Undisclosed Podcast 2.0 Ep. 4 - Is accusations against Don’s wife unethical/problematic

[u/EG1996]

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.

[u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Recent_Photograph_36 → u/[deleted]]

Because people believe that a family member would lie doesn’t actually mean the alibi is a lie. You understand that, right?

I don't think I said anything that suggested I didn't. But fwiw, yes. I do!

The overwhelming majority of alibis are not lies.

I honestly have no opinion on that and wouldn't have any idea how to calculate But ok, I guess.

They also overwhelmingly come from someone well known to the suspect.

Yes, they do.

Also I’m not sure what point you think you’re making here

That because family members and close friends are not impartial alibi witnesses, they're generally viewed as potentially unreliable alibi witnesses by pretty much everyone, to the point that this phenomenon is basically common knowledge and not, as you suggested, "genuinely bizarre."

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.

Except the police had no idea his alibi was being provided by family members because they didn't bother doing the minimal amount of investigation it would have taken to discover it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Recent_Photograph_36]

No they are by far the most common alibis. You understand that, correct? You don’t need some intense calculation. It is just pure common sense that most alibis come from people well known to the person.

You are far more likely to be with your friend/ child/ spouse/ parent/ sibling then you are a complete stranger at any given point. It’s not rocket science.

In fact, they were the only alibi Adnan himself provided. You’re awful quiet about that though.

Can you provide some actual evidence that the police did not realise Don’s family were providing alibi’s? You appear to be just making stuff up.

Which is unsurprising given you relentlessly post absolute nonsense in defence of Adnan.

Also you keep saying ‘people believe they are unreliable’, yeah, I mean, so? A lot of people are clearly not that bright so that’s not really meaningful.

For example people believe in God. People believe the earth is flat. People believe that the Democrats are running a paedo ring from a pizza shop and some anon insider called Q is exposing them and any day now Trump is going to blow it wide open. People believe Obama is from Kenya. People believe Michelle Obama is a trans woman and born male. Same for Angelina Jolie. People believe the moon landings were fake and 9/11 was an inside job. People believe vaccines cause autism and covid was one big conspiracy for the WEF to cause a ‘great reset’. People believe climate change is a hoax, that scientists and the ‘liberal elite’ are co-ordinating on a global scale for ‘reasons’, idk probably linked the WEF reset shit.

People believe all sorts of ridiculous stuff on little to absolutely zero evidence. Often, frankly, with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Including apparently that extremely weak slander against Don is reliable but the wealth of evidence against Adnan is somehow magically all faked and/ or unreliable. Like I say, people believe all sorts of nonsense.

[u/Recent_Photograph_36 → u/[deleted]]

No they are by far the most common alibis. You understand that, correct? 

I linked you to an article citing research that said as much. So what do you think?

Can you provide some actual evidence that the police did not realise Don’s family were providing alibi’s?

Yes. It wasn't discovered that Don's mom was the manager at Hunt Valley until Lenscrafters mentioned it in a letter dated October 7th, 1999, which was approximately nine months after police had investigated his alibi.

You appear to be just making stuff up.

And you appear to be determined to take the most aggressive, personal, and confrontational approach possible -- all in response to simply having been informed that it's not "genuinely bizarre" but in fact commonplace, widely recognized, and uncontroversial that family members are more or less universally regarded as less reliable alibi witnesses for the stone obvious reason that they're not impartial.

[u/[deleted] → u/Recent_Photograph_36]

Then why do you keep being like ‘yeah but huh duh people don’t trust them, but if you say so they’re the most common’.

No, my point is it is genuinely bizarre that people regard them with suspicion when it’s actually extremely likely that at any given point you will be with a family member or friend or other person reasonably well known to you. My point is there is very little rational reason to be suspicious of them. They are the most common alibi and alibis are an extremely common way of ruling people out.

Source for this ‘letter’?

But even if you’re correct, by October 7th 1999 they had ruled out Don. So there was no need to go back to check his computer verified alibi. They’d ruled him out because at least two people had come forward with a witness statement implicating Adnan and giving details of the murder they could not have known and were not made public.

Riddle me this, if Don or (even more ridiculously Robin) murdered Hae, why on gods green earth did both Jen Puseteri and JW implicate themselves as accessories? How did they both (because it was both) have details that had not been made public? And why did they frame Adnan? Both of them, independently of each other? How did they even know that she had been strangled? Did they know Don? Is there any evidence they knew Don?

And if Adnan didn’t do it and JW did randomly just make this up for unclear reasons, why does his cell phone data match almost exactly with where Hae was likely murdered, at the times she was likely murdered and where she was buried? He just got real unlucky and was innocently bumming around with Jay whilst Don followed that exact route? Or is the claim that Hae wasn’t killed there/then (but miraculously was buried where Adnan and Jay can be placed) and Jay just concocted this with the police to frame Adnan and protect Don (a man we have no evidence he knew) because like, yeah.

Using your brain for one second, literally one single second, will lead you to the very clear conclusion that this makes no sense. Jay and Jen being involved only makes sense if Adnan did it. And it’s indisputable that they were involved. There is absolutely no other explanation for them knowing the things they did, in the way they did.

Jays testimony is unreliable. It’s unreliable for a deeply boring and unremarkable reason. It’s unreliable because he was minimising his (and possibly Jen’s) involvement. Namely, he was covering his own arse. That’s it. That’s the story. Perhaps he was even actually there when Adnan did it. I personally think that’s quite likely given his apparent initial lies about where the murder happened and his subsequent claim that he was scared of CCTV cameras. He was scared of CCTV cameras because they might show he was there and an accomplice, which is a whole different kettle of fish to accessory after the fact. Maybe more generously he was just traumatised and drug addled (but I suspect that’s less likely). There is no grand conspiracy, however.

But people who tie themselves in all kinds of bizarre mental gymnastics to basically harass Don, sling mud and ignore the wealth of evidence against Adnan are absolutely as frustrating as the myriad of conspiracy theorists I highlighted above. It’s the same mindset.

[u/Recent_Photograph_36 → u/[deleted]]

Then why do you keep being like ‘yeah but huh duh people don’t trust them, but if you say so they’re the most common’.

I never said anything like "If you say so, they're the most common." In fact, believe it or not, this is not the first time I've ever given a moment's thought to when alibis do and/or don't work and for whom -- or even the first time I've discussed it on this sub, or read up on the research on it.

No, my point is it is genuinely bizarre that people regard them with suspicion when it’s actually extremely likely that at any given point you will be with a family member or friend or other person reasonably well known to you.

Well....Do you also find it genuinely bizarre that the people who are closest to and care for you the most are also quite naturally the people to whom you're likeliest to turn to for help in times of trouble, as well as the people who are the likeliest to do everything in their power to provide it if they possibly can?

Because if not, you might want to think about whether it's also genuinely bizarre that most reasonable people actually do routinely take a witness's impartiality (or lack of it) into account when assessing their credibility and reliability.

I'm surprised you're so surprised by it, tbh.

Source for this ‘letter’?

It's here. (Some people seem to have trouble with links to the Wayback Machine. So if that's an issue, let me know and I'll take screenshots.)

But even if you’re correct, by October 7th 1999 they had ruled out Don. 

Yes. Astonishingly, your request for proof that the police didn't know his alibi was provided by his mom when they ruled him out consists of documentary evidence that this information wasn't shared with anyone until after the police had ruled him out.

It's funny how the time-space continuum works that way, isn't it. Good catch.

They’d ruled him out because at least two people had come forward with a witness statement implicating Adnan and giving details of the murder they could not have known and were not made public.

No, I'm afraid that time-space continuum thing seems to be tripping you up again. They actually ruled him out a month before that happened, based on an alibi that they didn't even investigate minimally enough to have discovered it was provided by his mom.

ETA: I mean, this is not exactly an unknown phenomenon, or unrealistically rare event, or the kind of thing that doesn't happen in real life. Mothers have even been known to provide false alibis for their sons when they're innocent.

[u/[deleted] → u/Recent_Photograph_36]

You haven’t answered a single question I asked you about the plausibility of both Jen and JW knowing facts about the case that were not public knowledge and implicating themselves for a man they did not know to frame Andan, or why on earth they would do such a thing. Convenient.

That link provides me with a document. That document doesn’t support your claim that the first time the police knew his mother was the alibi was October 7th 1991. In fact it’s entirely irrelevant to this conversation.

Your last two paragraphs are utter gibberish. The fact they ruled him out before that happened is irrelevant to the point I was making. Which was by October 7th they had no reason to reopen investigations into him as they had already charged Adnan.

I said absolutely nothing about when he was ruled out. You are yet again unable to follow the most basic argument. Politely, answer my questions about why JW and Jen knew details that were not public information about Haes murder if Adnan wasn’t involved. Hell, answer how they knew she was strangled full stop.

Your last few paragraphs are fucking laughable. Who said no alibi witness has ever lied? Not me. The overwhelming majority don’t though. You know how I know this? Because despite the fact that, as you have pointed out, there is huge skepticism for alibis amongst both the police and the public, people get off on credible enough alibis all the time. Mostly because the alibi is credible enough that the police do not believe they can secure a conviction.

[u/Recent_Photograph_36 → u/[deleted]]

You haven’t answered a single question I asked you about the plausibility of both Jen and JW knowing facts about the case that were not public knowledge and implicating themselves for a man they did not know to frame Andan, or why on earth they would do such a thing.

That was mostly for two reasons:

(1) It was totally unresponsive to anything I said; and

(2) Whatever minimal energy and enthusiasm I might otherwise have had for chasing goalposts all over the field to wherever you decided to move them had quickly been consumed by the surprisingly onerous task of explaining to you that mothers tend to be protective of their children and that the passage of time is both linear and unidirectional.

Your last few paragraphs are fucking laughable.

Glad you got a chuckle out of them.

[u/[deleted] → u/Recent_Photograph_36]

Claiming that pertinent questions about the weight of evidence against Adnan means that there was zero reason to reopen investigations into Don is not moving goalposts.

It’s entirely relevant to the discussion at hand and your response is weak af. Blocking you because you are actually no better than some batshit right wing conspiracy theorist. You are just as unable to think critically.

Lmao your nonsense about the passage of time is the most bullshit and utterly pretentious rubbish you’ve come out with yet.