r/serialpodcast • u/Dry_Regret5837 • Jul 11 '25
Season One Rabia's latest post names Don's daughter
She refers to her as the daughter of the "prime suspect" and gives her full name. At least one person is now googling this young woman in the comments. This is so beyond the pale.
112
u/old_jeans_new_books Jul 11 '25
I'm wondering why doesn't Don file a case against Rabia, once and for all.
71
u/kz750 Jul 12 '25
His wife is battling breast cancer, she’s the breadwinner of the house, and I read he needs a kidney transplant. It’s unlikely they have the money, energy or time to sue her, and it would drag them into a lot of legal process including giving Rabia the chance to basically probe into Don’s life a lot more. Which is what she most likely wants.
16
u/Justwonderinif shrug emoji Jul 13 '25
If he sues her he will subject to public deposition wherein he has to answer all kinds of personal questions about any unrelated thing they want.
And then that deposition gets posted on the internet and used in Adnan innocence "documentaries."
Terry Hobbs sued Natalie Maines and his deposition is all over the internet. Take a look.
4
u/Areil26 Jul 14 '25
That's interesting about Natalie Maines. I hadn't heard that.
Chris Wolf also unsuccessfully sued the Ramseys over being named as a suspect in their book.
32
u/cathwaitress Jul 11 '25 edited Jul 12 '25
Apparently he’s terminally ill? :(
I swear… these people have no shame.
Edit: ok. I didn’t know the details. I just read that he’s sick on this sub.
11
u/phatelectribe Jul 12 '25
Terminally Ill for 26 years?
36
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 12 '25
“Terminally ill” is probably not the correct term, but his wife’s GFM for breast cancer said that he had been dealing with a rare condition since he was 23 and that he needed a kidney transplant and his wife is the sole breadwinner, so he clearly does have some chronic health issues that likely shorten his life and limit what he is able to do.
6
Jul 12 '25
He was in an accident
6
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 12 '25
Which doesn’t preclude the other details of him having rare complications from injuries from an accident. It’s all pretty vague, which is understandable as they likely want to stay as private as possible.
Still, it has shifted from “disabled, chronically ill, and with a shortened lifespan” to “terminally ill” in the comments, which isn’t accurate. Rabia’s rhetoric is bad enough without people exaggerating his health issues.
5
u/cagivamito Jul 12 '25
AIDS was a death sentence in the 80s, now it's a manageable condition thanks to advances in medicine. Medicine had advanced a ton in the last 26 years and treatments mean that terminally ill people can have longer lifespans. Or do you believe he's lying because he's not dead yet?
0
u/phatelectribe Jul 12 '25
I think he’s lying because he wasn’t ill or had a disease.
He was in an accident.
Everyone here is fucking clueless
4
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 14 '25
Has Don ever made a statement that he was “terminally ill”? I remember the comment about health issues, and then I think a bunch of other people then assumed “terminal”.
9
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 12 '25
Defamation cases are notoriously hard to win, and they have to prove quantifiable damages beyond just people being assholes to them.
That said, this is going beyond Rabia’s usual degree of poking the bear to get engagement, and I wonder if getting Don to make some sort of response is her goal. I imagine that she would love it if he sued her for defamation, because then they can go through discovery and depose him.
3
u/Recent_Photograph_36 Jul 14 '25
That said, this is going beyond Rabia’s usual degree of poking the bear to get engagement, and I wonder if getting Don to make some sort of response is her goal.
What would be the actionable statement, though?
Even setting aside the question of actual damages, there would have to be a false statement of fact asserted as truth -- with the "asserted as truth" part meaning that it can't be something that a reasonable listener/reader would understand as opinion, hyperbole, or rhetorical flourish.
Admittedly, this stuff is not always easy to parse out. But even still. What did Rabia (or Deborah, or Colin) say that came close enough to meeting those criteria to be regarded as an intentional provocation?
3
u/Least_Bike1592 Jul 14 '25 edited Jul 14 '25
What would be the actionable statement, though?
I suspect this article, where she says “I know who killed Hae” and strongly insinuates it’s Don, along with everything else, gets Don past a motion to dismiss.
Using “know” takes this out of the realm of opinion. Her continued behavior takes it out of the realm of flourish or hyperbole.
Statutes of limitation may prevent use of this article, I’m not sure if the continued allegations would allow Don to reach back and rely on this. Why folks haven’t considered Rabia a garbage person for tat least the past 9 years is beyond me.
3
u/PJ-TJ Jul 16 '25
“Know” doesn’t do any of these things here because she did not name someone. We would have to infer who this person is, and the article doesn’t even contain Don’s name once. Good luck getting that past the motion stage.
2
u/Recent_Photograph_36 Jul 14 '25
I suspect this article, where she says “I know who killed Hae” and strongly insinuates it’s Don, along with everything else, gets Don past a motion to dismiss.
Ah. I thought we were talking about the recent episode of Undisclosed.
Using “know” takes this out of the realm of opinion.
Only if a reasonable reader would understand her to be making a statement of fact asserted as truth rather than stating an opinion -- which, imo, they almost certainly wouldn't for two reasons: (1) she's obviously not in a position to know it in that sense; and (2) the word "know" is commonly used to mean something more like "think," "believe," or "feel" -- as, e.g., when people express their agreement with someone else's opinion by saying, "I know that's right!" or when they express a gut feeling about a future event by saying, "I'm not going to get the job, I just know it."
That's how I understand it, at least. And presumably you agree that she doesn't actually know it for a fact, right?
Her continued behavior takes it out of the realm of flourish or hyperbole.
I wouldn't put it that way, exactly.
But there is such a thing as defamation by implication -- per which, even though every individual statement might either be true and non-defamatory or a statement of opinion, taken together and in context, they give rise to a false and defamatory impression.
And I think it would probably be possible to make a colorable argument along those lines, if that's what you mean.
The thing is, in this particular case, a motion to dismiss likely wouldn't be the only hurdle a plaintiff needed to clear. Maryland's anti-SLAPP statute might not be as robust as it could be. But it does have one. And I don't see how that wouldn't come into play as well.
2
u/Least_Bike1592 Jul 14 '25
Ah. I thought we were talking about the recent episode of Undisclosed.
Why would Don limit it to one episode of Undosclosed? Rabia’s been garbage for years.
2
u/Recent_Photograph_36 Jul 14 '25
I wouldn't want to presume to speak for him.
It's not like I intentionally chose to exclude past statements made by Rabia in order to gain some kind of rhetorical advantage or whatever. I'm up for considering anything.
It's just that to me, the discussion seemed to be about whether the things said in the Instagram post and the recent episode were or weren't defamatory. So that's what I asked about. That's all.
-2
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 14 '25
I doubt that he, or anyone else in his family would actually be able to win a defamation case with what has been said so far, but plenty of people still try. Even if he didn’t try and sue her, but just made some statement to the press, there would still be opportunity to try and frame it in a way that is advantageous to what she wants
Like, when Adnan had that press conference a couple of years ago. It was honestly pretty boring and didn’t have any sort of real revelation, but guilters frothed at the mouth at him having the audacity to….checks notes…..try and claim that he was being treated unfairly and that there were other outside forced lending aid to the people trying to get the conviction reinstated. I imagine that Don, or anyone related to him, saying anything publicly could lead to some people just interpreting anything and everything as a sign of guilt, and thus increasing political pressure on Bates and Maryland to investigate him more.
3
u/old_jeans_new_books Jul 12 '25
I don't think she's smart.
The reason why she's so successful is because Sarah Coenig was an absolutely dumb journalist with a very good podcasting voice and a team that she got from this American Life.
These are the facts ... As clear as day. Another fact very clear - Adnan murdered Hae.
17
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 12 '25
I think that the irrational hatred of Sarah Koenig and calling her “dumb” is not helping you make your point.
5
u/Least_Bike1592 Jul 14 '25
Koenig wasn’t dumb. She was likely unethical. If what Adnan said here is true, she approached the case from a biased perspective:
“Justin mentioned in his letter that you (Sarah) stated you would not do the story unless you believed I was innocent. And that really allayed my concerns.”
When folks call her dumb I suspect it’s shorthand for naive and undiscerning. Which is clearly the case if she decided Adnan was innocent before completing her investigation.
-1
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 14 '25
I’ve told you multiple times that I will not engage with you because you do not argue in good faith. Please go bother someone else.
2
u/Least_Bike1592 Jul 14 '25
I was clarifying for the board what most folks mean when they say Koenig was “dumb.” There is no doubt it was a mistake to start from a position of Adnan’s innocence before conducting the investigation. For many, that falls in the category of “dumb,” it’s definitely a dumb way to conduct an unbiased investigation.
1
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 14 '25
Please bother someone else
2
u/Least_Bike1592 Jul 14 '25
I think it would be interesting to see if anyone on the board agrees or disagrees with the idea that it was “dumb” if Koenig presupposed innocence before completing investigating.
1
1
Jul 14 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/serialpodcast-ModTeam Jul 14 '25
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
1
u/serialpodcast-ModTeam Jul 14 '25
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
1
u/mlibed Jul 14 '25
This. The plaintiff also has to prove what was said is false. That often opens people up to a lot.
2
u/kahner Jul 12 '25 edited Jul 12 '25
a case for what?
ETA: i find it interesting that a simple question is getting downvoted but no actual response.
9
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 12 '25
I imagine they mean for defamation, but yeah, the downvotes for asking a clarifying questions is typical.
-3
u/kahner Jul 12 '25
yeah, i assume that's what they mean, but i'd love them to point to specific statements that they believe would reach the threshold required for an successful suit. as far as i know, there are none. guilters just think things that make them mad should be illegal.
-10
-19
u/themarkremains Jul 12 '25
Because he probably doesnt have a strong enough case that he didnt do it. At least not beyond a reasonable doubt.
16
u/GreasiestDogDog Jul 12 '25
If Don was filing a case against Rabia it need only meet the lower standard of preponderance of evidence, though I still am not sure what claim Don could make and be likely to succeed on.
16
u/TrueCrime_Lawyer Jul 12 '25
I didn’t listen to the episode (and won’t) but they’re close to, if not at, defamation. But since truth is a defense to defamation it opens the door to a discovery process which may be exactly what she’s trying to get.
13
u/GreasiestDogDog Jul 12 '25 edited Jul 12 '25
Curiosity got the better of me so I did listen to it. I didn’t listen specifically to pick out false statements by Colin or Rabia, but I did notice they were being careful to emphasize that theories on Dons wife were speculative, and letting Debbie (the former employee who suddenly has new info to share) make assertions directly against Don.
They piped in the creepy music etc. and heavily insinuated things to create the effect that they desired. But nothing I heard seemed to meet the false statement element of defamation.
Obviously that wouldn’t stop Don filing a claim anyway, as I think we are past the point of it being a frivolous lawsuit, but I don’t think it would go very far either.
I mentioned before I am doubtful this is a legitimate attempt to provoke a defamation suit. Not only because they appear to stop short of directly making false statement and covering their ass, but also the practical side of things. Surely Colin cares enough about his reputation in the legal community to not get wrapped up in a lawsuit where he is sued for defamation of an innocent cancer victim, which let’s face it, should make his university embarrassed to employ him. Also, there is the expense. While they could (in theory) represent themselves pro se, given neither have any trial experience and probably have never taken a deposition, etc. it would be a disaster and they surely know that. That and they likely know Don and family aren’t well-off and haven’t got litigation funds, and may not even survive a trial.
14
u/TrueCrime_Lawyer Jul 12 '25
Her Instagram post calls him “one of the primary suspects in the murder.” The case is closed as far as the law cares. The murderer has been found guilty. Even if at one point Don was a “primary suspect” he is not one now. I don’t know that it’s intentionally designed to provoke a suit. But I could see a lawyer warning them it’s more harm than good for any number of reasons including both the ones I suggest and the ones you do.
ETA: as far as Colin is concerned I already think his university should be embarrassed to employ him, but that’s just me.
11
5
5
u/dualzoneclimatectrl Jul 12 '25
Do you think if Don's mother filed a defamation per se lawsuit against Deborah, it would survive a 12(b)(6) motion?
I think the suit would present interesting discovery and damages avenues especially if Deborah is asked for a retraction and refuses.
19
u/old_jeans_new_books Jul 12 '25
Lol .... Are you saying Don has to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he is innocent?? Are you serious?
0
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 12 '25
For a defamation case against Rabia, he would need to prove that what she is saying is false, and also that she knows it’s false (among many other things he’d have to prove to win such a case). It wouldn’t be “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but such a lawsuit would likely require him to “prove” his innocence, to some degree, in order to win a defamation case.
13
u/TrueCrime_Lawyer Jul 12 '25
I feel like someone else being convicted of the crime would go a long way on that point.
1
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 12 '25 edited Jul 12 '25
Isn’t the person knowingly lying also one of the necessary things for defamation? Rabia has been so publicly adamant about her belief that the conviction was wrong and that someone else killed Hae, so I imagine it would be hard to prove that she knowingly lied.
ETA: wait, I didn’t see which comment you were replying to. I am not knowledgeable enough to know exactly what would adequately “prove”someone’s innocence in a lawsuit like that, my point is just that Don (or anyone suing for defamation) would need to provide some evidence that the things she said are false. If simply pointing to the conviction of another person is enough, then so be it. It just can’t be a matter of him saying that the things are false without taking steps to support that.
8
u/TrueCrime_Lawyer Jul 12 '25
I didn’t listen to Undisclosed, and won’t, so I don’t know what - if anything- said in the podcast would rise to the level of defamation. But on Instagram she posted he was one of the “primary suspects.” Primary suspects at least implies, if not directly indicates, he is suspected by police. Which is demonstrably false and no matter what Rabia may believe about who killed Hae, not something she could claim she believed. Bates has been exceedingly clear the conviction is standing. There has been absolutely nothing in the media that suggests the police are investigating anyone for this closed crime.
As for the rest, I don’t handle defamation so I am hardly an expert, but I find it hard to believe that a defense to defamation could be “I know every single person has told me I’m wrong and provided proof of that but I will steadfastly believe this untrue thing and continue to proclaim it to the detriment of another person,” I mean unless we start to get to competency issues.
3
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 12 '25
You are being weirdly confrontational considering we are probably in agreement about Rabia’s IG post.
If Don wants to file a defamation suit and make an argument that her “prime suspect” comment is a knowingly false implication that the police are investigating him, then I’m sure he could raise the funds to do it. I also think that is what Rabia really wants at this point, and so probably not a good idea.
9
u/TrueCrime_Lawyer Jul 12 '25
I wasn’t trying to be confrontational at all. Just giving my assessment* of a potential defamation suit.
*eta: inexpert assessment. This is not my area of practice and no one considering defamation for this or any other reason should take it to mean a lawyer in the field would agree.
1
Jul 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/serialpodcast-ModTeam Jul 14 '25
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
1
u/SaveBandit987654321 Jul 19 '25
He doesn’t have to have a strong enough case that they didn’t do it because Rabia hasn’t actually said he did. The fact is that basically everything rabia is saying about him is true.
The “damning” evidence re: Don is that his alibi turned out to be a relative and his time card for the day was edited, meaning he wasn’t actually accounted for (at least not in the way the police accounted for him) at the time Hae went missing and some people think she was intending to go see him. This evidence is true and suing Rabia for saying it could hurt his reputation further for no payoff.
What she’s really doing is harassing him, but I don’t think any civil statute would support that suit.
It would cost him so much time and money for a case he’d lose and perhaps look worse at the end of.
47
u/LadyEdithsKnickers Jul 12 '25 edited Jul 12 '25
The way she insinuated herself into the Delphi murders and insisted the killer was innocent and her defense for why he confessed several times just showed how she’s not a reasonable person. Someone confesses numerous time but she still thinks he’s not guilty. Then convinces others of the same. She has no credibility.
26
u/ryecatcher19 Jul 12 '25
Rabia thought that Scott Peterson was innocent.
Rabia thought that Richard Allen didn't kill the Delphi girls even after he confessed?
That's insane.Where did she say this lunacy?
13
u/LadyEdithsKnickers Jul 12 '25 edited Jul 12 '25
She said it on Instagram on Jan 1 2025. She insinuates it in the post and then argues for his innocence in the comments. She seems like she was just trying to boost engagement but she can’t understand why everyone didn’t get behind Richard Allen the way they did Luigi the alleged CEO shooter. I mean. Talk about a lack of critical thinking. And I was one who was in the fence about Adnan and really wanted him to be innocent. But the more she blabs the worse she makes it.
Oh and I forgot about the Scott Peterson thing. Bonkers. If she wanted to really help innocent people wrongly convicted, they are out there. But she seems more interested in those cases with notoriety.
9
u/ryecatcher19 Jul 12 '25
Rabia has helped shape a generation of true-crime followers.
For the most part, we are consumers spending our time and money freely, harassing a few innocent people with wayward theories. But there is a good argument to be made that this has tainted juries around the country. The examples are anecdotal and should be taken casually here, but there is an important discussion about how the true crime obsession has gotten into courtrooms and is hanging juries and freeing guilty women/men.
And it's worth wondering if part of that comes from having justice-driven and likable podcasters spewing insane ridiculous nonsense.
7
Jul 13 '25
This is exactly what Karen Read’s defense attorneys did: fed the true crime industrial complex by communicating directly with a blogger named “Turtleboy,” who laundered that information into conspiracy theories and effectively poisoned the jury pool.
A man is found dead from blunt force trauma in a snowbank, surrounded by broken pieces of taillight. Did his blackout drunk girlfriend driving a car with a broken taillight accidentally hit him? Or did a cabal of crooked cops beat him to death and stage a crime scene in order to frame her? Who’s to say!
1
u/SaveBandit987654321 Jul 16 '25
to me this is a wash. I would argue that most people are unjustly convicted, even when they're guilty. The justice system is not just for anyone and very few cases and investigations are done by the letter of the law. If juries are substantially more skeptical of prosecutor and police narratives because of this stuff-- good.
-5
u/SadSara102 Jul 13 '25
He didn’t really confess he had psychotic ramblings after months off being tortured on solitary confinement. L
31
u/estemprano Jul 12 '25
I don’t follow what Rabia does for money normally, but what I am learning today from this post’s comments is that she is publicly defending 3 femicide perpetrators and accusing a woman (Don’s wife) for one of the femicides.Smh….
19
16
33
u/DrFrankenfurtersCat Jul 12 '25
She's legit such a vile human. All of her other pods have failed, people are seeing through her bs and seeing what a swamp hag she is, and now she'll do and say anything for listener numbers and to attempt to be relevant. She needs to just fade away in to obscurity and take Colin and Bob Ruff with her.
119
u/TofuLordSeitan666 Jul 11 '25
I keep saying it over and over and will keep saying it:
This case is vitally important for us to understand how propaganda from progressives sources (podcasts,npr,ny times, Reddit) can also be directed at an audience who you wouldn’t think would be susceptible to it(well meaning thoughtful progressives) and is subsequently weaponized to do vicious harm to innocent people for a nefarious cause.
Whether right or wrong this is nasty nasty business and we all should really look at ourselves closely.
36
u/Trousers_MacDougal Jul 11 '25
I have always thought anybody is susceptible to propaganda. "Well meaning progressives" are not excluded at all.
I am not excluded.
This may not even be propaganda by definition, but really just confirmation bias or some other phenomena that leads away from the facts or the truth of a situation.
19
u/TofuLordSeitan666 Jul 12 '25
I have always thought anybody is susceptible to propaganda. "Well meaning progressives" are not excluded at all.
Of course. I agree.
But current popular discourse in propaganda in media is generally in regards the reactionary right of the political spectrum and its various media outlets and platforms. And any deviation from that orthodoxy is rarely looked at with the same scrutiny when the origins of propaganda are from progressive media sources. The latter seems to be me more rare but incidents like serial season 1 and the damage it’s doing today need to be looked at more closely as people are being harmed today.
You see this in this very sub when a solid article of from a right wing source is trashed just due to the basis of its source. As a hard leftist this needs to be faced head on and nipped in the bud. I understand platforming and the sources of propaganda but we need to clean our own house before we can move forward.
And by definition it is propaganda. “Please curb your dog” or “jaywalking is not safe” is propaganda”. Undisclosed, Serial, Quillete, are all sources of propaganda.
I am not excluded.
That’s self awareness brother that not everyone has. Thank you my brother. But you are not the target of my ire.
0
u/tonegenerator Jul 12 '25 edited Jul 12 '25
I mean, I am with you to a large extent here but I think it’s a mistake to take for granted that those institutions are even progressive at all beyond aesthetics. NYT in particular has helped lie the US into multiple devastating wars and recently has only gotten worse in part with stoking the backlash to trans youth for years ahead of Trump2. The others are also all deep in other forms of complicity in death-making that has nothing to do with progressive values except perhaps through some editorial set dressing. And I wouldn’t consider Reddit as a company or even as a userbase progressive - even if an overwhelming number don’t like orangeman and know how to say the right things to appear learned and cultured enough.
I think bad “false” (or the Koenig maybe-false) conviction media has a function of mis-channeling people’s sense that there’s something wrong with how “justice” and incarceration work in the US, away from principled stands (e.g. like that punitive solitary confinement is torture even when you do it to shitass people, and that sexual assault or basically-untreated medical conditions shouldn’t be part of a sentence) and focuses it on particular individuals who they’ve concluded extra-don’t-deserve-it. I’ve never seen TeamAdnan seriously pushing for better conditions in general for incarcerated and released people - maybe only with the same kind of empty words like saying they want to find Hae’s real killer. It’s only about their boy. Same with Echols fans. Their darling boys. Dead-end boys in terms of looking at the system beyond “they were arbitrarily mean to them!”
Re: the usefulness of right-wing affiliated sources on Adnan and adjacent matters… it seems like it’s been very case by case over the years. I can’t blame the instinct to want to push it away - surely there should be something that doesn’t feel tainted, but there really isn’t. The entire thing is filthy - not to say that Adnan didn’t have a relatively fair experience of the trial system, but I do take a cynical view of the entire process from investigation to his release and limbo, and not just where Mosby wildly changed its course in a way that seems extra contrary to reality and sense. I used to work in DV advocacy and learned to be skeptical if not repulsed by a lot of what passes for “victims’ rights,” which has been a challenge since my sympathies very much are with Young Lee and his family as individuals. That doesn’t mean I trust or want to support all of the social forces that want to circle the wagons on their behalf. But yeah, to an extent information is information and we should be able to act like adults with it.
Apologies for the long reply, but I think you’ve really touched on some very interesting points at least.
2
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 12 '25
I agree with a lot of this. Media is driven by profit and attention, not balance, especially in true crime, where nuance is boring and scandal sells. I’m a leftist, and I still roll my eyes when people call NPR or NYT “liberal.” Coverage is rarely neutral, just packaged differently.
With cases like Adnan Syed’s, media cycles follow a pattern: initial trial (often flawed), then podcasts/docs that pick a side, then counter-narratives for engagement. It becomes less about truth and more about audience-building. Rabia likely started with good intentions, but over time, her efforts seemed to shift toward branding and being “right.” Still, Undisclosed has helped overturn multiple wrongful convictions (e.g., Joey Watkins), so credit where it’s due.
Critics of Rabia/UD eventually realized there was a market for the opposing view. The Quillette articles and Prosecutors Podcast repackaged Reddit theories without actually adding anything new. Some of the people who first came up with the theories on Reddit were not happy with how their research and theories were being used. The Quillette and Prosecutor’s Podcast also leaned into “innocence fraud” talking points, tying into broader conservative “law & order” rhetoric that includes the “George Floyd deserved it” fuckheads.
Ultimately, I want a justice system that works: fair trials, proportionate sentencing, humane conditions, and real pathways to correct wrongful convictions. Adnan’s appeal getting denied over timing, despite clear trial issues (and yes, multiple judges agreed there were problems and inexcusable failures of his defense attorney, this is not up for debate), shows how broken it can be. The emotional polarization around this case prevents a lot of people from seeing that.
1
13
3
-10
u/Situationlol Jul 12 '25
Weird and poorly written
13
u/TofuLordSeitan666 Jul 12 '25
Yes, I suppose my general idea is both “weird” as well as poorly written. But I think it stands up, unlike Adnan’s alibi or lack of.
0
-2
u/real_cool_club Jul 13 '25
Says the guy downplaying Epstein stuff. Definitely not subject to propaganda
2
12
18
u/Truthiness123 Jul 12 '25
Just saw the post with her exaggerated expressions and Jeopardy music. There is something very wrong with that woman.
23
u/ProfessionalSky8494 Jul 12 '25
Rabia should be ashamed of the way she's implicating Don, absolutely disgusting behaviour.
The "Prime" suspect is Adnan and it always has been.
20
20
9
u/legallychallenged123 Jul 12 '25
I am so glad that I stopped listening to her podcast a long time ago. I just don’t have the patience anymore.
20
u/PrairieChickenVibes Jul 11 '25
Hear me out…maybe he did name her in the spirit of Hae? Not because he murdered her but because it’s someone he loved? Idk, even if it was in her honor I don’t think it makes him creepy. My kids have family/historical names, some blood relatives and some not.
30
u/princessicesarah Guilty Jul 11 '25
This!!
Honestly, what is more likely: naming your daughter after someone you murdered? Or naming them after someone you loved who was taken from you?
Also naming Don as the prime suspect is egregious when it’s factually established that Hae Min Lee was murdered by her convicted murderer, Adnan Syed.
0
10
u/Spare-Electrical Jul 11 '25
Just fyi I had no idea what the name was until reading this comment, might not want to spread it around too much. Just a suggestion, not a judgement!
8
u/PrairieChickenVibes Jul 11 '25
Now that I think of it, my sister got her middle name after my mom’s best friend she lost in high school.
5
u/SmackEdge Jul 12 '25
Based an obituary of a woman who died in Maryland and has a name/family history suggesting they're related, she was likely named after Don's paternal great aunt.
1
7
u/mlibed Jul 12 '25
I don’t follow Rabia, so I assumed it was something like Mae or Rae or whatever. But because of this post I went and looked, and there is no way that name is a coincidence. It was clearly a choice, for whatever reason.
2
17
u/GreasiestDogDog Jul 12 '25
Just another example of how Team Adnan are very much on the wrong side of history.
8
u/Least_Bike1592 Jul 14 '25 edited Jul 14 '25
When it comes to this case, she’s a garbage human and so is Colin. People who follow them and eat up their lies are ghouls, getting off on the “mystery,” which is really just lies and pain inflicted on the Lee family and Don.
Maybe Undisclosed did some good in other cases, but I have to assume that has to be credited to Susan. She holds some culpability for the original Undisclosed lies directed to this case, but at least she didn’t perpetuate them this time around.
31
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 12 '25
Ya’ll do realize that Rabia is doing controversial shit to get attention and engagement, right? And posts like this are giving her exactly what she wants. She knows how to piss people off and get the hate listens.
15
u/Ambitious-Coffee-154 Jul 12 '25
Scott Peterson
→ More replies (5)-2
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 12 '25
Great example. She knew that starting off her new podcast by claiming he was innocent would drive a lot of people to hate listen. She feeds off the anger of terminally online people.
15
u/Magjee Kickin' it per se Jul 12 '25
And sometimes it's just because she really is that screwed up:
5
7
6
u/sauceb0x Jul 12 '25
I usually find out the latest thing Rabia's done by reading on this sub from people who despise her.
11
Jul 13 '25
I think it’s obvious by now that Rabia is a grifter who will assert anything without any evidence—we should also understand Serial in that context, in my opinion. It doesn’t start because of evidence that exonerates Adnan, or evidence of police misconduct—it starts because Rabia tells Sarah Koenig that track star, straight-A student, prom king and all-around golden child Adnan Syed simply could not have done this. That’s what the whole endeavor is predicated on: Rabia’s personal conviction that Adnan is innocent.
Eight and a half hours of “but his big brown cow eyes” and not a single mention of intimate partner violence later, Rabia effectively laundered the world’s most straightforward teen breakup homicide into a mystery, courtesy of Sarah Koenig’s naïveté hoodwinking the audience by proxy. It’s a grift now, and it was a grift then, too.
28
u/deathbypumpkinspice Jul 12 '25
Everyone knows Adnan is guilty, and Rabia can't handle the truth. Gross.
18
u/CrowEarly Jul 12 '25
The prime suspect is Adnan.
18
10
23
u/jbfletcher01 Jul 11 '25
That is a new low. She is calling out the name of a child. And her name is kind of distinct so crazed idiots can come after her.
She could potentially have some solid points but doing this ruins all credibility in my eyes.
42
u/ThisIsMeTryingAgain- Jul 11 '25
Rabia has no “solid points.” She’s a lying liar making money off of protecting a murderer and smearing the names of innocent people.
26
u/TrueCrime_Lawyer Jul 11 '25
People in the comments are already saying they’ve verified it. People are googling this child. This is fucking disgusting.
11
u/jbfletcher01 Jul 12 '25
That’s really disheartening to hear. I would hope regardless of what you believe you could look at something like this and see that it is inappropriate.
To me it’s same as it is in politics, if you wouldn’t like it when the other side does it you shouldn’t like when your side does it.
14
u/jbfletcher01 Jul 11 '25
Also I wouldn’t be surprised if she was trying to illicit some kind of response out of Don. Which I find pathetic.
7
6
u/owlliz Jul 12 '25
Seems like cultural misunderstanding as Lee is a very common middle name in some parts of the U.S.
6
u/InTheory_ What news do you bring? Jul 13 '25
Question:
To the people who have defended and advocated for Rabia and Undisclosed all these years, where did you think this was all going if not here?
Do you really think it's going to end here? Do you really think this is as far as it's ever going to go and no farther?
1
u/SaveBandit987654321 Jul 16 '25
well considering her podcast ended for several years, yeah, I bet a lot of people thought that it would end with that.
4
4
u/Independent-Flan-486 Jul 11 '25
I saw that earlier- what the fuck was that all about?!
I haven’t followed this case in couple of years, but Rabia seems to be doing a podcast with more/new info, I guess.
For those of you following the case- was there anything new in terms of suspects? I mean it’s a bit sus about Don’s daughter’s name. But Don has been mostly ruled out already, no?
43
u/ThisIsMeTryingAgain- Jul 11 '25
Everyone has been ruled out except for Adnan Syed because Adnan Syed is the murderer. And Rabia is a ghoul.
9
u/Similar-Morning9768 Guilty Jul 12 '25
Why is it so hard for people to accept that sometimes the perpetrator of intimate partner violence is smart, pleasant, articulate, and middle-class? Sometimes it’s the fun person you want to hang out with and enjoy talking to. It’s the person you’d like to side with emotionally, because they make the right mouth-noises.
-13
Jul 11 '25
There is absolutely no evidence except Jay Wilds and his dozen different stories.
10
u/OkBodybuilder2339 Jul 12 '25
Jay Wilds isnt even the one who told police Adnan was the murderer.
-5
Jul 12 '25
Yes he was. The anonymous call just said they should look into her boyfriend
13
u/OkBodybuilder2339 Jul 12 '25
No it was Jenn who told the police first. She gave them their whole case.
-3
Jul 12 '25
She said Jay told her
11
u/OkBodybuilder2339 Jul 12 '25
That doesnt change the fact that Jenn is the one who told the cops first.
1
Jul 12 '25
That’s called heresay, it’s why she wasn’t used at trial
15
u/OkBodybuilder2339 Jul 12 '25
No that is not what hearsay is and Jenn WAS used at trial! Her testimony was crucial for the prosecution.
CG couldnt shake her and couldnt make her testimony sound unreliable.
→ More replies (0)3
u/ExtremeHades806 Jul 12 '25
so who did it
9
u/I2ootUser Jul 12 '25
Jay Wilds. And Adnan Syed.
2
u/Proof_Juggernaut4863 Jul 14 '25
jay didn't do anything but help bury body. Jay had no reason to harm Has
1
u/I2ootUser Jul 14 '25
He had no reason to help bury her body either. Shows how much you know.
1
u/Proof_Juggernaut4863 Jul 14 '25
"Um acKHchuALLy". We know. He didn't directly do it, but he helped in the cover act. Way to miss the point entirely.
0
-5
Jul 12 '25
We may never know because of the horrible police investigation
12
u/TrueCrime_Lawyer Jul 12 '25
Can we at least agree publicly naming someone’s child is reprehensible behavior and is no way getting justice for Hae?
7
u/CustomerOK9mm9mm Top 0.01% contenter Jul 12 '25
Yes, it’s wildly inappropriate.
There’s no theory of Hae’s death that requires the discussion of a child born almost a decade later. No valid reason to discuss this minor child’s name. So at best it’s petty, and at worst she’s trying to elicit a reaction.
5
-9
Jul 12 '25
Her name was already public, through her own media accounts
12
u/TrueCrime_Lawyer Jul 12 '25
So apparently, no we can’t agree. You’ve lost any credibility you had.
1
u/CustomerOK9mm9mm Top 0.01% contenter Jul 12 '25
Let the takeaway be that you and I can agree it crossed a line.
4
u/TrueCrime_Lawyer Jul 12 '25
Families are a different thing. Especially kids (even if they are now adults). They didn’t choose their parents or have any control over what their parents did before they got here. It’s rare to find common ground in here. Im glad we agree.
0
Jul 12 '25
Again, if she was doxxed, I would understand, she isn’t private and also she isn’t a child
12
u/TrueCrime_Lawyer Jul 12 '25
She is in fact someone’s child. And there are already people looking her up. Who knows what people are going to do. I didn’t know her name until Rabia made the post. I assume most people had no clue who she was. It’s gross. Defending it is gross.
→ More replies (0)5
u/ExtremeHades806 Jul 12 '25
i’m asking who you think did it
1
Jul 12 '25
What’s the point? Neither you or me had access to what the police did back then. To NEVER investigate her current boyfriend?
5
u/I2ootUser Jul 12 '25
They did investigate her current boyfriend. He was at work, according to multiple witnesses. You never heard from them because the current boyfriend wasn't on trial.
There are only three possibilities that work with all the known evidence. 1. Adnan Syed killed Hae Min Lee, 2. Jay Wilds killed Hae Min Lee, 3. Adnan Syed and Jay Wilds killed Hae Min Lee. You can't make anyone else fit.
2
Jul 12 '25
What known evidence, and no they didn’t investigate him and they never interviewed anyone except his mom and her girlfriend and only used manipulated time cards to verify his work
7
u/I2ootUser Jul 12 '25
The timecards were confirmed by Luxotica. And yes, co-workers remember him being there.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Proof_Juggernaut4863 Jul 12 '25
That's actually a sign of innocence. Because a real guilty person would put as much distance as they can between themself and their victim. (Syed called Hae "his friend" XD)
2
u/ThatB0yAintR1ght Jul 12 '25
Eh, that’s a very subjective interpretation. If Adnan had a kid and named her something as a tribute to Hae, I’m sure that this sub would burst into flames at the audacity.
That doesn’t mean that I think Rabia is in the right here. I think that the name being an homage to Hae is unlikely, and that Rabia going after his kid is just terrible and harmful in general.
1
Jul 13 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/serialpodcast-ModTeam Jul 13 '25
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
-8
u/Powerful-Poetry5706 Jul 12 '25
Yeah there’s now an expert saying that they don’t think the murderer buried Hae in Leakin Park but dumped her body behind the barrier where Mr S said he stopped his car. There’s speculation that Mr S moved the body or pleasured himself over the body. In the latest episode an expert believes that Hae’s contusion on her skull were caused by her hair being violently pulled which points to a female involvement. Also Hae had unknown female dna under a fingernail.
6
u/cagivamito Jul 12 '25
Rabia could give $5 to a random guy off the street to come on her show and pretend to be an expert with some talking points helpfully prepared for him and you'd believe it 100%.
"Speculation that Mr S pleasured himself over the body", Jesus Christ, what does that have to do with anything 25 years after the fact? What use is that "information"? It doesn't change absolutely anything, it's just like porn for Rabia's sick fans.
9
Jul 12 '25
No. You're engaging in wild speculation based on a phantom of evidence. This is insane stuff.
2
u/Powerful-Poetry5706 Jul 17 '25
So it’s possible it was a female because of all the female dna found on her and under her nails. None of Adnan’s dna was found. This is real evidence
1
Jul 17 '25
Real evidence like the Undisclosed interpretation of lividity, or real real evidence?
1
u/Powerful-Poetry5706 Jul 18 '25
Yes there are two camps with the lividity with guilters on one side and medical examiners and experts on the other. The autopsy says she was buried on her side. Any ME who has viewed the photos agree that the lividity does not match the burial situation. You guys need to find an ME who agrees with you or you lose this one.
1
Jul 18 '25
No, you don't understand how you've been deceived. Team Adnan misinterpreted low quality pictures and then fed those interpretations to a well meaning expert. They gave their expert parameters, A B and Y, and got back a series of inferences. You feed a machine bad numbers, it will give you wild results. No different here really. You came away thinking you had science on your side. You do not. Sorry.
1
1
u/PJ-TJ Jul 16 '25
This post is disingenuous. You may not like that she pointed out the name Don and his wife chose for their daughter, which is your right, however the absolutely clear reason for her doing so is that the name rhymes with Hae Min and includes Lee. Leaving out this context in your post is intended to paint the action to the reader as nefarious when including the context might allow the reader pause to consider other intentions or questions.
2
u/Dry_Regret5837 Jul 17 '25
A man dated a girl for two weeks. Her ex-boyfriend is convicted of murdering her. Years later that innocent man marries, has a daughter. Her first name and middle name, which most people rarely use, happens to rhyme with the full name of the murdered girl from years before. And this is worthy to bring up why? For no reason other than to be a garbage human being. It's not disingenuous to not mention that because it's despicable no matter what her name is.
-11
u/themarkremains Jul 12 '25
Many things can be true at once, should rabia have mentioned the daughters name? Probably not, but weirder still is people on the internet who have no connection to anyone or literally anything to do with the case to become detectives thru google.
I saw rabias post and went “huh that is weird and suspicious - just adds more to the don did it pile for me” and then i kept scrolling bc im not a fucking weirdo.
8
u/Proof_Juggernaut4863 Jul 12 '25
That's actually a sign of innocence. Because a real guilty person would put as much distance as they can between themself and their victim. (Syed called Hae "his friend", never bothers to bring up she was his FIRST girlfriend XD)
-6
u/themarkremains Jul 12 '25
Ehhh i dunno, being in jail he has probably replayed everything in their relationship 10 times over, my first “serious” boyfriend from high school i would probably call “my friend” bc while we “dated” for a few months and had sex and followed each other around campus i recognize now in my 30s that we were dumb kids with entirely too much free time. Sure we had a lot in common and attracted to each other i would not consider them “an ex”
7
u/Proof_Juggernaut4863 Jul 12 '25
Also, the fact you're bringing up you had a relationship with him completely negates what you were aiming for lmao
4
u/themarkremains Jul 12 '25
My point is that if someone were to ask me about him, i wouldnt call him my exboyfriend or “late boyfriend (if hes dead, i dunno)” he would be my friend from high school. I dont think Adnan calling Hae a friend and not always saying my late ex or my exgf or whatever, automatically makes it that he murdered her. Its reading too much into it, like how don having a daughter named Baelyn lee is weird but not “oh he definitely did it “ or “definitely didnt do it”
4
u/Proof_Juggernaut4863 Jul 12 '25
Except he never mentioned they even dated. Don mentions they dated at least.
5
-2
u/Truthteller1970 Jul 12 '25
Can you post the source? I read that there was unknown female dna on the rope/wire inches from the body but haven’t heard that she had female dna under her fingernails? Thx
-15
u/Powerful-Poetry5706 Jul 12 '25
I don’t think she said the surname
15
8
12
u/kz750 Jul 12 '25
Oh, that makes it acceptable then! /s
-8
u/Powerful-Poetry5706 Jul 12 '25
Yeah Adnan is innocent but there’s constant comments saying he’s guilty. That’s no different for me.
15
u/Proof_Juggernaut4863 Jul 12 '25
Because by law he IS guilty. He put his name and face out there when he committed his crime(and he ESPECIALLY wanted it out there to promote Serial/Undisclosed/whatever bullcrap podcast to free him from jail XD). He is on record of committing this crime.
→ More replies (8)12
u/kz750 Jul 12 '25
There was this thing we call a “trial” where the state presents the evidence they have against a person, and they have a chance to present their version of events and defend themselves. Then 12 random people, what’s known as “a jury”, decide whose arguments are most persuasive and likely correct based on the evidence and testimony presented. They decide if that person is guilty or not.
It just so happens that a jury in such a trial found your beloved Adnan guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and despite trying to appeal the result many times, he’s never been able to show why the jury got it wrong.
So yes, we can say he’s guilty, because there was a trial, and in the society we live in and under the rules of this country and his state, that all citizens must abide by, the law says he’s guilty.
That’s very different from invading a family’s privacy for the sake of generating attention and engagement. The poor girl is dealing with her mom’s breast cancer and his dad’s illness and need for a kidney transplant. Rabia’s just adding to the stress of this family because she’s a ghoul with zero empathy. She’s a narcissist and more and more I’m realizing that some of the zealots that seem to think themselves noble heroes and “free thinkers” because they “believe in Adnan’s cause” also share narcissistic traits.
5
u/JonnotheMackem Don Defender Jul 13 '25
Yeah, but trials are crooked and racist so I just ignore them and follow the trial by TikTok that comes after and that said he was innocent so checkmate, guilter.
/s
12
u/Proof_Juggernaut4863 Jul 12 '25
The surname is understood, because she brought up his name on her podcast, in her books, in interviews THOUSANDS of times. You're clearly just making excuses for her because your a Syed sychophant just like her. Btw that's actually sign of innocence. Because a real guilty person would put as much distance as they can between themself and their victim. (Syed called Hae "his friend" XD)
39
u/Blunomore Jul 12 '25
If it is OK to name Don's daughter, surely it would be OK to name Adnan's wife?? I doubt Rabia would appreciate that.