Serial

[Steak Snabler]

At first I thought Durst knew he was still mic'd up and was trolling Jarecki, et al, while he was in the bathroom. But now I don't know.

But obviously, he either (a) wanted to get caught, subconsciously or otherwise, or (b) enjoys the game of trying to wriggle out of trouble every time. Otherwise, he would never have participated in the documentary.

 

[Webster]

I've loved the series, but my question is why he still had the mic on if the interview was over?

I think that he obviously wanted to get caught or is just incredibly bored.

 

[Steak Snabler]

He jumped right up and went to the bathroom, so maybe they didn't have time to get his battery pack mic off.

 

[TigerVols]

The mic-in-the-bathroom thing happens more often than it doesn't.

The interview we saw probably took several hours. When it was over, he had to take a leak. The audio guy was busy checking his levels from what was just recorded or grabbing the lavs from as many people as possible, and didn't get to Durst.

So, I buy the version of events. At least, how they went down. What I don't buy is that the editor didn't hear the live-mic takes until a year or two after first taping.

 

[Steak Snabler]

It's interesting what they included in the HBO series and what they didn't. I've read several news accounts that say Durst has Asperger's, but I don't recall it ever being mentioned in the HBO series (that would certainly explain some of his behavior).

And also, they never mention his arrest for taking a leak on a candy counter at a Houston CVS this past summer. I kept waiting for that to come up, but it never did.

Another interesting thing that you might know if you're a student of LA geography ... Susan Berman's address (1527 Benedict Canyon Drive) is literally a half-mile from 10050 Cielo Drive, the site of the Sharon Tate murders.

 

[Steak Snabler]

Oh my ...

 

[Amy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/business/media/another-serial-chapter-from-group-of-lawyers.html

“Undisclosed: The State v. Adnan Syed,” which will “examine and explore the case in greater detail, from an investigatory perspective instead of a narrative one,” according to a statement. “Undisclosed” is being presented by Rabia Chaudry, a lawyer who has been a longtime advocate of Mr. Syed — as “Serial” fans know, she was the one who suggested that Sarah Koenig, the host of “Serial” and a longtime producer for “This American Life,” look into the case — along with two other lawyers, Susan Simpson and Colin Miller. None of them represent Mr. Syed but each has been investigating the case, Ms. Chaudry said in an interview Tuesday. New episodes of “Undisclosed” are to be released every two weeks. The podcast is sponsored by the Adnan Syed Legal Trust..."

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Judge reopens 'Serial' case; new evidence to be introduced

I'm conflicted on this ...
I think he did it.
He's had at least 15 years to refine his story. He got a ton of media attention as a result of "Serial" and I have no doubt he's going to go free.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Judge reopens 'Serial' case; new evidence to be introduced

I'm conflicted on this ...
I think he did it.
He's had at least 15 years to refine his story. He got a ton of media attention as a result of "Serial" and I have no doubt he's going to go free.

I'm kind of in the same boat. I think his legal defense sounds like it was really poor, so ultimately this is probably the right move... but I'm pretty convinced he did it.

 

[JakeandElwood]

I'm not convinced he did it, but there's no way he was completely innocent.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

As the reporter how would you feel if he walks?
Again, I think he did, but he was convicted on a flimsy evidence. He serves 15 years for murder and (could) walk. As the person who resurfaced this case, and gave him a platform to resurrect his claims - how do you feel?
Me: I don't think I'd sleep well.

 

[qtlaw]

As the reporter how would you feel if he walks?
Again, I think he did, but he was convicted on a flimsy evidence. He serves 15 years for murder and (could) walk. As the person who resurfaced this case, and gave him a platform to resurrect his claims - how do you feel?
Me: I don't think I'd sleep well.

This is a merging of legal standard vs. "what you think happened."

We as a society have adopted and demanded the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof to convict someone of a crime. This is what you want if you're a citizen.

Conviction based on "Flimsy" evidence? Is that how you want to be judged when faced with a murder charge? Or even a 6 mo. sentence (where you whole life then goes to sh*t?) Not me.

You want to be convicted where everything against you gets scrutinized; that's the ultimate protection since no one is omnipotent to render the verdict. That means a full and fair defense.

Wifey got caught up in this and would advocate for Syed. I listened for some of it and thought that second guessing should not be enough to retry the case. However, several things have arisen which make me think he did not get a proper defense.

 

[JackReacher]

S2, E1 posted today, *******.

 

[cranberry]

Stirring ****. Literally.

 

[Buck]

Oh cool. I'm going to be commuting a bit starting next week for the next month-plus.
Perfect timing for me.

 

[Buck]

Oh cool. I'm going to be commuting a bit starting next week for the next month-plus.
Perfect timing for me.

 

[TyWebb]

Stirring ****. Literally.

Literally?

 

[cranberry]

Yes, literally.

 

[Moderator1]

I'd loaded Serial on my phone a while ago and today I actually listened to the first and most of the second installments. Interesting, though I'm curious to see how it is carried out over 12 installments. Not willing to go "oh WOW" yet but it definitely piqued my curiousity.

12 installments in season 1? I want to make sure I have all of them

 

[TyWebb]

Yes, literally.

I don't think you know what that word means.