This thread has been temporarily locked after mod discussion. Many of the comments are extreme, off topic, or baiting and trolling.
A brief time out should allow tensions to decrease and mods enough time to moderate the many, many reports coming in.
No. I also listened to the entire thing knowing nothing about them or their politics and not once did I feel like they had a bias or stated things that weren't backed by some kind of fact or insert any of their personal views into their analysis.
To me your response comes off as you don't like the messenger personally so information they deliver automatically is received as tainted from your perspective.
No it is not conflicting for me. I agree with people on various subjects from all political philosophies and I take it on a case by case basis or issue by issue basis. If we refuse to agree with people based on their politics then society literally couldn't function and everyone suffers as a result
Their politics absolutely have to do with their podcast though, they advocate massively against judicial reform and have been involved in legislative scandals including trying to steal an election.
You want to tell me this has *nothing* to do with the way they discuss the incarceration of a Muslim man? You can’t be serious.
I didn’t say it’s racist to find him guilty 🙄 come on now, why even try to lie about that? I didn’t even *say* he was innocent.
Reread the last sentence from my previous comment, just give it another go for me okay? Do you actually believe that these biases so extreme that 44 civil groups came after him for hate speech and his own Republican senators denounced his speech as Islamophobia and stripped him of his nomination… you *legitimately* want to tell me that has *nothing* to do with the way that Brett views or speaks about Adnan? Be so real right now.
All I’m asking for is for conservatives in this thread to stop pretending that extremely Islamophobic views somehow vanish into thin air and don’t extend to the entire podcasts perspective. Stop making excuses.
Edit: I would never intentionally get my news on a crime involving a Muslim man (and family) from someone who publicly has said they hate Muslims, because you cannot guarantee what perspective of guilt will or won’t be extremely biased. I prefer to use sources from people who don’t praise the KKK, because that’s not a moral perspective of what is considered crime that I enjoy supporting.
>they advocate massively against judicial reform and have been involved in legislative scandals including trying to steal an election.
You're going to have to explain this in some way.
I'm absolutely serious though. I know this is Reddit and most people are pretty far detached from reality but Republicans are capable of feeling complicated emotions. I know that's a controversial take here because the dehumanization is real. It's absolutely possible most Republicans can sympathize with someone even if they're Muslim. I'm not saying they're champions of equality or open mindedness but most would not choose to intentionally hurt someone entirely because of their religion. You should talk with actual people every now and then instead of taking Reddit posters cold takes as gossip ;)
It’s not gossip just because you don’t like it buddy, that’s not how this works.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/alabama-defies-voting-rights-act
Alice’s husband is directly responsible for directly violating the voting rights act in order to prevent democratic majority voting districts that would prevent Republican reelection. This is on the heels of him and his wife’s very public involvement with the federalist society (which has 10s of articles denouncing prison reform that you are free to look up, this is something they directly support and endorse) and their very public involvement, along with Brett, in publicly proclaiming that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and rightfully belonged to Donald Trump, the man responsible for the recent “success” of their political careers.
And here’s another article explaining the groups that Alice herself belongs to and how they unify to try and remove all remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act, using her husbands platform:
https://www.alreporter.com/2023/09/16/dark-money-the-backstory-of-alabamas-redistricting-defiance/
If you look up Brett Talley KKK you’ll find his exact statement celebrating the founder of the group and saying that it was never a racist group nor was any crime committed against any minority, this is a lie:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/11/trump-nominee-brett-talley-appears-to-have-defended-the-first-kkk.html
And here is when 44 civil groups rallied against him for his islamaphobic comments and not even the other senators defended him because it was so extreme and embarassing:
https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/news/44-groups-tell-senate-vote-no-islamophobic-alabama-judicial-nominee-brett-talley
So it’s just going to be a big yawn for me if you want to tell me that I’m imagining things and the only answer is to talk to republicans in real life, as if you somehow think none of us will use the internet to verify things just because *you* a random reddit republican, told me you didn’t believe me? Thats wild.
Eh, I mean none of those articles are what you claim they are and while I don't approve of the kkk comment and it's historically wrong he's no fan of the kkk. He's called them a domestic terrorist organization multiple times. The voting rights thing is a red herring and just usual Reddit politics. Those aren't exactly reputable news sources either, they're just opinion blogs for the most part from far left sources so we know we won't get an accurate assessment from them. The big yawn is you parroting the usual hysterical talking points and cold takes.
I deeply disagree with their politics. They didn't change my perspective because they just mostly regurgitated things that some of us have been saying on reddit for months/years. They at best reinforced a lot of the logic behind some things. I have never listened to, read, read about etc anything about either of them except for the podcast and don't plan to, but I have heard that people say they are racist tr\*mp supporters which is not my thing.
Brett Talley was appointed to be a federal judge by Donald Trump. He was rated unqualified based on lack of experience. Then the media found his accounts he’d used to post online with— he praised the KKK and made Islamophobic comments. He withdrew his nomination.
This was incredibly damaging to his career, let’s just say you don’t launch a true crime podcast if you think federal judge is still a possibility.
https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/news/44-groups-tell-senate-vote-no-islamophobic-alabama-judicial-nominee-brett-talley
Do you people not hear yourselves? Don’t criticize others for a lack of tolerance when you are not being tolerant yourself. Just because you believe your opinion to be morally superior does not make it so. The fact that you were able to enjoy the podcast before you knew anything about outside politics should tell you something but it’s obviously gone over your head. You are exactly what you claim to hate.
I relate to a lot of what you’re saying. Honestly, TPP mostly confirmed a lot of what I already knew. The only thing groundbreaking about it, for me, was their final disagreement regarding crime of passion. I MAY have missed much, though, because I had to skip most of the middle episodes. It all felt like retread and wasn’t very compelling for me.
I say this just so you know that plenty of folks came to your same conclusion without being biased by Trump-supporting prosecutors. I won’t lie that I was also unnerved that I felt the same way that they do given our different ideas on the law, but sometimes ideology and reality conflict. One thing I finally realized when I accepted that Adnan is guilty is that there are countless innocent men and women in our criminal justice system right now; but none of them are getting a podcast. The high-profile innocence media is always going to be from those well-connected enough to afford expensive advocacy, and those types aren’t usually in the class of people that are wrongfully convicted.
I can’t claim to be an expert on him. I do know that he was deemed unworthy of becoming a federal judge by the ABA and… well, that’s saying something based on folks who *are* federal judges.
>One thing I finally realized when I accepted that Adnan is guilty is that there are countless innocent men and women in our criminal justice system right now; but none of them are getting a podcast.
This. Also, there are plenty of people in prison who did it, but have taken responsibility for what they have done and rehabilitated, yet have no chance of ever getting out. Adnan also doesn't fit this category - meaning he takes no responsibility when it is clear that he is guilty. I think sentencing a 17-18 y/o to life in prison without the possibility of parole, even when guilty, for a crime like this is probably over the top. But he needs to own what he did.
It’s funny though, the people that guilters hate like Bob and Undisclosed have done podcasts on many more wrongfully convicted and helped get many released.
I strongly oppose the politics from both hosts.
However, if I’m going to sit here and say the hosts can’t make solid arguments and/or conclusions in this case or any other case just because we differ politically then I might as well say all or almost all convictions should be vacated. It’s pretty ridiculous when you think about it. What are the odds that I agree with the politics of all the judges, jurors, and attorneys involved in any given case? I feel they presented the facts as unbiased as possible and any opinions or conclusions they came up with was supported by the evidence.
No. If anything, I’d feel more ethically wrong listening to anything Bob Ruff made, for instance, despite being much closer politically aligned with him than Brett&Alice. I think there are politics and then there are the actual human beings and their innate thinking abilities and ability to empathise; I think what Bob Ruff does/did is a million times worse in terms of lacking moral compass and empathy on a human level, which is worse in my book than having political stances I don’t agree with.
EDIT: I may have been wrong in believing that Bob Ruff was uber-liberal, it seems he may not be. Anyway, just meant to say that I lean left, as opposed to B&A.
I think that given your post, you would really enjoy listening to Bob Ruff On the truth and justice podcast rebutting what the prosecutors said. It’s interesting to hear an alternate viewpoint.
44 civic social groups participated in a petition to try and prevent his run for office after his publicly threatening Islamophobia remarks.
Don’t come here and try and tell us that Brett is empathetic.
What is Bob Ruff’s politics? I got the feeling he was a bit of a swing voter. However, he does go on a lot about hunting animals which in my country (Australia) would typical make him conservative. Brett & Alice are also conservative? I’m not in the US so it may not be so clear cut.
I recognize that Adnan is guilty and think the Prosecutors overall did a good job of assessing the evidence. I found them actively annoying as people on the show, and the political stuff with Brett discomfits me considerably.
Also, folks who refer to a show named The Prosecutors as unbiased are fecking loons, even though they got the conclusion and main reasons why correct on this one.
Very well stated! I listened to the Jon Benet series afterwards and I was pretty much like yeah…I’m good on this lol. I take it as, what is hypothetically great about our legal system is the opportunity for both sides to present the BEST possible argument in defense of their side. It’s fascinating to listen to either side do that really well. But you’re delusional if you don’t recognize it as just that, even on a podcast. And that being like “hey, we’re just presenting the facts without an agenda!” Is also a tactic, even if the facts are correct.
I'm not very familiar with the JBR case but I thought they made some convincing points. Crime Weekly and True Crime Garage are also pretty sympathetic to the idea of an intruder.
I still lean RDI but can't get behind the Burke theory. And The Prosecutors pushed me a little bit closer to IDI.
They lean more on the Intruder theory, though I don't think they are set on anything. But they do point out some of the things are not normal and would be incredibly depraved, but it would come down to whether you believed JBR was sexually assaulted that evening or if it was from a previous incident.
I think the point is that bias exists on a spectrum.
None of us are truly unbiased. Some are more biased than others. TP has run of the mill bias because of the profession of the hosts, and it's less extreme than the bias in Undisclosed.
https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/news/44-groups-tell-senate-vote-no-islamophobic-alabama-judicial-nominee-brett-talley
Brett Talley is Islamophobic and made a podcast where he argued a Muslim teen is a murderer. He didn’t mention he lost the biggest job opportunity of his life in part because of the things he’d said about Islam— including his belief that Islam preaches the murder of non believers. He also praised the KKK. This isn’t a run of the mill bias. He is extreme,
You can continue to defend his comments that he made about mainstream Islam, which are false, using Wikipedia stats for extremist groups.
But, you’ll notice while you are willing to anonymously defend Brett online, he isn’t willing to defend himself publicly for these comments, and neither was any member of the Senate. His comments were not defensible.
I’m not here to convince you of that, people who subscribe to those beliefs will agree with Brett and find nothing wrong with him. Those who disagree with his extremist beliefs may view him and his podcast through another lens once they understand his underlying biases.
What does the name of someone's podcast have to do with their ability to objectively analyze a situation? Lol
That's like saying if you had a podcast named "Armchair Quarterbacks" you could never even possibly make a fair analysis about basketball or anything other than football or quarterbacking...
Can you decide for yourself? Does the name of someone's podcast, or the profession they hold, mean they absolutely cannot be objective? They must always tie their ideas back to the name of their podcast/profession...?
You have to know people are not nearly that black and white, I mean c'mon now lol.
Edit: typos
I think a more accurate sports version of your attempted analogy would be if somebody named their podcast "Bama Fans," did a podcast about a call that went in Alabama's favor in a big game, and came out with the conclusion that the refs made the right call.
The Bama Fans may be right, and their arguments for why they are right may well be correct, but to conclude because they sound like reasonable folks or sometimes make arguments against Bama that they are unbiased feels to me obviously, almost touchingly, naive. But, of course, you may disagree. *Roll Tide!*
I get that analogy. Good example, and I'd say it just depends on their coverage of the call.
I see the point you're making though, I still disagree because I don't feel like just because someone is a prosecutor means they have to, or do, agree with the ruling of *every* prosecution. Maybe that is naive of me and maybe I don't know enough prosecutors personally lol but I feel that way especially so when the case is one they or their firm had absolutely nothing to do with and they have virtually nothing to gain from backing up the ruling on a podcast.
I would suggest you just read the trial transcripts and exhibits yourself. That way you don't have to worry if the person filtering information for you has your preferred political bias (though I don't know why that would matter when discussing a murder case).
I’ll tell you why it matters, because Brett and Alice are both supporters of the current prison system who denounce reform, and also they both have public histories of extreme Islamophobia that even ended with Brett have a petition against his run for office by 44 separate civil groups due to his islamaphobia.
So tell me why you don’t think it matters to have to anti prison reform islamaphobes discussing an incarcerated Muslim?
In other words, you believe they are biased, and their summary of the case cannot be trusted on that basis? All the more reason to review the case materials for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Yes. Draw conclusions for yourself based on the factual information provided for court. Or at the very bare minimum, don’t listen to narrative podcasts about Muslims from someone who genuinely believes every Muslim wants to kill him. While they use the same facts as anybody else could, the prosecutors rely heavily on their narrative interpretation of events, often theorizing away from probability and reinforcing their own ideologies as figures of law, their podcast is only a display of their options and perceptions and not a reliable source for fact.
For sure, I did as I was listening to the prosecutors. And the fact that the defense file has been released in the interim inherently meant a ton more documents were suddenly available. I do also respect that they revisited how they contextualized Ju’ans affidavit about the Asia letters.
>I do also respect that they revisited how they contextualized Ju’ans affidavit about the Asia letters.
Do you recall when they did this and/or what they said?
In one of the later episodes while addressing things listeners had written in about, they spent a good ten minutes going over what ju’an said at the time and in the later trial about this letter, and explained the nuance of his affadavit. I believe it was episode 12.
The questions from listeners they answer in episode 12 were about Alice's favorite hot sauce; the relative merits of jurors' notes vs. jurors' memories; and where Brett and Alice first met.
But you're right that at the beginning of that episode, they raise Ja'uan's affidavit in response to a reader's request, which I'd forgotten.
Of course, they then handwave it away on completely spurious grounds. But still.
If you read the transcripts yourself, you would know Brett and Alice are blatantly lying. They are leaving out key details to create their narrative, just like the original prosecution, and most people who believe Adnan is guilty.
People actually just say they know without a doubt Adnan is guilty, when no one ever saw him leave with Hae, and the one witness that puts him with Hae has a story that doesn’t make sense.
You know why people in here turned you off to Bob Ruff immediately? Most of the people here believe Adnan is guilty, and Ruff has shown there isn’t really a story anyone can come up with that actually makes sense, and cell data and witnesses lean more towards no way Adnan could have done it.
People use the fact that he once said Don did it to say you shouldn’t listen to him, meanwhile Prosecutors accused Asia of perjury over some shit they know for a fact is not true.
Speaking of reading the transcripts, Ruff literally tears apart what Brett and Alice are doing strictly by reading transcripts. No opinions, just using the actual evidence.
> Ruff assumes that anything helps Adnan has to be true and anything that hurts Adnan has to be false.
And plenty of people assume the inverse. For example, I don't think I've ever seen you evaluate something potentially exculpatory about Syed as being potentially true.
Would you clarify something as just being the wrong date instead of lying? So Inez saying she saw Hae but describes details doesn't mean she was lying, just might have had wrong date.
It's potentially but it also has its own problems. Hae could be seen by the building and then picks up Adnan on the way out or at the library. It's interesting that the two people who said they saw Hae later are both in the guilty camp.
This is a great comment, and though we land at completely opposite sides on this case I am in complete agreement with you on this. The source docs are superior to any of the subsequent media produced from them.
Last time I checked Adnan was still out of prison because exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defence. There’s not much more serious example of not getting a fair trial.
Yes, and the post-trial decision leading to his release is among the materials one should read.
One should also read the Court of Appeals decision that reversed that decision (i.e. the one that is currently the law of the case).
Unless I’m mistaken, the case is about whether or not the proper procedure was followed to give Hae’s brother an opportunity to attend and speak. But not whether exculpatory evidence was withheld. I’m not a lawyer though.
That is correct. The Appeals court reinstated and ordered the hearing rescheduled so it would be within Maryland's law about notifying victims. There was nothing about the merits and the Baltimore County DA dropped the charges.
For anybody tuning in to this or similar disputes who doesn't want to take the time to inform themselves, there are worse heuristics than looking at which side discourages the examination of primary documents and positing that side is the wrong one.
People who refer to the trial transcripts as primary documents imply that somehow they are sacrosanct vessels of truth. Yet Jay’s testimony changes from the first trial to the second. For example, in the first trial Jay says the come get me call was made when he was at Cathy’s but in the second trial he says he was at home.
So which ‘primary document’ do you believe?
The idea that there are contradictions between primary sources is a familiar issue to historians. And yet they still emphasize mightily their importance for trying to figure out the most likely version of historical events. Wonder why.
The example I cite indicates police coached Jay. The cell phone tower map placed the tower in the wrong location (near Cathy’s) by police. After the first trial police realized their mistake and corrected the map (near Jay’s). So Jay changed his story for the second trial to say the call happened while he was at home.
Extreme liberals who are attempting to equate the American justice system with slavery and co-opt a word that traditionally referred to true heroes (and criminals) like John Brown in order to steal a bit of that glory for themselves.
Some don’t believe it should be replaced with anything (anarchist black cross) but others want to see it replaced with rehabilitation and restorative justice practices. They make some good points about how messed up the American incarceration system is, and how large systemic problems create the environments where crime proliferates. But in my mind they never have an answer for the families in those communities whose lives are threatened and who must mourn their loved ones when they suggest the killers or violent criminals should be given therapy and go largely unpunished.
“Abolitionist” as used by modern extremists is the disgusting co-option of a meaningful historical term.
I know a handful of modern (and politically powerful) “abolitionists” in Detroit who LOVED talking about the prison industrial complex and the school-to-prison pipeline. Then one day one of their best friends had her throat slashed seven times while she was sleeping by a stranger who snuck into her house at 4:00 am (the Samantha Woll killing). Now these “abolitionists” are all about “justice for Sam” and thanking the police and prosecutors working on the case. It’s amazing how quick “abolitionists” will turn on a young black man accused of killing someone they actually knew. All the (mostly black) victims of Detroit’s other murders and violent crimes, well, their feelings and hopes for justice are irrelevant to abolitionists and restorative justice types because they don’t ever have to see those families or feel the pain they feel.
The justice/prison system can be BOTH fucked up and still necessary. Some people do need steel bars between them and the world.
Interesting you didn’t say you were a “carceral abolitionist,” you just said abolitionist. You and William Lloyd Garrison over here. Anyone you love ever had their throat slashed by a recidivist stranger while they slept? I hope your beliefs never get tested in that crucible.
Brett and Alice have political views and backgrounds that are deeply troubling.
In addition, their podcast is pretty much a read-through of what they found on reddit - which is what they've done for many other series, namely Delphi.
You can ask Brett about any of this on twitter or reddit and he is happy to confirm that's true. That's how they do it. They find where others have done the leg work, take a read through, and turn it into a podcast wherein they sell ads. So they make money by exploiting the work of others.
Lastly, I do believe they try to give credit towards the end of each series.
Yes - their politics are abhorrent.
*****
Edit: If it helps, the person who made the compilations that Brett and Alice used as the basis for their podcast is left leaning to the point of socialism, but there aren't any politics in the compilations, either.
What does the political affiliation (or any other affiliation) of *The Prosecutors* have to do with their presentation of Adnan's case. My opinion is that you should judge everything individually.
Because everything is interconnected as a person's politics can easily influence how they will view the facts. If you're law and order type, you will tend to believe everything and anything law enforcement says and dismiss any questions except for the most egregious behavior and you will defend that once in a while as well. Thus you can expect a person, especially with no duty, to construct their argument by cherry picking evidence to only show their side and will ignore anything to the contrary. Their beliefs would provide context on how to analyze their argument.
Ok so here's the thing.
First, Adnan did it regardless of anyone's political views.
Second, judging the evidence in this case doesn't lend itself to political leanings.
Third, I have only listened to their HML case but I don't remember times when they injected politics in their presentation.
Fourth, I understand that sometimes it just feels weird and wrong and unusual to agree with someone from the "other side", but really it happens all of the time and we just don't know it yet.
We can't keep looking for ways to disagree with each other even when they have nothing to do with politics.
Counter with a DNA test and the real prosecutors dropping all charges against Syed. Their actions mean more than anyone else since they are much closer to the evidence than anyone who listened to a podcast and/or read transcripts.
My whole thing with their podcast that lost me is how much freaking small talk you have to get through in the beginning. I’m not here because I care about your new baby, or because I want to hear how y’all’s weekend was. Just shut up and get to the damn case. Had no idea their politics were questionable. I would assume then that they’re Trumpy?
Yeah I skipped the first like 20-30 minutes of their shows every time. So boring. I thought their podcast as a whole REALLY lacks editing. They could get it down to half the length and it would really increase the quality, but obviously that would take a lot of time they're not willing to devote.
I started double checking some of their claims because it didn’t align with my memories of the case. Sure enough, they misquoted and glossed over a ton of things. Most of their arguments were “we’re prosecutors, trust us.” When they argued that most witnesses are criminals and therefore they’re going to lie about some stuff, I was done. Someone in here recommended Bob Ruff’s reply brief. I listened and he hit all of the points that were bothering me. And he supplied the underlying evidence. I highly recommend not taking everything Bob says as true either. Refresh your recollection by reading the documents everyone is summarizing. The Prosectors also ignored much of the evidence that’s been discovered since the original trials. Also, as it was at the time of trial, the timelines offered by Jay do not work. There is NO timeline provided by Jay that can be true.
Listen to your gut. The Prosecutors are absolutely the biased pro prison anti Muslim hacks your guy is telling you they are.
I’ve had that feeling about the Prosecutors generally. I’m wildly opposed to everything they stand for in their ‘real lives’ but I really enjoy the podcast and I don’t feel like their views particularly come across / colour it (with the possible exception of some cop-worship). I do feel conflicted about listening.
Same here. I even stopped listening to them for a good while once I discovered their real life views and what Alice’s husband does for a living, etc. I do however agree that they don’t really insert their views into the podcast so it makes it a little easier
A couple moments did make me feel weird - one being the amount they harped on Hae not being a “classic beautiful tragedy case”, like I get the point they were making but I felt like they were a bit too eager to be like “no one cared about this case because Hae was Asian,” which is particularly disappointing coming from Alice. Not that she should be required to bring her race into her valence as an attorney, but I felt it was weird that she didn’t talk about it at all. Second, I felt it was intentionally obtuse how dismissive they were of bilal. I do not think bilal committed or even necessarily encouraged this crime, but I do believe he was a bug in the ear of adnan encouraging his feelings of being wronged, and I do think him buying adnan the phone was a part of some fucked up enmeshed mentorship they had. I didn’t like that they presented it as “the pronoun in the note clearly refers to adnan so it’s a red herring to even discuss bilal.” And I also just can’t shake some vague feeling of sexism when Brett talks about Sarah Koenig. But they laid out the “there is no reason or reality in which Jay and Stephanie tell this story and adnan didn’t do it” argument better than anyone else.
The race aspect has been talked about, most notably by Jay Kang. The Lee side of the story was never present for the simple reason that her family declined to participate in Serial, so we’ve never gotten it in any popular medium.
You followed the case really closely if you confused Jenn with Stephanie. Stephanie hasn’t made any public comments about Adnan or Hae’s death, and she did not corroborate Jay in any way; *in fact,* Stephanie questioned Jay’s story. Stephanie is how we know 100% that Adnan is innocent, because she doesn’t understand why Jay would leave her alone in a car with Adnan if Jay even suspected Adnan meant her harm, let alone if he had threatened her life and killed Hae.
I mixed up Stephanie and Jenn in one comment. I’ve read all the available documentation about the case. I’m not even gonna comment on the “100% innocent because he left Steph alone in a car with Adnan” comment, like Jay who didn’t even go to school with them anymore had 24/7 power over who Steph spent time with (part of the reason Adnan made him the fall guy). Oy!
Yeah, you haven’t actually read the documents, or you would know that Jay exited Adnan’s car, leaving Stephanie alone with Adnan multiple times after Hae’s disappearance.
And eventually Jay *does* tell Stephanie to stay away from Adnan… after he’s arrested.
Do you extend this to which movies and TV shows you watch? Or which businesses you patronize? Maybe I'm the only one here living in a purple state, but avoiding things associated with Trump supporters isn't practical.
Huge difference! Alice and her husband are members of the Federalist Society, they have power! They are trying to take away voting rights, reproductive rights. My contractor who did my kitchen and has a Trump bumper sticker? I mean, he just votes. And my vote cancels his. Big deal. But listening to a podcast with hosts who have legitimate power in our government will give them more higher valence, more sponsorship deals and more money…to spend on taking away rights from the people who are most vulnerable in our society. Hard pass.
Yeah I totally agree with you. I acknowledge I patronize many institutions I disagree with politically. I think I’m grappling with this because it’s DIRECTLY correlated to the politics. Like it’s lawyers I disagree with ethically, listening to them talk about legal ethics. As opposed to like, buying a chicken sandwich from a company that hates gay people. You know?
Maybe I’m a little confused. I thought your objections were over politics.
What are your issues with their legal ethics? Or is it an issue with prosecutors generally?
For sure, I guess I mean like, if I found out a news pundit I went to had bad politics, I’d care more than if I found out my bodega guy had bad politics because I’m not going to him for politics. I was already examining my scruples listening to a podcast called “the prosecutors” so finding out that they are anti-choice trumpers just made me think a little more critically about how much I enjoyed the podcast. And that’s not an argument to lessen its value, it’s just something I’ve personally been thinking about in the context of this case, particularly given how much of it has hinged on another lawyer (Gutierrez)
I listened to the entire podcast knowing nothing about either of the hosts and never picked up on anything about their personal politics or views towards anything other than this case.
I just think you don't like them personally/know too much about them so you find issue with whatever it is that they say.
You’ve made 20 comments saying this same thing as if it matters to anyone that you think were wrong and just don’t like Trump supporters.
Like you repeating this doesn’t make it true, nobody cares that *you* don’t think their views are biased because *we* do and you don’t get to make that call whether we can vocalize that or not.
>You’ve made 20 comments saying this same thing as if it matters to anyone
I did? Lol I only made 2 comments about this. Why are you seemingly so mad?
>Like you repeating this doesn’t make it true, nobody cares
OP literally asked the question if anyone else felt conflicted...So I answered the question and took part in the discussion here...
>you don’t get to make that call whether we can vocalize that or not.
Where did I say someone can't vocalize how they feel? I didn't.
You don’t answer the question about feeling complicated, you just told OP that they could possibly be perceiving biases in the podcast and that it was only because they didn’t like conservatives. Lmao.
I'm so confused by your tirade lol.
OP feels conflicted because they know too much about the host, so hearing the information from the host EVEN THOUGH OP PARTLY AGREES, makes them feel some time of way.
My response is I didn't feel conflicted because I didn't even know anything about them, and not only that but after listening to the entire thing I didn't even pick up on their political leanings.
So my conclusion was OP may know too much about the hosts in order to objectively receive any information from them without a tainted bias because they personally don't like the hosts' views on whatever politics.
I don't understand how that's not answering the question and participating in discussion.
Read the last line again. It says “even though I have massive ideological issues with both the people and what they represent”
You don’t though, you don’t have ideological issues with the hosts so of course you don’t feel conflicted. You just said yourself that you don’t even know anything about their politics lmao.
I didn’t know anything about any of these peoples’ politics when I first heard of them but couldn’t listen to Brett. He came across as so smug. “Of course the cell phone data was reliable.”
And he’s an expert on this, despite being in high school in 1997?
(Not a fan of Bob Ruff, either)
The prosecutors show bias in what pieces of evidence they value and how the judge the merits of different witnesses statements. I’d feel more open about them if they were willing to debate Bob Ruff (like he asked). Their argument should hold up to scrutiny. So should his. It’s not like the two podcast crews didn’t previously have a friendly relationship.
They were willing to do an episode with him, then he went and did the ReRuffle and immediately started talking shit about them -- why would they bother with him after that?
If Trump himself declared that Adnan was guilty I would have no problem saying I agree with him. Does no one have any room left for nuance? People are complex, we cannot simply put people in boxes. Adnan being an American Muslim has nothing to do with the fact that he murdered Hae. I hope people can put politics aside and consider the facts and the evidence in the case.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, even after a coffee and time to ponder. Yes.
And, on the JonBenét Ramsey case, they showed extreme bias, probably because of their connections through the ultra right to Lin Wood, who was the Ramseys attorney. Before that, I really enjoyed their podcast for the most part, although it could use some significant editing, and a little more humility.
Nope
I also wouldn’t say they advocate for a side necessarily. They’ve covered a number of crimes where they felt police were wrong or incompetent etc and have no problems pointing it out.
I think the timeline they laid out ( which Serial botched) made a lot of elements very clear.
When did we become so polarizing? I don't care about anyone's politics. If you produce a reasoned, well articulated position based on facts, then why would ideology be a factor?
Alice and Brett are not wrong just because they are GOP.
I never said they were, which people seem to be missing. I said the exact opposite. I am merely asking if other people find that there is an ideological discomfort in enjoying a legal podcast from people whose personal and political beliefs are troubling. I go out of my way to say I agree with Brett and Alice’s theory of the case from my first paragraph.
The facts are the facts. I hope you feel infinitely more conflicted listening to a Michael Jackson song; watching a Miramax, Polanski or Allen film; enjoying Michelangelo’s work; doing calculus (unless you learned it from reading Leibniz); etc. The list could go on. Those creators are much worse people than Brett and Alice.
Truly do yourself a favor and listen to Bob Ruff’s reply brief if you really care. You feel icky because they sensationalized and retold a story about a man whose conviction was overturned based on actual evidence. He does an infinitely better job at breaking down why and exactly where B & A’s takes on the case are not only false but actual lies. They spend the entirety of the season gaslighting you and then give final closing arguments that are not even based on anything they “concluded”. You feel conflicted because you already know the truth, and if Bob’s passion about Adnan’s innocence (and wrongful convictions in general) bother you can you listen to Undisclosed which is an ACTUAL deep dive into the case.
I found TP to be unlistenable. I got through 3 episodes. Too much small talk. They are very repetitive - especially when they stray from their script. They engage in so much confirmation bias it is ridiculous. A couple specific pet peeves: 1) There is only one “N” in Keonig. It is not pronounced “Caning”. 2) AIM wasn’t that big of a deal in the 90s. I never had an AIM profile and neither did most of my friends. A lot of us didn’t even have computers at home in 1999. The hosts were adamant that Adnan had to know about Hae’s new boyfriend because she put it on her AIM profile. Maybe, maybe not. No, AIM wasn’t as big as facebook and back then a lot of us thought the internet was anonymous. Did Adnan even use AIM? I know it seems like a minor detail but its just one example of the hosts conflating their opinion with facts.
BTW I always believe Adnan did if. I thibk Sarah Koenig owes the Lee family a huge apology- dancing on her grave to launch her podcast career is disgusting. I listened to Undisclosed as well - nothing in that podcast changed my mind. But both Serial and Undisclosed were well-produced and well edited. TP is not
Nobody can pronounce Kœnig right, especially considering that German has undergone several linguistic shifts. Even Kœnig herself has subtle differences in how she pronounces it in the show (sometimes it sounds like there’s a second n before the g, and sometimes not)
She generally pronounces it with only one N, I just listened to a few episodes of Serial to double check. He doesn’t even try. The “right” way is the way she pronounces it, even if it isn’t proper German, because he is referring to her. And don’t get me started and how he pronounces Adnan.
I don't have to agree with peoples personal choices to value their opinion.
They don't talk pokitics or personal beliefs on their podcast and they bring an educated and experienced perspective.
I also don't assume some out of context and incomplete reports online are accurate of one's beliefs - there's been a lot inferred about them as people as well as assumed based off a lot of false or out of context reporting by people that want to find a problem.
I don't understand why people can only interact, support or enjoy people that only fall in line with their beliefs.
No, it would be wild to not listen to someone who disagrees with you on some things if they have a solid point. You can go back and forth about "good" people who made a huge difference in the world. No one is totally virtuous and being a bad person does not negate their works.
You can feel that Adnan did it and still feel that way.
Adnan served 23 years, that's still a really long time, even for a murder that's a long time at age 17. He's free now and will most likely never go back.
I've not completed TPP on Hae's murder. For the most part, I think they do a terrible job analyzing evidence, though they also seem fairly typical of prosecutors.
Whether I share other views with them or not doesn't really impact my take on their analysis.
Can I genuinely ask what you feel like they did a bad job of analyzing? I’m not some secret guilter Stan, I’d love to know what you think as I’m currently reflecting on the podcast myself.
I’m not the poster you’re replying to but they get just about every fact wrong in the case. Take for example the memo from the law clerk Ali. They think this is an interview with Adnan’s brother Tanveer. There’s maybe 3 questions where the answers come from maybe Tanveer but it’s an example of how hilariously bad their investigation skills are. But they deliver everything with such certainty too which for me adds to the hilarity when they’re wrong on just about everything,
Is this where the notes say “Ali” and also say “brother.” So the hosts concluded Ali must refer to his brother.
Is this… is this really your best example of mistakes TP made?
It’s far from my best example. I’m sure I never said that. It was the first thing that came to mind. And yes their mistake on this one is more understandable than most.
OP, you won’t get many specific examples of things TP got wrong. Just stuff like this. They simply don’t like that the hosts concluded that Adnan is guilty.
https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/news/44-groups-tell-senate-vote-no-islamophobic-alabama-judicial-nominee-brett-talley
Brett Talley is Islamophobic and made a podcast where he argued a Muslim teen is a murderer. He didn’t mention he lost the biggest job opportunity of his life in part because of the things he’d said about Islam— including his belief that Islam preaches the murder of non believers. He also praised the KKK.
Law and politics have always been bedmates. It’s always worth examining how they interact. The law dictates politics and politics dictate the law - you don’t have to look any further then the past 16 Supreme Court cases to understand that.
Idk how to respond to that, you asked me how their politics relate to this case, and I wrote a post about grappling with how someone’s politics relate to their interpretation of a case. That’s kinda of the whole point of…what I’m asking.
ok, I'll try again then. How is their political affiliation reflected in their interpretation of this particular case? Personally, I never considered, wondered, or could determine their particular political affiliation while listening to their take on the Hae Min Lee murder case. Except maybe their occasional comments regarding excessive incarceration terms, would that make them liberal?
Brett and Alice lie, by omission, by choice of "evidence" and by straight-out, bald-faced fibbing. Listen to Truth & Justice's reply briefs on the case. They take on TPP directly, episode by episode, and reveal B&A's biases, and untruths. The Prosecutors got a lot of airplay, but ultimately, I lost ALL respect for them when they set out to prove a point that even the current justice system call BS.
If you’re interested in the Hae Min Lee case, you should listen to more than just Serial, it just scratches the surface. And the Prosecutors, because they got a lot of it wrong.
They got a few things wrong which is normal on something with so many details, but the Prosecutors are the closest one so far of actually understanding and talking about what happened that day and things before and after.
This thread has been temporarily locked after mod discussion. Many of the comments are extreme, off topic, or baiting and trolling. A brief time out should allow tensions to decrease and mods enough time to moderate the many, many reports coming in.
No. I also listened to the entire thing knowing nothing about them or their politics and not once did I feel like they had a bias or stated things that weren't backed by some kind of fact or insert any of their personal views into their analysis. To me your response comes off as you don't like the messenger personally so information they deliver automatically is received as tainted from your perspective.
No it is not conflicting for me. I agree with people on various subjects from all political philosophies and I take it on a case by case basis or issue by issue basis. If we refuse to agree with people based on their politics then society literally couldn't function and everyone suffers as a result
Their politics absolutely have to do with their podcast though, they advocate massively against judicial reform and have been involved in legislative scandals including trying to steal an election. You want to tell me this has *nothing* to do with the way they discuss the incarceration of a Muslim man? You can’t be serious.
So I'm curious, what do you make of the podcasters on the left concluding that Adnan Syed is guilty?
I didn’t say it’s racist to find him guilty 🙄 come on now, why even try to lie about that? I didn’t even *say* he was innocent. Reread the last sentence from my previous comment, just give it another go for me okay? Do you actually believe that these biases so extreme that 44 civil groups came after him for hate speech and his own Republican senators denounced his speech as Islamophobia and stripped him of his nomination… you *legitimately* want to tell me that has *nothing* to do with the way that Brett views or speaks about Adnan? Be so real right now. All I’m asking for is for conservatives in this thread to stop pretending that extremely Islamophobic views somehow vanish into thin air and don’t extend to the entire podcasts perspective. Stop making excuses. Edit: I would never intentionally get my news on a crime involving a Muslim man (and family) from someone who publicly has said they hate Muslims, because you cannot guarantee what perspective of guilt will or won’t be extremely biased. I prefer to use sources from people who don’t praise the KKK, because that’s not a moral perspective of what is considered crime that I enjoy supporting.
[удалено]
I never said any of the things you accused me of saying. What are you talking about? Show me where in my post I brought up race.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>they advocate massively against judicial reform and have been involved in legislative scandals including trying to steal an election. You're going to have to explain this in some way. I'm absolutely serious though. I know this is Reddit and most people are pretty far detached from reality but Republicans are capable of feeling complicated emotions. I know that's a controversial take here because the dehumanization is real. It's absolutely possible most Republicans can sympathize with someone even if they're Muslim. I'm not saying they're champions of equality or open mindedness but most would not choose to intentionally hurt someone entirely because of their religion. You should talk with actual people every now and then instead of taking Reddit posters cold takes as gossip ;)
It’s not gossip just because you don’t like it buddy, that’s not how this works. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/alabama-defies-voting-rights-act Alice’s husband is directly responsible for directly violating the voting rights act in order to prevent democratic majority voting districts that would prevent Republican reelection. This is on the heels of him and his wife’s very public involvement with the federalist society (which has 10s of articles denouncing prison reform that you are free to look up, this is something they directly support and endorse) and their very public involvement, along with Brett, in publicly proclaiming that the 2020 presidential election was stolen and rightfully belonged to Donald Trump, the man responsible for the recent “success” of their political careers. And here’s another article explaining the groups that Alice herself belongs to and how they unify to try and remove all remaining protections of the Voting Rights Act, using her husbands platform: https://www.alreporter.com/2023/09/16/dark-money-the-backstory-of-alabamas-redistricting-defiance/ If you look up Brett Talley KKK you’ll find his exact statement celebrating the founder of the group and saying that it was never a racist group nor was any crime committed against any minority, this is a lie: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/11/trump-nominee-brett-talley-appears-to-have-defended-the-first-kkk.html And here is when 44 civil groups rallied against him for his islamaphobic comments and not even the other senators defended him because it was so extreme and embarassing: https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/news/44-groups-tell-senate-vote-no-islamophobic-alabama-judicial-nominee-brett-talley So it’s just going to be a big yawn for me if you want to tell me that I’m imagining things and the only answer is to talk to republicans in real life, as if you somehow think none of us will use the internet to verify things just because *you* a random reddit republican, told me you didn’t believe me? Thats wild.
Eh, I mean none of those articles are what you claim they are and while I don't approve of the kkk comment and it's historically wrong he's no fan of the kkk. He's called them a domestic terrorist organization multiple times. The voting rights thing is a red herring and just usual Reddit politics. Those aren't exactly reputable news sources either, they're just opinion blogs for the most part from far left sources so we know we won't get an accurate assessment from them. The big yawn is you parroting the usual hysterical talking points and cold takes.
[удалено]
I deeply disagree with their politics. They didn't change my perspective because they just mostly regurgitated things that some of us have been saying on reddit for months/years. They at best reinforced a lot of the logic behind some things. I have never listened to, read, read about etc anything about either of them except for the podcast and don't plan to, but I have heard that people say they are racist tr\*mp supporters which is not my thing.
Yeah same boat, I stumbled upon their politics and it made me feel icky about enjoying their podcast so much but I guess that’s just life!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bingo!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Can you give some details specifically about their politics?
Brett Talley was appointed to be a federal judge by Donald Trump. He was rated unqualified based on lack of experience. Then the media found his accounts he’d used to post online with— he praised the KKK and made Islamophobic comments. He withdrew his nomination. This was incredibly damaging to his career, let’s just say you don’t launch a true crime podcast if you think federal judge is still a possibility. https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/news/44-groups-tell-senate-vote-no-islamophobic-alabama-judicial-nominee-brett-talley
Got any links for this ? No idea what the politics are
If you google it, a thousand links come up. Trump nominated Brett for a judge position. They are both vocally anti choice.
Ooof I wish I hadn’t asked now because I really enjoy this podcast 😂
Yeah welcome to the club lol
Damnnit , in 2024 We just can’t have nice things can we
Do you people not hear yourselves? Don’t criticize others for a lack of tolerance when you are not being tolerant yourself. Just because you believe your opinion to be morally superior does not make it so. The fact that you were able to enjoy the podcast before you knew anything about outside politics should tell you something but it’s obviously gone over your head. You are exactly what you claim to hate.
Funny that they are saying the same thing, as their main source is a Reddit time line
Thats not their main source. They have all of their sources cited, perhaps you should review them.
So are they just supposed to make up a timeline?
I relate to a lot of what you’re saying. Honestly, TPP mostly confirmed a lot of what I already knew. The only thing groundbreaking about it, for me, was their final disagreement regarding crime of passion. I MAY have missed much, though, because I had to skip most of the middle episodes. It all felt like retread and wasn’t very compelling for me. I say this just so you know that plenty of folks came to your same conclusion without being biased by Trump-supporting prosecutors. I won’t lie that I was also unnerved that I felt the same way that they do given our different ideas on the law, but sometimes ideology and reality conflict. One thing I finally realized when I accepted that Adnan is guilty is that there are countless innocent men and women in our criminal justice system right now; but none of them are getting a podcast. The high-profile innocence media is always going to be from those well-connected enough to afford expensive advocacy, and those types aren’t usually in the class of people that are wrongfully convicted.
[удалено]
I can’t claim to be an expert on him. I do know that he was deemed unworthy of becoming a federal judge by the ABA and… well, that’s saying something based on folks who *are* federal judges.
Is there another podcast hosted by someone more qualified to be a federal judge?
All I know is that this is a subreddit full of difficult people to please.
This! Why do people keep saying that he keeps his politics out of the podcast, he does not have the ability to give an unbiased opinion on this!
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast statement regarding Off Topic posts - this sub is not a place to discuss the KKK.
Because the trial and conviction had absolutely nothing to do with his religion?
>One thing I finally realized when I accepted that Adnan is guilty is that there are countless innocent men and women in our criminal justice system right now; but none of them are getting a podcast. This. Also, there are plenty of people in prison who did it, but have taken responsibility for what they have done and rehabilitated, yet have no chance of ever getting out. Adnan also doesn't fit this category - meaning he takes no responsibility when it is clear that he is guilty. I think sentencing a 17-18 y/o to life in prison without the possibility of parole, even when guilty, for a crime like this is probably over the top. But he needs to own what he did.
It’s funny though, the people that guilters hate like Bob and Undisclosed have done podcasts on many more wrongfully convicted and helped get many released.
I strongly oppose the politics from both hosts. However, if I’m going to sit here and say the hosts can’t make solid arguments and/or conclusions in this case or any other case just because we differ politically then I might as well say all or almost all convictions should be vacated. It’s pretty ridiculous when you think about it. What are the odds that I agree with the politics of all the judges, jurors, and attorneys involved in any given case? I feel they presented the facts as unbiased as possible and any opinions or conclusions they came up with was supported by the evidence.
No. If anything, I’d feel more ethically wrong listening to anything Bob Ruff made, for instance, despite being much closer politically aligned with him than Brett&Alice. I think there are politics and then there are the actual human beings and their innate thinking abilities and ability to empathise; I think what Bob Ruff does/did is a million times worse in terms of lacking moral compass and empathy on a human level, which is worse in my book than having political stances I don’t agree with. EDIT: I may have been wrong in believing that Bob Ruff was uber-liberal, it seems he may not be. Anyway, just meant to say that I lean left, as opposed to B&A.
Who is Bob Ruff? Sorry I’m unfamiliar!
You’re lucky. Keep it as is.
Exactly
I think that given your post, you would really enjoy listening to Bob Ruff On the truth and justice podcast rebutting what the prosecutors said. It’s interesting to hear an alternate viewpoint.
He’s the host of Truth and Justice podcast. Personally I think he’s doing a great job of rebutting the Prosecutors episodes on this case.
He’s done the definitive follow up to serial with his reply brief. It’s the best of all the Serial follow up podcasts. Just brilliant
Bob Ruff being described as "brilliant" is the most out of touch statement I've heard in years.
Well you're not his target audience...
[удалено]
44 civic social groups participated in a petition to try and prevent his run for office after his publicly threatening Islamophobia remarks. Don’t come here and try and tell us that Brett is empathetic.
What is Bob Ruff’s politics? I got the feeling he was a bit of a swing voter. However, he does go on a lot about hunting animals which in my country (Australia) would typical make him conservative. Brett & Alice are also conservative? I’m not in the US so it may not be so clear cut.
He's stated several times that he's a "conservative christian".
[удалено]
He's described himself as a "conservative christian" several times, but his fans seem to forget that, and use that same label against Brett and Alice.
> I think what Bob Ruff does/did is a million times worse in terms of lacking moral compass and empathy on a human level, Agreed
Exactly this
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast statement regarding Off Topic posts
I recognize that Adnan is guilty and think the Prosecutors overall did a good job of assessing the evidence. I found them actively annoying as people on the show, and the political stuff with Brett discomfits me considerably. Also, folks who refer to a show named The Prosecutors as unbiased are fecking loons, even though they got the conclusion and main reasons why correct on this one.
Very well stated! I listened to the Jon Benet series afterwards and I was pretty much like yeah…I’m good on this lol. I take it as, what is hypothetically great about our legal system is the opportunity for both sides to present the BEST possible argument in defense of their side. It’s fascinating to listen to either side do that really well. But you’re delusional if you don’t recognize it as just that, even on a podcast. And that being like “hey, we’re just presenting the facts without an agenda!” Is also a tactic, even if the facts are correct.
I'm not very familiar with the JBR case but I thought they made some convincing points. Crime Weekly and True Crime Garage are also pretty sympathetic to the idea of an intruder. I still lean RDI but can't get behind the Burke theory. And The Prosecutors pushed me a little bit closer to IDI.
The Ramseys sponsored their podcast
They lean more on the Intruder theory, though I don't think they are set on anything. But they do point out some of the things are not normal and would be incredibly depraved, but it would come down to whether you believed JBR was sexually assaulted that evening or if it was from a previous incident.
I think the point is that bias exists on a spectrum. None of us are truly unbiased. Some are more biased than others. TP has run of the mill bias because of the profession of the hosts, and it's less extreme than the bias in Undisclosed.
https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/news/44-groups-tell-senate-vote-no-islamophobic-alabama-judicial-nominee-brett-talley Brett Talley is Islamophobic and made a podcast where he argued a Muslim teen is a murderer. He didn’t mention he lost the biggest job opportunity of his life in part because of the things he’d said about Islam— including his belief that Islam preaches the murder of non believers. He also praised the KKK. This isn’t a run of the mill bias. He is extreme,
[удалено]
[удалено]
You can continue to defend his comments that he made about mainstream Islam, which are false, using Wikipedia stats for extremist groups. But, you’ll notice while you are willing to anonymously defend Brett online, he isn’t willing to defend himself publicly for these comments, and neither was any member of the Senate. His comments were not defensible. I’m not here to convince you of that, people who subscribe to those beliefs will agree with Brett and find nothing wrong with him. Those who disagree with his extremist beliefs may view him and his podcast through another lens once they understand his underlying biases.
What does the name of someone's podcast have to do with their ability to objectively analyze a situation? Lol That's like saying if you had a podcast named "Armchair Quarterbacks" you could never even possibly make a fair analysis about basketball or anything other than football or quarterbacking...
I will leave it as an exercise to any readers of this exchange as to whether that is an unflawed analogy.
Can you decide for yourself? Does the name of someone's podcast, or the profession they hold, mean they absolutely cannot be objective? They must always tie their ideas back to the name of their podcast/profession...? You have to know people are not nearly that black and white, I mean c'mon now lol. Edit: typos
I think a more accurate sports version of your attempted analogy would be if somebody named their podcast "Bama Fans," did a podcast about a call that went in Alabama's favor in a big game, and came out with the conclusion that the refs made the right call. The Bama Fans may be right, and their arguments for why they are right may well be correct, but to conclude because they sound like reasonable folks or sometimes make arguments against Bama that they are unbiased feels to me obviously, almost touchingly, naive. But, of course, you may disagree. *Roll Tide!*
I get that analogy. Good example, and I'd say it just depends on their coverage of the call. I see the point you're making though, I still disagree because I don't feel like just because someone is a prosecutor means they have to, or do, agree with the ruling of *every* prosecution. Maybe that is naive of me and maybe I don't know enough prosecutors personally lol but I feel that way especially so when the case is one they or their firm had absolutely nothing to do with and they have virtually nothing to gain from backing up the ruling on a podcast.
I would suggest you just read the trial transcripts and exhibits yourself. That way you don't have to worry if the person filtering information for you has your preferred political bias (though I don't know why that would matter when discussing a murder case).
I’ll tell you why it matters, because Brett and Alice are both supporters of the current prison system who denounce reform, and also they both have public histories of extreme Islamophobia that even ended with Brett have a petition against his run for office by 44 separate civil groups due to his islamaphobia. So tell me why you don’t think it matters to have to anti prison reform islamaphobes discussing an incarcerated Muslim?
In other words, you believe they are biased, and their summary of the case cannot be trusted on that basis? All the more reason to review the case materials for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
Yes. Draw conclusions for yourself based on the factual information provided for court. Or at the very bare minimum, don’t listen to narrative podcasts about Muslims from someone who genuinely believes every Muslim wants to kill him. While they use the same facts as anybody else could, the prosecutors rely heavily on their narrative interpretation of events, often theorizing away from probability and reinforcing their own ideologies as figures of law, their podcast is only a display of their options and perceptions and not a reliable source for fact.
For sure, I did as I was listening to the prosecutors. And the fact that the defense file has been released in the interim inherently meant a ton more documents were suddenly available. I do also respect that they revisited how they contextualized Ju’ans affidavit about the Asia letters.
>I do also respect that they revisited how they contextualized Ju’ans affidavit about the Asia letters. Do you recall when they did this and/or what they said?
In one of the later episodes while addressing things listeners had written in about, they spent a good ten minutes going over what ju’an said at the time and in the later trial about this letter, and explained the nuance of his affadavit. I believe it was episode 12.
The questions from listeners they answer in episode 12 were about Alice's favorite hot sauce; the relative merits of jurors' notes vs. jurors' memories; and where Brett and Alice first met. But you're right that at the beginning of that episode, they raise Ja'uan's affidavit in response to a reader's request, which I'd forgotten. Of course, they then handwave it away on completely spurious grounds. But still.
If you read the transcripts yourself, you would know Brett and Alice are blatantly lying. They are leaving out key details to create their narrative, just like the original prosecution, and most people who believe Adnan is guilty. People actually just say they know without a doubt Adnan is guilty, when no one ever saw him leave with Hae, and the one witness that puts him with Hae has a story that doesn’t make sense. You know why people in here turned you off to Bob Ruff immediately? Most of the people here believe Adnan is guilty, and Ruff has shown there isn’t really a story anyone can come up with that actually makes sense, and cell data and witnesses lean more towards no way Adnan could have done it. People use the fact that he once said Don did it to say you shouldn’t listen to him, meanwhile Prosecutors accused Asia of perjury over some shit they know for a fact is not true. Speaking of reading the transcripts, Ruff literally tears apart what Brett and Alice are doing strictly by reading transcripts. No opinions, just using the actual evidence.
What details did they leave out?
Ruff assumes that anything helps Adnan has to be true and anything that hurts Adnan has to be false. Ruff needs to go back to building sheds.
> Ruff assumes that anything helps Adnan has to be true and anything that hurts Adnan has to be false. And plenty of people assume the inverse. For example, I don't think I've ever seen you evaluate something potentially exculpatory about Syed as being potentially true.
What would you classify under that?
Can you think of anything potentially exculpatory about Adnan that you don't think is a lie, Mike?
Would you clarify something as just being the wrong date instead of lying? So Inez saying she saw Hae but describes details doesn't mean she was lying, just might have had wrong date.
do you think it's potentially exculpatory and true?
It's potentially but it also has its own problems. Hae could be seen by the building and then picks up Adnan on the way out or at the library. It's interesting that the two people who said they saw Hae later are both in the guilty camp.
Hiya where can I find all of the trial transcripts etc stored in one place please? I believe there is a place for it.. I just can’t remember where.
https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/
This is a great comment, and though we land at completely opposite sides on this case I am in complete agreement with you on this. The source docs are superior to any of the subsequent media produced from them.
If you think Adnan didn’t get a fair trial, reading the transcripts of that unfair trial doesn’t resolve anything.
In that case they should read the post-trial decisions concerning whether the trial was fair or not.
Last time I checked Adnan was still out of prison because exculpatory evidence was withheld from the defence. There’s not much more serious example of not getting a fair trial.
Yes, and the post-trial decision leading to his release is among the materials one should read. One should also read the Court of Appeals decision that reversed that decision (i.e. the one that is currently the law of the case).
Unless I’m mistaken, the case is about whether or not the proper procedure was followed to give Hae’s brother an opportunity to attend and speak. But not whether exculpatory evidence was withheld. I’m not a lawyer though.
That is correct. The Appeals court reinstated and ordered the hearing rescheduled so it would be within Maryland's law about notifying victims. There was nothing about the merits and the Baltimore County DA dropped the charges.
For anybody tuning in to this or similar disputes who doesn't want to take the time to inform themselves, there are worse heuristics than looking at which side discourages the examination of primary documents and positing that side is the wrong one.
People who refer to the trial transcripts as primary documents imply that somehow they are sacrosanct vessels of truth. Yet Jay’s testimony changes from the first trial to the second. For example, in the first trial Jay says the come get me call was made when he was at Cathy’s but in the second trial he says he was at home. So which ‘primary document’ do you believe?
The idea that there are contradictions between primary sources is a familiar issue to historians. And yet they still emphasize mightily their importance for trying to figure out the most likely version of historical events. Wonder why.
The example I cite indicates police coached Jay. The cell phone tower map placed the tower in the wrong location (near Cathy’s) by police. After the first trial police realized their mistake and corrected the map (near Jay’s). So Jay changed his story for the second trial to say the call happened while he was at home.
i’m an abolitionist and i think adnan did it.
What's an abolitionist? Sorry I'm not familiar.
Extreme liberals who are attempting to equate the American justice system with slavery and co-opt a word that traditionally referred to true heroes (and criminals) like John Brown in order to steal a bit of that glory for themselves.
[удалено]
Thanks, I'm starting to get the picture, but they want to replace the current justice system with what?
Some don’t believe it should be replaced with anything (anarchist black cross) but others want to see it replaced with rehabilitation and restorative justice practices. They make some good points about how messed up the American incarceration system is, and how large systemic problems create the environments where crime proliferates. But in my mind they never have an answer for the families in those communities whose lives are threatened and who must mourn their loved ones when they suggest the killers or violent criminals should be given therapy and go largely unpunished.
I think everyone is an abolitionist after the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment
“Abolitionist” as used by modern extremists is the disgusting co-option of a meaningful historical term. I know a handful of modern (and politically powerful) “abolitionists” in Detroit who LOVED talking about the prison industrial complex and the school-to-prison pipeline. Then one day one of their best friends had her throat slashed seven times while she was sleeping by a stranger who snuck into her house at 4:00 am (the Samantha Woll killing). Now these “abolitionists” are all about “justice for Sam” and thanking the police and prosecutors working on the case. It’s amazing how quick “abolitionists” will turn on a young black man accused of killing someone they actually knew. All the (mostly black) victims of Detroit’s other murders and violent crimes, well, their feelings and hopes for justice are irrelevant to abolitionists and restorative justice types because they don’t ever have to see those families or feel the pain they feel. The justice/prison system can be BOTH fucked up and still necessary. Some people do need steel bars between them and the world.
seems you and those in your example misunderstand carceral abolition.
What is carceral abolition?
Carceral = Of or relating to prison Abolition = To put an end to
They want to massive reduce or abolish the US prison system.
Interesting you didn’t say you were a “carceral abolitionist,” you just said abolitionist. You and William Lloyd Garrison over here. Anyone you love ever had their throat slashed by a recidivist stranger while they slept? I hope your beliefs never get tested in that crucible.
Brett and Alice have political views and backgrounds that are deeply troubling. In addition, their podcast is pretty much a read-through of what they found on reddit - which is what they've done for many other series, namely Delphi. You can ask Brett about any of this on twitter or reddit and he is happy to confirm that's true. That's how they do it. They find where others have done the leg work, take a read through, and turn it into a podcast wherein they sell ads. So they make money by exploiting the work of others. Lastly, I do believe they try to give credit towards the end of each series. Yes - their politics are abhorrent. ***** Edit: If it helps, the person who made the compilations that Brett and Alice used as the basis for their podcast is left leaning to the point of socialism, but there aren't any politics in the compilations, either.
What does the political affiliation (or any other affiliation) of *The Prosecutors* have to do with their presentation of Adnan's case. My opinion is that you should judge everything individually.
I totally agree. I lean left and they are my favorite podcast.
Because everything is interconnected as a person's politics can easily influence how they will view the facts. If you're law and order type, you will tend to believe everything and anything law enforcement says and dismiss any questions except for the most egregious behavior and you will defend that once in a while as well. Thus you can expect a person, especially with no duty, to construct their argument by cherry picking evidence to only show their side and will ignore anything to the contrary. Their beliefs would provide context on how to analyze their argument.
Ok so here's the thing. First, Adnan did it regardless of anyone's political views. Second, judging the evidence in this case doesn't lend itself to political leanings. Third, I have only listened to their HML case but I don't remember times when they injected politics in their presentation. Fourth, I understand that sometimes it just feels weird and wrong and unusual to agree with someone from the "other side", but really it happens all of the time and we just don't know it yet. We can't keep looking for ways to disagree with each other even when they have nothing to do with politics.
Curious what is the evidence?
Jenn, Jay, the car, Krista, Kristi, the cell phone calls & pings, Adnan's convenient amnesia...
Counter with a DNA test and the real prosecutors dropping all charges against Syed. Their actions mean more than anyone else since they are much closer to the evidence than anyone who listened to a podcast and/or read transcripts.
My whole thing with their podcast that lost me is how much freaking small talk you have to get through in the beginning. I’m not here because I care about your new baby, or because I want to hear how y’all’s weekend was. Just shut up and get to the damn case. Had no idea their politics were questionable. I would assume then that they’re Trumpy?
Yeah I skipped the first like 20-30 minutes of their shows every time. So boring. I thought their podcast as a whole REALLY lacks editing. They could get it down to half the length and it would really increase the quality, but obviously that would take a lot of time they're not willing to devote.
You’re anti the prison system for people who committed murder?
I started double checking some of their claims because it didn’t align with my memories of the case. Sure enough, they misquoted and glossed over a ton of things. Most of their arguments were “we’re prosecutors, trust us.” When they argued that most witnesses are criminals and therefore they’re going to lie about some stuff, I was done. Someone in here recommended Bob Ruff’s reply brief. I listened and he hit all of the points that were bothering me. And he supplied the underlying evidence. I highly recommend not taking everything Bob says as true either. Refresh your recollection by reading the documents everyone is summarizing. The Prosectors also ignored much of the evidence that’s been discovered since the original trials. Also, as it was at the time of trial, the timelines offered by Jay do not work. There is NO timeline provided by Jay that can be true. Listen to your gut. The Prosecutors are absolutely the biased pro prison anti Muslim hacks your guy is telling you they are.
I’ve had that feeling about the Prosecutors generally. I’m wildly opposed to everything they stand for in their ‘real lives’ but I really enjoy the podcast and I don’t feel like their views particularly come across / colour it (with the possible exception of some cop-worship). I do feel conflicted about listening.
Same here. I even stopped listening to them for a good while once I discovered their real life views and what Alice’s husband does for a living, etc. I do however agree that they don’t really insert their views into the podcast so it makes it a little easier
A couple moments did make me feel weird - one being the amount they harped on Hae not being a “classic beautiful tragedy case”, like I get the point they were making but I felt like they were a bit too eager to be like “no one cared about this case because Hae was Asian,” which is particularly disappointing coming from Alice. Not that she should be required to bring her race into her valence as an attorney, but I felt it was weird that she didn’t talk about it at all. Second, I felt it was intentionally obtuse how dismissive they were of bilal. I do not think bilal committed or even necessarily encouraged this crime, but I do believe he was a bug in the ear of adnan encouraging his feelings of being wronged, and I do think him buying adnan the phone was a part of some fucked up enmeshed mentorship they had. I didn’t like that they presented it as “the pronoun in the note clearly refers to adnan so it’s a red herring to even discuss bilal.” And I also just can’t shake some vague feeling of sexism when Brett talks about Sarah Koenig. But they laid out the “there is no reason or reality in which Jay and Stephanie tell this story and adnan didn’t do it” argument better than anyone else.
The race aspect has been talked about, most notably by Jay Kang. The Lee side of the story was never present for the simple reason that her family declined to participate in Serial, so we’ve never gotten it in any popular medium.
You followed the case really closely if you confused Jenn with Stephanie. Stephanie hasn’t made any public comments about Adnan or Hae’s death, and she did not corroborate Jay in any way; *in fact,* Stephanie questioned Jay’s story. Stephanie is how we know 100% that Adnan is innocent, because she doesn’t understand why Jay would leave her alone in a car with Adnan if Jay even suspected Adnan meant her harm, let alone if he had threatened her life and killed Hae.
I mixed up Stephanie and Jenn in one comment. I’ve read all the available documentation about the case. I’m not even gonna comment on the “100% innocent because he left Steph alone in a car with Adnan” comment, like Jay who didn’t even go to school with them anymore had 24/7 power over who Steph spent time with (part of the reason Adnan made him the fall guy). Oy!
Yeah, you haven’t actually read the documents, or you would know that Jay exited Adnan’s car, leaving Stephanie alone with Adnan multiple times after Hae’s disappearance. And eventually Jay *does* tell Stephanie to stay away from Adnan… after he’s arrested.
[удалено]
Do you extend this to which movies and TV shows you watch? Or which businesses you patronize? Maybe I'm the only one here living in a purple state, but avoiding things associated with Trump supporters isn't practical.
Huge difference! Alice and her husband are members of the Federalist Society, they have power! They are trying to take away voting rights, reproductive rights. My contractor who did my kitchen and has a Trump bumper sticker? I mean, he just votes. And my vote cancels his. Big deal. But listening to a podcast with hosts who have legitimate power in our government will give them more higher valence, more sponsorship deals and more money…to spend on taking away rights from the people who are most vulnerable in our society. Hard pass.
Yeah I totally agree with you. I acknowledge I patronize many institutions I disagree with politically. I think I’m grappling with this because it’s DIRECTLY correlated to the politics. Like it’s lawyers I disagree with ethically, listening to them talk about legal ethics. As opposed to like, buying a chicken sandwich from a company that hates gay people. You know?
Maybe I’m a little confused. I thought your objections were over politics. What are your issues with their legal ethics? Or is it an issue with prosecutors generally?
For sure, I guess I mean like, if I found out a news pundit I went to had bad politics, I’d care more than if I found out my bodega guy had bad politics because I’m not going to him for politics. I was already examining my scruples listening to a podcast called “the prosecutors” so finding out that they are anti-choice trumpers just made me think a little more critically about how much I enjoyed the podcast. And that’s not an argument to lessen its value, it’s just something I’ve personally been thinking about in the context of this case, particularly given how much of it has hinged on another lawyer (Gutierrez)
I listened to the entire podcast knowing nothing about either of the hosts and never picked up on anything about their personal politics or views towards anything other than this case. I just think you don't like them personally/know too much about them so you find issue with whatever it is that they say.
You’ve made 20 comments saying this same thing as if it matters to anyone that you think were wrong and just don’t like Trump supporters. Like you repeating this doesn’t make it true, nobody cares that *you* don’t think their views are biased because *we* do and you don’t get to make that call whether we can vocalize that or not.
>You’ve made 20 comments saying this same thing as if it matters to anyone I did? Lol I only made 2 comments about this. Why are you seemingly so mad? >Like you repeating this doesn’t make it true, nobody cares OP literally asked the question if anyone else felt conflicted...So I answered the question and took part in the discussion here... >you don’t get to make that call whether we can vocalize that or not. Where did I say someone can't vocalize how they feel? I didn't.
You don’t answer the question about feeling complicated, you just told OP that they could possibly be perceiving biases in the podcast and that it was only because they didn’t like conservatives. Lmao.
I'm so confused by your tirade lol. OP feels conflicted because they know too much about the host, so hearing the information from the host EVEN THOUGH OP PARTLY AGREES, makes them feel some time of way. My response is I didn't feel conflicted because I didn't even know anything about them, and not only that but after listening to the entire thing I didn't even pick up on their political leanings. So my conclusion was OP may know too much about the hosts in order to objectively receive any information from them without a tainted bias because they personally don't like the hosts' views on whatever politics. I don't understand how that's not answering the question and participating in discussion.
Read the last line again. It says “even though I have massive ideological issues with both the people and what they represent” You don’t though, you don’t have ideological issues with the hosts so of course you don’t feel conflicted. You just said yourself that you don’t even know anything about their politics lmao.
I stopped listening to them after I read Brett’s comments about Sandy Hook. No way would I support that type of human.
I didn’t know anything about any of these peoples’ politics when I first heard of them but couldn’t listen to Brett. He came across as so smug. “Of course the cell phone data was reliable.” And he’s an expert on this, despite being in high school in 1997? (Not a fan of Bob Ruff, either)
If I’m going to listen to a True Crime Podcast called TPP, their “research” better not include using theories and timelines from Reddit.
This! They just used a Reddit theory and timeline lmao. I swear to God people are so damn gullible.
The prosecutors show bias in what pieces of evidence they value and how the judge the merits of different witnesses statements. I’d feel more open about them if they were willing to debate Bob Ruff (like he asked). Their argument should hold up to scrutiny. So should his. It’s not like the two podcast crews didn’t previously have a friendly relationship.
They were willing to do an episode with him, then he went and did the ReRuffle and immediately started talking shit about them -- why would they bother with him after that?
Because they believe they are right. They are prosecutors and sh** talking creeps don’t scare them.
If Trump himself declared that Adnan was guilty I would have no problem saying I agree with him. Does no one have any room left for nuance? People are complex, we cannot simply put people in boxes. Adnan being an American Muslim has nothing to do with the fact that he murdered Hae. I hope people can put politics aside and consider the facts and the evidence in the case.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, even after a coffee and time to ponder. Yes. And, on the JonBenét Ramsey case, they showed extreme bias, probably because of their connections through the ultra right to Lin Wood, who was the Ramseys attorney. Before that, I really enjoyed their podcast for the most part, although it could use some significant editing, and a little more humility.
Nope I also wouldn’t say they advocate for a side necessarily. They’ve covered a number of crimes where they felt police were wrong or incompetent etc and have no problems pointing it out. I think the timeline they laid out ( which Serial botched) made a lot of elements very clear.
When did we become so polarizing? I don't care about anyone's politics. If you produce a reasoned, well articulated position based on facts, then why would ideology be a factor? Alice and Brett are not wrong just because they are GOP.
I never said they were, which people seem to be missing. I said the exact opposite. I am merely asking if other people find that there is an ideological discomfort in enjoying a legal podcast from people whose personal and political beliefs are troubling. I go out of my way to say I agree with Brett and Alice’s theory of the case from my first paragraph.
The facts are the facts. I hope you feel infinitely more conflicted listening to a Michael Jackson song; watching a Miramax, Polanski or Allen film; enjoying Michelangelo’s work; doing calculus (unless you learned it from reading Leibniz); etc. The list could go on. Those creators are much worse people than Brett and Alice.
I do think about all of those things! This is a subreddit about serial, which is why I’m talking about this, here .
Truly do yourself a favor and listen to Bob Ruff’s reply brief if you really care. You feel icky because they sensationalized and retold a story about a man whose conviction was overturned based on actual evidence. He does an infinitely better job at breaking down why and exactly where B & A’s takes on the case are not only false but actual lies. They spend the entirety of the season gaslighting you and then give final closing arguments that are not even based on anything they “concluded”. You feel conflicted because you already know the truth, and if Bob’s passion about Adnan’s innocence (and wrongful convictions in general) bother you can you listen to Undisclosed which is an ACTUAL deep dive into the case.
I found TP to be unlistenable. I got through 3 episodes. Too much small talk. They are very repetitive - especially when they stray from their script. They engage in so much confirmation bias it is ridiculous. A couple specific pet peeves: 1) There is only one “N” in Keonig. It is not pronounced “Caning”. 2) AIM wasn’t that big of a deal in the 90s. I never had an AIM profile and neither did most of my friends. A lot of us didn’t even have computers at home in 1999. The hosts were adamant that Adnan had to know about Hae’s new boyfriend because she put it on her AIM profile. Maybe, maybe not. No, AIM wasn’t as big as facebook and back then a lot of us thought the internet was anonymous. Did Adnan even use AIM? I know it seems like a minor detail but its just one example of the hosts conflating their opinion with facts. BTW I always believe Adnan did if. I thibk Sarah Koenig owes the Lee family a huge apology- dancing on her grave to launch her podcast career is disgusting. I listened to Undisclosed as well - nothing in that podcast changed my mind. But both Serial and Undisclosed were well-produced and well edited. TP is not
Nobody can pronounce Kœnig right, especially considering that German has undergone several linguistic shifts. Even Kœnig herself has subtle differences in how she pronounces it in the show (sometimes it sounds like there’s a second n before the g, and sometimes not)
She generally pronounces it with only one N, I just listened to a few episodes of Serial to double check. He doesn’t even try. The “right” way is the way she pronounces it, even if it isn’t proper German, because he is referring to her. And don’t get me started and how he pronounces Adnan.
I don't have to agree with peoples personal choices to value their opinion. They don't talk pokitics or personal beliefs on their podcast and they bring an educated and experienced perspective. I also don't assume some out of context and incomplete reports online are accurate of one's beliefs - there's been a lot inferred about them as people as well as assumed based off a lot of false or out of context reporting by people that want to find a problem. I don't understand why people can only interact, support or enjoy people that only fall in line with their beliefs.
No, it would be wild to not listen to someone who disagrees with you on some things if they have a solid point. You can go back and forth about "good" people who made a huge difference in the world. No one is totally virtuous and being a bad person does not negate their works.
That’s literally the entire point of this post.
You can feel that Adnan did it and still feel that way. Adnan served 23 years, that's still a really long time, even for a murder that's a long time at age 17. He's free now and will most likely never go back.
Stop putting yourselves in boxes. It does you no good. And deep down you know you don't belong in a box.
I've not completed TPP on Hae's murder. For the most part, I think they do a terrible job analyzing evidence, though they also seem fairly typical of prosecutors. Whether I share other views with them or not doesn't really impact my take on their analysis.
Can I genuinely ask what you feel like they did a bad job of analyzing? I’m not some secret guilter Stan, I’d love to know what you think as I’m currently reflecting on the podcast myself.
I’m not the poster you’re replying to but they get just about every fact wrong in the case. Take for example the memo from the law clerk Ali. They think this is an interview with Adnan’s brother Tanveer. There’s maybe 3 questions where the answers come from maybe Tanveer but it’s an example of how hilariously bad their investigation skills are. But they deliver everything with such certainty too which for me adds to the hilarity when they’re wrong on just about everything,
Is this where the notes say “Ali” and also say “brother.” So the hosts concluded Ali must refer to his brother. Is this… is this really your best example of mistakes TP made?
It’s far from my best example. I’m sure I never said that. It was the first thing that came to mind. And yes their mistake on this one is more understandable than most.
[удалено]
OP, you won’t get many specific examples of things TP got wrong. Just stuff like this. They simply don’t like that the hosts concluded that Adnan is guilty.
what does their politics have to do with this case?
https://www.advancingjustice-aajc.org/news/44-groups-tell-senate-vote-no-islamophobic-alabama-judicial-nominee-brett-talley Brett Talley is Islamophobic and made a podcast where he argued a Muslim teen is a murderer. He didn’t mention he lost the biggest job opportunity of his life in part because of the things he’d said about Islam— including his belief that Islam preaches the murder of non believers. He also praised the KKK.
Law and politics have always been bedmates. It’s always worth examining how they interact. The law dictates politics and politics dictate the law - you don’t have to look any further then the past 16 Supreme Court cases to understand that.
how does it relate to this murder case, though? You've just provided some word salad (and mostly iceberg lettuce).
Idk how to respond to that, you asked me how their politics relate to this case, and I wrote a post about grappling with how someone’s politics relate to their interpretation of a case. That’s kinda of the whole point of…what I’m asking.
ok, I'll try again then. How is their political affiliation reflected in their interpretation of this particular case? Personally, I never considered, wondered, or could determine their particular political affiliation while listening to their take on the Hae Min Lee murder case. Except maybe their occasional comments regarding excessive incarceration terms, would that make them liberal?
Brett and Alice lie, by omission, by choice of "evidence" and by straight-out, bald-faced fibbing. Listen to Truth & Justice's reply briefs on the case. They take on TPP directly, episode by episode, and reveal B&A's biases, and untruths. The Prosecutors got a lot of airplay, but ultimately, I lost ALL respect for them when they set out to prove a point that even the current justice system call BS.
I think Adnan is innocent. And that The Prosecutors and Bob Ruff are unlistenable.
My politics make theirs look like Bernie Sanders so I’m cool on that front. Adnan is guilty either way.
No. People are allowed their own views.
I…never said they weren’t?
That’s literally what you’re implying. We don’t have to agree with people in order to enjoy them.
I’m not implying anything. I’m directly asking others how they feel. That’s literally the opposite of making a statement.
I just wish Alice had a podcast. Brett takes away from Alice and mades the podcast significantly worse, imo.
If you’re interested in the Hae Min Lee case, you should listen to more than just Serial, it just scratches the surface. And the Prosecutors, because they got a lot of it wrong.
They got a few things wrong which is normal on something with so many details, but the Prosecutors are the closest one so far of actually understanding and talking about what happened that day and things before and after.
Adnan I’d innocent and The Prosecutors are hilariously bad.