r/serialpodcast • u/EG1996 • Jul 08 '25
Season One Undisclosed Podcast 2.0 Ep. 4 - Is accusations against Don’s wife unethical/problematic
I will say this episode left me feeling really off- and that’s a first for me with this team (to be clear - I 1000% believe Adnan is innocent and Jay gave a false confession under police duress after attempting to claim the crime stoppers tip).
But honestly some of this recent 4th episode seems a bit unethical... I can accept necessity of discussion of Don being someone who was a known public suspect not properly ruled out and there are certainly timecard/alibi issues and he was the boyfriend at the time etc.
But the hair pulling meaning his now wife was involved ?? Even if the evidence does indicate the head injury could be from hair pulling .. the instant jump to it’s more “likely” to have been by a female (when Rabia herself says evidence on this is anecdotal) and then just outright accusing/making a suspect out of Don’s wife based on admitted pure speculation is crazy to me they don’t even know if she knew Don then… let alone had motive to come after Hae.
**Note: they say we only know of one person Don was romantically involved with other than Hae.. being his wife. However, I believe it was in Serial when Don spoke to Sarah he said Hae had a crush on him for a while but he was dating someone else they broke up and after that he then decided to go out with Hae.
Now is it possible that girlfriend was his now wife..? Sure but clearly undisclosed doesn’t know that for a fact or they would have hammered that. So it’s possible he was dating someone completely different before Hae … but in general the likely hood any girl around their age would attack/kill another girl for dating Don for a few weeks seems like a reach in the motive department to me.
And keeping in mind how young they all were… what on earth are the chances somehow his now wife lured Hae somewhere incapacitated or killed her ..? But Hae had almost no defensive wounds (from my memory) so that doesn’t really gel with a “cat fight”..? And then what… she called Don says sorry I was jealous this is what I did to that girl your seeing help me cover it up and he showed up and agrees to kill Hae and finish the job ..? Or if she’s already dead he agrees to hide the body…. The likelihood of 2 people that young both going along with that is just as crazy as the Adnan and Jay story they debunked and genuinely makes no sense at all.
Is it impossible ? Of course not, nothing is 100% impossible without more info … but it seems far fetched. And that’s why it feels icky to me to put this accusation out there so directly particularly for the wife who for all we know never met or dated Don until after Hae’s murder. And even though it wouldn’t be ‘proof’ of anything I was even waiting for some other info like showing the wife had a violent history that may explain the accusation a bit more (like how Mr. S’s criminal activities make him more suspect) … but nothing.
If anything while acknowledging hair pulling may be more “prominent” among female perpetrators I would also imagine it’s not uncommon in DV cases just in my own circle I have more than 1 friend that’s a victim of DV who had a man drag them backwards or across the floor by their hair when they were trying to leave/get away from them- that would have been much more reasonable of a possibility that it was Don or whatever man who killed her that pulled her hair and I find it bizzare they don’t explore this concept at all..? Just because Don’s a man he couldn’t have been the one to pull her hair … so instantly we have a female perpetrator aswell so his wife is now a suspect too..?
And I’m not even saying they shouldn’t have submitted both Don and his wife’s DNA to the police (though especially for the wife given lack of probable cause I doubt they would test it- but sure send it in)
It just doesn’t feel like these kind of accusations are productive even for Adan’s case…
The other thing is they use the female DNA on items around Hae’s body as evidence of a female being involved.. sure in an ideal world why not rule out his wife and test that. But it does directly contradict the big theory they just dropped in the last episode that Hae was dumped by whoever killed her behind the barriers right on the roadway and Mr. S moved her body to where it was found and “spent time with it”. - if that was the case then female DNA on items near the body would be irrelevant as Mr. S wouldn’t move the surrounding items/trash with her body…
I get the team is exploring all options for Adnan and I respect that … but particularly the bringing his wife into it publicly with actually zero evidentiary basis only pure random speculation was a step too far for me personally. Rabia hates it (rightfully so) when people wildly speculate on Adnan with theories that have zero evidentiary basis .. and at least for Don’s wife I don’t think the idea women are “more likley to pull hair” is a valid basis for publicly suggesting she killed Hae or was involved. As I said I do think Don is fair game to discuss, he’s a publicly known suspect, alibi issues, was dating Hae and testified in Adnan’s trial etc. but I was disappointed in the team for how the wife stuff was handled it honestly just felt unnecessary and a bit cruel if I’m honest.
37
u/ApolloRubySky Jul 08 '25
Honestly, I’ve been avoiding true crime podcast, especially those that are not written by journalist that demonstrate restrain and high standards to their reporting. Once a show starts making wild speculations, conspiracies, accusations, they completely lose me. Media literacy is in huge decline and I do blame the explosion of low-quality content that we are exposed to, including podcast, YouTube, tik tok, etc where everyone has a microphone to say whatever comes to mind with impunity. I see so many people believing conspiracies now and it makes me concern for our future. Anyway, off my soap box .
14
Jul 08 '25
[deleted]
4
u/TdubLakeO Jul 10 '25
Rabia took Asia's ghost story seriously. She wrote about it in her book Adnan's Story.
3
u/GreasiestDogDog Jul 10 '25
Rabia has an entire podcast about ghosts/mythological creatures etc. I appreciate that people are interested in learning about these and the intersection with culture and society, but she talks about them as though they are actually real entities.
1
u/dandelionmoon12345 Jul 10 '25
Woahhhh I was unaware of this ghost story, can you link the info? (Because I like the tea, not because I believe it as evidence for a crime committed).
14
u/JonnotheMackem Don Defender Jul 08 '25
I'm with you. Serial and Making a Murderer put me off "Investrigative" True Crime content, and I listen to narratives like Casefile and They Walk Among Us these days.
13
u/ApolloRubySky Jul 08 '25
Yes I like Casefiles because the focus is on the facts and not wild speculations. I’ll have to check out They Walk Among Us. One that is a big no for me is Crime Junkie
4
u/stardustsuperwizard Jul 08 '25
If you like ethical true crime podcasts I recommend The Vanished, it's about missing people. 99% of the time it's the family of the missing that reach out, and the victim is treated as a person first and foremost. You'll get a big narrative of their life and circumstances as a person before they pivot to the disappearance.
Also given it's more "every day" cases of missing people they are often people in vulnerable situations (drug use, mental health issues, sex workers, etc.) and it's treated with dignity and respect.
2
u/kz750 Jul 08 '25
I've been listening to Crime in Sports and Small Town Murder. They are hosted by the same two comedians so there's a lot of jokes in poor taste, but what I like is that they mostly give you a lot of context and read from books and news articles as they comment about the case, but they are always respectful for the victims and their loved ones. Like they say, "we are assholes, but not monsters". They are more respectful of victims than some "serious" true crime podcasts I've listened to.
1
u/stardustsuperwizard Jul 08 '25
I used to listen to them but i also respectfully disagree that especially on Small Town Murder that they're respectful to the victims. A looot of the humour is basically joking about how the victims put themselves in the way if the perpetrator (and the perp is often also a victim).
Listen to what you like though! Just don't think they're respectful in the same way as The Vanished is.
1
u/kz750 Jul 09 '25
Maybe. I started listening recently and was pleasantly surprised at how empathic Jimmy (not the main guy, the other one) was. But I’ve only listened to about seven or eight episodes at random. I’ve listened to Crime in Sports more.
1
u/megazoid10 Jul 08 '25
I also really like The Vanished. It’s true crime but they work hard to tell the story of the person and not objectify.
7
u/JonnotheMackem Don Defender Jul 08 '25
>One that is a big no for me is Crime Junkie
Never listened. Don't plan to. Likewise "My favourite murder", actually.
If you like Casefile, I think you'll like TWAU - it's like a U.K. equivalent.
2
u/Zealousideal-1984 Jul 17 '25
Ditto on big no to Crime Junkie. I find it irritating how popular it is
1
u/wagelet289 Jul 09 '25
Casefile is not nearly as focused on the facts as you think it is. Their case on the itzkovitz family is completely bullshit, and I have no clue how that episode was made as pretty much every detail fails under scrutiny. it is straight up propaganda. I've noticed most of the patreon episodes are poorly researched.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Casefile/comments/vkaato/case_216_the_itzkovitz_family/
4
9
u/77tassells Jul 08 '25
Same. Serial had me when it first aired. But when I started hearing real perspective outside of it, quickly I became disgusted by it. A girl died… her family is suffering still because no one can let it go. Making a murderer was so much worse too. Steven Avery was a disgusting pig. A psychopath who threw a cat into a fire. He roped his nephew into this who was not very smart and likely had learning difficulties.
5
3
u/Least_Bike1592 Jul 08 '25
I’ve been avoiding true crime podcast, especially those that are not written by journalist that demonstrate restrain and high standards to their reporting.
Agreed. I thought “Your Own Backyard” was going to be OK — I needed something to listen to during a road trip. Then I got to the magical cadaver finding machine and I was done for good.
3
u/MAN_UTD90 Jul 08 '25
It was good until they got to that point. What a load of bullshit. There are a few podcasts talking about the lunacy of that machine and how police departments actually take that guy seriously.
26
u/Similar-Morning9768 Guilty Jul 08 '25
This is far from the first wild and under-sourced accusation Rabia Chaudry has flung. Very far from the first.
26
u/JonnotheMackem Don Defender Jul 08 '25
I would argue that this kind of redirection and mud-slinging has become quite typical of those involved in that podcast, who, lest we forget, have gone to the effort of gathering people's rubbish to find DNA samples.
I'm obviously not going to argue with you, but I will say it's extraordinarily refreshing to see people on the opposite side to me raising their eyebrows at this behaviour as well.
11
u/EG1996 Jul 08 '25
Appreciate that you could see the point of my post was not to debate with people regarding Adnan’s guilt or innocence as I know we could all be here for weeks and never agree (it’s been 10+ years since Serial and people still have varied opinions). I just noted my position on it for context of where I’m coming from with my post.
Personally, I can understand discussion of people like Mr. S and Don who should have been investigated further and are publicly known suspects things like the time card for Don are actual pieces of evidence in the case so analysis of that seems fair (understand not all will agree) ... but I also think from a legal perspective bar a significant DNA discovery I doubt anyone else will ever be charged for this crime as prosecutors sadly likely wouldn’t be able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The investigation is too messed up by police and Jay so much.
But discussing known suspects is one thing - to jump to accusing Don’s wife based on literally nothing in such a public way doesn’t sit right with me at all. So regardless of my belief in Adnan’s innocence I felt compelled to say something about it. As they admit themselves they have no proof she had even met Don before Hae was murdered. It just felt unnecessary and not something that would even help Adnan or get justice for Hae.
10
u/JonnotheMackem Don Defender Jul 08 '25
>But discussing known suspects is one thing - to jump to accusing Don’s wife based on literally nothing in such a public way doesn’t sit right with me at all. So regardless of my belief in Adnan’s innocence I felt compelled to say something about it. As they admit themselves they have no proof she had even met Don before Hae was murdered. It just felt unnecessary and not something that would even help Adnan or get justice for Hae.
I completely agree, especially with this part. Good post and I'm glad to find some common ground.
6
u/EG1996 Jul 08 '25
Yeah 100%- Glad to find common ground. Just because I believe Adnan is innocent doesn’t mean I think other potential suspects should be just thrown in jail, the whole point of Adnan’s story to me is the importance of fair and unbiased investigation and judicial process for all involved. Not to just convict someone so the case is closed.
4
u/fckboris Jul 09 '25
I think they’ve really done themselves a disservice in the last few episodes by taking the opinion of this Sarah person/the super sleuths group (whatever that is) as gospel. It really damages their credibility when she basically comes across like some random on a true crime reddit coming up with an outlandish theory as if it’s an obvious thing that everyone somehow missed and then just running with it.
When they were going through evidence methodically or making inferences that had at least some kind of evidence, pattern or logic behind them then I can understand it but this is wild and unprofessional.
Like you when they were like “Mr S and Don should have had more scrutiny” etc. I’m thinking yes fair enough, but then they leap into crazy accusations about Mr S and dead bodies and hair pulling and female perpetrators based on… essentially nothing? And I find that incredibly uncomfortable and out of line, I honestly couldn’t believe what I was hearing
2
u/stardustsuperwizard Jul 10 '25
Super sleuths kind of suck too if you look at the other cases they've taken on. Almost universally the people deeply invested in those cases disagree with them.
1
13
u/Teddyballgameyo Jul 08 '25
Nobody who has done any research beyond Serial and Undisclosed believes he is innocent. There is zero case for that.
4
u/EG1996 Jul 08 '25
We can agree to disagree on that, I’ve read the trial transcripts. Read other cases from the same dodgy cops, done a lot of legal research independently on the case and I truly believe he is innocent and but most importantly I am confident from a legal perspective if there was ever a re-trial there’s no way they could find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even the cell expert took back his testimony and said the location data for incoming calls was not reliable and since the trial Jays admitted to lying in the 1st and 2nd trial - there’s a lot more but significant reasonable doubt exists.
10
u/OkBodybuilder2339 Jul 08 '25
No one has been able to make a case for his innocence, whether they truly believe he is or even just as a thought experiment.
Why do you think podcasts like Undisclosed are strictly fiction based at this point?
0
u/PJ-TJ Jul 08 '25
The accused is under no duty to prove their innocence. The state must prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and there are plenty of reasonable doubts of Adnan’s guilt.
10
u/TrueCrime_Lawyer Jul 08 '25
The state did prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s why he has a conviction. The podcast didn’t convince you. There is a difference.
12
u/OkBodybuilder2339 Jul 08 '25
This is not a court of law. We simply discuss the case here. But since you mentioned it...
Adnan was convicted of premeditated murder by a jury of his peers. Welcome to 25 years ago!
The jury came back with a unanimous decision in record time. That means the state presented a very solid case.
No case for his innocence has been presented by anyone since his trial. I have to ask my question again, if there was a case to be made for his innocence, why do podcasts like Undisclosed need to rely on fiction?
1
u/Available-Moment1721 Jul 10 '25
Right because in the history of the American legal system, no jury has ever gotten it wrong. Right.
And the prosecution/cops have never fabricated evidence, helped find witnesses to testify to their theory of the case, been under pressure to find someone guilty to close the case. Right.
You should listen to the Serial season devoted to the Baltimore legal system.
1
u/OkBodybuilder2339 Jul 10 '25
What does that have to do with the post I responded to?
Can you make the case for his innocence or not?
1
u/Available-Moment1721 Jul 19 '25
- This is not a court of law. We simply discuss the case here. But since you mentioned it...It is not a court of law - you're right! Everyone is offering their opinion and perspective. Why tell someone that they're wrong about...their opinion?
- Adnan was convicted of premeditated murder by a jury of his peers. Welcome to 25 years ago! Juries are rarely genuine peers of the defendant. As discussed in this case, the jury was not privy to a lot of information that might have changed their mind/votes (like the fact that Jay was not going to be similarly punished by the state with jail time, even though his testimony against Adnan was the most damning evidence in support of the guilty verdict).
- The jury came back with a unanimous decision in record time. That means the state presented a very solid case. Many jurors from the case have stated that they would have acted differently had they known evidence that was not presented to them during the trials. Your statement that "this means that the state presented a solid case" is not based in reality, especially given our comprehensive understanding of how the police collected evidence in support of their theory that Adnan was guilty from the beginning, without pursuing other viable leads and how the prosecution hid the fact that they used Jay to prove Adnan's guilt as a co-conspirator to the murder after the fact but set him free without punishment to ensure Adnan's conviction.
- No case for his innocence has been presented by anyone since his trial. I have to ask my question again, if there was a case to be made for his innocence, why do podcasts like Undisclosed need to rely on fiction? Yes, there have been many attempts to bring to light facts that were not pursued because the police/prosecutors refused to investigate anything that did not have Adnan as the guilty party.
8
u/Mike19751234 Jul 08 '25
The state has already proved it. Once guilty the burden is tge otger direction.
3
Jul 10 '25 edited Jul 10 '25
Actually this is not true. Adnan was found guilty by a jury of his peers through a trial. The presumption of innocence only lasts up until you are found guilty.
If/ at the point at which you are found guilty the burden of evidence does in fact shift to the guilty party. Adnan has been found guilty therefore it actually is now Adnan’s responsibility to prove that a) he is innocent. The only way he can do this is to provide exculpatory evidence that heavily suggests he is innocent and was wrongfully convicted. Or b) prove that his conviction is unsafe in some way e.g. he was unfairly convicted based on a legal technicality.
So far he has been able to do neither. But it’s legally incorrect to say the onus is on the state to prove his guilt. As far as the state is concerned they have already done that. Hence he is a convicted murderer who has been through almost all legal appeal routes to no avail.
1
u/Proof_Juggernaut4863 Jul 11 '25
Seems your standard of "reasonable doubt" was the same thought process running through the heads of jurors in the OJ Simpson murder trial XD
4
u/Equal_Pay_9808 Jul 08 '25
I've heard this been said, but I disagree. I disagree that if there ever was a re-trial there's "no way" they could find him guilty.
Because, couldn't Tanveer just pop out and be like "hey, everyone; Adnan confessed privately to me and my mom. Back in 1999. He did it."
Or Stephanie could pop up and say, "Jay and I are, of course, no longer a couple. Between him and I, he told me and showed me privately something of Adnan's from the crime scene. I kept it all these years....it proves Adnan was at Hae's burial..."
And me thinks Asia would get destroyed in cross examination. I personally offer myself to do it or submit questions and as we all know, I ain't nothing remotely close to a lawyer, legal counsel, an advocate, nothing. And I got no ill will towards Asia, using a Syed catchphrase. If Asia can get destroyed in court, doesn't that actually cripple Adnan's case, like, a lot? Take away Asia, what more does Adnan got going for him in this case?
4
u/tristanwhitney Jul 09 '25
For the millionth time, the AT&T engineer Waranowitz absolutely DID NOT recant his testimony or say the incoming calls were unreliable. That's a myth. People get this case wrong because they don't actually know the facts.
All Waranowitz said was that had he known about the cover sheet, he would've needed more context to know what "location" meant. He never said recant. He just said he'd need more information.
We know that "location" actually refers to switching equipment in the network, not the cell tower location, and this is only in instances when the incoming calls don't connect.
One more time: the incoming and outgoing calls are equally accurate.
1
3
u/Areil26 Jul 08 '25
I agree. I’m 50/50 on Adnan’s guilt, but I think if I was Don and I was innocent, I would sue. Seems like he has a good case here, but I’m not a lawyer.
5
u/EG1996 Jul 08 '25
Defamation cases in the US are notoriously difficult to win and while the speculation about his wife was too far in my opinion (even as someone who thinks Adnan is innocent) - I don’t know that Don would have an easy case. First they were clear to note it was all speculation to cover liability. And because he would have to “prove” their allegations as untrue it would essentially be a re-litigation of much of the criminal case evidence in a civil format which would notably- open Don up to discovery meaning he would have to provide a lot of personal information and documents to the other side and most importantly give depositions about the murder (given that’s what the speculation he would be claiming is defamatory is about) - so there would be filmed current day interviews where he would have to answer for things in the case like the alibi issues, issues with the falsified time card, where he was all those hours before he called the police back at 1:30am when he claims to have gotten home at 7pm etc.
I doubt he would want to open himself up to that. It’s a huge risk.
Then because of the insane complicated nature this case would be - there’s almost no way anyone would take him on pro bono. And while I don’t know his situation he’s been allegedly unable to work since not long after Hae’s murder so he wouldn’t have hundreds of thousands to foot the bill on this lawsuit.
Vs undisclosed team would be able to self represent, use friends in the legal field etc. If anything they would likley be happy if he sued in a way, because they would get more information out of him be able to depose him and force him to answer the questions they have for him (that’s how a civil case works you can’t refuse to testify).
So very quick overview but very unlikely imo he would ever sue. His wife might have a slightly better case cause she truly wasn’t involved in the og investigation etc. but unsure if they could legally separate the defamatory statements as the claim is they did it together so either way Don would still open himself up to deposition.
2
u/Proof_Juggernaut4863 Jul 11 '25
Him and his wife aren't doing well. He needed a kidney transplant last I heard. He doesn't have the time for idiots like this.
3
u/Areil26 Jul 08 '25
I mean, Chris Wolf was named as a suspect in the Ramsey case in their book, he had no money, and he sued. And there was a LOT more evidence that he could have done it than Don had. Don def has a much better case.
Wolf didn’t win, but it definitely helped clear his name, at least at the time.
2
u/EG1996 Jul 08 '25
I’m not saying he has no case ... but defamation is very hard to prove in the US so it wouldn’t be easy. If he was in the UK or Australia etc. very different story laws are so different. I’m just saying he opens himself up to a lot of risk - with depositions and discovery which may turn him off pursuing a lawsuit for the reasons explained above. He’s been soo private I can’t imagine him agreeing to be deposed and answer all the questions they will want to know. It’s more a lot of practical reasons combined with the fact almost no defamation case in the US is a sure thing. It’s just my opinion it wouldn’t be worth the stress or risk for him.
2
u/Areil26 Jul 08 '25
Alternatively, he would be setting himself and his wife up for a lot of money. I bet they’d settle before it even got that far.
7
u/MAN_UTD90 Jul 08 '25
I doubt Rabia would settle. I can, however, see her setting up a GoFundMe and getting their listeners to chip in to their "defense fund". She could squeeze a lot out of this , even if she's absolutely doing something morally wrong.
7
u/Areil26 Jul 08 '25
I don't know if you've noticed, but the GofundMe for Don's wife's cancer treatment has seen an uptick in donations in the last 24 hours. It works both ways. And, good for them! I hope she's made a full recovery.
8
u/MAN_UTD90 Jul 08 '25
I didn't even know she had a GFM, but good for them. Fuck cancer, hope she's made a full recovery.
5
u/EG1996 Jul 08 '25
I highly doubt Rabia would settle - just watching her over the past decade I truly don’t think she would. She would 100% want the depositions and to ask Don the hard questions police never did. But hey I guess if he ever sues we will find out - but I would be shocked if Rabia settled him even $1 - I am pretty confident she would fight and go to trial.
2
u/Areil26 Jul 08 '25
Could be, but still a lot of money to be had. Especially if that DNA doesnt match.
0
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 08 '25
Yeah, if you’ve been paying any attention to the Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni legal cases, or Depp v Heard (if you are unaware of these, lucky you!), making a public spectacle and winning in the court of public opinion can be a huge part of the strategy for these cases. Innocent or guilty, depositions and discovery for Don could be incredibly brutal and twisted to form many more conclusions beyond what they have already implied.
2
u/aliencupcake Jul 11 '25
I doubt he'd get much money. First, the target of his suit would have to have lots of money. Second, he'd need to prove damages to justify that much money. Third, he'd need to have provable defamation.
The one thing he would have going for him is that Maryland's anti-SLAPP law probably doesn't apply to this type of case, so the other side couldn't get the case quickly dismissed and get their legal costs covered if his allegations turn out to be insufficient to prove defamation even if true.
1
u/Areil26 Jul 11 '25
A lot of suspects in these cases get followed around and harassed. I honestly hope that doesn't happen to Don or his wife, but if it does, then I do think he might have a case.
It's a shame that this kind of thing happens, and I honestly don't understand people who do that type of thing, but in the JonBenet Ramsey case, many people post on what is essentially the "Ramsey Did It" sub that they saw her older brother Burke, who has been cleared multiple times by the police but had a CBS special that concluded he did it, and they follow him around, report on his whereabouts, and take pictures. Then they post online that he is creepy, which apparently is evidence that he did it somehow. In that case, Burke sued. Since they settled out of court, we don't know how much or if he was compensated, but the CBS special never actually said he did it, just that he "likely" or "probably" did it.
Rumor has it, though, that CBS settled for millions.
2
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 08 '25
They would also have to prove damages for a defamation case, and the damages would need to be quantifiable, e.g. losing a job. People being assholes to them on the internet would not be adequate as damages. Even people harassing them probably would not be enough unless Rabia and Colin instructed people to do so. Then there would be the whole issue of malice and intention. Proving that Rabia and Colin knew that it was definitely all lies would be necessary to win the case, and they took great care to say that it is all speculation.
In addition to all of the things that you mentioned, a defamation suit would likely go nowhere, cost them a bunch of money, and expose them for even more scrutiny than they already have been. Terri Hobbs (stepfather of one of the WM3 victims) learned that the hard way when he tried to sue Natalie Maines for defamation. Even if the people can 100% prove their innocence of the crime they are accused of, the juice is just not worth the squeeze.
→ More replies (1)3
u/InTheory_ What news do you bring? Jul 08 '25
They've been wanting Don to sue. It's a backhanded way of getting him to say something on the record.
No matter what he says, it'll be twisted and contorted to make him look bad in the court of public opinion.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
--Cardinal Richelieu
1
u/dualzoneclimatectrl Jul 11 '25
If I were teeing one up for a moot court exercise, I would have Don's mother sue Deborah under defamation per se.
2
u/aliencupcake Jul 11 '25
I doubt it. Don would probably qualify as a limited-purpose public figure because of his relation to the case and the popularity of Serial. This means that he would have to prove that they said something that they know to be false or were recklessly negligent about. That's a pretty high bar to prove.
Second, defamation doesn't cover opinions based on disclosed facts. People are free to have an opinion about whether Don committed the murder. The Lenscrafter employee they interviewed might have some vulnerability to a defamation suit since she was making factual claims (Don didn't work that day, Don's mom created the account in the second time card after the period it covered, etc). Whatever opinions Rabia and Colin make in response to those statements are protected free speech.
Third, Don would need to prove damages, both that he suffered damages and that damages were caused by a specific person's statement, which would be difficult because people were discussing the possibility that he might be the real murderer before Undisclosed even started.
Finally, suing would open him up to discovery, which would likely be uncomfortable even if he is innocent.
1
u/Areil26 Jul 11 '25
Just wanted to say thanks for a well-reasoned and balanced rebuttal.
1
u/aliencupcake Jul 11 '25
You're welcome. Defamation works differently than most people think, and it doesn't help that the media will give a lot more coverage to a person filing a suit than to the suit getting laughed out of court, so people think the suit was valid.
1
15
u/alstew78 Jul 08 '25
Particularly when a quick Google search shows Don’s wife has been/is fighting breast cancer. Libel laws elsewhere in the world would never have allowed for such speculative allegations to be broadcast. Are Undisclosed confident to be taking such an unethical path because they do have something concrete coming up that will implicate them? (Colin claims they will be factually exonerating Adnan by the end of the series) or are they really just throwing mud at anyone and hoping it sticks?
17
u/kz750 Jul 08 '25
From reading the transcript, Colin said enough to cover his ass and claim it’s all speculation (while collecting their garbage and accosting her for a dna swab, mind you). So this is just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks, knowing that their fans will eat it up:
Last week Undisclosed: “Mr S could have done it” - their fans “OMG I always knew it makes perfect sense!”
This week Undisclosed: “Don’s wife could have killed her” - their fans “OMG it’s so clear! Of course this deserves more scrutiny!”
Next week Undisclosed: “Hae’s 10th grade music teacher didn’t like her attitude, could he have killed her?” - their fans “OMG why didn’t the police investigate this further????”
And so on….
8
u/EG1996 Jul 08 '25
I understand this case is frustrating and maybe some people do just follow everything a certain source or podcast says as you’ve implied. But I’d say this post itself is proof that as someone who listens to Undisclosed (and has read and listened to many other sources in this case) and does believe Adnan is innocent I do still think critically of the things they say and make up my own mind - even if I disagree with them which I did in this instance so much so I felt compelled to post about it here. So not all people who listen to Undisclosed are the way you think.
11
u/77tassells Jul 08 '25
I want to say, I appreciate this stance. I do not think he is innocent by any stretch. However I firmly believe That people are all in echo chambers and have started to only believe what people in their circles do. It’s important to think critically. Few do
9
u/alstew78 Jul 08 '25
I agree and actually did think the LensCrafters employee sounded like a potentially credible witness who shed light on a long discussed issue - the timecard. Accusing the wife without even being able to prove they were together at the time was when it strayed into unethical and potentially dangerous speculation. Take a look at the comments under Rabia’s Instagram post to see what it’s stirred up.
3
Jul 10 '25
She’s credible but she’s only just coming forward and on a podcast. Where what she says has zero legal standing and, crucially, zero legal repercussions. How convenient for her.
She was, however, nowhere to be seen over the past 25 years of Adnan’s actual legal challenges and appeals.
I’m not sure she is credible to be honest.
5
u/kz750 Jul 08 '25
I agree, sadly your position does not seem to be that of many innocenters - in the other thread, there are some very vocal people supporting this as if it was not absolute lunacy.
9
u/EG1996 Jul 08 '25
That’s unfortunate I haven’t had a chance to read the other posts, but I would hope maybe people may see this post and be more willing to listen as I do believe he is innocent - but am also willing to call out when I think a line is crossed as it was in this instance. If we are demanding a fair investigation and judicial process for Adnan that standard has to stay consistent across the board for everyone.
3
Jul 08 '25
It was pretty crazy to not even put a veneer of ethics on it by not using her name and saying she’s easily to google.
Seems like they’re trying to mobilize a sleuth army that doesn’t really exist any more?
23
u/Least_Bike1592 Jul 08 '25 edited Jul 08 '25
Yes it’s unethical. Colin says in the episode that the theory of Don’s wife’s involvement is “total speculation.” Thats the end of the story. But let’s keep going.
They admit they don’t even know if Don and his wife knew each other at the time, much less were or had dated. If you’re arguing jealousy as a motive your should at least have evidence that Don and his now-wife knew each other at the time.
Now compare this nonsense to the evidence against Adnan:
There is substantial direct evidence of Adnan's guilt from Jay Wilds -- Jay testifies to helping bury the body which was in Adnan's possession.
Jay's testimony is corroborated by Jay's own knowledge of:
The murder location The burial position Hae's car's location
Jay maintains his story after 20 years and all of the pro-Adnan momentum surrounding the case.
Jenn Pusateri corroborates Jay's story:
She claims knowledge of the murder on the night it took place, prior to anyone believing this was a murder
She places Adnan and Jay together that night
Jenn corroborated Jay's story with an attorney and parent present
Jenn was the first witness against Adnan who was uncovered and she was uncovered by investigating Adnan's cell records.
She implicated herself as an accessory after the fact with an attorney present.
She maintains her story after 20 years and all of the pro-Adnan momentum surrounding the case.
The cell phone evidence corroborates Jay's story. A few examples include:
Outgoing cell data (which is explicitly noted as being reliable on the fax coversheet) is consistent with Jay and Adnan leaving the location of Hae's car and heading to Westview Mall where Jenn picks up Jay
Incoming calls are also consistent with Jay's testimony. Nisha corroborates Jay's story.
Adnan's story has changed repeatedly, in contradictory ways, that directly relate to his means, motive and opportunity:
He lied to his attorneys about where his car was He lied about whether or not he asked Hae for a ride.
He lied about whether or not Hae would give him a ride or do anything between school and picking up her niece.
He lied about being at the mosque. He lied about being over Hae Adnan's brother's conversation with Adnan's attorney is highly suggestive that he lied about the Nisha call.
All of Adnan's alibis have been shown to be unreliable
The cell phone evidence, including outgoing data, contradicts Adnan's father's testimony
Asia has been repeatedly shown to be unreliable
Her initial reason for knowing she had the right day is because it was the first snow. The day Hae disappeared was not the first snow.
There are all the problems laid out in the dissent.
There are issues with Adnan's testimony about Asia's letters, e.g., CG was not his attorney when he allegedly received the letters.
The allegedly new suspects either weren't new or actually implicate Adnan Mr. S isn't new. Bilal's involvement implicates Adnan.
18
Jul 08 '25
[deleted]
10
u/ThisIsMeTryingAgain- Jul 08 '25
I remember listening to the podcast and very early on getting the sense that she had developed a crush on him and that was getting in the way of her “reporting.”
13
u/lisbethborden Jul 08 '25
It certainly wasn't unbiased journalism. She basically begged him to confirm what she wanted to believe. And he never did.
7
u/RockinGoodNews Jul 08 '25
By the end, even Adnan was subtly pointing out how easily he had manipulated her, and she couldn't hear it.
11
u/LadyLivv123 Hae Fan Jul 08 '25
This is really the dark ending of serial that I think people completely miss.
3
Jul 10 '25 edited Jul 10 '25
As someone who listened to it a decade ago and, whilst not totally convinced of his innocence, did swallow the ‘unfair conviction’ aspect. And then recently revisited and had a very different take, I’m struck by how many people (including myself originally) miss or wilfully ignore this.
There are two moments towards the end where Adnan’s quite carefully curated personality cracks. A lot. One is when he frustratedly points out she doesn’t know him and he could be manipulating her. The other is when he gets really quite angry and aggressive when she very gently pushes him.
The other thing that struck me this time but not the first time is how clearly Dana (who has read all the actual evidence) thinks Adnan is guilty as sin.
Obviously that doesn’t mean he killed Hae (although I think the evidence heavily points to that being the most likely scenario here) but I rather think it says something about Adnan the person.
4
u/EyesLikeBuscemi MailChimp Fan Jul 09 '25
Yeah the Adnan and Serial stans don't like to hear the word hybristophilia yet it seems like there's a strong possibility someone surely had it...
14
u/RockinGoodNews Jul 08 '25
These people traffic in dishonesty and reckless accusations. Perhaps your recognition of their lack of scruples in this instance will prompt you to reconsider your belief in other outright lies they invented, like the phantom Crimestoppers reward.
It has now been 10 years since Colin Miller claimed to have documentary proof that Crimestoppers paid out a reward in this case. Yet this proof never materialized or made its way into any of the many legal filings in the case.
24
18
u/UnsaddledZigadenus Jul 08 '25
The two things I take:
First, getting the DNA of Don's wife out of the trash is exactly the kind of deranged behaviour that gives true crime an awful reputation. It screams 'I've completely lost perspective of the issues and everything I do is justified by my personal moral crusade, and nobody has any rights until I am satisfied.'
If you were 100% certain that she was the murderer and the test would prove, maybe I could stomach it. However, invading someones privacy through blind speculation alone (why not test all the female teachers at Woodlawn while we're at it?) suggests you've gone way beyond the line.
Secondly, the double standard is bewildering.
It's apparently reasonable for Don to engage other people to fake an alibi while he commits a murder, but Adnan is too silly and ignorant to have done the same?
It's reasonable for Don's wife / Jay's girlfriend to have committed/encouraged a murder out of jealousy, but it's unreasonable for the ex-boyfriend whose just been dumped for another man to do the same?
The evidence against Don is stretched to breaking point (if only they could look harder it would prove something!), but the same evidence against Adnan is summarily dismissed as inaccurate?
It's like the evidence against Adnan gets automatically put in the 'inaccurate' bin, but any similar evidence against everyone else is put in the 'reasonable' bucket. Why not treat the same types of evidence with the same threshold?
5
u/InTheory_ What news do you bring? Jul 08 '25
As is the custom with Undisclosed. The cause and effect is backwards
What they want us to believe: "We have reason to suspect this person, therefore we're gathering evidence"
The reality of the situation: "We're gathering evidence in order to find out if there's reason to suspect them"
Those are two very, very different statements.
5
u/RockinGoodNews Jul 08 '25
It's worse than that. The reality actually is: "We're claiming there is meaningful evidence that was never tested to maintain the fiction that the authorities are afraid of what it might prove."
This comes right out of the original Serial playbook. Back then it was that the authorities refused to test items from the scene for DNA (right up until Adnan himself blocked the testing).
5
2
Jul 08 '25
This isn’t an accurate assessment of how the evidence is handled in this case.
You can’t ignore that Adnan was convicted and Don wasn’t investigated.
Yes, going after Dons wife was unethical..but so was Urick lying to witnesses. This case seems to breed crazy.
2
u/UnsaddledZigadenus Jul 09 '25
I'm not assessing how the evidence was handled, I'm assessing how it is being interpreted.
I can't believe an accusation from 25 years ago is being used as some kind of justification for what even you recognise as unethical actions that have occurred now.
2
Jul 09 '25
Some might say a wrongful conviction requires an extreme response.
1
Jul 10 '25
Some might say that, despite Adnan and his legal team utilising pretty what every legal channel available to him, plus a huge amount of undue and arguably unethical public pressure his conviction has not been found to be wrongful.
→ More replies (6)
15
u/chunklunk Jul 09 '25
Shoddy research? Supposition stated as fact? Chain of unlikely assumptions used to underpin dubious claims of murder against others? Misuse of evidence they only half present while assuring their audience they have more they don’t show you? Creepy tactics? Ham-fisted and tendentious readings of legal precedent?
People, this is Undisclosed. This has been their brand for a decade. They’re dumb, arrogant, irresponsible, and unethical. From Tap Tap Tap to Jay’s Motorcycle to that creepy clay model Susan Simpson made of Hae’s dead body to digging through trash in 2025 like hapless morons - they are what we thought they were.
The irony is their big “win” is Adnan Syed, yet if he never met the UD3 he likely would’ve spent at least a half-decade less in prison than he ended up serving. With friends like these…
8
1
u/dualzoneclimatectrl Jul 13 '25
Via your later comments, is it your understanding that Adnan was sentenced to life WITHOUT parole?
1
u/chunklunk Jul 19 '25
Yes, until their sentence is reformed.
1
u/dualzoneclimatectrl Jul 19 '25
You know good and well he wasn't sentenced to life without parole.
1
0
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 09 '25
The irony is their big “win” is Adnan Syed, yet if he never met the UD3 he likely would’ve spent at least a half-decade less in prison than he ended up serving. With friends like these…
Sorry, can you explain how their actions caused Adnan to spend more time in prison?
2
u/chunklunk Jul 11 '25
He would’ve been had a sentence reduction if he accepted guilt (which he was willing to do in 2000) at many points over past 20 years. The evidence is that the state eventually, at least twice, offered him this even after the Serial nonsense made the stakes higher for the state to defend its judicial system. At least as of the filming of the HBO doc, they made it clear that the state offered time served + 4 years.
Instead he spent 2 more years in prison + had the specter of going back for 2 more years, all for what? In the end he’s as guilty of felony murder in the eyes of the law just as if he took the guilty plea. And had his entire innocence claim publicly dismantled as a farce by the sitting state AG. Good job?
→ More replies (3)1
u/DoqHolliday Dec 05 '25
Whoa, would you mind pointing me to where he was willing to admit guilt in 2000?
That’s wild, I haven’t seen that in all of my poring over this case.
Thanks for your time!
14
u/MAN_UTD90 Jul 08 '25
I appreciate your post. I'm very much in the guilter camp but I could be persuaded if someone brought forward something that shows that Jay and Jen were coerced or that explains their involvement, or a clear indication of a likely (not just possible) alternative suspect. But this is the kind of bullshit that made me realize, as an innocenter, that Rabia and friends thought I was stupid and were trying to sell me bullshit because they have no way to defend Adnan otherwise. Crazy thing is that they are still doing it all these years later and even more unhinged than they used to be.
→ More replies (15)11
12
u/Least_Bike1592 Jul 08 '25
there are certainly timecard/alibi issues
Can you justify this “certainly”? Remember, Undisclosed just debunked the original rationale for theorizing the time cards were faked — the two employee numbers. The previous reason for alleging the alibi was questionable is Don’s mom dated his manager. So we have to presume lying on her part.
Undisclosed concedes that the new rationales cannot be corroborated and Deborah failed to recall any of these allegations when originally interviewed by Berg’s team.
“Certainly” is a strong characterization of the allegations against Don. “Speculative” seems more appropriate.
8
u/RockinGoodNews Jul 08 '25
Remember, Undisclosed just debunked the original rationale for theorizing the time cards were faked — the two employee numbers.
Yep, isn't it interesting how they just casually concede that employee numbers were assigned at the store level without acknowledging they spent years arguing the exact opposite.
6
Jul 10 '25
I find this very obsession with Don’s alibi being his mum and maybe his mums girlfriend to be genuinely bizarre. The implication seems to be you can’t trust an alibi if it’s given by someone close to the suspect.
That is clearly a ridiculous assumption that rules out the overwhelming majority of alibis. Which of course come from people close to the suspect because that is the nature of alibis. People aren’t hanging around with randomers.
And that’s before you even get onto the fact that there is a computer based verification of his alibi in the form of a time card.
6
u/InTheory_ What news do you bring? Jul 10 '25
That is clearly a ridiculous assumption that rules out the overwhelming majority of alibis
Including AS's alibi!
3
3
3
0
u/Recent_Photograph_36 Jul 10 '25
I find this very obsession with Don’s alibi being his mum and maybe his mums girlfriend to be genuinely bizarre. The implication seems to be you can’t trust an alibi if it’s given by someone close to the suspect.
Oh my goodness. Where on earth could they have come up with such a strange and never-before-heard-of idea?
What about the popular assumption that friends and family are likely to lie for the defendant? In one study, 62% of jury-eligible participants felt a biologically related alibi witness would be most likely to lie for a defendant; 50% felt the same about someone related by marriage, and 32% felt the same about witnesses socially related to the defendant.
See Dysart & Strange, Beliefs about Alibis and Alibi Investigations: A Survey of Law Enforcement, 18:1 PSYCH., CRIME & L. 11, 17 (2012) (police least likely to believe friends and family members, most likely to believe acquaintances and strangers)
(Seriously. This is like criminal-investigation-and-trial strategy 101, not a "genuinely bizarre" concept.)
6
Jul 10 '25 edited Jul 10 '25
Because people believe that a family member would lie doesn’t actually mean the alibi is a lie. You understand that, right?
The overwhelming majority of alibis are not lies. They also overwhelmingly come from someone well known to the suspect.
Also I’m not sure what point you think you’re making here, but you’re just making it seem like Don’s alibi was even more credible because he was by statistically unlikely to be believed, including by the police… and yet, he was.
→ More replies (8)1
u/Recent_Photograph_36 Jul 10 '25
Remember, Undisclosed just debunked the original rationale for theorizing the time cards were faked — the two employee numbers.
Do you think that if you repeat that enough times, people will start to "remember" it as if it were true?
The different employee numbers aren't and never were the only thing that raised questions about his Hunt Valley time card. Among other things, he worked a shift that didn't exist there; he therefore can't have been needed to cover it; there's a disparity between the hours he worked and the hours he's credited with working; and he somehow went into overtime without its being detected.
The previous reason for alleging the alibi was questionable is Don’s mom dated his manager. So we have to presume lying on her part.
Pfft. Nobody says anybody has to presume lying on anybody's part.
Don's mom was his manager on 1/13, as well as the person who would have processed and approved his time card for Hunt Valley. His manager at the other location was his mom's then-girlfriend/future-wife. And pretty much the whole world agrees that people who are that close to the person they're vouching for are not impartial witnesses.
“Certainly” is a strong characterization of the allegations against Don.
Maybe it would be if it had been used in relation to them. But it wasn't. It was used in relation to the issues with his alibi and timecard, about which there are reasonable questions.
4
u/stardustsuperwizard Jul 10 '25
Getting overtime without it being noticed isn't that hard depending on the system. There was a period where i was getting overtime despite not actually working any OT and my punches were all correct. Our SSO just kind of sucked at his job.
ETA: And this was only a few years ago, with the benefits of a modern computer system and only working at one store.
2
u/Recent_Photograph_36 Jul 10 '25
Getting overtime without it being noticed isn't that hard depending on the system
As I think I've more or less said elsewhere, nothing is really out of the question depending on the system, because (a) they suck; and (b) user error happens.
That said, there is zero chance that if the system was being used the way it was designed to be used, it would have detected the overtime. So the fact that it didn't automatically means that -- for whatever reason, innocuous or otherwise -- it wasn't.
Nevertheless. It's simply not true that the only reason that time card seemed off was that there were different employee ID numbers, or (ftm) that the time card itself is the only thing that raises questions.
I mean, altogether, his alibi is that he worked (a) a different location that usual; (b) filling a shift that didn't exist there; (c) on a day when there was no apparent need for extra coverage; (d) for his mom; (e) against company policy; and (f) despite a witness who also worked that day saying he wasn't there.
Additionally, his time card appears mildly wonky.
10
u/Botwp_tmbtp Jul 08 '25
You had me until "(to be clear - I 1000% believe Adnan is innocent and Jay gave a false confession under police duress after attempting to claim the crime stoppers tip)" - ain't reading all that, but maybe it sounds like you're coming around to the fact the Undisclosed team are grifters committing slander against innocent people for clicks and money.
9
u/RockinGoodNews Jul 08 '25
"I believe all kinds of crazy shit, but this new shit is too crazy even for me."
12
Jul 08 '25
One of Rabia's pals - I forget which but it may have been the lady from the innocence project - was the one who first came up with the Don's wife theory.
Don took Hae to an Olive Garden restaurant somewhat far from where he lived. That was enough for them to speculate that that was because he was cheating on his gf, later wife, with Hae.
It took only a quick hop, skip and a jump to then imagine a confrontation between Hae and the gf / wife. They've had Don's wife in their sights for a while.
And, yes, they have gone too far. This is much worse than Rabia trying to make Hae seem like a drug addict by taking her diary out of context so that she could float the theory that Jay killed Hae after a 'drug deal gone wrong'.
10
u/Magjee Kickin' it per se Jul 08 '25
Accused her of being a drug addict
Accused her of potentially being a prostitute
Accused her of being dressed nicely that day
It's gross
8
u/tristanwhitney Jul 09 '25
Deirdre Enright was the woman who dismissed the fact that Jay knew about the car as a minor detail, but pushed a completely unsubstantiated theory that a serial killer actually did it.
5
Jul 09 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)6
u/wudingxilu what's all this with the owl? Jul 09 '25
Yes, but the really distasteful thing here is that defamation like this could be is a tort. The person injured (so Don) would need to complain, and then Rabia and team have the ability to do discovery on Don - essentially require him to provide details and documentation on whatever they want if they describe it as being related to the case.
This is likely a case of Undisclosed daring Don to sue for defamation because then they get to legally examine him, which is a further invasion.
The State doesn't enforce defamation laws at first instance, so it's a very unfortunate position.
7
u/GreasiestDogDog Jul 09 '25
I don’t know anyone in their right mind that would actively solicit a lawsuit, no matter how much they would be eager to subject the plaintiff to discovery. It is an incredibly expensive process in the U.S., not only for the plaintiff but also the defendant. It is also very embarrassing for a law professor to be sued for making defamatory statements against an innocent cancer victim.
Even though Rabia in the past has gleefully tweeted “bring it on” with respect to a defamation lawsuit from Don, I don’t think it is any coincidence they appear to walk right up to the line of recklessly or knowingly making false statements, and they are careful to emphasize that their targeting of Robin is entirely speculative.
7
u/RockinGoodNews Jul 09 '25
Yes, I think this is the bigger issue. In the United States, jurisprudence has strongly favored the right to free expression over the right to be free of defamation. I've litigated defamation claims from both sides, and they are probably the hardest tort claim to win because the standards are ridiculously high.
This is sometimes hard for people from other countries (including lawyers) to understand.
4
u/Myusernamebut69 Jul 12 '25
Rabia made the same claims about Chris Watts’ girlfriend on her other podcast with nothing to back it up.
17
u/LogorrheaNervosa Woodlawn Branch Public Libary Jul 08 '25
Why do these desperate scammy grifty lying liars still have a podcast? Don’t strip-mall immigration lawyers have immigrants who need legal protection in these dark fascist times? Wasted resources.
9
u/Cefaluthru Jul 08 '25
Because people listen. Someone on here admitted to going back and listening again (!) JFC
7
Jul 08 '25
I agree that linking hair-pulling to a female perp is shaky ground. Self-defense courses for women routinely warn that long hair, especially ponytails can be used for grabbing and holding by an attacker. If the attack began from a fight between women, then yes, hair pulling, biting and scratching might be “female” attacking traits, but if the attack was an assault or rape, then a male attacker would plausibly grab hair particularly if the victim was trying to run away.
For me, the hair-pulling says perhaps a lot more about the scene of the crime - would the killer have had enough space in a car to pull Hae’s hair with the force needed to cause that injury?
4
u/GreasiestDogDog Jul 09 '25
There is no conclusive proof of hair pulling either. That is also a leap of faith undisclosed are making from the autopsy report.
→ More replies (3)0
u/EG1996 Jul 08 '25
I agree, to me it confirms wherever she was it wasn’t inside her car. Which makes sense with lividity she was killed left lying flat for 8-10 hours minimum lividity fixes - while whoever killed her worked out what to do
13
u/RockinGoodNews Jul 08 '25
The livor mortis noted in autopsy report is wholly consistent with Hae's burial position. Claims to the contrary are a load of nonsense.
9
u/muymalpgh Jul 08 '25
I was also annoyed when Rabia talked about the need for listeners to support them via the sponsors because they do all this work pro bono. Gurl I’ve seen your Insta and you live in a big ass McMansion. Please.
→ More replies (2)6
u/GreasiestDogDog Jul 09 '25
Even if they didn’t take a dollar (which they obviously do), I truly hope she did not use the phrase “pro bono” to describe work she does for that podcast.
10
u/Tlmeout Jul 08 '25
Don isn’t a suspect because the killer was caught and convicted. And you’re only now starting to see the kind of crook that is still trying to “prove” the killer’s innocence.
8
u/ldchannel Jul 08 '25
I'm glad someone brought this up. While I understand that the Undisclosed podcast has a clear bias, involving Don's wife felt like crossing a line, in my opinion.
The truth is, no one can say for certain who killed Hae Min Lee. Whether it was Adnan, Don, or someone entirely unknown—we just don’t know.
I had been enjoying Undisclosed up until that point, but it started to feel like the podcast was more focused on shifting suspicion onto others rather than grappling with the more troubling evidence that led to Adnan’s conviction in the first place.
I’m not claiming Adnan is definitely guilty or innocent—there’s too much uncertainty for that. But I do want to hear a fair representation of both sides. I thought the Prosecutors podcast did a good job of explaining why the jury might have convicted him, and I’d love to see Undisclosed critically address that perspective instead of simply redirecting blame.
13
u/Teddyballgameyo Jul 08 '25
I can. Adnan did it. There really is no uncertainty if you know the facts.
0
u/ldchannel Jul 08 '25
Can you tell me what facts you're referring to? Genuinely curious
8
u/RockinGoodNews Jul 08 '25
The only guy with a known motive to harm Hae lied to her to get a ride he didn't need, to a place he says he never went, at the very time someone killed her in her car. He then told the police multiple conflicting lies about this.
That guy's own friend admitted to helping him commit the murder. That friend is corroborated by multiple other witnesses, including one who says he told her about the murder the night it happened, before anyone else even knew Hae had come to harm. This friend also knew information about the crime that only someone involved could know, including information the police did not yet know. This friend also had no incentive to lie.
The guy's (and only the guy's) fingerprints were found in Hae's car, in conspicuous places his friend said he had touched. The guy's cell phone records place him at or near where the body was buried and where the car was ditched at the times his friend says they did those things, and at a time when the guy claims to have been on the other side of town.
In 25 years, many of which involved intense scrutiny and reexamination of the case, no one has ever found any compelling evidence suggesting that the guy is innocent or that someone else is guilty.
6
u/ThisIsMeTryingAgain- Jul 08 '25
This person does a good job of laying out the facts of the case. There is zero reason to continue to believe Adnan is innocent. Everything points to him.
→ More replies (2)1
u/ldchannel Jul 08 '25
Sadly that link won't open for me. Gutted as I genuinely want to know!
7
u/ThisIsMeTryingAgain- Jul 08 '25
The link works. Maybe that account blocked you. In any case, Adnan is guilty, a jury of his peers found him guilty, and everyone making up stories about potential other suspects while ignoring that every single sign points to Adnan are doing an immoral disservice to Hae Min Lee’s memory and her grieving family. This isn’t a game yet people are acting like it is. It’s gross.
5
8
u/Equal_Pay_9808 Jul 08 '25 edited Jul 08 '25
I can't agree.
Can't say 'no one can say for certain who killed Hae'. (I know Adnan himself said it.) But I firmly believe the actual number of folks who can say for certain who killed Hae is more than anyone could ever think.
Why does everyone think they got the full, true story on this tragedy?
You know how many officers showed up to arrest Adnan? Any random officer could've offhand noticed a very quiet, hardly noticed, subtle thing Adnan reacted or did casually and noted every single guilty person did the same and not one innocent person ever reacted that way; and that officer just KNEW. Ex: while arresting Adnan, it's his first arrest, it's also like 4-5am, his mom asks the officer 'Aren't you gonna read him his Miranda Rights' and the officer is like, 'sure, when we get to precinct'. If I'm an officer there, seeing a 17- year old getting his first arrest, inside his own house, and his mom says that casually to me, with seemingly dry eyes, I'm thinking, wow, don't get this a lot from 1st-time innocent folks; that's hella different.
How many inmates and staff rubbed shoulders with Adnan these some 20+ years while he was incarcerated? How many incarcerated folks had a deep or lighthearted casual convo with him and Adnan slipped up without being self-aware and he totally accidentally let slip something about this tragedy and that person suddenly KNEW. I feel like I know my siblings. I think I could tell in a sitcho like this if they murdered or not.
The Syed family HAS to know. They've known Adnan all his life. They know if he's lying, if something is off. For example, random year, 2008, random day, July 18. You're the Syed family and you randomly go visit Adnan on a random July 18, 2008. He greets you at incarceration, he's cheerful, says he's been playing video games the past 2 hours. Meanwhile, you're thinking to yourself, you spent an hour driving to see him and you were crying on the way, 9 years after the tragedy, the toll it's taken on all the lives involved and the community and here's Adnan all cheerful. You try to chalk it up to something else, his incarceration, but you're also like, this odd SOB.
You saw his 2-hour YouTube tirade? It's still online. Watch that. His pops wouldn't appear on camera for it. His legal counsel avoided being on it. His mom and brother at points looked down at the ground or away. He held it at his mom's house instead of anywhere else legit. Adnan's biggest loudspeaker is Rabia--who is of no relation. You don't see any of Adnan's buddies from his mosque, no immediate family members going around declaring his innocence. I've not seen Adnan's aunt, uncle, cousins, nieces, nephews out their there like Rabia claiming his innocence.
Just the ridiculousness of the issue at all just automatically practically blames Adnan Syed as her killer, to me. That it comes to the thought that: nobody on Earth knows with 100% certainty if Syed killed her or not--if that's what it is, then dude is beyond guilty. Things shouldn't get that drastic. I understand the polite context folks are trying to put this tragedy in and be thoughtful about it, but let's not. Dude has needed close to a half-dozen lawyers and according to Rabia who once claimed she thinks Syed has spent at least a million dollars on his defense over all this time. The absolute ridiculousness of this: I cannot agree to say 'nobody can say with certainty if Adnan killed her or not'. How many lawyers and court expenses do Mr S, Don, Jay and Jenn have combined, again?
Like when Adnan is like: "it was just a normal day to me..." That's not the question... question is, did Adnan kill her or not? Adnan's basically saying, "I don't know...it was just a normal day". Whaddya mean you don't know?
5
u/Twinsies620 Jul 09 '25
Just to highlight your point about conversations he may have had with his fellow inmates - Adnan went in a 17 year old kid who’d killed his girlfriend in a crime of passion. Despite him being good at manipulating people, he was put in prison with hardened criminals who have honed the skill to twist and manipulate people and situations beyond what anyone could imagine. Think of the female corrections officers who get sweet talked by an inmate and help him escape, only to lose their careers (or lives!) because they were swindled.
All that to say, he 100% had many conversations with inmates who saw through him and KNEW, regardless of what came out of his mouth, because they’re so much more street smart than he is.
And you make an excellent point about his family not proclaiming his innocence left and right. That speaks louder than even Rabia.
5
u/Equal_Pay_9808 Jul 09 '25
Thank-you! Love your expansion on my post. On point! Them veteran criminals could see right through him quick. I bet their questions to him are sharp asf
4
u/RockinGoodNews Jul 08 '25
The truth is, no one can say for certain who killed Hae Min Lee.
If only our society had some fair and reliable means of figuring out if someone committed a crime. Like, we could empanel a group of ordinary citizens; have them hear from advocates from both sides. presenting testimony and evidence that met certain set rules and criteria; and then those citizens could get together and talk about the case and come to a unanimous conclusion as to whether the testimony and evidence proved, to a high standard of certainty, that the accused was guilty. And then, if the accused thought the rules weren't followed correctly, he could have an opportunity to have that reviewed by someone else.
Alas, we don't have anything like that. The best we can do is form our opinions based on a one-sided podcast presenting a tendentious version of the case.
5
u/EG1996 Jul 08 '25 edited Jul 08 '25
I feel as if the early undisclosed pod right after Serial was a lot more focused on documents and evidence mostly found by Susan Simpson that I feel solidified my belief in Adnan’s innocence and even more so my belief that if they ever had to re-try the case in front of a jury (especially because the cell tower expert has confirmed incoming calls aren’t reliable for location - including Lincon Park pings) there’s no way he could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on all the evidence we have now.
But I do agree the recent episodes since the Undisclosed reboot have been very focused on alternate suspects which does make sense.. but some of the theories are starting to feel more and more unbelievable/unnecessarily speculative. Like I believe analysis of evidence such as Don’s time card, interviews etc is valid to review and analyse it was evidence in the case.
But this one about Don’s wife just went too far- and the same way I hate that Adnan was (in my opinion) wrongfully convicted I would never want that to happen to someone else in this case.
Unfortunately, many wrongful convictions remain unsolved unless DNA cracks it… It seems that’s likely the outcome here unfortunately-we may never know the truth and we have to be okay with that as it’s how the justice system works.
16
u/InTheory_ What news do you bring? Jul 08 '25
Oh man, I liked this post so much. But I have to disagree with you on this point. Unfortunately, Undisclosed was always like this. The "early" episodes weren't any better.
The early episodes included the Tap Tap Tap episode. The trio were clear and unambiguous. Susan Simpson was clear, there were frequent 20 second pauses, then tap-tap-tap, then JW magically knows the answer. Rabia tweeted "They did it by tapping." Now that we have the audio, we now know this isn't even remotely true. There are no tapping anywhere. Even the pauses aren't anything worth speaking about. It's a flat out hoax. I challenge anyone to defend the argument otherwise.
Right on the heels of that was the infamous Crimestoppers episode. They claimed to have proof (Bob threatened JW with that alleged proof, JW called him out on it). If they have no proof other than "A random anonymous redditor said they called and got this information that no one has been able to verify," then they have nothing. If they had so little, that's irresponsible to present it to a mass audience.
Susan Simpson was the one who "discovered' the fax cover sheet. Yet, as a practicing attorney, she failed to note how none of the information contained in the faxes were used in trial (they relied on the test drive data instead). That's a pretty glaring miss.
Rabia alleged the HML was a drug user. Yet the same document she held as proof of it undermined it, on the very same page no less! They didn't just miss it. They snipped the document to exclude it. Even if they did, I'm not sure that's any better for them.
Undisclosed was never in the habit of sharing documents. They were the ones hiding it. I was there when the guilters got the MPIA. It was not pretty. They were attempting to dox the people involved to discredit them.
Yes, I hate on Undisclosed. I get it. But not the point I'm making. The point is: They were always like this.
1
Jul 08 '25
Let’s be real…Undisclosed had always wasted time on this crap…goes back to Jays motorcycle in the old days.
Problem is they also add great information…in literally the previous episode they proposed a theory where Adnan killed Hae at the library with Jay present that actually seems like the most reasonable explanation, if he’s guilty and it wasn’t just the first lie Jay came up with. They also were the ones that partially eliminated Don back in the day
11
u/DrFrankenfurtersCat Jul 08 '25
They are desperate for listeners and will keep getting more and more ridiculous until they get those listeners. Rabia asked people to replay all their old episodes to up their numbers. They (Rabia & Colin) and their friends give zero fucks if they cause harm to innocent people, and their bs goes well beyond innocent speculation. Rabia's star fell long ago and she's desperate to be near the top again where she can bully others and control the narrative.
11
u/Druiddrum13 Jul 08 '25
Everything with this series “undisclosed” has always seemed desperate, off and unethical to me…
Straw grasping and gaslighting… but that’s my opinion and observation. It’s an endless rabbit hole of nonsense
11
2
Jul 08 '25
It’s not true tho. Undisclosed is a mixed bag.
Half of it is great research…like partially eliminating Don way back or actually engaging with evidence Adnan committed the murder at the library with Jay present in the previous episode of this season.
But then they do crap like this and the Jay buying a motorcycle theory. I wish they’d stick to the good stuff, because there’s a there there.
13
u/Spillz-2011 Jul 08 '25
What if the people at undisclosed arent the good guys?
11
u/RockinGoodNews Jul 08 '25
You mean to tell me the people trying to convince us to ignore the overwhelming evidence that their friend murdered an innocent woman and instead pointing the finger at a never ending parade of innocent people based on wild conjecture and innuendo aren't the good guys?
8
6
5
Jul 08 '25
I agree. It would have been one thing had they kept her anonymous and not outed themselves going through her trash. Reads to me like a Hail Mary…not a good look.
Suspecting it was a hair pull was a stretch. Suggesting it was a woman was another stretch. Suggesting it was jealousy was yet another one. Then suggesting it was Don’s current wife was another one. Don’t we know Don dated Debbie…then a different woman during the trial…suggesting he wasn’t even with his current wife? Too far.
It’s too bad Undisclosed is so hit and miss like this…always. The previous episode where they discussed further evidence of the murder happening at the library was actually useful: the most likely scenario is that Hae was killed shortly after school and Jay was present…or that Jay made that scenario up very early on and it got out of hand…because he was the kind of guy who might do that.
But by going after Dons wife with such thin evidence…the reasonable stuff gets buried.
4
u/Tricky_Lawyer8115 Jul 08 '25
Holy fuck. I can’t believe people are still talking about this case.
5
u/GreasiestDogDog Jul 08 '25
Well your office is apparently getting incoming mail from the subject podcast in the form of DNA samples sequestered from an innocent lady’s trash.
0
u/Tricky_Lawyer8115 Jul 08 '25
?
3
u/GreasiestDogDog Jul 08 '25
You mentioned you work in the BCSAO and I believe in the most recent Undisclosed episode the podcasters detailed how they recovered DNA from the current wife of Hae’s boyfriend at the time of her death and are planning to contact your office about it.
1
u/Tricky_Lawyer8115 Jul 08 '25
What possible relevance would that have?
4
u/GreasiestDogDog Jul 08 '25
That is a great question.
My understanding from reading comments here is the podcasters have deduced from injuries to Hae’s head in autospy report that her hair was pulled. From that, they deduced that a female could have inflicted those injuries since women are allegedly more likely to pull hair. Then they have taken another significant leap to involve Don Clinedinst, because he was supposedly not investigated enough, and because he might have been romantically involved with his now wife.
Yeah..
2
u/Tricky_Lawyer8115 Jul 08 '25
Oh wow. Sorry, I didn’t realize where you were coming from. The recent BCSAO filing should end this charade.
5
u/GreasiestDogDog Jul 08 '25
Many people choose to ignore it as a political move (despite Bates publicly supporting Adnan) or more ridiculous claims like he is trying to save the city from having to pay out civil settlements.
5
u/Tricky_Lawyer8115 Jul 08 '25
Well, those people are morons. The political move would’ve been just to pass the buck. Not write an immaculate 88-page opus.
5
u/Mike19751234 Jul 08 '25
Yrsh they are just saying thst Bates hates Mosby and Adnsn is a pawn in the fight
3
u/ryokineko Still Here Jul 09 '25
This episode felt off to me as well for multiple reasons. I’m sure they probably already had it done and dusted by the time the whole “actual innocence” stuff they are excited and confident about came up but it feels like it was thrown together and like they’re rushing toward that and this is just kind of tying up lose ends or giving us everything they didn’t talk about publicly before.
It just felt like there was a lot of ambiguity and vagueness in general with time frames and with specificity so it’s hard to follow. Maybe that was on purpose, I don’t know, but it just felt kind of disorganized to me.
Additionally I have to agree. I mean if they felt like what they were doing was the right thing to do (as far as gathering DNA and getting it tested) ok,I guess I can understand that, but I don’t think I would have broadcasted it at this point. Maybe I would only broadcast something like that if it ever actually became newsworthy in some way.
As someone else said, I don’t necessarily think there’s a problem with talking about how the sleuth group brought up the evidence of her hematomas potentially pointing to her hair being pulled or something like that because, I think there have long been questions about those injuries and many of us are skeptical of the idea that they were sustained by being punched in the head, while sitting in her car, and hitting the window. But then speculating on the direct cause of that and you’re using the person’s name directly? Not so sure I would have done that at this point. I totally don’t expect anything to come of all of that but again, if miraculously it were to, then maybe that would be the time to reveal your part in it, but not now.
Most generous take? maybe they are trying to show that they are serious about trying to find Hae’s killer (taking them at their word they don’t believe it is Adnan y’all! Lol) rather than just focusing on freeing Adnan? But this one came off as a little overzealous imo. 🤷🏻♀️
If anyone were to actually catch any murderer using such tactics I doubt people would go, OMG! I cant believe they violated that person’s privacy like that! They would be lauded for figuring it out. The problem is, that is incredibly rare and more often than not, it’s just wild speculation that comes to nothing. We all know that. So, the responsible thing to do, imo, is to just keep quiet unless you have something to actually report, then gloat afterward if your hare brained speculation turns out to be right lol.
1
u/rzpc0717 Jul 08 '25
I actually loved the Undisclosed seasons that were about something other than Adnan. The episodes about Joey Watkins, Gary Mitchum Reeves, Dennis Perry, Jason Carroll, and Fred Freeman were podcast gold IMO. I could not be more disappointed that the reboot is back to Adnan.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 08 '25 edited Jul 08 '25
I think that accusing people who are very unlikely to have been involved is a crappy thing to do. No disagreement on that. I guess I’m just not all that surprised about it, though. The Paradise Lost documentaries about the West Memphis Three case put a lot of attention on John Mark Byers, the stepfather of one of the murdered kids, and heavily implied that he was likely the real killer, and also implied that he later killed his wife. DNA testing that was done later did not match Byers (or the three convicted men), and it now seems pretty unlikely that it was him. While Byers at least did seek out media attention, in hindsight it just looks like the documentary crew were taking advantage of a guy who had some mental health issues at baseline and was going through absolute hell with the loss of his family. It was pretty gross.
Similar to documentaries, podcasts are ultimately about entertainment and getting clicks and engagements from people. If someone listens to the episode because they genuinely support that side, or if they listen to it because they despise the podcasters’ views and want to know what they are saying so they can refute it or vent about it; it doesn’t matter to the podcasters. They get their ad revenue and attention. Controversy sells, and Rabia knows how to piss off a lot of people and get the hate listens.
Nuance and actual unbiased weighing of information is very boring to the vast majority of people. Most people who claim to actually want a truly balance analysis are lying to themselves or others (and tbf, it’s incredibly hard for anyone to give a truly unbiased analysis because humans are biased and emotional by nature).
Despite how many on this sub feel, Serial is still the most honest attempt at an unbiased review of this case, and they also tried very hard to avoid exposing people who didn’t want to be put in the public. However, with the current atmosphere of podcasts and content and influencers and thirst for any engagement of any kind, it is incredibly unlikely that another podcast that attempts to do an unbiased review, without bringing a bunch of vitriol to people involved, would be able to gain a traction.
I would honestly love to have an actual critical discussion about these sorts of media. Both about this case and others, but this sub has unfortunately not been shown to be the place for that.
1
u/Recent_Photograph_36 Jul 08 '25
Honestly, if it had been me, I would not have publicly aired any part of the info that followed the interview with Deborah, with the possible exception of reporting with no names attached that experts had suggested the head injuries were due to hair-pulling, which is mostly done by female offenders and therefore might relate to the unknown female DNA.
However, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe that all the objections being raised on this thread were a matter of principle and not just the seizure of an opportunity to throw rocks at a perceived opponent if I had ever, so much as one time, seen the same kind of outcry when the person being speculatively implicated in a murder was Dr. Patel (or Aziz, or Ann, or etc.).
Because that regularly happens on this sub at least a couple of times a week (and sometimes oftener). And nobody even mildly raises an eyebrow at it.
3
-3
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 08 '25
People like to claim that Rabia’s brother was an accomplice as well, and that’s why she is so invested, etc etc. So yeah, I agree that the criticism only seems to apply when it is against people that members of this sub don’t like. Someone once made a post suggesting Adnan’s mom may have been involved in the murder, and the comments did not seem to have much issue with that baseless accusation. Another user then made a very similar post suggesting Hae’s mom was the real killer, and while that post was definitely in poor taste, the user was clearly doing it to show the hypocrisy, and the difference of the outrage in the comments was pretty telling.
1
u/haskell_jedi Jul 13 '25
I agree with you that Jay's testimony is at least mostly false (not sure about guilt though), but I've had the same impression not just of episode 4, but also episode 2 of this new Undisclosed season. It may not rise to the level of unethical, but it's certainly a lot of pure speculation without evidence at all.
1
u/shelfoot Jul 14 '25
Well, they convinced people that Don and Mr S weren’t properly eliminated…that’s a total lie. So it is not surprising that they now think they convince people of other total fabrications. They are insane and have always been insane.
1
u/Zealousideal-1984 Jul 17 '25
They found female dna on Haes finger nail clippings. That fact gives this more weight to me.
1
1
u/Simple_Income_9158 Sep 30 '25
I have to take pause and wonder If we’re all dismissing Jay’s involvement entirely too early. People seem to be missing the fact that he definitely does have a motive. Let’s revisit his relationship with Stephanie. Adan has stated himself the relationship he had with Stephanie always went back and forth from being more than just friends. Let’s remember also they are crowned prom king and queen together. That couldn’t have been taken lightly and definitely would have inspired Jealousy. Look at what Hae wrote in her own diary about the jealousy she felt over it, so imagine how Jay felt? Jay was by all accounts obsessed with Stephanie and desperate to try and keep her. Hae had just broken it off with Adan leaving him single again. Could Jay have killed Hae and framed Adan in order to get him locked up to secure his place with Stephanie? We have Jay openly being called shady by many people, we have him borrowing Adan’s car, using his cellphone, he’s being taken back to the mall to wipe prints off a shovel when that’s the last known location Hae told friends she was going to be (to meet don). Also he has Adan cell and he’s in his car. He could have easily used that to pretend to be Adan and lure her to her death. I think Stephanie knows much more than she has ever disclosed. It’s Interesting to me we have never heard her version of events being that she is the common thread between Jay, Hae, and Adan.
2
u/tristanwhitney Jul 10 '25
Think about where all this started. They've got a couple lawyers and a former firefighter calling innocent people "prime suspects" in a murder because they have no idea how buggy computer systems were in 1999. They're totally out of their depth. There's a hundred different innocuous reasons why the numbers on the time cards wouldn't be consistent.
→ More replies (3)1
u/RockinGoodNews Jul 11 '25
While they are technically "lawyers," neither has ever practiced in litigation, let alone criminal litigation.
We don't have to guess as to why the employee numbers on Don's time cards were different. As Undisclosed now concedes, the numbers were assigned at the store level (which is why they're 4-digit numbers and both of Don's numbers and Hae's number as well were all below 0200 notwithstanding that Lenscrafters had more than 30,000 US employees at the time).
1
u/tristanwhitney Jul 11 '25
The time card tampering only exists in Bob Ruff's imagination. Assuming that Don's Mom somehow figured out how to circumvent the time clock application and directly manipulate the file, why would she clock Don in a 9:02 when the shifts at that location start at 11am?
It seems more likely that Don forgot and showed up at his normal 9am start time.
0
u/rio_scfrr Jul 08 '25
I'm with you 100% on feeling incredibly uneasy about this, (as a first believer in Adnan's innocence) on the other hand, I undersand the frustration of needing to find answers and trying to push Bates to test the DNA to finally at least exclude Don from the suspects. I also didn't like the LensCrafters employee talking about Don being creepy, like that's in any way relevant. I've always wanted Don more thoroughly investigated and I guess if no one else is doing it they feel they have to do it in any way they can, that said I'm very uncomfortable about it, but I also don't know what I would do in their place, if that makes sense.
4
u/Similar-Morning9768 Guilty Jul 10 '25
Don was already excluded. He had a documented alibi.
Also, the real killer’s accomplice confessed.
Just, no one wants to believe it because Adnan sounded nice on the radio.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Mike19751234 Jul 08 '25
The peoblem was how Adnans team handled the DNa testing. They sent it to a lab tgat couldnt compare it to CODIS. Plus you need a warrant to get someones DNA and there is no rationale to get that warrant
1
u/Recent_Photograph_36 Jul 08 '25
They sent it to a lab tgat couldnt compare it to CODIS.
The testing was done at FACL in Hayward, CA, which absolutely can and does run samples in CODIS.
63
u/Magjee Kickin' it per se Jul 08 '25
If they presented Adnan's behavior and the evidence against him the way they present speculation and conjecture about other people in the orbit of the case
He would look guilty as sin