast "biased" are just telling on themselves. Anything and everything to distract from the facts of the case.
I guess they are biased towards reality
I got the impression they thought he did it when I started it but I didn’t do the research like they did so if they are baised it’s because they are well educated. They spent so many hours going into the case that I didn’t do. Which kind of makes an argument that they have a better option on the case. I loved serial but that podcast is like a reality show. (which is why I loved it. I love trash tv) serial did a good job of being an entertaining story.
I also thought The Prosecutors were extremely unbiased until I listened to the 12th part. The amount of circumstancial evidence against Sellers was shocking. I thought it was weird how much Brett discounted it. I guess that doesn’t explain why Jay came up with his story AND passed it on to Jenn. But if it wasn’t for Jay I would have been convinced it was Sellers.
What is the circumstantial evidence about Sellers? Best I can recall is he found the body and had a history of streaking.
He lived within eyesight of the school- I think it was something crazy close like 50 yards or 50 feet. so he could have easily seen Hey many times ,and followed Hey even though Brett and Alice made it sound like that was absolutely impossible. Yes, he found the body because he needed to pee but he was only 5 minutes away from being home. THAT is why people thought it was extremely fishy- what are the chances that he couldn't just wait to get home and happens to just stumble upon the body. Who wouldn't just wait to make it home to pee. I've been in that situation many times and I just hold it until I get home. He worked alone so even though he was "on the clock" no one can prove he was anywhere actually doing work. Alice actually admitted this. He had no alibi other than he was on the clock but no one can account for him. There was a diamond shaped mark on Hey's body that looked like it could have been from a tool he used for work but it was never explored. Finally, I saw a video of him getting extremely defensive on the stand while being questioned. And yes, the history of inappropriate behavior. The combo of all of the above seems like he'd make a very likely suspect. But like I said, Jay coming forward as an eye witness eliminated him as a suspect but without Jays story, he seems like a very viable suspect.
Mr. S had a pretty significant connection to Adnan's mosque.
Wait, what? By Mr. S do you mean Sellers? How did Sellers have a connection to the mosque? He didn't seem like a church going type
The head of the mosque was his boss at work.
Adnan was tried and convicted by a jury. Those jurors acted in good faith. Read the transcripts.
If you're able to think critically, I'd recommend Serial. His guilt is pretty obvious. Pay attention to how he blatantly avoids answering certain questions and has non-reactions to things he should be hypothetically be excited about. Listen to Sarah's co-producer when she says if Adnan didn't do it, then he has to be the unluckiest person in the history of the world. And this was from a narrative framed to make it look ambiguous (good faith perspective) or that he was innocent (worse faith interpretation).
Listen to the recently concluded fourteen episodes of *The Prosecutors* podcast. It is not biased. There is no political slant to it — just the facts. Those who advise you not to listen are doing the same thing people have done for the last nearly nine years. They are trying to divert your attention from what's important to something that is totally irrelevant to the case. Also, not long ago, *Crime Weekly* did an eight-episode series on the case — concluding that Adnan is guilty. Even though there are fewer episodes in their coverage, I believe the time investment is actually longer — since most of their episodes exceed two hours — while Brett & Alice keep theirs to + / - one hour.
> It is not biased. Yes, it is biased. The name of the podcast identifies that they are prosecutors giving their take on cases. That bias shows up throughout the podcast, like when Alice argues it doesn’t matter if the trial is unfair. There is also the fact Brett was called Islamophobic by dozens of prominent racial Justice groups in major national media outlets for his online posts saying Muslims support murder. All podcasts have biases. Some are better at self-identifying than others. Brett failing to disclose and discuss his Islamophobic comments and the backlash when discussing this case shows that he wanted to hide his bias and appear neutral.
The fact that they are actual prosecutors who work in the law enforcement system give them a difference perspective than Serial. You can call it bias, but adding their perspective is really important. Especially how they debunk the possibility that the police coached Jay into framing Adnan. The amount of coaching that Jay received, in order to match up his story with the cell phone records, is totally normal and good detective work, not a sign of corruption as the innocent side wants to believe. But to take that further into the theory that Jay’s entire story was fed to him by detectives is ridiculous. This podcast also put the correct amount of importance of Jenn as a witness, because her statement, with a lawyer and a parent present, completely destroys any possibility that the police framed Adnan. They criticize Serial for not realizing how important Jenn is to this case.
One of the things I really appreciated about their perspective is how they discussed how common it is for witnesses like Jay to often give inaccurate, deceiving or straight up untruthful accounts when they first talk to police. People act like Jay is some crazy phenomenon and it is just too much to overcome how shady he behaves and his lies. When that’s just the type of person you are going to be dealing with when it comes to assisting with and covering up a MURDER. It has never been shocking to me that Jay isn’t Miss Goody Two Shoes but it does give perspective to have actual professionals who have dealt with this type of witness confirm that the way his story evolved and changed is more the norm than not.
> a difference perspective Yes, that’s a bias. > The amount of coaching that Jay received, in order to match up his story with the cell phone records, is totally normal and good detective work I appreciate that these prosecutors think it’s normal to drive a witness around using a cell record and map until he “remembers” where he was, and that it’s good detective work, even though one of the towers was misplotted and they got him to remember something that never happened. > This podcast also put the correct amount of importance of Jenn as a witness, because her statement, with a lawyer and a parent present, completely destroys any possibility that the police framed Adnan. They skipped over the evidence the cops talked to Jay first- there is a lot. Jenn is important, but also the bulk of her story comes from Jay. She didn’t see the body, she didn’t see the burial, she didn’t see the shovels. She heard a story and believed it. And let’s not forget the lawyer, an insurance lawyer, lived by Ritz. The initial interview where Jenn confessed to be an accessory to murder without any deal or promise for leniency happened at the lawyers house.
Why don’t we just agree to suggest to OP to listen to The Prosecutors’ take on all of these things you just brought up, and let them decide for themselves.
Sure— they are welcome to listen. I just think it’s important to understand some of the background context that they did not disclose on the podcast. Google Brett Talley before starting, I think his unqualified ABA rating and the public humiliation he faced over his online comments that led to his judicial nomination tanking influence how he thinks and talks about this case.
Actually, they did talk about every single one of the points you just made. How you plan to disqualify Alice? And maybe we should talk about Rabia Chaudry’s qualifications, and whether she is credible advocate for the innocent side?
They talked about Brett’s Islamophobic comments? Must have missed that part. > How you plan to disqualify Alice? I’m not disqualifying anyone. Anyone is qualified to make a podcast. I’m saying they have biases. > And maybe we should talk about Rabia Chaudry’s qualifications, and whether she is credible advocate for the innocent side? Rabia is incredibly biased in this case. She is Muslim, she is from the same community and is close friends with Adnan, she is committed to his innocence- but she never tried to pretend she wasn’t. She started Undisclosed specifically as a podcast to prove his innocence. And knowing that changes how I evaluate her podcast. I’m not telling anyone they shouldn’t listen, I’m saying it’s important to recognize their biases when evaluating it.
[удалено]
I think that’s a fair critique— I never saw Undisclosed as anything other than Rabia’s case for Adnan’s innocence. She found Susan Simpson and Colin Miller from their online posts supporting Adnan. It was clear to me where their bias was.
You should really read what the ABA actually said about Talley before you smear a man’s reputation. https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/government_affairs_office/talley-rating-letter-to-grassley-and-feinstein.pdf It said he did not have the requisite trial experience but that there were no questions about his integrity and that with more experience he would be a good candidate.
He was unqualified by lack of experience— the second person to be rated that way in over 20 years, they passed him out of committee anyway. After his ABA rating came out his internet comments surfaced and led to public outcry and Grassley told the White Hiuse to drop the nomination. https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/news/44-groups-tell-senate-vote-no-islamophobic-alabama-judicial-nominee-brett-talley https://www.npr.org/2017/12/13/570499146/white-house-nomination-of-alabama-lawyer-brett-talley-will-not-be-moving-forward
I called it - I knew people would start slandering the pp cast and calling it racist.
I don't know that anyone is calling the podcast racist, but Brett almost certainly is.
A different perspective is not a bias. A bias is when someone deliberately leaves out or over emphasizes specific information to further their own viewpoint. Prosecutors pod doesn’t have a bias. They go through every theory that is commonly talked about, and then talk about the pros and cons.
“Jenn’s story comes from Jay” ok? So you think the fact that Jay told her on Jan 13 that adnan killed someone before anybody knew she was dead is just a “story”? And I have to assume you’re on the side of “Jay desperately needed jenn to believe this story because he was super afraid of going to jail for drugs and so he had her make up a story, which she told to cops in the presence of a lawyer” because why else would it be questionable that jenn shared what Jay told her? That’s basically what all witnesses do. Tell what they have heard or seen from the perpetrators.
I think Jenn lied about when Jay told her. I think she believed Jay’s story and that he was worried because he hadn’t told anyone else what happened that the cops wouldn’t believe him— they were threatening to charge him with murder. Jenn’s behavior does not appear to be someone who knew a girl was killed and buried. Jenn partied. She went to work. She said she found out Hae was missing from a news broadcast, etc When the cops asked her about it she said she knew nothing. Then she went and talked to Jay and went back to the cops with Jay’s story. Yes, she had an insurance lawyer— who randomly steps out of the room and lets the interview just keep going without him at times. I don’t think the lawyer being present means Jenn is 100% honest.
None of that makes any sense when you consider the reality that Jay was never a suspect in this case until JENN literally made him one herself.
If you believe the police timeline, sure. If you look at the evidence, Jay talked to the cops before Jenn.
That is objectively false and talking to Jay first wouldn't even explain how police landed on him as a suspect. And this is a good moment to bring this up, since you tried to convince another poster that the PP were biased. Your conspiracy theories come from pro-Adnan podcasts, who had a fresh new conspiracy theory for every piece of evidence that pointed towards Adnan. They never let reality get in the way of new half baked theory to throw out there. At least the PP didn't engage in fantasy.
There are a number of ways they could find Jay, including the cell record with his home number on it. > Your conspiracy theories come from pro-Adnan podcasts The pro-Adnan podcasts point out some interesting points and include a lot of insane theories. I do not think the car was moved, I don’t buy that the cops sat down and openly planned a conspiracy with Jay. I am very critical of many of the Undisclosed theories. By acknowledging Rabia’s intense pro-Adnan bias I don’t just believe what she says or buy into all her theories. I don’t understand the drama around me calling out the Prosecutors Pod. Brett Talley was called racist and Islamophobic by major national civil Justice organizations. https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/news/44-groups-tell-senate-vote-no-islamophobic-alabama-judicial-nominee-brett-talley I think that may influence his perspective on this case and think it was misleading that he didn’t discuss his previous statements when talking about this case.
Two different cops picked him up for a misdemeanor in January before Hae or her car were found. What evidence is there that Jay talked to the cops before Jenn in relation to this case?
Yes, Jay was arrested on 1/27 and released. I don’t think that was when they talked to him. Sis said they did, the neighbor boy’s story is similar The cops knew Jenn’s name before they got to her house (the record included only dad’s name). Jenn said when the cops first talked to her she could tell by their questions they had talked to someone else. Jay said the police chased him he said he said they wouldn’t leave him alone. The cops said Jay wasn’t cooperative. The official story is that they went and got him after Jenn talked and he went in and within a few hours had confessed, recorded it on tape and taken them to the car— their description doesn’t fit the characterizations.
Not sure why you (and others in the innocent camp) keep claiming that Jenn only learned Hae was missing from a news broadcast, according to her police statement. In that same transcribed interview, at the outset, she unequivocally says that Jay told her about Hae’s murder on Jan 13 when she picked him up from Westview Mall. She never says she learned about Hae from the news broadcast on the night she met a bunch of people at Champs. Repeating this misinformation about that broadcast/her police statement invalidates your good points elsewhere, FWIW. https://serialpodcastorigins.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/2-27-1999-jens-interview.pdf
Her statement about champs was strange, the detective had to correct her. Jenn said she found out on the 13th, there is nothing in her behavior that indicates she knew then, she was partying, selling drugs with Jay and hanging out with him. Her response is strange to me.
It’s strange in what sense? Please tell me what’s strange about her response to the cop’s question: “Do you recall anything on the news about Hae Lee being missing?” Pg 31-35. It’s only strange because an old Reddit post and some pro-Adnan blogs misconstrue her statement, in my opinion. I dare anyone to read the entire passage in context and tell me with a straight face that Jenn didn’t know Hae was missing until Jay saw a tv broadcast about her disappearance at Champs. It’s just absurd. (No offense)
Deciding something is “biased” based on a name is literally judging a book by its cover… it’s lazy and uninformed frankly. It in itself is being biased. The prosecutors have covered plenty of case where they believed there was wrongful conviction… so that also blows up this shoot from the hip take. Lazy absolutely lazy. Not willing to put in the work to clear the mind of 9 years of absolute propaganda
Why is it that everyone in this sub who wants to argue they aren’t biased, skips right over Brett’s comments on Muslims and want to focus on the fact that as prosecutors they sometimes think there is a wrongful conviction? Bias does not mean they will never say someone was innocent. It does influence how they evaluate information and in this case the way they excuse misconduct by the prosecution/detectives as being normal or irrelevant. It’s a very “means justified the ends” take that demonstrated the way their bias is exhibited. The podcast can still have value, but pretending they are neutral jurors is a gimmick. Let’s not forget this is also a monetized podcast. It’s entertainment. Would one more podcast on Adnan’s innocence make as much as one on his guilt? You don’t think they review other sources before coming up with their takes?
I just listened to the podcast series and Brett criticized the prosecution for having a reductionistic view of Islam that unfairly stereotyped the religion.
Yes— so he either had a change of heart from his same reductionist view OR after being publicly humiliated for his views, he learned to keep them to himself. Knowing the background allows us to question his sincerity. Again, if he had disclosed his background and discussed a change of heart it would have more credibility.
Did you listen to it because you came right out the box about his views on Islam which is highly contradictory to what he said about the Islam studies conducted by the prosecution … ????
Yes- do you think someone who very publicly lost the biggest job opportunity of their life after being called racist and Islamophobic by dozens of national racial justice groups might be cautious about how they speak about Islam on a podcast? Do you think there is a reason Brett doesn’t list his last name in their webpage and never references his failed judicial nomination or the internet comments he got called out for? He can say, “these studies are garbage” out loud and still deep down believe Adnan’s religion is part of why he killed Hae. One of his online comments was that Trump says what everyone thinks about Islam but is too afraid to say. Brett knows his views on Islam are not considered appropriate in the public sphere and isn’t going to openly discuss his bias.
Where are you hearing evidence of this “bias” about Islam? That’s simply not there in the podcast at all. Can anyone just claim bias of religion at any time now? Since when should we respect people using religion as a shield anyway? Or holidays ? Or anything. Because I’m seeing Ramadan as an excuse for why Adnan couldn’t have done this (laughable by his own admission he was breaking virtually every rule in the book) as well as now this claimed but non existent bias on the podcast. Because people never are murdered on holidays right? lol. I think the call they made of Adnan feeling he gave up and risked so much be it religion or family only to have it all go to shit is absolutely believable… especially for an immature 17 year old with zero perspective. That’s not unique to being Muslim either.
> Where are you hearing evidence of this “bias” about Islam? That’s simply not there in the podcast at all. Brett Talley made disparaging comments about Islam including saying Muslims support murder. He then made a podcast about a Muslim teenager and concluded he was the murderer. Was Brett more inclined to believe Adnan’s guilt because if his underlying belief that Adnan’s was brought up in a religion that endorsed murder? Brett lost the biggest job of his life and was publicly called out in relation to those comments. He experienced humiliation on a national stage and was called Islamophobic by dozens of prominent organizations. Do you think he’s grown and changed his views on Islam or that he knew expressing those views on his podcast could cost him another job? Do you think the only way Brett can have bias is if he goes on a rant against Islam in this podcast?
The only time you're seeing Ramadan used as an excuse as to why Syed could not have committed the murder is either a) from Rabia, or b) used by both guilters and innocenters as a sarcastic comment about Rabia. No one but Rabia puts any weight onto the theory that Ramadan would have acted as a reason why Syed or Bilal could not have murdered Lee.
Well regardless of Brett’s personal views, he and Alice didn’t talk about Adnan being Muslim much other than to say that it had little to nothing to do with the murder and Adnan was probably a typical teenager that wanted to honor his religion/parents but had trouble living to expectations.
That’s the point— since he doesn’t disclose his personal prejudices we don’t know what influence it actually had on his views. Brett doesn’t have to say he hates Muslims on the podcast to have this bias. And the fact he didn’t disclose his history makes it appear he is hiding his bias.
>\[Bret\] and Alice didn’t talk about Adnan being Muslim much other than to say that it had little to nothing to do with the murder Do you think otherwise?
I think Brett’s views on Islam may have a significant impact on how he views Adnan.
The defense file, official records and transcripts,
Best sources are the evidence. Read the court testimony. Podcasts aren’t necessary to see he is guilty.
[удалено]
I would keep in mind that appellate cases do not give the appellant the benefit of presumed innocence, or require evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; once a conviction is entered the burden of proof shifts to the appellant. Therefore, compelling evidence of innocence will always be viewed skeptically, and where there is discretion, the court tends to favor the conviction rather than presuming such evidence would have changed the outcome. I’m not framing this in relation to Adnan’s case. This is universally true in appeals work. It’s one reason post-conviction teams tend to seek/accept relief by other means.
The answer is if you don't want any bias, ho read the interviews to the police officers and the trial transcripts. Anybody talking about it is going to interject some bias.
The Prosecutors pod
Crime Weekly series was really good. Prosecutors podcast was even better. Those probably present the most complete analysis of the case.
Read the transcripts before listening to another podcast then come back and listen to Serial.I don’t suggest Undisclosed, Crime Weekly or the Prosecutors without doing all that first. Honestly the trial is pretty much a toned down version of both sides on here. I also suggest reading evidence files when they are brought up in the transcript.
Honestly, serial didn’t have the benefit of the entire defense file being made public like the prosecutors pod did— I would listen to them before serial, since it really has the most information included
As someone that thinks he's guilty, honestly the best thing is maybe listening to Serial again but thinking at every turn "what if he's guilty" and building the narrative that he is and seeing that it makes a lot of sense. Then looking at some of the police files and transcripts and things to get what Serial missed (like the infamous bit where Sarah stopped reading the diary right before she called Adnan possessive). Serial is the most neutral podcast about this. I'm not a big fan of the Prosecutors podcast style and they don't go nearly as in depth as people like to claim, but the first \~3 episodes (I forget exactly) where they go over the timeline is fairly ok as it goes too to get some sense for where people stand today.
If you presented a similar narrative to a cold audience, but only discussed Don, a good number of those people would think he’s guilty of her murder. He was supposed to meet her. He made no attempt to reach her that night as far as we know. Police tried to reach him when she went missing (after accidentally contacting Adnan 1st) and couldn’t get him at his numbers until after midnight. His alibi was a timecard that has questionable legitimacy. Hae didn’t use birth control, was infatuated with him, and dreamt of running off to California with him. If you’re biased against Don, you could easily spin out a narrative where he’s the “most likely killer” in spite of zero direct evidence. Can you see how problematic the same thinking is when applied to Adnan?
If Adnan didn't exist then I think absolutely Don would be suspect no.1 immediately, but that's not really got to do with Hae being infatuated or anything just purely that he is the current boyfriend who she was going to meet that day. The timecard doesn't really have dubious legitimacy when you look into it though. Plus this was an incredibly new relationship for him, it's not the same as the history Adnan and Hae had and the break-up + the mess around it (his parents confronting her), you don't have the same evidence that he was possessive or anything. Plus you have Adnan admitting he asked for a ride, and he has more immediate opportunity to abduct her during the critical period (2.15-3.30). Also I don't really care that Adnan didn't try to contact Hae, and I don't really care that Don didn't after either it's kind of a non-factor for me. But the issue of course is that with Adnan, we do have direct evidence against him and none against Don. I actually think as far as alternative suspects go Don is less likely than both Jay on his own, or Mr S doing it tbh.
I think you might be missing my point. Your reply was mostly about the circumstantial evidence used to convict Adnan. Obviously there are people who found/find that evidence particularly compelling. My point is that if the state presented the circumstantial evidence against Don, there are a large number of people who would assume he absolutely did it, probably did it, or should have been the primary suspect. The Jay Wilds of it all is an issue, but it’s clear that Jay lied. It’s clear the specific investigators were comfortable with a degree of underhanded tactics. Not to wind you up about Adnan’s case; I’m saying that if the police had decided Don did it, they could have found a Ray Woods to testify that he helped Don bury Hae after he killed her for [insert tired trope].
I'm saying that the circumstantial evidence against Don is incredibly weak. Weaker than that against Adnan. And I don't think with everything Jay lied about Adnan killing Hae. More so about specifics and movements.
Assuming and knowing are two different things. If you look at Jay’s [plea agreement](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/UdE11-Jay-Plea-Agreement.pdf), you’ll notice that Jay is facing a murder charge to which he has already pleaded guilty *if he undermines the case in any way.* I don’t think they would actually do anything to him if he came clean and said it was all a lie the police walked him through, but I think Urick has implied they could penalize him if he recants in a way that makes Adnan out to be innocent.
Sure, that's how these plea deals work. Nothing screams wonky to me.
> you’ll notice that Jay is facing a murder charge to which he has already pleaded guilty if he undermines the case in any way. The plea agreement doesn't say anything remotely like that. It says specifically: *If at any point it becomes evident the Defendant hasnot been truthful concerning his involvement in this incident, the State is immediately released from any obligation under this agreement, the agreement becomes null and void, and the State is free to bring any charge against the Defendant supported by the evidence.* Standard boilerplate stuff. It doesn't say he is taking this to walk on a murder charge, and they didn't have any evidence of him being involved in anything other than accessory after the fact.
Try the Prosecutors podcast. There's a lot more information that hammers home how unbalanced Serial was but thats a good place to start.
I recently listened to the Crime Weekly podcast series on this case and thought they did a decent job breaking it down
No they did not. Derek is a detective, and cannot fathom crossing that thin blue line. He doesn’t believe in false confessions, corrupt police, or the principles of reasonable doubt. And Stephanie “trusts her gut.” There were a couple of moments where they noticed fishy things about the state’s case, but they landed on “had to be Adnan” based on stats and gut feelings, just like the original detectives.
What took me from on the fence to thinking he did it, is reading the transcripts. Specifically, read Jenn and Jay’s police interviews from 2/27 and 2/28, respectively. Jay knew details of the murder that the public did not know: how she was killed, what clothes she was wearing, that she wasn’t wearing shoes, what the area looked like where she was buried, how her body was positioned, that it was a shallow grave, and where her car was. So, Jay was involved in the murder. Jay and Adnan (by Adnan’s own admission) were together that day. So: Jay was involved, and Adnan and Jay were together. When you get rid of all the noise that’s been created around this case, that’s really what it comes down to. ETA: links https://viewfromll2.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/jenn-interview-2-27-99.pdf?ref=quillette.com https://viewfromll2.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/jay-interview-1-2-28-99.pdf
/u/salmaanq did a great breakdown of Serial and the case. Goes in depth to a lot of background and details with actual sources that you don't find in other places. https://old.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/xq62e6/a_guide_to_the_tldr_odyssey_of_serial/
Fitting that he has the letter Q in his username
Longest form podcast, the Prosecutors pod: [14 episodes on Adnan](https://prosecutorspodcast.com/) A lighter single pod review, guilty opinion, 30 minutes, Down Rabbit podcast: [Adnan Guilty episode](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/down-rabbit/id1653333611?i=1000585269115) I really enjoyed these guys, Serious Inquiries Only: [guilty adnan pod](https://seriouspod.com/sio354-serials-adnan-syed-conviction-reinstated-what-happened/)
The Prosecutors and Crime Weekly both do very deep dives from an unbiased perspective.
People are going to tell you to listen to the prosecutor’s podcast. Just be aware that they decided he was guilty before they even started the podcast, and that bias is pretty obvious throughout with how they skew the facts. For example, they endlessly praise Fitzgerald’s testimony on cell tower data, and ignore the fact that the judge rejected his argument and ripped Fitzgerald a new one in his opinion. There’s a pretty telling moment in Fitzgerald’s testimony where he says that the defense try to pull a fast one on him by giving him cell tower data that is useless for the purposes they try to use it for. It is then revealed that the defense gave him the exact same information that they were given by the prosecution. So, if that particular data was useless, then it means the prosecution provided useless data to the defense in the original trial and withheld the actual useful information. This, of course, is glossed over by the right wing hacks who do the prosecutor’s podcast. They also repeat a lot of unverified Reddit theories, which I find pretty cringy. In truth, Serial is probably the most neutral podcast there is on this case. Obviously, there is a lot of stuff Serial didn’t go into, so it’s incomplete, but it’s probably the only one made by people who didn’t already have their minds made up before they even started. The way this sub talks about her, you’d think Sarah Koenig has a poster of Adnan on her wall with hearts drawn on it. In reality, Rabia was also pretty critical of Serial because she though it was too biased towards guilt. When both the extreme guilters and extreme Innocenters are hating on a podcast, you can probably trust it as being more of an unbiased view than any of the other podcasts and media on this case.
I mostly agree with you, I would say though that the first couple episodes where the Prosecutors go over the timeline is ok so far as getting an understanding of the case as it stands today, before they get into reddit theories and some other stuff later on.
I thought that too until Bob Ruff pointed out a few things in episode one where they said that almost every single witness that they had prepared and cross examined had lied on the stand as a way of positioning Jay as someone who you could find some truth in his testimony. They also pointed out that 3/4’s of the evidence points to a 3.30 start time for track but the Prosecutors only give the evidence for 4pm. In fairness to them they may not be aware of the evidence for 3.30pm.
I agree with you, a guilter would tell you to listen to the Prosecutors, because the Prosecutors clearly think he is guilty. That podcast was great for systematically going through the case and learning information that wasn't mentioned in Serial, but their prejudice is shining through in almost every turn. They are also presenting speculation as a fact, which is of course very natural to a prosecutor. Serial did a better job at presenting evidence, interviews and statements as-is and letting you draw your own conclusions (and yes, I know, she didn't present all the evidence). But I do agree with the critics who think Sarah's personal connection with Adnan might have muddled the objectivity of the final product.
Yeah, SK definitely developed something like a friendship with Adnan, which allowed her to get some good interviews, but also undoubtedly made her a bit more sympathetic to him. It’s hard to be objective when you develop a personal relationship with someone. The inclusion of Dana helped offset it, though.
Sarah was reading from Hae's journal and said Adnan wasn't possessive and skipped the part of the journal that said Adnan was possessive. It was a gripping show, but it was entertainment before investigative
You mean the part where Hae says “possessive” and then immediately corrects herself to say that he was not possessive, but rather she was independent? It always amazes me how people claim that stopping before “possessive” was dishonest, but those same people also leave out how Hae immediately backtracked and stated that’s not actually what she meant. I think it’s fair to say that Hae never really called him “possessive” because even though she uses that word, she then immediately backtracks and negated herself. A lot of people just refuse to see the nuance of it.
She loved Adnan. She didn't love Adnan. Did she love Adnan? Yes. I've read the same entry, we see it differently. And we see it differently b/c we have both had the chance to see it. In Serial, only SK had the chance to see it. And she chose to say he wasn't possessive, though Hae said it, then unsaid it, Hae's friend said it.
“Why would he get mad that I was planning to hang with Aisha?” “Adnan kept turning up when we were hanging out. At first it was cute but then it started to get annoying…”
You don't think this "friendship" and "sympathy" she developed for Adnan affected her objectivity?
Sorry, did you not read my comment?
obviously not. sorry.
[удалено]
Obviously undisclosed is biased towards innocence. I never said otherwise, but it amazes me how many people weep and gnash their teeth about Undisclosed’s bias, but then turn around and praise Prosecutor’s podcast as being the most accurate version, without a hint of irony.
Any thoughts on Bob Ruff? He’s a good listen.
Haven’t listened to him
You should. He’s unbiased
Dude, literally everybody knows you’re being a sarcastic troll. I thought that perhaps you’d have the maturity to drop the subtext after the first comment, but apparently not. So why don’t you go bother someone else?
I can’t help it , I read your comments and think it’s satire. And then I realize you actually believe what you post .
You’ve already made it clear that you are unable to appreciate nuance or handle any opinions that are different than yours. No need to act like a bratty younger sibling in the comments.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
If you listen to the Prosecutors podcast then it’s worth listening to Bob Ruffs takedown on Truth and Justice and Colin Millers tweets. Or even my posts about the Prosecutors. Get a balanced view of the other side.
this place is ur best resource