Dear Sarah Koenig,

First and foremost, thank you for Serial.  Thank you for bringing Adnan Syed’s case to the world.  The world is grateful.

I’d like to remind you that you heard about this case from Rabia Chaudry, yet you have not mentioned her one time during your little closet-casts.  You mention “some new evidence came to light”.  Where did that evidence come from?  Undisclosed.  Why do you have such a problem mentioning this podcast by name?  They are not your competition and certainly deserve a mention.  By the way, having to listen to you and Dana banter like a couple of second-graders is super annoying.  You mentioned how you came to learn of the information about this case twice in the first mini-sode without mentioning where you got it.  UGH.

What’s most annoying, whoever, is the fact that you seem to be trying to prove to the world how unbiased on this case you are.  Your “doubts” about Asia are unfounded – everyone else who has tweeted or Periscoped about Asia’s testimony felt the complete opposite way.  YOU on Serial said that Asia is the missing link – she has proven to be so.  Now you are doubting her credibility based on the prosecutor?

You and Dana mentioned that maybe CG had a good reason for not calling Asia back in 1999 based on the March 2 letter.  What about the other 40+ alibi witnesses that CG didn’t contact?  Did she have a good reason for not calling them?  Let’s not forget that CG was disbarred, and that less 1% of all lawyers are disbarred.  That’s very telling about CG’s incompetence.

Please stop trying to show your unbiased and just give us the facts.  I’m enjoying the Undisclosed updates so much more than yours.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s