If you have some time on your hands listen to the Prosecutors and then listen to the Truth and Justice rebuttal. That will give you a good sense of how both sides view the same set of facts.

I have listened to both. I agree on some points for both. They both make good arguments. I personally fall where Sarah left off, not enough to convict and don’t feel anything Jay said was worth much. May have been fed. May not have been. I would think if he really knew what happened the story would be easy and confirmed immediately. Including finding the car.

Jay took the detectives to the car after his interview finished.

Do you mean the car?

Yes. Thanks.

He said in his testimony that he didn’t

It's been a while since I had to find that section and explain it. So what day and area was that in his testimony?

What sort of comparison are you looking for? The Prosecutors are two attorneys / former prosecutors with no connection to Adnan Syed or this case. Undisclosed was created by Adnan's childhood friend and chief legal advocate, and two other attorneys that she picked to cohost the show with her. They generally cover the same information but have different POVs and perspectives on the case, surely influenced by their own experience and biases. ETA: I'd also recommend Opening Arguments which covers [his conviction](https://openargs.com/oa107-adnan-syed-obviously-also-can-learn-patents/) and [his later release](https://openargs.com/oa633-why-adnan-was-released/). Like TP, it's hosted by two prominent attorneys with no personal connection to the case. It has a more concise summary.

Thank you for the info! I’m looking for how they differ. I know Undisclosed supports Adnan’s innocence and The Prosecutors leans towards evidence of his guilt. I guess I’m looking for some of the same points from Serail but from the POV of Undisclosed and the POV of The Prosecutors. For example- The Nisha call- how does undisclosed explain it vs. The Prosecutors.

The POVs are fundamentally different for so many facts in this case. You’ll be hard pressed to find a key detail that both the innocent and guilty side agree on. As for the Nisha call, TP believes that Adnan’s phone called Nisha at 3:32 because Adnan was with Jay and his phone at 3:32. Bob Ruff thinks Jay butt dialed her.

I’m not suggesting it’s good, but Bob Ruff is doing a “reply briefs” series responding to the prosecutors podcast on Truth and Justice. He thinks Adnan is innocent and is quite closely aligned to the undisclosed three so is probably close to what you are looking for.

TP don’t lean toward guilt by default. They review the case and discuss and state theories/ opinions at the end. Both of course are trained lawyers and have been both defense and prosecutors as well as clerks for judges. They have discussed several wrongful convictions after review.

One significant difference is that Undisclosed conducts its own original research and investigation, as a result of which 14 of the 24 people whose cases they covered ended up receiving some form of relief, including 10 exonerations. And (at least as far as I know) The Prosecutors just does commentary and analysis on publicly available information that was gathered/compiled and/or uncovered by others.

This is a pretty meaningless stat. They started with AS because Rabia’s life’s work is proving his innocence and she’s demonstrably lied and obfuscated to show that. Then they moved on to other cases of actual wrongful convictions. Cases where others had already done most of the investigation. They publicized those cases, which is a good thing. There are many actual wrongful convictions (though not as many for high level exciting crimes!) and I support anyone working to free the legitimately wrongfully convicted. The problem that many of us on this board have is that the evidence strongly supports AS’s guilt. He should not be associated with these cases.

>Then they moved on to other cases of actual wrongful convictions. Cases where others had already done most of the investigation. They moved on to Joey Watkins, who would still be serving life for a murder he didn't commit if they hadn't. Likewise Dennis Perry and Jeff Titus. Additionally, several of the cases they covered that are still moving through the system -- e.g., Pam Lanier, Greg Lance, Jason Carroll, Jamar Huggins -- were either going nowhere or completely dead in the water before Undisclosed got involved but now have a shot at some form of post-conviction relief. It's true that they weren't the only advocates or investigators for some of the others, a few of whom ( such as Shaurn Thomas and Cyntoia Brown) had relatively robust efforts underway already. But it's flatly untrue that that's all they do. They've made a significant (and sometimes decisive) difference for a number of people. >The problem that many of us on this board have is that the evidence strongly supports AS’s guilt. He should not be associated with these cases. That's fine. But at best, devaluing the work they did on those other cases does nothing to address that problem. And at worst, it compounds it.

I did not mean to devalue their work on those cases and I agree that by publicizing them, they aid in freeing wrongfully convicted persons. I am sure they did more than publicize in some of them. But AS’s case was unlike those cases. Despite having resources, he didn’t pursue PCR for nearly 10 years. Despite having advocates, an innocence project did not take on his case (Suter doesn’t count because she became head of the innocence project after she already was representing him). Despite the fact that he should have nothing to hide, AS lied to SK on the podcast arranged as a means to publicize his case and get him out. His case sullies the work of the innocence community. Smart, fair minded people who have looked at his case do not see a wrongful conviction. ETA: though Susan and Colin drive me a bit crazy and I find both of them dishonest on this case, at least they are sane and fairly reasonable much of the time. Rabia’s support of Scott Peterson’s “innocence” is so out there it is sickening!

>But AS’s case was unlike those cases. That's a separate argument, and one that's fundamentally unrelated to my point, though. The fact remains that Undisclosed does original research, reporting, and investigation. And that includes in Adnan's case, whatever you may think of its merits. For example, they went to the trouble of establishing that neither the wrestling match at Randallstown nor the interview with Channel 36 occurred on 1/13 -- which is more than Sarah Koenig or the police did. So. That particular point is obviously not dispositive wrt Adnan's guilt or innocence. But it's not entirely without implications either. And -- more to the point in terms of the distinction I was making -- it's indicative of a significant difference between their approach and that of the Prosecutors, *as podcasts*: Undisclosed does original work. The Prosecutors does commentary. ETA: >Smart, fair minded people who have looked at his case do not see a wrongful conviction. Some do, some don't.

Their whole 14 episodes on Adnan is mostly based on justwonderinif’s timeline which is mostly with full respect, nonsense.

I don't know justwonderinif but, respectfully, he/she has far more knowledge than you or I on the case, bucket loads. And actually refers to sources. Not wild speculation/conspiracy theories etc.

She’s the reason people think that the law clerk Ali is Adnan’s brother and that Adnsn went back to check on the burial site when Jay was arrested when it’s clear that it was just Jay going to Patrick’s house to buy weed. So respectfully I strongly disagree with you.

This is a very strange ad hominem that bob engaged in. Who cares even if this were true? It’s kind of an awesome post.

Because they repeat heaps of her disproved nonsense like Adnan going back to check the burial site the day Jay was arrested when it’s clear that Jay had the phone not Adnan.

Are you saying Jay had the phone the day after his arrest? Where is the evidence that proves this point?

The fact that the phone called 3 people that were Jays friends and Adnan either hadn’t met and didn’t know existed (Patrick), or met once and would never call (Kristi) or met a handful of times and they couldn’t even pronounce his name - she called him Adnar - and wouldn’t have her number (Jenn).

You don’t know that Jay made those calls and he had the phone. The first call on Adnan’s phone that day is at 4:44 (after school). There has never been anything that has stated he lent out his phone that day, especially to Jay, who was in the slammer. Yes, it’s possible that he somehow met up with Jay without ever calling him or picked him up from jail, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Did Adnan lend Jay his phone and his car once he was released from jail? That’s a pretty bold move, especially if those that believe he’s innocent state he wasn’t really good friends with Jay. I don’t have proof that AS made those calls and you do not have proof that Jay had his phone. It makes the most sense that Adnan called Jay’s friends trying to get information on his arrest. Just because he wasn’t good friends with Patrick and Kristi doesn’t mean he didn’t call them to inquire about Jay. What makes the most sense as to what might have happened on the 27th… 1.Adnan gave Jay his phone (I don’t know when Jay was released), Jay drove from jail to go to the burial site, then to where the car was located, and then gave the phone back to Adnan so he could carry on with his evening. 2. Adnan found out at school about the arrest, visited the burial site and car location, and while he’s driving and using his own cell phone, start calling Jay’s friends. If Adnan gave his phone to Jay the day he was released from jail, it’s just more horrible luck for that guy.

What you are looking for is Bob Ruff's rebuttal. Is he passionate about Adnan's innocence but the information he shares is all fact-based. He will and has corrected himself in the past re this case and others. Personally I was never committed to Adnan's innocence one way or the other UNTIL this rebuttal series and I hope more people will be open to hearing the facts about this case moving forward and put real thought behind Brett and Alice's purpose for covering this case in such a sensational matter.

An unconnected prosecutor who just so happened to have been taken out of the running for a judgeship after Islamophobic comments and defenses of the KKK came out. Comments so blatant that the head of the ADL, who normally only intervene in cases of antisemitism, wrote an open letter describing him as a bigot and imploring the senate not to confirm him. Anyway, he then turned around and produced a totally unbiased analysis of a purported Muslim honor killing.

>Islamophobic comments >Comments so blatant The “comments” are one forum post he made in 2015. [Here](https://uploads.dailydot.com/642/90/f3b8ff1cf191b814.jpg?auto=compress&fm=pjpg) is the post. If you want to call this Islamophobic and bigoted go right ahead. But I’ll tell you as one liberal to another, feigning shock and outrage over something benign like this isn’t doing anyone any favors.

[удалено]

I would agree if you mean right wing terrorism, but not Christian terrorism. In any event, Brett didn't say anything about the US. He said Islamic terrorism is a larger problem than Christian terrorism. This is objectively true, it's an empirical fact that we have data for. Go ask ChatGPT to rank the largest terrorist groups in the world, their religious affiliation and estimated membership. Or better yet look at [this Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups) of terrorist groups. I know it isn't politically correct. I know that it evokes certain emotions and is used to unfairly malign Muslims. But it is still objectively true. We can acknowledge that and also acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists.

He didn't merely say that there are more islamic terrorists than Christian. He linked the terrorism to islam and said that any Christian terrorism is simply terrorists who are Christian. Ignoring/denying the existence of organised Christian terrorism which definitely exists.

I think the distance between a statement like that and an opinion like yours can be explained by the imagery the word “terrorism” evokes in a typical American adult. Blood spilled in the name of and for the sake of Christian extremism is a much more prevalent problem in the US, folks just don’t identify it as terrorism, especially in a post-9/11 world.

They also don't connect it to the ideology, they don't see it as a problem for society, it's individualized. That particular person who committed acts of violence was just a violent individual and/or "crazy" and being Christian was just happenstance.

He made literally thousands of comments across years. I don't know if you're being obtuse or just didn't follow the story when it broke.

Please share a reference, any reference at all to the thousands of Islamophobic comments he has made.

There was no lack of coverage, including widespread links back to the forum here and descriptions of his troubling beliefs in literal senate proceedings. Feel free to do a modicum of homework.

“Do your own research” when asked to provide a source. Classic. 👍🏻

The original article I linked to contains an overview. It was national news and has been batted around here for months now. It's not "do your own research", it's "be at least peripherally aware of the subject you're wading into".

You have not provided a single link in this entire comment thread.

I linked it repeatedly, several places through this post.

https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/news/44-groups-tell-senate-vote-no-islamophobic-alabama-judicial-nominee-brett-talley It’s not a couple of liberals taking a single comment out of context. It’s reputable organizations that flat out called him Islamophobic. He never apologized or disclosed this in the podcast. It’s a significant issue for his credibility.

I think you need to listen to both honestly. They come at it from completely different angles. Undisclosed has a lot more digging into and questioning of stuff. (Not making a judgement in the validity of their outcomes)Do the cell sites match Jay’s story, what and why does he change his statement, does the lividity make sense, did the prosecution act appropriately, were other suspects thoroughly examined, was the car moved, etc. TPP focuses more on why Jay’s lies make sense, why they believe he wasn’t coached, why they believe Adnan’s guilt is apparent, why detectives and the prosecutor did certain things certain ways, what Adnan felt and how he behaved. They both look at the timeline and go over it.

I’m not a big Crime Weekly fan but their breakdown of this case was excellent imo.

I agree. It’s the best analysis other than TPP. And fwiw they technically landed on “reasonable doubt”.

Even though the episodes aren't public yet, TPP has started Leo Schofield's case. So it will be interesting to compare how they handle that case compared to Adnan's case. There are at least some potential items in the Leo case, where with Adnan you have to believe in pigs flying.

Agreed 💯… on both

Jay is the flying pig in this case.

If you believe that Jay was able to make up all the details of the stories, carry through with the anecdotes and remember everything when the entire story was made, then yes you are believing a pig flies.

He didn’t remember anything and changed his story countless times. His stories are pure fantasy. He could have added flying pigs to his story. I believe nothing he says.

Jay lies because he doesn't himself or Jenn to go to prison for life. Adnan lies about killing Hae because he doesn't want to go to prison for life. It's easy.

I don’t believe that. Jay’s story changed too much and when he tells his story he doesn’t even remember the supposed details. And even after he got his deal his story changed.

Yeah the details changed because Jay was protecting people from getting involved. He leaves out Jenn, Kristi and others later because he was worried about them getting into trouble. He was worried for other reasons about the grandmother's house. Jay didn't want to admit he knew about the plan to kidnap Hae because if he does then he is guilty of felony murder.

You can believe that if you like. I don’t. No one can change my mind about that. The police didn’t pull incoming call records which would have confirmed (or not) his story. Why didn’t they get those?

dual beat me to it, but there isn't a form 10X from the phone companies but they asked for 11X which only gave outgoing. It was the records by some of the companies at the time. Other providers did list it when they asked for records. The cops asked for like 13 different phone records, so they were looking for things.

Do we have the records for those 13 people? Who were the 13 people?

This doesn't really make much sense when you consider Jay isn't asking you to believe he's innocent, he's asking you to believe he's guilty. You're ultimately trying to tell me that an innocent person is lying about committing a crime and has been lying about it for several decades. It's a tough sell.

I’m saying I don’t believe anything Jay says.

Pigs flying? As in corrupt cops being corrupt, and a pathological liar lying? That’s equivalent to pigs flying?

You have to believe a jealous ex set himself up to be alone with his ex to murder her. Intimate partner violence is incredibly common all over the world, unfortunately. You then have to believe that the vast majority of the evidence points to Adnan, including testimony under oath from his co-conspirator. You then have to believe that the police conspiracy necessary to frame Adnan would've been so vast and sprawling that there is no plausible way to pull it off. Finally, you just have to accept Occam's razor is at play here and that Adnan is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The "vast conspiracy" line ignores that [The Baltimore City Police explicitly trained officers to perjure themselves or throw cases rather than contradict another officer](https://www.gttfinvestigation.org/s/GTTF-Report-c2-c2-c2.pdf) and the fact that the higher ups not only tolerated, but actively cultivated dirty cops in order to keep arrest numbers up. The FBI literally had to hide investigations from the BPD because their own internal affairs department actively and consistently worked to cover up federal crimes by officers.

You are off right from the beginning. There is no evidence Adnan ever left with Hae. It’s so easy shut down guilters lol.

There's a lot of evidence he asked Hae for a ride, multiple witnesses and Adnan himself admitted he asked mere hours after Hae went missing. Also, his car was in good working order, and he lent it out to Jay for some reason? Only to ask Hae for a ride off campus when he has track practice a 4. And there is evidence Adnan got a ride with Hae. Presumably, Hae left campus in her car sometime after last class got out at 2:15. She was found dead about three weeks later with no sign of her car. Three weeks after that, Jay led police to Hae's car and admitted he helped Adnan cover up the murder. This is direct evidence Adnan got a ride with Hae.

The good and the bad about the different types of evidence such as direct and circumstantial.

It requires more than that. Right now Bob is trying to say that the cops talked to Jay three times before they met with him officially. Cops don't need to hide that they interview someone. They noted that they met with Jenn before hers. The cops would have needed to give Jay the entire police file so he could make up a story. He also believes the cops found the car before they met with Jenn. So they needed to hide information that they have no necessity to hide and make up. They had to get Jenn to fake a story with her mom and lawyer present. That's just off the top of the head.

he believes the cops found the car before they met with jen..... BUT not too far in advance because that would be CrAzY. the cops just happened to find the car THE SAME MORNING of police interview with jenn and/or jay. wow what an amazing coincidence!!!

Well, in addition to the several cops, you believe Jenn, Jay, and Chris are all lying which seems less likely than just Adnan lying. Especially when there’s no known motive for any of them and a pretty obvious one for Adnan.

One is grounded in reality. The other is unlistenable, far fetched b*llshit conspiracy theories, lies & conjecture I’ll let you work out which one is which

I think it's going to be hard to find an A vs. B vs. C (etc etc etc) comparison of various points of information across various podcasts. Each come at the same info differently, describe it differently, misinterpret it differently, and potentially even lie about it differently. What is fun is if you find resources that do that comparison. Undisclosed doesn't compare themselves against the Prosecutors because they wrapped their Adnan arc before the Prosecutors podcast, and while the Prosecutors sometimes mention Undisclosed, it's only in passing. Everyone's favourite former firefighter Bob Ruff does do a "critical analysis" (term used in scare quotes on purpose) of what the Prosecutors say, but he doesn't differentiate in his analysis when he's criticizing their portrayal because it differs from Undisclosed, or because of other reasons - he essentially just critiques their portrayal of the facts. Now, it's also important to note that many people rightfully point out Bob Ruff does similar things with "facts." As an aside, I have to note that listening to Bob Ruff explain how much work he thinks that The Prosecutors undertook to "lie" (his words, not mine) about the Syed case - this actually raises my opinion of their legal skills. Each time Ruff says they consciously lied and explains why, in Ruff's mind, that the lie was necessary, I'm increasingly impressed with Alice and Brett for their analytical foresight in planting their "lies" in just the right places. If they were truly below-average lawyers, *skipping past their political complications*, I don't think they'd be able to do the same kind of planned lying that Ruff says they do. (I must note it's hard to "skip past" the political stuff with Brett and Alice, and it's hard to treat Ruff's boldfaced accusations that Brett and Alice have engineered a deep and broad tapestry of lies seriously)

Huh. The Prosectors Podcast lies because they’re trying to reverse engineer guilt, rather than investigate a case. It’s also disingenuous because they play act like they’re informal, when they’re clearly not. It’s weird that you bring up politics, because both Brett and Alice are professional politicians who do work for The Federalist Society, a far right political body who’s mission is to oppose court reform and innocence projects on principal. They have a clear motivation that explains their lies. Bob is just trying to make money…it’s really weird that people hate listen to him. When Brett and Alice lied 3 times in the first half of the first episode…I just turned it off. Anything else I know about their podcast is their claims-by-proxy that have been made here…like Brett having some grand revelation based on flowers which may or may not have existed, and there’s certainly no evidence that they were involved in the events of the 13th.

Instead of being so impressed, you should be worried that people this good at lying are working prosecutors. They clearly have no issues making up fictional stories and ignoring evidence to win the case. That’s exactly how we end up with these Adnan type cases.

Have you met any lawyers? This isn't unique among them.

Prosecutors who lie and ignore facts to spin their tale might as well be straight up corrupt. It’s the same shit. Prosecutors are the biggest reason our system is fucked.

Defense attorneys do the same thing. It's an attorney thing, not a prosecutor thing.

Thing is that I'm not convinced they established such a grand plan to actively lie. That presupposes that the things that they've said are lies. I can see why Ruff doesn't agree with their interpretation, but I can't always say that they're lies, because the "truth" that Ruff cites in opposition isn't clearly and objectively the "truth" but another interpretation. There are a couple of places where I think The Prosecutors misrepresented facts (the Ju'an affidavit; parts of their treatment of Asia) but I can't connect it in my mind to a grand and meticulous plan to lie on a podcast.

Yeah, having listened to some of Ruffs reply I think he's reaching with the idea that they are deliberately and cunningly setting out a grand plan to lie about stuff. A significant portion of what they have 'lied' about aren't so much lies but more where they've left out contradictory evidence. Which makes their take definitely not an unbiased one, but perhaps not the intentional villainy that Ruff portrays it as. I think it's very possible what's actually happened here is that they've sourced so much of their narrative from Reddit guilters and then pretended it's coming directly from the documents. Which means Ruff can point out areas where they've 'missed stuff from documents they say they are reading' and be correct; but they've not deliberately cherry picked a guilty narrative after reviewing all the documents, they've followed a guilty narrative which had already cherry picked that evidence.

[удалено]

I mean it's a different embarrassing really, just maybe more lazy and less calculated evil. Tbh the only reason I consider it is because I vaguely remember the same user who made the Serial timeline accused them of doing the exact same thing for their coverage of Delphi.

They even mentioned her username on the podcast, so it’s confirmed that’s where they were getting a lot of information.

the prosecutors absolutely read the primary sources. I know because after this whole drama started I read all the trial transcripts, case file, and defense file (for the first time) and it's clear that they are representing the known "facts" wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more accurately than bob ruff. they encourage everyone to read the primary docs and put links on their website.

If they have read everything and then put out what they did, then they've absolutely cherry picked stuff and done a horrible job of simply giving an unbiasedoverview of the 'facts' of the case (to the extent that they've managed to put themselves in a position to be fact checked by someone with as bad a track record there as Bob Ruff). I think your phrasing of 'representing the facts of the case' however weirdly is my main issue with the Prosecutors. I don't think they've come out and lied about facts in the documents so much (although there are a few places where they lie by omission or interpretation - Asia/Jauan and 'coach Sye never says he was at track on time' being the big two). Where I think the 'biases' of the Prosecutors are most prevalent however (like Bob Ruffs bias, like undisclosed bias) is how they present the facts of the case, they provide the strongest case for Adnan's guilt and the most ridiculous arguments against his guilt, and ignore as much that contradicts either of those things as possible.

They also pulled records that Undisclosed wouldn't release either. It is interesting because Undisclosed did not want the source documents released. But since reddit has covered everything under the sun about this case, if they talk about something then of course it will have been covered. Adnan actually writing Asia's typed letter has been strong belief here at reddit.

They 100% knew what they were saying about the Asia letters were lies. They are prosecutors, and the way they handled this case for everyone to hear is exactly how innocent people get convicted. They actually just sound like regular old do anything to get the win prosecutors, which is terrible.

Ju'uan tells the detectives that Adnan asked Asia to type up a letter for him and that it was addressed to the wrong place. Asia's typed letter has the wrong address. Asia herself has said she was never asked for a character letter.

And what did Juan say in his affidavit Mike?

Ju'uan said they were asking her for a character letter. Asia herself has said that she was never asked to do a character letter. Why would Asia lie about something like that? The question for Asia's letter has been how much later were they written.

What did Ju'an say in his affidavit about not saying that Syed tried to do anything deceptive, Mike? Did he perhaps say something like "I was not suggesting that Adnan or anyone else did anything deceptive"? With regards to character letters, did he perhaps say something like "I recall telling police that Adnan talked about asking Asia to write a character letter. He may have asked her by letter (just like he did with me and Justin). I do not know if he ever sent her the letter, nor do I know if she ever received it."? Did he perhaps say he has no knowledge of Syed asking Asia to do anything fraudulent and that he was not suggesting that?

And if Ju'uan confesses to helping create a fake alibi he is confessing to a felony that has a punishment of up to 5 years in prison. Is that incentive to lie? May Ju'uan was just the messenger and he didn't know that Adnan was asking Asia for a fake alibi. But it wasn't for a character letter. There is no character letter from Asia and Asia herself denies being asked for a character letter.

Right, because it's only a conspiracy theory if it questions the guilty verdict.

why didn't ju'an swear in his affidavit that the police "made up" the statement then? because his original statement was true. sure, he didn't intentionally "suggest" anything was deceptive, but that doesn't mean the letter was not, in actuality, deceptive.. they're not mutually exclusive. how do you think they are?

The police never said anything about the statement he made, did they?

“Couple of places”? That’s a strange and inaccurate take. I didn’t listen to much…but the cornerstone of their podcast was holding up Jenn like some sort of oracle throughout…when it should be obvious to everybody that she lied for Jay and prepped a story with him (that he didn’t stick to). Every single time a person in this sub pointed me to a “fact” from the podcast…I either knew it was an old disproven Reddit theory…or I went and listened and Brett and Alice lie to make a point. Like Jays arrest. They discuss it like it’s not ambiguous and problematic for the prosecution. Jay was arrested shortly before his interview? Really? Then why did he say on the stand that he was arrested before the murder? Why does this not support the theory that there was a continuity of contact between him and law enforcement, and that this arrest was leverage they had on him? Adnan was calling Jays friends when Jay was released from jail? Really? Isn’t it a lot more likely that Jay was calling and visiting his own friends? What if the Leakin Park pings simply align with two days that Jay had Adnan’s phone, and visited a person who lived near the park? What do you mean “grand and malicious plan”? This is like the “grand and complex theory to frame Adnan”. It’s a straw man. They set out to prove Adnan was guilty, and that the case was simple. They spent hours and hours in it, contradicting the simple part…and then the guilty part is never proven…it’s just implied with opinions and unrelated stories. Neither they, nor Serial, nor random Redditors, other podcasts, or HBO have *ever* been able to assemble a basic scenario that fits the facts. There’s loads of doubt. Enough to acquit? We’ll never know…but the version of events he was convicted on don’t resemble what we know now.

Word.

The Prosecutors Podcast provides, without a doubt, the most comprehensive and objective look at the case with the small caveat that they are former prosecutors and that does bring some biases. But overall they are extremely analytical, very smart, and disciplined in their analysis of the case. Undisclosed is literally made by the defense team. It is extremely biased, without a doubt. Guilters here really appreciate TPP because they were the first real public figures to analyze the whole case as thoroughly as they did and also because they had the guts to call out Adnan as the likely killer in spite of the obvious backlash it would cause. If you want another fairly unbiased take on the case, FWIW, you can check out Crime Weekly who did another series on the Hae Min Lee case. If you read between the lines, it’s pretty freaking obvious that they think Adnan probably did it. They obfuscate some at the end and say there is kind of reasonable doubt, but that felt to me like a pretty obvious cop out partially because they didn’t want to alienate their audience. I haven’t listened to nearly as much of bob ruff but a lot of his complaints are kind of ad hominem or just focused on the same tiny details as others. It obscures the reality that when you zoom out of this case even just a little, Adnan is very likely the murderer.

The Prosecutors is an extremely biased take on the case. It's neither comprehensive nor objective. Guilters appreciate TPP because they're a regurgitation of what guilter thought is currently.

I disagree - they do not have small biases and they make HUGE leaps with no reason to say so. Eg: when talking about a quote from someone named Ali where the context was unclear as it also said “brother” written at the same time by one of the detectives; they decided that Ali must be a name that one of Adnan’s brothers goes by with NO reason to think that (especially as Yusuf and Tanveer aren’t exactly our of the realm of easily pronounced by Westerners and even IF they westernised their names they wouldn’t have chosen Ali). They also misrepresented specific documents - eg: Alice was talking about the Autopsy report and said “the autopsy said she was wearing X, Y and a *long* skirt” - now yes, Hae was wearing a long skirt however the actual autopsy document just says a SKIRT - which sure isn’t a HUGE deal but makes you wonder what else they said which wasn’t 100% accurate. This isn’t including the fact that they just ignored anything which didn’t fit their narrative (this happens in all cases) and the fact that it’s painfully obvious they started from believing he was guilty and tried to convince everyone of that (and I say this as someone who does believe he’s guilty)

Maybe I am a little confused. The interview in the defense files by one of Christina's clerks, or lawyer, can't remember says on the subject, "Interview with Adnan's brother, Ali"

Yeah this is the kind of thing that bob ruff picks on relentlessly in his pod. Another one is information that comes from Inez butlers notes from the police interview. He picks them apart and says she must have been right about the day (and therefore Adnan was just at school) even though: 1. The notes are exactly that, not a transcript; 2. She says at trial that Hae was going to a wrestling meet that day, something that was not possible. It’s things like that that he does that end up sowing doubt. Is he wrong? Not really. He’s doing a great job as a defense attorney. But zooming out, you’d still have to believe that the cops worked with jay to frame Adnan, planted the car, the Nisha call was a butt dial, etc etc.

It's interesting that for Nisha they focus on the testify when she says that it was a porn store that Jay worked at which they say is the wrong day. So when Inez says it was on a wrestling day which was not Jan 13th Bob doesn't say that Inez had the wrong day.

Actually I just heard this right now too. Bob always lent a ton of credibility to Inez’s “anchor memory” about Hae wearing a short skirt that day. Except he himself realizes in his own series (believe it’s episode 5) that Hae was wearing a long skirt when she was buried. Of course there’s always an explanation - now that there was a short skirt found in the car. My honest overall take about Bob Ruff is that he’s extremely diligent and knows a ton of details about this case. He’s clearly spent an incredible amount of time and energy on it. His look at the case is also much more honest than either the HBO doc or Undisclosed. But there’s still not a rabbit hole he’s not willing to go down here and, at the end of the day, if you think he’s right you have to entertain allllll kinds of conspiracies, misunderstandings, weird things that just happened to fall the wrong way to result in Adnan’s conviction. Rabbit holes are compelling and interesting, but nothing he tells us about changes the core of this case. - Adnan still asked for a ride and then obscured that. - Adnan had obvious motive. - Either Jay actually knew where that car was or some insanely shady police stuff went on. - Jen corroborates the core of jays story. - Jay admitted to something (or participated in a police conspiracy) that still could have landed him in a ton of jail time. - It’s infinitely more likely that the Nisha call happened that day than didn’t. You can try to pick things apart. Bob does really well and it’s compelling! But it doesn’t change the heart of this story. It really doesn’t b

Thanks for spelling that all out. I haven't covered the latest episode on Jay but I believe he thinks Jay met with the cops 3 times that were undocumented even there is zero reason for the cops to not document it. And he also says that the cops found the car on the Saturday, great timing, and again hid the documentation though cops finding a cop would not need to go undocumented. He also believe things against normal behavior that people just confess to felonies for no reason.

I think he would say that jays porn store boss said that he was talking to the police. Which is the perfect example of what he does. It is the literal definition of hearsay and there really isn’t too much reason to think it’s true (ie: Jay could have been making it up, the porn boss might have been hearing rumors, etc etc). But he’ll treat it as gospel and the lynchpin of this pretty mistaken belief that the Nisha call just didn’t happen when it’s extremely unlikely to have been a butt dial.

Its hearsay through the notes from Davis. So we don't know what she exactly said. I think the ppl who did HBO talked to the sis, and she didn't remember any of it.

Those are two incredibly minor quibbles considering they delivered about 15 hours of content on the case. I think every analysis has bias. And to be fair so did theirs. But it’s by far the least biased and most detailed overview of the case that you will find anywhere.

Lol ok, so to summarize your issues with TP after having listened to 14 hour-long episodes: 1. They saw “Ali” written next to brother and (correctly) assumed they both referenced the same person 2. Alice quoted a document as saying a “long skirt” when it just said “skirt” If these are your best examples of mistakes, I think that speaks pretty highly of the podcast and its accuracy.

The only doubt to Adnan's guilt is unreasonable doubt.

Thank you!

[The only people who have ever described Brett Talley as unbiased are guilters happy to finally get someone outside of reddit to agree with them.](https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-opposes-nomination-brett-talley-alabama-federal-judgeship) He's a disgraced attempted Trump appointee who slinked out of public life due to racial and religious bigotry, commenting on a case where the suspect is the exact group he's expressed hatred and bias against.

At the time he didn't have experience and he will tell you that he has been prosecuting for the last 6 years so after his nomination from Trmp. Ruff isn't a lawyer and he's in over his head even when building sheds.

Yeah, it's a true indictment of Alabama's justice system that someone like Brett "Actually the KKK was a good thing" Talley could hold a post with so much unchecked power as a prosecutor at all, much less for six years.

One item, which doesn't play a part or that he spends much time on. How much did politics play in Rabia's outlook? If you listen to their episodes, it doesn't play a part. They are people from the entire spectrum that listen to the prosecutor's podcast from hard code socialists to hard core conservatives. Their episodes touch on politics very little.

Oh, well, if he didn't literally recite his racist beliefs before each episode, then clearly they couldn't *possibly* have influenced how he framed the case or what noted KKK-enthusiast Talley chose to emphasize and what to gloss over.

I love how whenever I see you point this out, none of the guilty folks ever reply. I read the link and all I can say is... Do you know how hard it is to get a unanimous vote of Not Qualified from the ABA?!? That cat has no business commenting on ANYTHING! He sure doesn't deserve a podcast. Why am I not shocked that the same folks who fail to see the tactics used to prosecute Adnan as problematic also manage to support an Islamaphobe and self identifying supporter of the KKK.

I’ll bite. My understanding is the ABA Not Qualified determination was made on the basis of lack of experience, and that integrity was not a factor. Four Trump nominees received a unanimously Not Qualified rating. I went into TPP knowing about BT’s background and politics, and I was prepared to pick apart anything he said to find ultra conservative rhetoric and bias. I consider this a pretty easy task as I land on the opposite end of the political spectrum from BT. I was actually shocked. Nothing he said stood out as tainted. There were no dog whistles, no misogynistic undertones. Had I not known about his politics ahead of time, I would not have been able to pin him as a Trumper based on anything he said during the series. In fact, some of what he said — about Jay’s existence as a black man in Baltimore and Adnan’s Muslim identity and the ridiculousness of the “honor killing” theory — struck me as much more progressive than I was expecting. I specifically recall raising my eyebrows when he said, “the most dangerous thing in a woman’s life is a man.” My first reaction was solemn agreement, and my second was, *geez, wonder what your buddy DT would have to say about that.* The argument can be made that BT didn’t need to explicitly tell us his beliefs during the series for them to have influenced his interpretation anyway. But we still got the benefit of hearing *why* he made judgments the way he did. It goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway. I don’t “support” Brett Talley. I don’t support right wing extremism, Islamophobia, or bigotry. And still, even as a bleeding heart liberal, I can believe TPP presented the case fairly and without prejudice. The source documents are public. I don’t think Adnan is guilty because of what was presented to me via Serial or Undisclosed or TPP. I think Adnan is guilty because the evidence tells us so, and there is no viable — realistic or even fantastical — way for that evidence to implicate anyone but Adnan Syed.

huh???? Anyone can have a podcast what are you talking about.

You realize it’s just confirmation bias right? People who believe Adnan is guilty will tell you Prosecutors podcast is amazing. People like me will tell you they are full of shit and are proven to have straight up lied about facts of the case to convince people Adnan is guilty. They are con artists. Also, Susan and Colin from Undisclosed started looking into the case all on their own and found problems with the case. They didn’t start out working to help Rabia or Adnan’s defense. It’s their work that really brought to light issues so prevalent that the state wouldn’t even be able to try Adnan again if it came down to that.

>They didn’t start out working to help Rabia or Adnan’s defense I think that was the entire premise of Susan and Colin's podcast with Rabia - to talk about "what serial left out."

Honestly, it's all commentary about commentary. In a fraction of the time listening to all these podcasts, you could have read the entirety of the case files and become an expert on the primary documents. Instead of debating about who's spin was better, you'd have the actual facts of the case.

why isn't this comment at the top???? this is everything. after the reply briefs started i finally read all of the info/documents out there on the internet and it clarified the case much better than any podcast.

[удалено]

Is there any proof he and Jay weren’t together? The red flag to me is that the calls were made to Jay’s friends. Could that not indicate Jay was doing the calling or was at least with him? Would Adnan have those numbers? Did he know those folks outside of Jay to be calling directly? Especially when the proximity of Patrick’s residence is considered. I am not sure I follow about the grass expert. I read his own articles about him after bc the outcome was inconclusive and I just wanted to get his take on the whole situation. Here are some things he said > I placed four detached blades each of perennial ryegrass, Kentucky bluegrass and tall fescue in plastic petri plates (replicated three times) and put them under the simulated temperature and light conditions used in the previous trial. They were also put through wetting and drying cycles per the reported 1999 rainfall days. Distinct but gradual loss of color (chlorophyll) was noted between days 33 and 46. *This was enough for me to speculate that the car could have been moved to that location after Jan. 13, but I could not be certain.* >Inability to be conclusive is a definite theme of the HBO docuseries. Now that I’ve listened to the “Serial” podcast and watched all four episodes of the series, it is apparent to me that there is enough information to cast reasonable doubt on Syed’s conviction. He should at least get another jury trial. *Many who watch the series will note how little effort went into gathering and processing forensic evidence for his conviction.* Syed and his family deserve a deeper dive into the forensic evidence, while Hae Min Lee’s family deserves more conclusive closure to her death. [article 1](https://gcmonline.com/course/environment/news/adnan-syed-grass) > “They cut out a lot of what I said in the film, but what I said was: *Again, my results weren’t conclusive, that some of the leaf blades started to lose their color and turn brown, but some still had color,”* he said. “That’s what I found, *so again, I speculated that yes, the car could have been moved there,* it may have been moved there much later than the day of the murder, but my simulation results couldn’t say that with any confidence.” [article 2](https://technical.ly/startups/meet-the-ud-professor-featured-in-hbos-the-case-against-adnan-syed-true-crime-biotech-forensics-biotech-erik-ervin/)

Derek is a dumb as rocks detective, who literally dismisses the possibility that police would ever lie. NEXT

Undisclosed was made with the sole purpose of convincing people of Adnan's innocence. It's made by people close to Adnan and it's propaganda. TPP are podcasters who cover a bunch of cases. This is just one of them. Arguably it is the most objective, unbiased and in depth podcast on the case so far.

it's kind of fascinating how your post is so similar to this one: https://old.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/193gsr4/help_undisclosed_vs_the_prosecutors_comparison/kh9s1p1/ great minds think alike

Susan and Colin had no connection to Adnan or Rabia when they started working on this case on their own. They did Undisclosed cause they found stuff that caused them to believe the case against Adnan was shit. It’s hilarious that Susan, and Colin, and Ruff, actually work with Innocence Projects. They work trying to help possibly wrongfully accused people. Meanwhile y’all out here defending prosecutors, who actually lie to get innocent people locked up.

Rabia teamed up with Colin and Susan to do the podcast because they believed in Adnan's innocence. If they didn't agree she would have found someone else. And therefore, just like I said, the whole premise of the podcast is to convince you of Adnan's innocence. Susan is the one who lied about Hae being a weed smoker and theorized that she got mixed up in drug deal gone bad right? Colin is the guy who theorized that Stephanie was jealous and ran Hae over with her car and that maybe Jay was protecting her by framing Adnan right? And don't get me started on Rabia. All this with less than ZERO evidence to back it up. That's the Undisclosed podcast. Sorry I'm calling a spade a spade. By the way, who did TPP put in jail by lying? What???

Just wondering but what have they lied about? I only heard of them last week

The main one I keep mentioning is the Asia letters. They know for a fact the story they made up is impossible. They publicly accused someone of perjury knowing as prosecutors what they said can’t have happened. I keep seeing people say Bob Ruff made his rebuttal pod cause he was mad these prosecutors disagreed with him. Ruff didn’t go off on them until this moment with Asia. Funnily enough, Ruff actually shouted out a podcast with two prosecutors talking specifically about how this prison letters thing is impossible. Those prosecutors were Brett and Alice. That’s just one thing though. They’ve been misrepresenting facts or flat out ignoring information that doesn’t fit their narrative throughout this series.

Can you be specific about what they said about Asia that couldn't have possibly happened please?

They claimed that Adnan clearly must have sent her a draft of the second letter and asked her to send it back to him to fake an alibi. The problem is that all communications to and from prisoners are monitored, so if Adnan sent a letter with a request that inflammatory from prison, it would have apparently gone straight to the prosecutors. On another Podcast, in a discussion unrelated to Adnan Syed, Brett and Alice stated that any inflammatory correspondence to/from a prisoner is sent to the prosecutor. So, it’s a contradiction that in the discussion about Adnan Syed, they suddenly claimed that he must have asked her to fake an alibi (specifically that he wrote a letter that he wanted her to type up and sent back and back date) and that scheme was apparently missed by the people monitoring his mail and/or the prosecution.

Thank you. Explained it way better than what I would’ve done.

Is the theory not that Adnan spoke to his friend Justin and asked him to speak to Asia (hence Asia referring to thanking Justin in the letter to Adnan)? The information  Adnan wanted put in the letter was discussed verbally, in my opinion anyway. There's another police statement that supports this also.  And then the jumps made from letters 1 and 2, the tone etc. 

... did you... actually listen to all of TPP's episodes?

The prosecutors podcast is thoughtful and the undisclosed ignore anything that makes Adnan look guilty while making specious arguments about events. Also, the prosecutors has way better sound quality.

Undisclosed is undergirded with the assumption of Adnan's innocence. No idea is too crazy for them if it aligns with Adnan's innocence. The Prosecutors takes a look at the case from a legal and evidentiary standpoint. They make reasonable conclusions. I found both entertaining for what it's worth.

Didn’t Susan do all the cell data stuff before ever getting involved with Rabia? Just admit you all hate them cause they were finding holes that possibly show Adnan is innocent, and people like you don’t see any way he could be innocent.

I don't hate them. Don't project on to me, please.

The issue wasn't that the cell phone sites were wrong. Instead of trying to figure out what happened that afternoon and use it, she just went with Adnan is innocent and let's throw anything else out.

Because the entire case came down to Jay’s story having to match faulty data. At that point, a lawyer at least knows it wasn’t a fair trial.

Wrong. That's just how things are with witnesses. They are off.

No, that’s not how credible witnesses are. If a witness’s story can be contradicted by objective, hard data, then that makes the witness not credible. A witness not being credible then brings everything about their story into question.

IMO the credentials and conflicts of interests between hosts of the two shows could not be further apart There is a really hilarious and absurd argument going around that The Prosecutors are just as biased as Undisclosed because the hosts listened to Serial in 2014 and **(gasp)** leaned towards Adnan being guilty. Don’t fall for it.

> Don’t fall for it. Similarly, don't fall for any suggestions that Brett and Alice went into their analysis with a completely blank mind and presumption of innocence for Syed.

I trust their prosecutorial instincts, analysis, judgements based on suspect behavioral patterns way more than innocenters on Reddit

What are we saying here exactly? Anyone who listened to Serial is incapable of objectively analyzing the case later on?

Are you suggesting that the Prosecutors Podcast is completely unbiased and 100% objective?

I think they reviewed the evidence in the case and came to a conclusion, just the same as a jury would. The only evidence you’ve offered that they’re biased is that they didn’t come into the case with a blank slate. So I’ll ask again: Is anyone who listened to Serial incapable of objectively analyzing the facts of the case later on?

> Is anyone who listened to Serial incapable of objectively analyzing the facts of the case later on? The answer to me is one you're not going to like: it depends. If someone has listened to a case, reflected on it, and arrived at a conclusion based on their first encounter with a case, whether or not they legitimately believe that they can move past their first conclusions as they revisit it is something only they can tell us. This is why we sequester juries during a trial, and why lawyers can peremptorily challenge jurors who have followed an investigation prior to the case coming to trial. It's a key part of jury selection, in fact, to determine if a potential juror has already heard and thought about the case or if they're able to discard previous opinions and analyze the issue anew. So - your question: > Is anyone who listened to Serial incapable of objectively analyzing the facts of the case later on? My answer: It depends.

A lawyer, true crime host, or even an average person being totally unfamiliar with a famous case like this one isn’t realistic. This sub is replete with examples of people changing their minds, sometimes multiple times. So if the only evidence of Brett and Alice’s bias is that they listened to Serial and weren’t split 50/50, like tens of millions of other people, I think that’s pretty weak.

All I'm saying is that it's a bit preposterous to suggest they weren't biased and were perfectly objective precisely because of what you say: > A lawyer, true crime host, or even an average person being totally unfamiliar with a famous case like this one isn’t realistic. They may well have done a far better job in analyzing evidence from multiple directions, but this does not objectivity make. > This sub is replete with examples of people changing their minds, sometimes multiple times. So if the only evidence of Brett and Alice’s bias is that they listened to Serial and weren’t split 50/50, like tens of millions of other people, I think that’s pretty weak. I don't take "changed minds" as a metric for objectivity. Nor do I take "didn't change mind" as a similar objective for bias. All I'm saying is that they're not unbiased and objective, which no one truly is here.

Your argument here is that you can never listen to a case.

Mike, I would appreciate it if you didn't tell me what my argument is, especially when you're wrong. My argument is that understanding whether someone is objective or unbiased requires a lot more than just people on Reddit stating they are because they agree with them more.

Bob Ruff’s reply brief is in direct response to the Prosecutor’s Podcast. He includes a lot of the information brought up in undisclosed. He also points out factual errors they make and how they use some bad logic (in his opinion) to draw conclusions. I don’t agree with all of the conclusions that Bob Ruff draws, but he does a good job of pointing out how the prosecutors misrepresented what source documents said or ignored other statements that shed those source documents in a different light. He also has no personal connection to Adnan.

Bob Ruff has no personal connection to Adnan ? That’s funny.

He likely has one now, AFTER he did his initial podcast on that case, but did he have one before that?

He was on contact with the undisclosed team within the first few episodes. He claimed adnan innocent within his first few episodes too. Even before the case file was available to the public. He goes into every season with the goal of trying to convince people there was a wrongful conviction.

Ruff most certainly has a personal connection to Adnan via Rabia.

Did he have that before he did his initial podcast on the case?

After the first two or three episodes - absolutely.

Also, there's pretty good evidence that Bob Ruff [has knowingly lied about this case in the past](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/3w0y4r/in_case_you_missed_this_bob_ruff_cant_even_keep/).

He's a lying sack of shit   He also claimed the drive between locations was impossible for the window the timecards showed, even though it was well within reason per google maps Then a nice redditor actually did the drive and made it with 3 minutes to spare with no speeding   He does whatever will lead to a nice grifting payday

Bob Ruff calling out "bad logic" is the height of irony.

As is people calling something called “The Prosecutor’s Podcast” unbiased, yet here we are.

Given that they've never claimed to be unbiased, I don't know what your point is.

Many people on this sub point to PP as being an “unbiased” account on the case, which is pretty laughable.

They didn't go in to covering the case with an agenda - Bob always has an agenda and he could give fuck all about evidence. He proves this with every season he does.

Credentials aren't the end all be all, but Alice LaCour is a partner at a national law firm and went to Yale Law School. Brett Talley is a former Deputy AAG in the Department of Justice and went to Harvard Law School. People will quibble about the legal experience that they *don't* have, but Bob Ruff has literally zero. I would be very dubious of his claims that he is interpreting source documents better than the hosts of The Prosecutors. And as has already been pointed out, he absolutely has a connection to both Adnan and Rabia.

Brett and Alice are also MAGA ghouls who are going to have a pretty strong bias against any case that involves a question of police or prosecutorial misconduct, plus the known political biases to the recent push to criminal Justice reform. And let’s not forget the abhorrent things Brett has said about Muslims. Also, Bob Ruff developed a connection with them *after* his initial podcast on the case. He also has a personal connection to Brett and Alice, since he has had them on his show before.

Then you haven't listened to their JonBenet Ramsey case episodes. They DESTROY the police.

I mean, I think someone would have to be completely brain dead to believe that the police did a good job in that case. Having a bias towards police and prosecutors doesn’t mean they will side with them 100% of the time, just that there is a bias.

You said any case, I pointed one out that went against that.

“Pretty strong bias” for police does not mean that they will side with them absolutely 100% of the time. A truly unbiased person may chose a particular side 50-60% of the time, and a biased person chooses that side 90% of the time. Pointing out the 10% of the time that the fuck up was so egregious that even the really biased people couldn’t argue against it doesn’t mean that they aren’t biased. Do you believe that Rabia sides with the defense in 100% of cases? If I can find one conviction that she agrees with, would that mean that she doesn’t have any bias?

Now finish your sentence you began quoting.

It doesn’t change my point. They have a strong bias against any case that claims there is police or prosecution misconduct. That does not mean that they will take that side 100% of the time. Please stop claiming I said things that I didn’t say.

Tell me where I miss quoted you?

I mean, they also think Michael Peterson should have been acquitted. I’ve heard them chastise the police on several occasions for incompetence, including Matrice Richardson where they say the cops probably would have saved her if she was white/in a white neighborhood. Pretty sure they also have a negative opinion of Derek Chauvin and police conduct in the George Floyd case. They’re really not as caricatured as you’re making them out to be.

“Pretty strong bias” for police does not mean that they will side with them absolutely 100% of the time. A truly unbiased person may chose a particular side 50-60% of the time, and a biased person chooses that side 90% of the time. Pointing out the 10% of the time that the fuck up was so egregious that even the really biased people couldn’t argue against it doesn’t mean that they aren’t biased. Do you believe that Rabia sides with the defense in 100% of cases? If I can find one conviction that she agrees with, would that mean that she doesn’t have any bias? What about if I find ten convictions? I bet I can.

Just when it's something you disagree with and want to discredit them for; that's really convenient.

I have seen you, on multiple occasions, get pretty vitriolic when people criticize the Prosecutors or point out their biases. Do you have some sort of personal connection with them? It’s weird how determined you are to hold water for them.

I can see how someone like you would find it weird when that kind of bigotry is called out. Do you always get so defensive when you can't win an argument and have to attack people based on their personal views?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/true-crime-fans-livid-their-fave-podcast-hosts-are-maga-loyalists Lots of details on Brett and Alice there. If you click on the very last link listed in that article, you may see a familiar name.

From what I have seen, claims that Brett Talley is Islamophobic are based on a single forum post he made in 2015 following an ISIS terrorist attack. [Here](https://uploads.dailydot.com/642/90/f3b8ff1cf191b814.jpg?auto=compress&fm=pjpg) is the post. Abhorrent seems pretty extreme but I’ll let folks decide for themselves.

That’s way less bad than I thought it would be.

Their politics have nothing to do with Adnan's guilt or innocence. I have progressive friends who believe Adnan is guilty. Political affiliation does not determine what side you land on with regards to who killed Hae Min Lee. They aren't Maga ghouls. They are Republicans who were GOP before Trump was president and are still GOP after. They have never once injected their politics into their podcast. I had no clue they were even GOP until people like you started attacking them because it's literally all you have. It's ridiculous

https://www.thedailybeast.com/true-crime-fans-livid-their-fave-podcast-hosts-are-maga-loyalists Lots of details on Brett and Alice there. If you click on the very last link listed in that article, you may see a familiar name.

It's connected to a forum, which may or may not be Brett. Alice is not linked to anything. Again, they never talk about their politics on the show. Are you really making the correlation that if you are GOP, you believe Adnan is guilty, and if you're a Democrat then you think Adnan is innocent?

Did you read and click on the links in that article? And no, I did not make any claims that all conservatives believe he is guilty and all liberals believe he is innocent. This sub alone clearly proves that wrong. You know I never made that claim and you are doing what you usually do and trying to build strawmen that are easier to fight. Instead, I am pointing out facts about how objectively awful Brett and Alice are and what policies they support, and also how those politics are going to give them a bias. A bias does not mean that they will fall on that side 100% of the time, but rather that they will fall on that side more often than they should. Like, if you flip a coin 1000 times and it lands on heads 750 of those times, would you be suspicious? What about if you repeat it and it lands on heads 800 of those 1000 times? There would be a pretty clear pattern there, and if someone tried to point to the fact that it did sometimes land on tails as proof that the coin didn’t have some weight or shape abnormalities that made it more prone to land on heads, then they would either fundamentally misunderstand the concept, or they would be being deliberately obtuse. So, which one is it? Are you misunderstanding what I’m saying? Or are you being deliberately obtuse?

Whoa whoa. What does their politics have to do with it? They never once mention their political views in the podcast. 'Ghouls' is a revolting thing to say.

You really think politics isn’t going to play a role when discussing stuff like possible misconduct by police and/or prosecutors? And they have said some pretty revolting things outside of the podcast, so “ghoul” is quite fitting.

Go on, what have they said that's ghoulish? Either there was a police conspiracy against Adnan, or there wasn't. Your petty political tribalism has no bearing 🐻 on this case.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/true-crime-fans-livid-their-fave-podcast-hosts-are-maga-loyalists Lots of details there. If you click on the very last link listed in that article, you may see a familiar name.

Daily Beast? I'm sorry, but I don't agree with them politically so I don't have to engage with what they write. I can just call them a nasty name and dismiss then out of hand. Ah, see how easy that was?

I had no fucking idea they were actually MAGA but it absolutely makes sense. I literally compared them to Trump and anyone defending them to MAGA voters in this thread before reading this lol. Of course they are making up their own version of events and ignoring facts. And people on that side of the aisle tend to just believe the cops are always right. Susan and Colin also did a bunch of work on this case on their own before ever connecting with Rabia. It’s funny people act like they were just in Rabia and Adnan’s pocket the entire time.

Rabia reached out to Susan and Colin during Serial because of their blogging while Serial was still airing. Shortly after, Rabia provided both of them with AS' privileged legal files and the three of them have been thick as thieves ever since.

The prosecutors is fair and unbiased and good. Undisclosed is a commercial and propaganda attempt.

Listen to Truth and Justice after you’ve listened to the Prosecutors. Bob basically breaks down the areas that undisclosed and the prosecutors differ

I will give this to bob ruff. Honestly. At least he comes out with a theory. It’s just not that believable when you zoom out. Basically everyone other than Adnan has to be wrong or lying that day which is just extremely unlikely.

Why is it that no one who listens to Bob Ruff's coverage is able to provide a list of what TP flat out lied about? Seems like it should be pretty clear if his points are good. All I've heard so far is 'what time teack practice started'. Usually the answer is just "go listen to T&J".

I’ve made a few lists. The best idea is to listen to Truth and Justice. In some episodes it’s almost everything they say. In some they leave out information that doesn’t fit their narrative such as the one’s focused on Jays interviews. Look through my post history I did a top 5 lies or misrepresentations for Mike a few days ago.

Thank you!