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

Wrong. That was used to make a comparison between the podcast and the docs, not the two podcasts

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

I didn't use much at all on that point. But ok. Even if I did, this a meaningless point. Stay on topic.

>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.

A flawed and entirely irrelevant point, sure.

>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."

I'm not trying to persuade you to listen.

First, that was a direct response to your false assertion that it's from the same perspective as serial.

Second, you have an obvious bias and there isn't much that would change that. I'm pointing out that your refusal to look at additional information that more strongly favors reasonable doubt in his favor further exemplified his bias.

It doesn't take me being a lawyer (which I am)
>to know dude had a shitty trial.

Except I didn't say he had a shitty trial. I said the prosecution case against him was poor. And that's the part that matters.

>I got that from Serial. He
>may ultimately be freed because he had shitty trials.

No, if he is freed, it will be because the evidence against him is insufficient to prove guilt.

>But
>that doesn't address the underlying fact of who killed this
>girl.

It doesn't, but that's not what this case is about. This is about whether or not the evidence proves that this specific person killed her. That's it.

"Who killed her?"

And

"Did this specific person kill her?"

These are two entirely different questions.

>And I bet this doc won't do a good job of addressing that
>question.

Nor should it. Because it's about whether or not he did.

Your lone, burning question is entirely irrelevant. Either the case against him is sufficient, or it's not.

>You call it a bias. A bias is typically an uninformed
>position.

False. A bias is simply an unfair prejudice.

That prejudice may stem from a lack of information, but lack of information is not in itself integral to bias.

So no.

>My position is based on the facts available.

You've proven this to be false. Rather, a lie, because you've admitted that you have no interest in all of the facts available.

Your position is not based on the a available facts, just those you've chosen to observe. It is in fact a lie to say that your position is based on the available facts.

If
>you, Undisclosed or the DOC present some facts that change my
>mind, I'll change my mind.

Except you refuse to listen to Undisclosed.

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

Wrong again. It's a direct response to your comical display of false confusion over the correlation I made between books and docs. That's it.