>I'm lost. I listened to Serial. I plan to watch the doc,
>and I am saying that I don't really have much interest in
>hearing another podcast about the same case especially if it's
>clearly from the point of view as Serial.

Yes, you are lost, because Undisclosed, while tackling the same case (initially), is an entirely different point of view and approaches the case in a far more in-depth legal perspective.

Undisclosed largely tackles the inconsistencies and flaws in the prosecution.

But you have a bias, and you've made assumptions about the contents of Undisclosed because you're not interested in exploring just how poor the prosecutions case really was.

>It might be
>superior, but I don't care enough to do it all again
>especially if it doesn't answer my question about Jay.

It's not just superior, it's full of entirely different and additional information. It is a deeper dive in every possible way.

But again, you prefer to believe Serial said a that needed to be said on the subject, and you prefer to continue your firm belief in his guilt, rather than dig into something that challenges your belief.


>Da hell you talking about books for?

>Am I missing something?

Clearly, a whole hell of a lot.

The doc is going to tackle the case again.

Cool.

Undisclosed tackles the case in a very different way than Serial did, and due to the differences and restrictions between the two mediums, undoubtedly presents more detailed information than the doc will.

The crystal clear correlation to the books I mentioned is that the books are a deeper dive into the same subject matter as the corresponding docs. This will be the same with Undisclosed and this doc.

Thia is obvious and you're extremely disingenuous right now.

The fact that you're convinced of his guilt, yet refuse to even take a look at something that digs far deeper than serial and presents a much more compelling case that casts doubt on his guilt makes your bias pretty clear.