I think you are showing a very clear bias here, and your reluctance to dig into what is perhaps the best, or at least most notable, evaluation of the case that blows a huge, gaping hole in the prosecution to the point that it shows the prosecution to be corrupt at it's core.

If there's ANY agenda here, it's on the side that put him away for 20+ years- and Rabia put together a seriously damning case to that effect.

So you can say all you want about Rabia siding with Adan, there's one massive caveat.

She's done a ridiculous amount of work evaluating, and presenting the actual evidence. Her bias can be demonstrated to be based on a mountain of evidence- and, no, listening to the first three eps doesn't mean you.

It's easily demonstrated that her "bias" is little more than siding with the *overwhelming* lack of evidence that he did it, along with the *overwhelming* evidence that the system worked against him just to say they put someone away.

As Promo noted, you stopped after what amounts to the intro.

With due respect, you cannot say with ANY intellectual honesty that you think Sarah took a "balanced and impartial" approach without also going through Undisclosed.

IMO, the entire body of evidence in here shows that you simply went with the one that presented the type of case that you were comfortable with, because you already decided he definitely did it.

I, my guy, listened to both cases, and reached the conclusion that there is serious reasonable doubt, not quite to the point of exoneration, but there's so little evidence that he did it that there's no practical difference between "innocent" and "not guilty".

Because, again, Rabia's case illustrates someone who actually viewed the evidence with a critical eye. Sarah took a much more journalistic, and far less investigative, approach, and I don't think there's a good argument to say otherwise.

Your three ep "dive" only reinforces my earlier criticism.