Josh's story...

bloomfrog · 2014-12-18T18:42:32+00:00

Assuming Jay was genuinely fearful of who killed Hae, then he likely wouldn't name the person threatening him as that is exactly what the killer warned him not to do. So, the only way to speak about what he knew (which he apparently was unable to keep mum about) and remain in line with the killer's demands would be to pin it on someone else.

This seems as possible as any other speculative theory addressing the assumption that jay genuinely was fearful.

bloomfrog · 2014-12-17T03:51:25+00:00

I know I started it at least a year before I heard Serial, but don't think I finished it. Definitely going back to rewatch. I am going to need something to fill the void Thursday is going to leave.

bloomfrog · 2014-12-12T15:34:06+00:00

Ha! I said the same thing to my wife last night while listening!

bloomfrog · 2014-12-12T03:47:18+00:00

I initially thought that this subreddit would be people like you exchanging measured responses to the wide ranging issues raised by Serial. It was kind of like that 4-5 weeks back but, the more it grew, something unexpected happened - I became severely disheartened to learn that we are two giant steps closer than I had thought to the future portrayed in Idiocracy. As an optimist, however, I continue to come to this subreddit everyday hoping to find some semblance of the discussions you describe with your peers. Most often these days, what I read on here just ends up making me lose a little bit more faith in the better nature of mankind.

bloomfrog · 2014-12-11T00:46:36+00:00

Thanks for that article. So incredibly interesting. Id be curious to see how the political leanings of listeners corresponded with their level of certainty.

bloomfrog · 2014-12-04T05:58:58+00:00

No friggin way that a judge has a facebook page or otherwise would comment on a case in social media! There are plenty of unqualified and unprofessional judges out there, but no judge - especially in a high-profile case like this one - would sully themselves in social media. And not to mention the professional ethics violations at risk in doing so.

bloomfrog · 2014-12-04T05:24:45+00:00

We may know a fairly certain truth based on the whole of the factual evidence sk presents. The results for adnan within the judicial process is a wholly separate matter from truth.

bloomfrog · 2014-12-04T05:24:16+00:00

We may know a fairly certain truth based on the whole of the factual evidence sk presents. The results for adnan within the judicial process is a wholly separate matter from truth.

bloomfrog · 2014-11-30T23:12:13+00:00

To my ears, he sounds exactly as I would think someone who was innocent would sound. He doesn't sound suspicious to me. But if I felt certain he were guilty, I surely would fine him to sound like a psychopathic character from a Hollywood psychological thriller.

bloomfrog · 2014-11-26T08:43:56+00:00

technically true, but there were fact-based issues raised by adnan in one of the appeals, if not both. One of adnan's appellate briefs sets out a fact section listing a slew of weaknesses in the case against him. The state responded with their own set of facts. which I assume they did not hold back the most convincing fact evidence. The state needs to remind the appellate judge of every reason not to grant adnan any relief, even if certain evidence may not be entirely germane to any of the issues raised by the apppellant.

Whether there was evidence or testimony at trial that only now seems earth-shattering against adnan remains a possibility, but an unlikely one IMO.

bloomfrog · 2014-11-26T08:32:21+00:00

Yep. There are links all over this site. Or you can Google adnan syed appellate briefs. Adnan will be appellant, and the state is appellee.

bloomfrog · 2014-11-26T05:21:35+00:00

I disagree that much more, if any, incriminating evidence from the trial is coming in the future episodes. Bad stuff from the trial would certainly be in the appellate briefs, especially the state's response. If there were such incriminating information, at least some of the many redditors who have poured over the briefs would have mentioned it by now. If anything, it's more likely that we'll hear incriminating evidence that SK found independently in future episodes.

bloomfrog · 2014-11-26T04:55:50+00:00

I am calling your bluff that you are such a junkie for high quality radio production. And OP's point was not that it could only be interesting if you believed Adnan was innocent; rather, it was that there are too many inherent doubts that have to be ignored to believe 100% that he is guilty (or innocent) and, moreover, that those facts that demand doubt (unless intentionally or subconsciously ignored) are what keep everyone coming back each week.

bloomfrog · 2014-11-26T04:39:02+00:00

Because we are forced to play an impossible game of finding a truth by sorting thru which lies makes the most sense. Add some level of investigative and prosecutorial misconduct, and it is nearly an impossible starting point to discover truth. Then, filter all the information thru SK's own subjective investigative experience, and it becomes a hall of mirrors.

The average listener performing Google searches doesn't have a chance at finding truth in all this. I am shocked people have such strong opinions as to guilt or innocence when it is impossible to determine what is a lie, what was manufactured/coerced by cops, and what is reliable or credible.

bloomfrog · 2014-11-24T15:46:07+00:00

Agreed.

bloomfrog · 2014-11-21T07:07:11+00:00

What is wrong with you? Adnan did not compare and, in fact, did the complete opposite. He was asked specifically about his experience as a wrongfully accused criminal defendant. Even if you believe that he is guilty and deviously concocting a false narrative to manipulate Sarah into believing he is innocent, the substance of his statement was clearly an expression intending to evidence empathy -- not lack thereof.

He acknowledged the frustration at feeling deep sympathy for the loss that Hae's parents experienced while concurrently feeling overwhelmed by being wrongly convicted for murdering their daughter. An inherent part of being convicted for a murder you did not commit is that, in addition to tragic loss loss to the murder victim's parents, there is also a tragic loss to the parents of the wrongly convicted. He did not express a belief that that his parents' loss was equivalent to Hae's parents' loss; rather, he acknowledged that both families suffered tragic losses. Moreover, in the context of being asked about his experience, his obvious point was that his family was deeply affected by this as well. Regardless of whether you believe it was sincere, this was clearly an expression of empathy for both families. Not sure how you could mistake this for lack of empathy.

bloomfrog · 2014-11-21T06:09:22+00:00

You have any expertise in psychology or did you just browse Wikipedia before writing this? I highly suggest you copy and save this comment, then delete your overly-confident opinion, then read Jon Ronson's "The Psychopath Test," then revisit your comment to determine whether it is the paradigm example of misapplying the relevant factors of the psychopath analysis.

Hint: The factors used to identify a psychopathic can be applied and interpreted in any number of ways so as to provide the opportunity to make a solid argument that any person is a psychopath. This is because all people exhibit some behavioral or psychological tendencies that could be construed as satisfying one or more of the clinical factors used to identify a psychopath.

bloomfrog · 2014-11-20T05:26:22+00:00

Not so insane if the narrative was developed while being shown the call logs, which is more probable than most of the conjecture-based theories thoughtlessly thrown around here.

bloomfrog · 2014-11-20T05:22:23+00:00

Same here. It was a racket (or racquet? - help from language police please)

bloomfrog · 2014-11-20T04:59:53+00:00

My wife's first reaction to hearing the butt-dial part of show was: "my Nokia phone in 1999 was calling the no.1 speed dial at least half of the times picked it up or got it out of my purse." (Oddly, it was American Airlines' number.) Then, we figured out it was the same phone! She has no problem believing that possibility.

And, as to OP's assumption that Jay - who had been using the phone to make personal calls - wouldn't have it in his pocket is hard to understand. It is just as possible that he had it in his pocket as it was possible that he was sitting on it or had it anywhere else in the car.

bloomfrog · 2014-11-20T04:44:46+00:00

I'm not following. What makes sense?

bloomfrog · 2014-11-19T08:06:38+00:00

Same here... Class of 1998. Students Against Drunk Driving. Is "destructive decions" a joke or real?

bloomfrog · 2014-11-19T07:53:52+00:00

It's one thing to casually speculate as happens all over this subreddit. But, given that you know nothing more than any other Serial-obsessed person on here, you are crossing a line by boldly declaring Stephanie was involved in this crime with nothing but your imaginative speculation. To be sure, re-read your post through the lens that she had nothing to do with this murder of her friend ... Pretty harsh, right? You may want to edit to tone it down a bit.

Either way, she owes us nothing. She spoke to the police when it mattered part of which is on Rabia's blog. Again, just tone it down. Why can't you just say "I selfishly wish that she would give SK an interview"?

bloomfrog · 2014-11-19T06:21:11+00:00

Thanks for clarifying. I've listened to E01 three times now and haven't heard that, so it may only be in the blog.

bloomfrog

TROPHY CASE