Maybe you just lost me on books. We are comparing two podcasts. Leave the books metaphor out of this because it ain't working.

You used a lot of words to say that the undisclosed podcast is more compelling and persuasive than the serial podcast.

I am saying I don't have the energy to listen to another podcast advocating the same thing as the first podcast I listened to IF it doesn't address the very simple point I made in the OP. I wouldn't waste hours listening to a podcast if it doesn't thread that needle.

You are also not making a compelling case for me to listening to the Undisclosed because it has a "far more in-depth legal perspective." It doesn't take me being a lawyer (which I am) to know dude had a shitty trial. I got that from Serial. He may ultimately be freed because he had shitty trials. But that doesn't address the underlying fact of who killed this girl.

And I bet this doc won't do a good job of addressing that question. But I like docs for docs sake. I can enjoy it from a filmmaking level.

You call it a bias. A bias is typically an uninformed position. My position is based on the facts available. If you, Undisclosed or the DOC present some facts that change my mind, I'll change my mind.


What you call me being obtuse is another way to put I don't find what you are saying persuasive.


>>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.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"