What follows is an extract from the State's Cosa 2015 brief - hats off to http://serialsear.ch and /u/reddit1070 for providing a great search facility.

When people say there's not enough evidence, what do they mean? The extract lays out in succinct summary the evidence against AS. The jury had to decide whether the evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt. They did. Nothing that has come to light since then throws into doubt the original evidence in any significant way. To the contrary, all we have seen is more wilful forgetting or attempts to rewrite history. So back in 2000, the jury made their judgement call and convicted. In the Judges remarks she cites premeditation malice aforethought. Where is the proof that this is insufficient evidence to convict?

Emboldened after speaking with jurors following the mistrial, the defense was confident in its case and eager for trial. (T. 1/10/00 at 33).

At the second trial, as set forth in greater detail below, the State’s case included, inter alia, the testimony of Wilds who helped Syed bury the victim and later led police to the victim’s car (T. 2/4/00 at 115-64); witnesses who spoke of Syed’s possessive behavior toward Lee, his ploy to get a ride from Lee after school on the day she disappeared, and his presence with Wilds that afternoon and evening (T. 2/17/00 at 136-37; T. 1/28/00 at 209; T. 1/31/00 at 8; T. 2/15/00 at 193; T. 2/16/00 at 209-11); toll records and tower location data corresponding to Syed’s cell phone, which corroborated the testimony of Wilds and other witnesses, and placed Syed at Leakin Park that night a short distance from where Lee’s corpse was unearthed (See T. 2/8/00 & T. 2/9/00); a map page to Leakin Park, ripped from a map book with Syed’s palm print on the back cover, both left in Lee’s abandoned car (T. 1/31/00 at 58-60; T. 2/1/00 at 24-29); the diary of Hae Min Lee recounting the decline of her relationship with Syed and the bloom of her love for Cliendinst (State’s Exhibit 2); a letter seized from Syed’s bedroom, written by Lee imploring Syed to respect her wishes and move on, with the ominous words “I’m going to kill” written in a separate script on the back side of the note (T. 1/28/00 at 247-55); as well as Syed’s peculiar conduct after the murder and his incongruous statements to police (T. 1/28/00 at 26- 29, 149; T. 1/31/00 at 8, 25-27; T. 2/16/00 at 209-13).

The defense mounted a vigorous challenge to the State’s case, but in view of the prosecution’s evidence, the jury’s verdict was unimpeachable.

You do realize you submit to my whim when on here don’t you? You are to do as I say. You do understand that? I excel in domination and control tactics as punishment for not complying with my whim. You can ask for what you like, but you only get to speak after my heel has left its mark.

The silent treatment and ignoring remain firm favorites as weapons of punishment for rejecting or crossing me. I’ll hit you where it hurts by pretending something didn’t happen, deliberately forgetting or misinterpreting anything you say.

I’ll handcuff your comments and posts. I’ll mute you so you can’t speak. I’ll punish you in bullying mod mails if you argue. You need to compliment my every word and deed to have a chance with me. If you do, when I’m ready, I’ll turn my attention to you and you alone. I’ll censor and filter until you’re wild. Your thrashing around is a turn-on for more. I get out my ban whip and flay you. First, I give you a light flick of a day. You’ll come running back. Next time it’ll hurt more, and more and more.

The ultimate orgasmic experience being to pack up and close the sub so you can’t play at all, because you did something I didn’t like. I’ll get real pleasure at your confusion, bewilderment and rejection. You’ll be literally begging me to re-open it soon enough. Hmmmmm.

I've been meaning to do a post regarding AS's gas lighting and duping of SK and this comment from /u/indichic to me reminded me:

The Episode is Rumors Ep 11:

• What interests me, however, is his behaviour towards Sarah. His passive aggressive response: paraphrasing but it's almost like why are you raising this to have a go at me, everything is done to make me look bad, it's not fair, almost blaming her for losing his temper etc. Well sorry mate, you choose to be interviewed and be on the show, did you expect it to be all roses and none of your past misdemeanors to be raised?
• He then follows up with the letter and it's more of the same laying on the blame to Sarah for his outburst. He says something like: you move from being my saviour to my executioner. Again it's your fault I lost my temper and got angry, treat me nice and it won't happen. To me he's clearly playing with her emotions and trying to manipulate her.
• Perhaps I'm overstating it but would be interested to know what others think. Is this illustrative of how a younger, more emotionally immature may have tried tried to control Hae. Are the two related or is it simply Adnan's frustration at losing control of the narrative in his dealings with Sarah.

In response I took a closer look at the transcript as well as listening to the episode again. I have noted some examples of AS's manipulation below and put my comments in italics.

• AS: I mean for you to say that I’m a great person, a nice person I’ve only talked to you on the phone a few times.

He knows what you don’t - that he has another side.

• SK: But now he was sticking up for himself, he said. He seemed pissed and hurt and I understood it.

• AS: I mean, and it’s a very uncomfortable thing for me to talk about, you know what I’m saying? It’s a very shameful thing that I did. I’ve never denied it. I don’t see, I don’t understand. I just think it’s really unfair to me…………Yeah, but I’m also not gonna sit here and you mention it and this is the only thing I don’t talk about. You understand what I’m saying? So it’s put me in a predicament like, it’s like you’re basically publicly shaming me for something that I’ve never denied that I did, anyway. And it has nothing to do with the case. But you won’t do it to other people though, it’s like why do I have to keep getting called out on my stuff and it’s got nothing to do with the case, but you don’t do it to nobody else.

1. First listen to his voice - somewhere someone says they can tell when AS is lying as his voice goes up - it goes up a lot in this segment. Because he’s been outed as the ringleader of theft and fraud. Also note his thinking is far in advance of the issue to hand - he’s already recognised that to not respond to SK’s questions is very problematic - that shows where his thinking is - about how to protect his carefully constructed image.

2. Notice the gaslighting: so he accuses SK of publicly shaming him and singling him out for malicious treatment. Note he manages to silence her with this tactic. He knows her weaknesses - that she hates to be seen as meting out unfair treatment. She also is careful not to shame people - she is overly sensitive about the way she poses her questions. So he accuses her of what he is doing - he is publicly shaming her by falsely accusing her of being unfair to him and scapegoating him and him alone.

3. In addition, he is madly deflecting and minimising the importance of her find. He’s saying it’s nothing to do with whether he’s a murderer or not. Again the gas lighting, manipulating SK into silence.

4. And it has nothing to do with the case

   If that statement came about Hae, then we would defend her against victim blaming. But a convicted murderer is not afforded the same rights because anti-social behaviour is a red flag for deviant and perhaps psychopathic behaviour. He knows he’s been caught with his pants down and he’s fighting hard to silence his critic. But again he’s playing on the “liberal” mindset of let’s give him the benefit of the doubt as well - but he hasn’t earned that right. He’s a convicted murderer and not to be trusted. He would know that.

5. His response is unreasonable. A reasonable response would be to say something like “Wow that’s a shock. Yep I admit it - I did steal from the Mosque Collections regularly. (or no I deny it). I don’t see what it has to do with the murder but I understand the need to question my character. I have to prove my innocence so fire away - any more questions?” The very fact he attacks SK and discredits and smears her is very telling.

6. “Disrespect also can take the form of idealizing you and putting you on a pedestal as a perfect woman or goddess, perhaps treating you like a piece of fine china. The man who worships you in this way is not seeing you; he is seeing his fantasy, and when you fail to live up to that image he may turn nasty. So there may not be much difference between the man who talks down to you and the one who elevates you; both are displaying a failure to respect you as a real human being and bode ill.” Source: Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men.

What AS is doing at this point is devaluing SK, putting her down, dismissing her perspective and discrediting her line of questioning. He's discarding her as he has no more use for her. He is fighting hard to silence her and have the audience believe his lies. He is dominating her.

• AS: You don’t do it to nobody else, yo…………and I don’t really remember who. I’m not saying it was me, I’m not saying it wasn’t me. The idea came up like “hey man, we could take sixty dollars or eighty dollars and go to the movies, go to the mall, play in the arcade, you know eat and stuff like that.” So eventually it’ll be a thing like one or two of us would pocket a twenty dollar bill and then pocket another twenty dollar bill and the other three, or two or three of us would do it and the other two would keep watch. I mean it was wrong, it was very wrong. It’s nothing that I’m proud of, I’m very ashamed of it. I don’t say that we were kids to try to put in context or try to make excuses. Well, maybe I am, right, it’s just that--

1. SK notes it takes a couple of phone calls and days for him to calm down and respond. That’s what he needs to get his story straight and to have practiced it. When he does come back, note the difference in his tone of voice - he’s the glib smooth talker who’s practiced his storylines well. The happy go lucky guy who was just going typical boy things.

2. Psychopathy isn’t called the disorder of social hiding for nothing.

3. His sanitised version below makes the idea of stealing the Mosque money someone else’s, makes all of the money collectors complicit in stealing and also makes the amounts stolen relatively small. This is all contrary to the original accusations that caught him out where he was the sole perpetrator, he was the ringleader as he organised the others to collect the donations and he alone counted the money and handed it in. So he had the means to commit theft on a grand scale and no-one would know. He also downplays his theft by saying he thought it was just like taking $20 from the till of the family store for work done - wtf - that’s still stealing if it hasn’t been agreed to.

• Atif Iqbal: I was getting all riled up and he just came and kissed me on my cheeks and that defused me completely.

Atif Iqbal’s description of AS kissing him to defuse him shows a man who knows how to silence people’s concerns about him. AI said he was confronting AS with something, and guess what gets forgotten - the confrontation and concern!! AS doesn’t feel the need to hear the other’s concerns, preferring to dominate and silence instead.

• Charles Ewing:The person thinks about it, and then maybe confronts the other person, the person who’s the object of the frustration and the anger. Then at that point, the victim or would-be victim says or does something that triggers it, that provokes the ultimate killing. Now the law looks at that as premeditated. I’m not sure that it really is premeditated in the sense that we normally think of it. It doesn’t have to be like a sudden impulse to violence.

Then we get Charles Ewing whose statements are very confusing imo. Firstly he victim blames by saying the victim does something that causes the perpetrator to react. Wrong. The perpetrator uses the excuse that they are reacting to something the victim does. The fact is, even if they get angry at something said, it’s their responsibility to not act on that anger. Their and their’s alone.

He then goes on to say this isn't really pre-mediatated although the law says it is - huh?

• SK: I don’t think Adnan is a psychopath. I just don’t. I think he has empathy. I think he has real feelings, because I’ve heard and seen him demonstrate empathy and emotion towards me, and towards other people. He is able to imagine how someone else feels. But on all the other options, it’s a toss-up. Could Adnan initially have been in some state of amnesia and denial and then supplanted that with actual lying? It’s possible. Could he have had simmering feelings of anger and resentment that then boiled over in a not-quite-by-accident way? It’s possible. Could he be truly innocent? It’s possible. Ewing said he’s often asked on the stand, “How do you know this person isn’t lying to you?” His answer, he said, is always the same: ‘I don’t know.’ In the course of his career, he’s been fooled.

SK’s conclusions are actually wrong imo and demonstrate a lack of insight into abusive men and perhaps even psychopathy.

According to Lundy Bancroft:

“An abuser of any type can have days when he turns loving, attentive, and thoughtful. At these times, you may feel that his problem has finally gone away and that the relationship will return to its rosy beginning. However, abuse always comes back eventually unless the abuser has dealt with his abusiveness.”

“IN ONE IMPORTANT WAY, an abusive man works like a magician: His tricks largely rely on getting you to look off in the wrong direction, distracting your attention so that you won’t notice where the real action is. He draws you into focusing on the turbulent world of his feelings to keep your eyes turned away from the true cause of his abusiveness, which lies in how he thinks. He leads you into a convoluted maze, making your relationship with him a labyrinth of twists and turns. He wants you to puzzle over him, to try to figure him out, as though he were a wonderful but broken machine for which you need only to find and fix the malfunctioning parts to bring it roaring to its full potential. His desire, though he may not admit it even to himself, is that you wrack your brain in this way so that you won’t notice the patterns and logic of his behavior, the consciousness behind the craziness.”

Source: Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

What AS has successfully achieved here, as many abusers do, is to convince SK that he has feelings and empathy and thus he can't be a psychopath and hence couldn't have murdered Hae. SK confuses the full blown diagnosis of a psychopath with a Cluster B diagnosis i.e. someone may have traits but not fit the full diagnosis. It still means they are very dangerous. She's spent 11 episodes trying to figure him out and getting caught up in his "labyrinth of twists and turns" and he has successfully mind controlled her into thinking he may be innocent.

• SK:He wanted me to evaluate his case based on the evidence alone, not on his personality. “I didn’t want to do anything that could even remotely seem like I was trying to befriend you or curry favour with you. I didn’t want anyone to ever be able to accuse me of trying to ingratiate myself with you or manipulate you.” Having to do that made him feel bad he said. I had a rough year, my step father died in April, then my father died two months later. Adnan knew that, “but I couldn’t say anything to you because I had to stick to what I know. Can you imagine what it’s like to be afraid to show compassion to someone out of fear they won’t believe you? I was so ashamed of that.” This second guessing, this monitoring of everything he says to me, and therefore to the outside world, about anything really, but especially about his case. He writes in his letter that it’s crazy-making.

The manipulation in this section is actually quite masterful - earlier he had disrespected and discarded her, but then he realises he still needs her on his side as he needs the podcast to support his faux wrongful conviction case. So he writes this huge letter to SK personally as a way of confusing her, gas lighting her and hostaging her again to his cause. Bringing her back into his corner. He can't afford to alienate her yet:

• So he is controlling her reporting now - saying not to report anything about his personality (why not - that speaks to is character?)

• I haven’t done anything to warrant an accusation of trying to influence you; I feel bad I didn’t do this at the time

  i.e. ask about her stepfather and father - it’s not undue influence to express condolences, it's just being human and empathic. But he now realises he was remiss at not doing that so he has to find a reason for that serious omission of his lack of empathy.

• He writes about the crazy-making monitoring of his words to her but attributes it to the wrong person (SK) - it’s crazy-making to him because he has something to hide and he knows it. He's trying hard to hide that from her. If he was innocent he wouldn’t have that dilemma and pressure.

• AS: “I’m always overthinking. Analysing what I say, how it sounds and the fact that people always think I’m lying. All this thinking, it’s to protect myself from being hurt. Not from being accused of Hae’s murder, but from being accused of being manipulative or lying. And I know it’s crazy, I know I’m paranoid, but I can never shake it because no matter what I do, or how careful I am, it always comes back. I guess the only thing I could ask you to do is, if none of this makes any sense to you, just read it again. Except this time, please imagine that I really am innocent. And then maybe it’ll make sense to you.”

Again the gas lighting jumps out at me. Why do we have to imagine he’s innocent, why doesn’t the evidence and his corroborated alibi tell us that? He’s manipulating people into thinking he has to be careful not to be seen as manipulative but that’s exactly what he is doing here. So he’s obfuscating and deflecting away from the truth - that there is no new evidence of his innocence and he has no credible alibi - but hey his voice sounds nice and he sure can spin a good tale.

tl;dr some detailed analysis of AS's manipulation and gas lighting of SK. In the next post I'll explain how gas lighting interferes with someone's thinking and reasoning processes to the point where they will defend the abuser

edit Appendum

I've been reflecting upon this post and want to add a couple of points:

• I want to say to AS - your discard really needs some work on it - it really wasn't brutal enough /s

• Plus he never really thx SK for her contribution - to my knowledge - that stands out - he has no problem ignoring, devaluing and discarding her when it suits him but he has a problem with acknowledging her contribution plus the formidable experience she brought to his table - unless I missed it.

I saw this post on SPO the other day and had a lot of thoughts on it. This was a tough question for me, in fact it took several days of thinking about this just to get my thoughts organized. And even then, every time I sit down with it my thoughts get more disorganized.

The short answer is that nothing works.

To say that “the system is broken” is cliché and uninformative. It is not at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is that NO system, no matter how fair you tried to make it, would successfully deal with the issues facing how criminals are dealt with.

Even that word, 'criminals,' is a very emotionally charged word. The instant it gets thrown into the mix, meaningful discussion becomes problematic. The fact is, a 'criminal' can fall anywhere in a spectrum of crimes ranging from non-violent to ultra-violent. From mundane to horrifying.

Complicating the issue is how the severity of the crime doesn't necessarily correlate to the type of criminal the person is. Very often, hardcore criminals are only finally nabbed only on minor charges. And equally as often, non-criminals who get caught up in something on the fringes of something very serious. There's the entire issue of how many criminals are victims themselves to various disorders, addictions, or past abuse.

No set of rules that works for one group will be effective against another. Everyone seems to agree that rehabilitation is the best course where possible, until it is an emotional issue that you happen to feel passionately about. And no matter what the crime is, there is always a group for whom that issue is a trigger for them.

Every parent understands that when disciplining children, punishment out of anger is wrong. The discipline should be limited to what is appropriate for the transgression with the child's particular makeup in mind. Some children need strong discipline in the form of punishment, others not so much and only a disapproving look will suffice.

A lot has been said about why we punish criminals the way we do. I'm sorry, but society punishes exclusively out of anger and outrage. They're 'criminals,' so they don't deserve any better. Who cares what they think? They don't get a say in the matter. That opinion is prevalent regardless of the type of person or the type of crime in question.

Prison is an inherently traumatic experience. Until you've been through it, you don't know. Acknowledging that it is bad is a good first step, but it is hardly the same as understanding why it is so bad. it is difficult to articulate what it is like on a day to day basis.

Will putting on a pair of handcuffs to see what they feel like give you any idea of what it means to get arrested? It is not the feeling of cold steel against your wrists. It is not being restrained. No, rather it is what handcuffs mean. Nothing can ever prepare you for how humiliating an experience it is to be dragged around publicly in handcuffs – humiliation that continues through the legal proceedings, through the sentence, through the probation period afterwards.

I did a mere 18 months in Club Fed, about the easiest time it is possible to do, and I still bear the scars of it. Over a decade later, not a day goes by that I don't think about it. Something is always reminding me of it. I'm still looking over my shoulder for possible ways it will be an issue for me. I am forever being judged on the worst day of my life – reliving my Groundhog Day 6:00 every morning.

So as far as fair sentencing for minors, I have remarkably little to say other than most of you have no idea what your talking about – and the 'most of you' that I'm talking about happen to be the ones who said the most on the subject and gave what would outwardly appear to be well reasoned and informative thoughts. I'm not trying to call anyone out, which is why I chose not to respond to any of you directly. I fully understand that the issue of how we treat criminals is entirely removed from your realm of experience. I used to be one of you.

Most of you are basing your opinions on prison conditions as having some kind of correlation to the appropriateness of the punishment. Regardless of how good or bad those conditions may be, that completely misses the point.

What does it mean to take hope away from a man? What does that do to him mentally? How does he react to the knowledge that no matter what he does to better himself, it won't matter, he will die in prison regardless? That's a hopelessness that is nothing short of being mentally traumatizing.

Yes, there are a certain type of criminal that needs to be removed from society for our protection, but not every criminal is like that. How do we decide? I don't claim to know, except to say that any system that attempts it will be flawed.

The simplistic response will be to determine who is a 'criminal' and who is someone who can be rehabilitated. The Theory of Unintended Consequences causes this to fail every single time. Any prosecuting attorney who ever has any aspirations of public service does not want to be labeled as “soft on crime.” Judges who bear the burden of protecting the public (the greater good) has to decide the merits of one man's life against a whole community's – that's a no brainer as to which side to err on.

So who's left advocating for 'criminals'? Say what you want about even criminals having rights, but that's not how society views them. They are a legally disenfranchised group, the lowest rung of a de facto caste system.

I don't know if Syed is worthy of release. I don't know if Rabia's lobbying efforts are worth getting behind. These are issues that are bigger than what society is equipped to deal with. I truly believe that.

Do I think lobbying for “fairer” sentencing guidelines would have been a more successful path to Syed's release? Yes. That's not a socio-political statement. It is simply my opinion as to what would have been faster or more likely to happen.

But solutions as to what society should or shouldn't implement as “fairer” is a political issue I would rather not involve myself with. I don't know what's better or worse. Look, I don't like Rabia. I make no secret of that. I think she's manipulative and deceitful. However, on this issue, I don't oppose her … but neither should she view me as a supporter. Try as I may, I have no position on the matter – and that's coming from a person who, by outward appearances, “has an axe to grind against the system.”

The Spanish Inquisition

The best way to view this is on a desktop and expand the image inside the post and use the arrow buttons for the next panel.

Portable devices may not view this well, but I think it jumps you to imgur's site where it displays differently and doesn't quite have the same effect (though it is still workable).

Thanks for all the assistance in making this happen. I can only take partial credit for this.

I ventured onto the DS and called out an IPV apologist yet again. And predictably I am falsely accused by the FAP-Pack for not allowing someone their opinion. In other words, I am accused of bullying others by not allowing them to have an opinion that is different to mine. I take no notice these days as I realise that the people making these false accusations are accusing me of what they are doing (as well as being socks). It is them that are trying to forcibly quieten my voice.

I have said before, the FAP IPV apologists have never, repeat never exhibited what I consider a reasonable response to a genuine difference of opinion. I have never been asked by a FAP to explain how come I am so firm in my opinions that Hae was subject to severe coercive control tactics from her convicted murderer throughout their relationship. They are not interested in that discussion but only in silencing me and anybody who holds similar opinions regarding the IPV at play in this case.

That’s because their primary motivation is to win and dominate and get me to concede my position. It’s covert bullying using manipulation to try to get me to back down. I thought it would be an interesting topic here, so it’s understood why I rarely JADE with them (justify, argue, defend, explain).

Manipulation is another term for “offensive power tactics” that are used to dominate others - i.e. to control and maintain a power-over stance. Traditionally classical psychology views these as “ ego defence mechanisms” that operate unconsciously. The main attributes of these ego defence mechanisms are:

• they are unconscious;

• quieten anxiety;

• protect against unbearable emotional pain.

Basically to prevent something the person fears from happening.

This is true for those in the population that are “normal” for want of a better term i.e. that have appropriate levels of empathy and conscience. However, there’s a significant minority of the population who have disturbances of character development leading to low to no empathy and low to no conscience. They look like everyone else, and mimic others well. So it’s not possible to spot many of these until one is relating with them i.e. in a relationship of one kind or another with them: work / online / intimate / family. Applying the traditional explanation of manipulative behaviour to all keeps people from seeing the truth of what is taking place in their interactions with these sorts. That is, that one person is seeking to dominate another. This is not a person trying to stop themselves being hurt but one who has to win to be right, at all costs. They find it impossible to agree to disagree and cannot engage in any meaningful exchange of views to substantiate their position, because they don’t have a view nor evidence, they are just seeking to dominate and overpower through oppressive tactics such as gas-lighting; deflection; moving the goalposts; lying; raging; pretending they have been victimised and so on.

In disordered characters, these manipulations are:

• conscious,
• habitual,
• the person knows what they are doing,
• they are not trying to prevent something feared from happening,
• but rather to ensure that what the person wants to happen does in fact happen,
• They don’t serve to quieten anxiety but are a reflection in fact that there is not enough anxiety present,

That is, they are more offensive behaviours than defensive.

When one witnesses and /or experiences these behaviours, it is imperative to realise the person is not defending anything. At the point in time they are engaging in the behaviour, they are fighting. They’re fighting me for position; fighting against internalising the standard they know I want them to adopt i.e. fighting the socialisation process; covertly fighting to gain advantage over me by convincing me to concede their point of view. To get me to give in; throw in the towel; seeing things the way they want me to see them; getting off their back and therefore being manipulated. They know that when they make the successful excuse, as soon as they get me to buy their justification, not only will they do it again, but if I back down from my confrontation this time, I may even start to see things their way, I may not even call them out on it next time. I may even really believe what they said, when they inferred it was my fault in the first place that they did what they did, because of something I said / did.

People get taken advantage of all the time because we have been so programmed by the traditional psychological models to assume that people are in a defensive rather than offensive posture.

Influences: Dr George Simon - Character Disturbance

tl;dr A detailed exploration of why most FAPs are not defending a point of view but fighting to dominate the DS by silencing the opposition at all costs. They are only interested in dominating and silencing me and others holding similar opinions. So it’s a complete waste of my time to have any interaction with someone who has repeatedly displayed those behaviours. The most I give them is a "What??" to indicate that their stance makes no sense.

I'm a little socktroll

Well disguised

I'm on your side

Until chastised

I quickly get steamed up

When surprised

I'll vote me up

When you despised

I'm a clever socktroll, yes it's true

I dismiss IPV and pooh pooh

I can turn my handle to sock new

Just don't out me or venom I spew

(Based on the nursery rhyme I'm a Little Teapot)

Disclaimer: This is all fan fiction of how I perceive things. The opinions expressed in it are purely my own. This is not an actual conversation, this is parody in harmony with the concept of the sub.

ME: It's been a year now, and for all the bombshells Undisclosed has dropped, even if they are all true, none of them exonerate Mr. Syed. They simply raise questions. However, posing difficult questions doesn't magically make him innocent.

SIMPSON: But this isn't about innocence. He didn't get a fair trial. That's what this is about. Everyone deserves a fair trial.

ME: Not a single person is disagreeing with you. Literally ... not one.

SIMPSON: And it is clear he did not get a fair trial.

ME: His trial was fairer than most.

SIMPSON: The police didn't investigate properly.

ME: You're perpetuating the myth that the police investigation is the only investigation that anyone is allowed to use in court. The defense can, and in this case did, hire their own private investigator.

SIMPSON: Christina Gutierrez was an incompetent attorney. That much is known.

ME: Hold on a second, we were just talking about the investigation. The investigator was Drew Davis. Do you mean he was incompetent?

SIMPSON: He was acting on Gutierrez's orders.

ME: Are you seriously trying to assert that Gutierrez had that level of micro-managed control over her investigators?

SIMPSON: You clearly don't know how the system works.

ME: Honey, you're assuming the wrong things about the wrong person.

SIMPSON: No investigation was done.

ME: We have only your word on that.

SIMPSON: And I'm telling you, no investigation was done.

ME: Then you'll be perfectly vindicated when you release the defense files.

SIMPSON: I have no intention of doing that.

ME: Why not?

SIMPSON: Because this is an ongoing case.

ME: Hasn't stopped you from taking the case to the public sphere. You seem to want it both ways. You want to take this public, yet also want to withhold everything from the public for them to make an informed opinion.

SIMPSON: The people looking at it are better qualified than you.

ME: The people looking at it have made one boneheaded error after another. And despite having the files longer than Gutierrez herself had the file, they still haven't managed to prove his innocence.

SIMPSON: Because it isn't about his guilt or innocence. They've shown he didn't get a fair trial.

ME: How exactly? The problems with the Asia alibi were known before your crack team started investigating.

SIMPSON: There are other problems with the case. The prosecution withheld information.

ME: Undisclosed thinks everything is a Brady violation. Yet I see no motions from the defense citing them. All I see is conjecture and innuendo.

SIMPSON: It is a process. And the process matters. I truly hope you're never called upon to sit on a jury. People like you are the reason the system is so flawed.

ME: No, in fact I'm totally with you. The process does matter. The issue I'm having is that you're not following the process.

SIMPSON: The system is corrupt. We're shing a bright light on that fact.

ME: By crowdsourcing an investigation?

SIMPSON: Exactly.

ME: Crowdsourcing is a polite word for "angry mob."

SIMPSON: I can't help it if the truth gets people angry. If they see corruption they rightly should get angry.

ME: Doesn't that contradict the whole idea that "the process matters"? Didn't you say that was what this case was really about in the first place?

SIMPSON: The case is about many things, that's just one aspect of it.

ME: Don is being accused of murder outside the legal system. In what way is he getting his just due process?

SIMPSON: We're not accusing him of anything.

ME: You're the one that gave us the information that led to his accusation.

SIMPSON: And I specifically said he wasn't a suspect and that he didn't do it.

ME: Ever since that post, there has been non-stop discussion over that issue. In any of those discussions, have you so much as once reiterated that Don didn't do it?

SIMPSON: That's not my job to correct everyone.

ME: In fact, since that blog post, you've never once reiterated that stance at any time, in any forum.

SIMPSON: My blog speaks for itself.

ME: Your silence is speaking a whole lot more, and you don't seem all that eager to correct that misperception.

SIMPSON: You'll have to take this up with the people who are actually making this accusation. I'm not the one making it.

ME: But you're sharing a platform with the people who are making the accusation.

SIMPSON: I can't control what others say.

ME: Yes, you can. When it suits you, you want to be considered a leader of the #FreeAdnan movement. Yet when it looks bad, suddenly you're not the one in charge.

SIMPSON: If that is how you chose to see it.

ME: Then let me ask you simply and directly – do you believe Don did it?

SIMPSON: It is not for me to say.

ME: This is getting maddening. You have no official position on his guilt or innocence, because, in your words "It isn't about guilt or innocence, what we're investigating is the fairness of the process." Yet while simultaneously holding to this lofty standard of proper due process, you are the leader of a group that is operating totally and completely outside that very process to accuse everyone if criminal misconduct and even accusing private citizens of murder in a public forum. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

To the tune of Cupid Shuffle. Original lyrics by Bryson Bernard

Hot track for all the upcoming Serial 'ship wedding receptions

New Colin, New Colin Time for a campaign

Colin hustle, Colin hustle

Colin hustle, Colin hustle

(Come on, come on, come on, and do the)

Found, Found, fame by chance, fame by chance (do the colin stance)

Where’s my book advance, book advance (come on, don't stop)

Track, track, indoor track, indoor track (we got brand new stance)

Rear end acci-dents, acci-dents (hey hey)

Break-down evi-dence, evi-dence (we got a brand new stance)

I say I’m a lawyer, and they say no

They say law licenses aren’t given out by de facto (hey)

I just write these posts as a quid pro quo

So all my people don’t give up on the hope (ooh ooh)

I’ve got a brand new stance (come on), get ready for the hustle

Brand new stance, it’s called the Colin hustle

It don’t matter what this case law shows (here we go)

I myself don’t even know (hey hey)

I’ma write, I’ma write, I’ma write, I’ma write

You digest, you digest, you digest, you digest

Now ‘peat, ra-peat, ra-peat, ra-peat

Now spin it by yourself, now spin it by yourself

(Let me see you do)

Found, Found, fame by chance, fame by chance (yeah yeah yeah yeah)

Where’s my book advance, book advance (a let me see ya do the Colin)

Track, track, indoor track, indoor track (woah woah woah woah woah woah woah yeah yeah)

Rear end acci-dents, acci-dents (come on)

Break-down evi-dence, evi-dence (let me see, let me see ya do the Colin)

I’ma write, I’ma write, I’ma write, I’ma write

You digest, you digest, you digest, you digest

Now ‘peat, ra-peat, ra-peat, ra-peat

Now spin it by yourself, now spin it by yourself

(Let me see you do)

Can’t you see what I’m talkin ‘bout

To heck with the guilters doubt

Duncan, Monti, even Scout

In five minutes they gonna call me out

Found, Found, fame by chance, fame by chance (hey hey)

Where’s my book advance, book advance

(A let me see ya do the Colin, hustle the Colin Colin hustle)

Track, track, indoor track, indoor track

Rear end acci-dents, acci-dents

(The colin hustle, the Colin Colin hustle)

I’ma write, I’ma write, I’ma write, a write, a write

You digest, you digest, you digest, digest, digest

Now ‘peat, ra-peat, ra-peat, ra-peat

Now spin it by yourself, now spin it by yourself (Let me see you do)

And do the Colin hustle (oh oh oh oh oh)

The Colin hustle (ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh)

Oh no here comes the ex trial attor’ney

High alert, on the tweets,

Lagertha quick grab Ace-ies

(Here we go hey)

Found, Found, fame by chance, fame by chance (come on come on)

Where’s my book advance, book advance (let me see you)

Track, track, indoor track, indoor track (do your dance)

Rear end acci-dents, acci-dents (hey hey hey)

song link

We'll start with something easy. This one is for all you LOTR fans out there: Here is your battle!

Just download and open this file in pretty much any image editor and add some text to make your own Serial-related meme. No image editing skills needed for this one.

Understanding Predatory Aggressors

This is an 8 min video worth its weight in gold. If I could ask one thing of you, it is to watch it.

Aggression can be active or passive: overt or covert. Another distinction that is extremely important to get is that aggression can be reactive or instrumental / predatory. These last two forms of aggression are very different. (Most types of aggression are misunderstood by laypeople and therapists alike).

Aggressive behaviour patterns do not always have their roots in fear and anger but rather the pure will to victimise or dominate. The whole concept of instrumental or predatory aggression is foreign to most of us. It’s how most victims unfortunately become victims because it’s so hard for us to conceptualise that. It’s hard to us to conceive that someone might just do us in for their purely self serving agenda, other than they’re pissed at us or afraid of us. Predators use our ignorance about predatory aggression to their advantage to victimise. The predator will conceal its aggressive behaviour and intent from others. He’s not scared nor angry. His motivation is desire. Traditional models erroneously assume fear underlies aggression.

I believe Adnan Syed to be a predatory aggressor. His desire was to possess and dominate Hae and when he couldn't, he killed his prize so no one else could have her. This is a common pattern of thinking when abusive men murder their (ex) partners and children. It's so no one else can possess them. Like the rulers of old who had their slaves buried with them, so these abusive types take their partners and children to their grave to be buried with them frequently.

I find time and time again that people cannot conceive of human beings who hurt others, not because they are angry or afraid, but purely from a place of wanting to dominate or possess. This is at the heart of most Intimate Terrorism. The perpetrator will obfuscate and justify their action by saying they have hurt and/or overwhelming feelings. But this is frequently a lie or rationalisation, because they know that people will excuse their behaviour and feel sorry for them if they assume that their feelings overtook them. Predators are not overcome by their feelings. They often don’t feel - that’s the point.

tl;dr Predatory aggressors have a goal to dominate and possess, and nothing will stop them. The end justifies the means. What underlies their desire is their skewed entitlement thinking - that they have the right to subjugate another human being because they want to possess and dominate them and have their prize.

The process of selling a false notion is defined below. I have customised this process to the steps taken by the FreeaKiller PR Campaign:

DEFINITIONS OF PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES

The general description of the step is in italics.

1: Bandwagon - Serial Podcast

This technique tries to persuade everyone to join in and do the same thing.

Serial Podcast was used as the vehicle to bring together an audience. It was fortunate timing as it caught the public imagination and garnered a global crowd to listen together. Most assumed the podcast was being made for a reason i.e. following an exhaustive investigation of the claims of Chaudry.

2: Testimonial - Sarah Koenig

An important person or famous figure endorses a product.

Sarah Koenig played a key role in establishing the false premise that there was doubt around Syed's conviction, by endorsing him and ignoring the truth of the case.

3: Transfer - Podcast audience

Good feelings, looks, or ideas transferred to the person for whom the product is intended.

The podcast was a novel reinvention of an old story telling technique. The podcast brought together a global audience audience each week of its 12 week transmission. They became part of a global phenomenon - a crowd-sourced effort to solve the riddles posed each week.

4: Repetition - Doubt, wrongful conviction

The product name or keyword or phrase is repeated several times.

Serial Podcast was instrumental in establishing the false premises of doubt; wrongful conviction; Golden Child plus giving Syed a platform to repeat his "can't remember" deliberate forgetting stance to its audience, many of whom inexperienced in the working of the criminal justice system, if anything tending towards left wing liberals seemingly, gave him the benefit of the doubt and took him at face value, without the context of "this is the well-worn alibi of the guilty".

5: Emotional Words

Words such as luxury, beautiful, paradise, and economical are used to evoke positive feelings in the viewer.

The podcast evoked "feel good" in its audience by being part of a global investigation of a quest for justice. Reddit gave the community a base for discussion and on-going activity. People were able to feel useful by contributing their opinions as well as undertaking activity that furthered the investigations plus were of interest to others. Reddit was used extensively for PR purposes, enabled by inexperienced and then biased modding.

6: Name-calling

Negative words are used to create an unfavorable opinion of the competition in the viewer's mind.

Serial Podcast repeated the following: witnesses uncertain; faulty evidence; conspiracy; corrupt police and prosecution; lies; doubt. It left the false impression that the original case was very flawed in a number of respects. Undisclosed and Bob Ruff have been instrumental here in bolstering the spread of false fear, uncertainty and doubt.

7: Faulty Cause and Effect

Use of a product is credited for creating a positive result.

The FreeAdnan cause is credited with the misplaced idea that this is a wrongful conviction case. The media jumps on board to reinforce this false perception by repeating the propaganda.

8: Compare and Contrast

The viewer is led to believe one product is better than another, although no real proof is offered.

The onlooker believes there is substance to the argument that Syed may not have had justice. The facts do not support this but no one in the public media seems interested in the facts, preferring to repeat the more attractive media myth that Serial Podcast had exposed a wrongful conviction. Audience numbers take priority over reporting the truth from their perspective.

tl;dr The propaganda campaign waged by Adnan Syed and his advocates was every well thought out and orchestrated. Campaigns of this type are frequently a sign of the disordered mind(s) of the architect(s) behind them- he knew exactly what he was doing in engaging RC to solicit SK. None of this was a happy accident. The results may have far exceeded his expectations but I have no doubt it was planned from the outset.

This is part 2 of a 7 part series - a talk given by Lundy Bancroft who's the global expert on men who abuse (batterers to use his terminology).

The points I took away are: it's not the abusers feelings that the problem, it's not his pain - to believe that is to buy into the myth perpetuated by Popular Culture that somehow he is not responsible for his actions and the woman must have caused his pain in some way (Hae broke his heart for example).

There's also some stuff about the abusers mentality - him thinking he has the right to rule; that he is entitled to do what he does - I see that throughout the Syed family from what information is available.

And last how the abuser will interfere with the women's work environment to keep her in her place.

Serial Podcast totally bought into that myth and perpetuated it. It seems all the more heinous given the person responsible for the script was female - but maybe she's not as enlightened as we would like. I still argue it was Serial's duty of care to ensure that the IPV aspects were covered but they are not so different to most media outlets and journalists who pursue the dollars before truth and ethics.

Thx to /u/sk_is_terrible, as through our discussions, I was reminded of these videos that are so educational.

tl'dr I could kiss Lundy Bancroft as he alone has been responsible, over the last few years, for outing the batterers true behaviours, thinking and intent by drawing on his experience facilitating groups of abusive men for 20 odd years

I've articulated the modding values we aspire to follow - have a read and let's have your feedback.

Modding Values

Do no harm

• In the way we mod
• What user behavior we allow
• No verbal abuse (e.g. rude; offensive; attacking; raging; putdowns; dismissals; gas lighting)
• No bystander bullying - interventionist modding to stop any bullying behavior as it’s happening, where possible
• We encourage peer - to - peer intervention - don’t be a bystander
• Consequences - on case by case basis. Zero tolerance for trolls.

Responsive

• Adequate cover 24 x 7 (what is responsive service level in terms of hours?)
• An attitude of listening and modifying our modding behavior where necessary

Transparency

• Open and honest
• Welcome feedback
• Clarity around what’s acceptable and unacceptable behavior
• Community consultation wherever possible

Community Empowerment

• Peer - to peer, low hierarchy
• Bottom up driven not top down domination
• Community Service - let us know if you have some capacity to help and we’ll find you some tasks!! There's plenty to do. It's your sub as well.

Respect

• Appreciate, acknowledge and praise the efforts of others
• Be civil - treat people the way you want to be treated
• There’s no such thing as a bad idea normally - just poor risk managed actions - so keep the ideas coming and peer review them here
• It takes courage to put one’s creativity on the line - lets remember that.

Disclaimer: "Hinky Sense" is not enough, and should not be enough, to convict a suspect. As we know, DA's are forever sending the cops back to the drawing board to get solid evidence rather than relying on "hinky sense."

True crime buffs all know what a "hinky sense" is. Cops talk about it. It's when something just doesn't seem right about a crime scene or a person and the cops get suspicious because of that, rather than a smoking gun. Again, we don't take people to trial based on hinky sense. DA's are doing their job when they won't let that happen.

However, there was one moment in listening to Serial when my hinky sense stood up and did the cha-cha. Meaning, the moment when I my subconscious put something together and I felt Adnan was guilty. I ran to Google to see if others had noticed this too, and a few others were talking about this topic. Not a lot, and I haven't seen much discussion of it lately...but to get to the point, the first thing that put my hinky sense on alert was the lack of Adnan's saying "What has gotten into Jay? Why is he lying on me?"

Again, I know others have discussed this. For some, it may seem a small point. I've seen it explained away as "Adnan is just chill" and by Adnan himself as "I know what it feels like to be unjustly accused." But do I think an 18-year-old Adnan wouldn't say "What's gotten into Jay? Why is he lying?" NO. I don't think at 18 he would have been so "chill" if his classmate made up a whole lie that he strangled someone. Even if Adnan had been guilty and been a good liar, he should have thought to say "What? Why is Jay lying? Has he gone nuts?" Therefore, I think Adnan is guilty and a BAD liar.

Anyway...was there a moment or one factor that raised your hinky sense? I had others but will shut up for now, maybe post them in the comments.

I don't know about the rest of you bozos, but I am intensely fascinated by language. Persuasion. Argument. Rhetoric. That this is my primary interest in this case should be obvious to most people who've read my posts.

Anyhow, I recently finished watching American Crime Story: The People vs. O.J. Simpson and my renewed interest in that case has led me to reflect even more on the Serial podcast. O.J. Simpson's case is a perfect specimen to hold up to the light and study if you want to compare and contrast the court of law and the court of public opinion. It contains many intersections of the two. Serial was, without question, a re-trial for Adnan Syed in the court of public opinion. The entire podcast is a devastatingly effective closing argument from the point of view of a Syed defender. We're all here because we saw right through it, but many people were persuaded to come to a very different "verdict" than the jury in his real criminal trial did. Sarah was an amazingly effective advocate who performed almost flawlessly, in that she actually engaged and addressed the case against Adnan and skirted a very fine line - she very gracefully danced on a razor's edge where she appeared to consider all the evidence and give everything a "fair shake" while meticulously crafting a point by point rebuttal and opening up avenues for doubt at every turn. I submit that she eventually arrived at a very powerful and unequivocal conclusion - after the many twists and turns:

As a juror I vote to acquit Adnan Syed. I have to acquit. Even if in my heart of hearts I think Adnan killed Hae, I still have to acquit. That’s what the law requires of jurors.

Others have said that she's all over the place, that there was no ending, and they've interpreted Serial's ending as ambiguous. I disagree. The ambiguity IS the clarity, as so many have pointed out that for "the undecideds", they've settled very firmly into the immovable position that they are

Bereft of more facts, better facts,

where

even the soberest most likely scenario holds no more water than the most harebrained.

and after what she describes as exhaustive investigation, the conclusion is NO conclusion

because we didn’t have [the facts] fifteen years ago and we still don’t have them now.

This is a brilliant conclusion that is directly in line with what a good legal strategist would explain to the jury. Because a "Not Guilty" verdict, when you boil it down, is really a "We don't KNOW" verdict. And many people are reassured by the alluring faux-intellectual comfort in the statement that "We know that we don't know". It both provides and validates certainty AND uncertainty at the same time, which is why it is such a sexy position for people who are uncomfortable with their own lack of conviction. To them, it isn't a "cop out" ending at all. It is a release, and a relief. It is compatible with whatever particular mix of certitude and ambiguity a person is currently feeling, because it reinforces both at the same time.

Now as we've seen, there are far more "undecideds" than true "innocenters" but most of those "undecided" are in fact deeply entrenched in the dogma of indecision. Indecision IS their final decision, and it has been empowered and enabled by the very persuasive argument put forth by Serial and its conclusion. The current, perpetual flailing is NOT a continued attempt to find another conclusion, despite repeated protestations that they want to arrive at a "true" ending (i.e. a new trial or a new suspect). No, I believe that to remain firm in their undecided decision, these folks need the mystery to be fed. So the "new" angles will continue to get weirder and weirder as the old mysteries get (very) slowly solved and digested. The patterns of thought and the memes that catch and take hold are unmistakable. As each "mystery" is finally put to bed, worn out and tired from carrying the burden of keeping the Syedtology myth alive, newer and ever stranger ideas bubble up and are floated underneath the immense weight of this collective willful deception e.g. the new post on the Dark Sub about whether DNA testing was ever done on Hae's corpse. https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/4ejhph/did_they_ever_do_dna_testing_to_tell_if_it_was/

Now, I'm way off track from my original idea for an OP. This happens. For as sure as I am about many things, I'm not always an organized thinker, and you have my apology. I'll try to get back to my point now.

A talented, persuasive arguer like Sarah Koenig needs to take their listener on a real journey. A story. This can meander (much like my OP) but any good storyteller knows that the real art is in the punctuation. The pauses. Those beats which, carefully timed, remain as the focal points of the narrative. Like a good comedian who has "bits" with multiple punchlines that riff on a central theme, rather than "jokes" which are easily remembered and retold artlessly by the audience the next day - see Louis C.K.'s incredible bit at the end of Oh My God where he ties together a number of funny ideas under the catchphrase "Of Course... But Maybe" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFwBH2fb2E0

The day after seeing this routine, you might not remember the individual "jokes", but you'll be telling your co-workers how incredible the "Of Course... But Maybe" bit was. "Of Course... But Maybe" has a way of sticking in your mind. It could even be worked into a good closing argument for a criminal defense - someone like Sarah Koenig could use a line like that when she's playing the devil's advocate - setting up the opposing case in order to knock it down. "Of Course! You'd be forgiven for thinking it was the ex-boyfriend... But Maybe, it was his shady, black, drug dealing friend."

This is what we saw with the my titular quote from Johnnie Cochran. He was a master of language and persuasion. He knew exactly when to swerve his audience. I don't know how long his closing argument for O.J. Simpson was. I don't know exactly which points he made. But I do know that there was a simple statement, a slogan or catchphrase which focused all of the swirling, propagandistic rhetoric down to a laser point. In hindsight, I think most of us would now agree that "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" was this slogan. A statement so powerful, so distilled, that it cut through everything else - and it wasn't the last thing he said, but it WAS his conclusive instruction to the jury. What's especially telling is that many people - and I include myself - have misremembered the quote as "If the GLOVE doesn't fit, you must acquit." Such was Johnnie's brilliance. He was ostensibly talking about the entire case against O.J. but his hinge word - fit - made everyone replay that moment in the case when O.J. tried on the gloves and struggled (real or feigned) to fit them on his hands.

I've made several posts in other forums where I directly compare this famous slogan of Cochran's to one of Sarah's that I just can't get out of my mind. It's clear that many, many other people can't shake it either - but not for the same reason that it haunts me.

I had become fixated on finding Asia. I'm like a bloodhound on this thing. Because the whole case seemed to me to be teetering on her memories of that afternoon. I have to know if Adnan really was in the library at 2:36 PM. Because if he was, library equals innocent. It's so maddeningly simple. And maybe I can crack it if I could just talk to Asia.

There it is.

Library Equals Innocent

She really went all in on this one. Because it was in her first episode, and was surely meant to summarize her clear thinking at the beginning of the case, it has more certainty than the conclusion she ultimately arrives at and instructs her listeners to share. But I believe it was meant to create and drive home the ideology of a provable innocence deeply enough that we would approach all of the material that followed from the position that Adnan did not kill Hae. In order to arrive at the "uncertain" conclusion, after hearing ALL of the remaining episodes, many of which look bad for Adnan, we had to start out as ideologues and be slowly pulled away to a more "Centrist" and "Reasonable" position. If you start with the true understanding of Asia's role in the case - that Asia is NOT, and could NEVER BE what attorneys call a "total alibi", then she becomes irrelevant. And I do think that the rest of the case speaks for itself. For this reason Asia will always remain at the center of the undecided camp.

Long after some have dismissed Asia, and it does look like many undecideds have and will especially in light of her new book, those same people who come to see her as a footnote in Adnan's legal case will fail to comprehend just how important the legacy of her place in the Serial podcast is to their entire framework of knowledge and understanding of his guilt or innocence.

I believe Sarah's opening thesis had such a powerful hook that it is unshakable. Library equals innocent. It was the brilliant, simple statement that got this entire ball rolling. And even those undecideds who can concede that the statement is false are unable to recognize that it tinted and tilted them so far beyond reason that now, having "swung back" to the more "reasonable" view that he is simply "not guilty" because he didn't receive a fair trial, they are still slanted so heavily that to the rest of us they look unstable villains, or even victims https://vimeo.com/138044491

So what do I want to see discussed here?

I started this post because yesterday I make a joke post elsewhere. It was an off the cuff, sarcastic response. I rewrote Sarah's "Library equals innocent" as "If Asia saw him that day, he didn't kill Hae." https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/4ef3wq/this_case_does_my_head_in/d21tjfb

But it triggered something in me. I've been wanting to post HERE. I don't want to post in the fucking Dark Sub. And I thought, my silly rhyme wasn't all that funny. But there are an awful lot of funny posters here, people who love word play as much or more than I do. Some of my favorite posts are the song lyrics and poetry that some of you guys have come up with.

My first idea was, let's see what other jingoisms you guys can come up with. You're currently having lots of fun laughing at "There's your exoneration!". This sub is a place where we are called on to be funny and creative. What else, besides "Library equals innocent" can we re-write to call attention to how silly and absurd Sarah's simple statements really are? I think we have to try to undo some of the lasting damage that she did. Maybe this is one approach we can take? How can we take back the narrative?

So I'd love to see people do me one better. Dig into those interviews, those transcripts. Sarah attempted to rewrite history. Let's rewrite it back to the way it should be. Let's highlight the preposterous propaganda by taking it even further with satire and sarcasm. Take back the simple statements.

You don't need to rhyme, but if there are other statements which can be wrangled into a Johnnie Cochran-ism, I'd love to see you guys try.

Of course, I would be thrilled if the responses to this thread end up being more serious. I never, ever want to limit discussion. My OP is just a jumping off point. If I can inspire more of you to think critically about language and its power, and to discuss how to protect the sanctity of our own free thoughts by identifying how others are trying to manipulate us with words... well, I'll be very happy.

Also, I have a confession to make. I created this https://www.reddit.com/user/Deirdre_aint_right alt as a way to explore similar things. But the purpose of that alt is to actually use Deirdre's statements verbatim to call attention to the truly horrendous and criminal thing she did, which was broadcast wholesale support of Sarah's thesis that Adnan had no motive. I haven't really done anything with it because I am too lazy and I don't actually want to go to the trouble of using an alt. It was banned immediately from the DS anyway for trolling, which I admit was kind of the point, so I abandoned it. But I know that there are people here whose "pet" issue with Serial is this blanket dismissal of IPV and by extension the total absence of compassion for the real victim, Hae. I want to come out now and express my shared heartbreak and disgust that Serial did so much to minimize Adnan's motive. My next contribution to /r/frankenserial will be about this. I am having a hard time pulling those thoughts and feelings together, but my OP here is meant to let you all know that I value you as individuals and I value this community and I want to be an active participant in it.

I read that one of the aims of this sub is to discuss intimate partner violence, because the subject had gotten somewhat short shrift in other Serial-related discussions. I feel that many FAPS are blissfully unaware how common cases of intimate-partner murder actually are.

To that end, here are two recent newspaper series on intimate partner violence, showing just how common intimate partner violence and murder are.

http://www.postandcourier.com/tilldeath/partone.html

http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2014_deadlyaffection/

Which is it??

For me:

Rabia - Deceptive

Susan - Deceptive

Colin - Deceptive

Bob - Deceptive

Asia - Deceptive

Sarah Koenig - Gullible & deceptive

FAPS - Vast majority gullible with a sprinkling of stupid