re: I just now finished the Serial podcast

quote:

---

You mean the total body of evidence....

---

In response to everything you listed, in the interest of brevity, yes, I mean anything and everything, sworn to under oath, that was found to be admissible. That is all the jury had to go on, and all their verdict can be judged upon.

See, talking to and interviewing someone, is completely different than sworn testimony. How many times have any us examined a witness on the stand and what they testify to varies from what they had said in previous statements or interviews? It happens often, whether because they were intentionally being dishonest at one point or the other, or because of a lack of a consistent memory at some point along the road. It isn't always some heinous act of dishonesty.

Bottom line is, I don't put a ton of stock into anything anyone has said on either of these podcasts, over a decade after the fact, with either little idea that what they were saying to some random podcaster would ever be heard by millions of people, or with every knowledge that they could become a pseudo celebrity by getting onto the follow up.

If there are "facts", as you call them, that may call into question the conviction, than his attorney needs to argue his case in the proper fashion before the appellate court.

If there was evidence that was admitted that should not have been, or vice versa, I have all the confidence in the world that the panel of judges reviewing the record will correct the trial court's ruling. If that constitutes reversible error, then those " facts" will then have the chance to be offered under the burden of an oath and under the duress of cross examination, where the reliability of that person can be observed and judged.


Without those conditions in place, anything and everything we've been offered by these entertainment producers is simply water cooler fodder designed to gather attention to pressure those within the system to rule in their favor.

Effective and impressive, but not necessarily representative of any semblance of "truth". As if these producers even know what the objective "truth" is, any more than the prosecutors, defense attorneys, or detectives did.