Hmm, how do you know how often certain scenarios play out? Interested to get the inside scoop!

Why aren't you watching though?

Turns out they've also done other things. But if you haven't heard of them, that probably means something to someone.

I made it up. Feel free to use it.

Yes.

Every song on this album is perfect. I can't stop listening to it. I need help.

That's generally how news works.

I wonder if, by the end of the first season, this professional TV critic will finally realize that you don't have to be likable in order to be a protagonist, and that we were never supposed to be cheering for these assholes. It's the most basic, fundamental conceit of the show, and five episodes in, he's still…

I'm sort of over listening to podcasts about the case, but I appreciate that there might be stuff in there that I didn't know, and maybe that will come to light during the trial.

I did, yes. I understand that Serial didn't cover the entire case, and I've done a lot of reading and researching through other channels. I think it's important that the defense have a chance to submit any other evidence that wasn't submitted in the original trial. I just personally haven't heard any that seemed…

Would you agree that there are elements of people's jobs that aren't specifically mandated by law? If you state your opinion about what makes a good teacher, you might go above and beyond just listing their explicitly listed duties. I think a good defense lawyer will try to come up with alternative theories because of…

I did not say it's a legal requirement. I CAN say my opinion about what makes a good lawyer. That's what I did. Please, stop wasting your energy in telling me things I already know. But again: you're a true hero. Tell me, who is the burden of proof on again? Because I'm a fucking idiot.

Insomuch as it's the defense's job to have their client not be convicted, yes, I believe it is part of being a good defense lawyer. Whether or not it's a legal requirement is, I'm sure, interesting to you, but I was stating my opinion. I am fully aware that it's not a legal requirement. Again, thank you for trying to…

It's not your bad, I thought I did a pretty good job of clearly explaining my position - that most people don't understand the difference between the mere existence or presentation of doubt and reasonable doubt.

I didn't suggest it was. Thank you for your feedback. I did not say it's the defendant OR the defense's job - I said, a good lawyer SHOULD come up with alternate explanations, because it's compelling, and because juries buy into it, and defense lawyers know that, and they use that to their advantage. That's the…

That's my issue - I AM stating the obvious. I understand that that's how a trial works. I'm saying, not everyone seems to be on the same page.

Right, so try reading it again, because I never suggested he doesn't deserve another trial and for the defense to be able to present those theories. In fact, it's pretty clear now that I was saying, we should each analyze those theories with our critical thinking skills.

I have no problem with him getting a new trial, based on how the first trial went. I made no such claims. So what are you responding to? He deserves another trial even if guilty. I believe that he's guilty based on the totality of evidence that I'm aware of, but that wasn't even the point I was making.

I've listened to Serial, yes. I would not call that reasonable doubt, so, we just don't agree.

I appreciate you trying to enlighten me, but nothing I said indicated that I don't understand what "reasonable doubt" means. I said, people must analyze refuting evidence using their critical thinking skills. Just because a defense lawyer says it doesn't mean it's true.