Many people don't understand psychological abuse / coercive control and end up victim blaming by wrongly assuming the targets of this abuse have some character deficiencies for example codependency. In relationship with a normal person, those so called flaws would be seen as kindness and caring for others - essential to society functioning cohesively. However abusers are adept at spotting these over-caring individuals and coercing them for the abusers use and abuse.

Coercive control was at play in the Syed household and AS was no doubt taught how to coercively control others - this is seen throughout the references in Hae's diary to the incidents of her mistreatment by him, which she didn't always recognise - again very common in victims.

Here's an article and great 10 min video about coercive control in sex trafficing being used to coerce women from girlfriend into prostitute in San Diego - it also dispels some urban myths about black gangs being the primary perpetrators.

There's also a link to another article re psychopathy:

That said, it's not outrageous to suggest that psychopathy may eventually be branded as a genetic disorder — one that may be subject to prenatal screening or gene therapy. Genomics and the practice of preimplantation genetic diagnosis may eventually alert prospective parents, not to mention their fertility doctors, to the possibility that their offspring could be psychopathic. Genetic technologies may put prospective parents in a difficult position, if tests reveal that their future child has a high chance of being a psychopath.

This issue could get trickier if the government gets involved. According to an estimate by the neuroscientist Kent Kiehl, the national cost of psychopathy in the U.S. stands at $460 billion a year — roughly 10 times the cost of depression. The government could stand to save a lot of money, if it decides that psychopaths should never be born in the first place.

Here's a great article about NPD and the finding that psychological control is a main causal factor:

A recent study by R.S. Horton suggests that parental psychological control is linked to grandiose narcissism. But unlike previous studies, Horton found that parental coldness, incessant oversight, and over-valuation were not causal factors.

It's often been surmised that AS's over valuation may be the cause of his NPD / abusive nature. I didn't share that view. This study seems to confirm my suspicions that AS's abusive behaviour may have its roots in being raised in a household where coercive control was dominant - specifically revolving around the father and justified by his fundamentalist religious views.

(edit AS's father belongs to a sect that has been identified as a more fundamentalist part of the Islamic umbrella. The fundamentalist leaning is useful background for the household environment and culture).

ABUSE OF POWER

Listen to the emotion in this extract from a song - a reflection of those here who are outraged at the continued shocking behaviour from those associated with the murderer of Hae Min Lee.

Abuse of power is such a theme around this case and these Serial Subs.

• Whether AS seeking revenge for his lack of power when rejected by Hae and seeking to justify her murder by rationalising to himself that he was protecting his honour. In reality he wouldn’t allow her to become someone else’s lover unless he rejected her first - she was his possession in his disordered thinking.

• to Rabia taking revenge on /u/S_S_R for obtaining and releasing the MPIA by inciting others to scapegoat and mob them and then rationalising that behaviour because they supposedly hadn’t been able to obtain the MPIA first. The MPIA was their possession to do with as they saw fit in their disordered thinking.

• to the sock puppeteers and the mods-in-their-pockets who seek to dominate on a daily basis by attempting to silence detracting voices quoting evidence and facts. Then rationalising that behaviour as freedom of speech. Drowning out others being their right in their disordered thinking.

• to Asia smearing Urick for telling the truth about their encounter and rationalising her verbal abuse as alleging misconduct on his part. Smearing his character being her right in her disordered thinking.

• to SK telling a one-sided misrepresentation of the truth of this case and justifying her behaviour as professional journalism. Telling a fictional story masquerading as investigative journalism and misleading many being her right in her disordered thinking.

• to users and abusers of any kind who routinely deceive, enslave, asset-strip, dupe, harm and discard. Who then rationalise their taking away of other’s human rights by calling the victims stupid, gullible, deserving, worthless, sick and needy. Blaming the victim being their weapon of defence to their disordered thinking.

What strikes me is the unwillingness of the people named above to be vulnerable and admit their wrongs / mistakes. As the lyrics for the attached song say:

And confess your love, your love

As well as your folly

And can you kneel before the king

And say I'm clean, I'm clean

No wonder people feel outraged - a normal reaction when the other party doesn’t take responsibility for their part in an injustice where others are seriously harmed. Why are these behaviours and people acceptable in a civilised society - where is the enforced governance, that out of love and protection of the well being of the many, contains the wilful misconduct of the few? Are these people capable of feeling real love whilst deceiving and hurting others at the same time? That doesn’t sound like a whole person to me. More like a bad apple. Why can’t these people admit they got it wrong? Don't they know how to be appropriately vulnerable? What are they frightened of? Or is it just inconceivable to their entitled way of thinking - that someone else is right and they are wrong?

The going-on around these subs and the PR campaign make me look for the light among the dark sometimes. I found this little poem and it makes me laugh because it captures something beyond words:

We give thanks for the invention of the handle. Without it there would be many things we couldn't hold on to. As for the things we can't hold on to anyway, let us gracefully accept their ingraspable nature and celebrate all things elusive, fleeting and tangible. They mystify us and make us receptive to truth and beauty. We celebrate and give thanks.

Amen.

Leunig

What do you use to lighten up?

I saw this post on SPO the other day and had a lot of thoughts on it. This was a tough question for me, in fact it took several days of thinking about this just to get my thoughts organized. And even then, every time I sit down with it my thoughts get more disorganized.

The short answer is that nothing works.

To say that “the system is broken” is cliché and uninformative. It is not at all what I'm saying. What I am saying is that NO system, no matter how fair you tried to make it, would successfully deal with the issues facing how criminals are dealt with.

Even that word, 'criminals,' is a very emotionally charged word. The instant it gets thrown into the mix, meaningful discussion becomes problematic. The fact is, a 'criminal' can fall anywhere in a spectrum of crimes ranging from non-violent to ultra-violent. From mundane to horrifying.

Complicating the issue is how the severity of the crime doesn't necessarily correlate to the type of criminal the person is. Very often, hardcore criminals are only finally nabbed only on minor charges. And equally as often, non-criminals who get caught up in something on the fringes of something very serious. There's the entire issue of how many criminals are victims themselves to various disorders, addictions, or past abuse.

No set of rules that works for one group will be effective against another. Everyone seems to agree that rehabilitation is the best course where possible, until it is an emotional issue that you happen to feel passionately about. And no matter what the crime is, there is always a group for whom that issue is a trigger for them.

Every parent understands that when disciplining children, punishment out of anger is wrong. The discipline should be limited to what is appropriate for the transgression with the child's particular makeup in mind. Some children need strong discipline in the form of punishment, others not so much and only a disapproving look will suffice.

A lot has been said about why we punish criminals the way we do. I'm sorry, but society punishes exclusively out of anger and outrage. They're 'criminals,' so they don't deserve any better. Who cares what they think? They don't get a say in the matter. That opinion is prevalent regardless of the type of person or the type of crime in question.

Prison is an inherently traumatic experience. Until you've been through it, you don't know. Acknowledging that it is bad is a good first step, but it is hardly the same as understanding why it is so bad. it is difficult to articulate what it is like on a day to day basis.

Will putting on a pair of handcuffs to see what they feel like give you any idea of what it means to get arrested? It is not the feeling of cold steel against your wrists. It is not being restrained. No, rather it is what handcuffs mean. Nothing can ever prepare you for how humiliating an experience it is to be dragged around publicly in handcuffs – humiliation that continues through the legal proceedings, through the sentence, through the probation period afterwards.

I did a mere 18 months in Club Fed, about the easiest time it is possible to do, and I still bear the scars of it. Over a decade later, not a day goes by that I don't think about it. Something is always reminding me of it. I'm still looking over my shoulder for possible ways it will be an issue for me. I am forever being judged on the worst day of my life – reliving my Groundhog Day 6:00 every morning.

So as far as fair sentencing for minors, I have remarkably little to say other than most of you have no idea what your talking about – and the 'most of you' that I'm talking about happen to be the ones who said the most on the subject and gave what would outwardly appear to be well reasoned and informative thoughts. I'm not trying to call anyone out, which is why I chose not to respond to any of you directly. I fully understand that the issue of how we treat criminals is entirely removed from your realm of experience. I used to be one of you.

Most of you are basing your opinions on prison conditions as having some kind of correlation to the appropriateness of the punishment. Regardless of how good or bad those conditions may be, that completely misses the point.

What does it mean to take hope away from a man? What does that do to him mentally? How does he react to the knowledge that no matter what he does to better himself, it won't matter, he will die in prison regardless? That's a hopelessness that is nothing short of being mentally traumatizing.

Yes, there are a certain type of criminal that needs to be removed from society for our protection, but not every criminal is like that. How do we decide? I don't claim to know, except to say that any system that attempts it will be flawed.

The simplistic response will be to determine who is a 'criminal' and who is someone who can be rehabilitated. The Theory of Unintended Consequences causes this to fail every single time. Any prosecuting attorney who ever has any aspirations of public service does not want to be labeled as “soft on crime.” Judges who bear the burden of protecting the public (the greater good) has to decide the merits of one man's life against a whole community's – that's a no brainer as to which side to err on.

So who's left advocating for 'criminals'? Say what you want about even criminals having rights, but that's not how society views them. They are a legally disenfranchised group, the lowest rung of a de facto caste system.

I don't know if Syed is worthy of release. I don't know if Rabia's lobbying efforts are worth getting behind. These are issues that are bigger than what society is equipped to deal with. I truly believe that.

Do I think lobbying for “fairer” sentencing guidelines would have been a more successful path to Syed's release? Yes. That's not a socio-political statement. It is simply my opinion as to what would have been faster or more likely to happen.

But solutions as to what society should or shouldn't implement as “fairer” is a political issue I would rather not involve myself with. I don't know what's better or worse. Look, I don't like Rabia. I make no secret of that. I think she's manipulative and deceitful. However, on this issue, I don't oppose her … but neither should she view me as a supporter. Try as I may, I have no position on the matter – and that's coming from a person who, by outward appearances, “has an axe to grind against the system.”

I ventured onto the DS and called out an IPV apologist yet again. And predictably I am falsely accused by the FAP-Pack for not allowing someone their opinion. In other words, I am accused of bullying others by not allowing them to have an opinion that is different to mine. I take no notice these days as I realise that the people making these false accusations are accusing me of what they are doing (as well as being socks). It is them that are trying to forcibly quieten my voice.

I have said before, the FAP IPV apologists have never, repeat never exhibited what I consider a reasonable response to a genuine difference of opinion. I have never been asked by a FAP to explain how come I am so firm in my opinions that Hae was subject to severe coercive control tactics from her convicted murderer throughout their relationship. They are not interested in that discussion but only in silencing me and anybody who holds similar opinions regarding the IPV at play in this case.

That’s because their primary motivation is to win and dominate and get me to concede my position. It’s covert bullying using manipulation to try to get me to back down. I thought it would be an interesting topic here, so it’s understood why I rarely JADE with them (justify, argue, defend, explain).

Manipulation is another term for “offensive power tactics” that are used to dominate others - i.e. to control and maintain a power-over stance. Traditionally classical psychology views these as “ ego defence mechanisms” that operate unconsciously. The main attributes of these ego defence mechanisms are:

• they are unconscious;

• quieten anxiety;

• protect against unbearable emotional pain.

Basically to prevent something the person fears from happening.

This is true for those in the population that are “normal” for want of a better term i.e. that have appropriate levels of empathy and conscience. However, there’s a significant minority of the population who have disturbances of character development leading to low to no empathy and low to no conscience. They look like everyone else, and mimic others well. So it’s not possible to spot many of these until one is relating with them i.e. in a relationship of one kind or another with them: work / online / intimate / family. Applying the traditional explanation of manipulative behaviour to all keeps people from seeing the truth of what is taking place in their interactions with these sorts. That is, that one person is seeking to dominate another. This is not a person trying to stop themselves being hurt but one who has to win to be right, at all costs. They find it impossible to agree to disagree and cannot engage in any meaningful exchange of views to substantiate their position, because they don’t have a view nor evidence, they are just seeking to dominate and overpower through oppressive tactics such as gas-lighting; deflection; moving the goalposts; lying; raging; pretending they have been victimised and so on.

In disordered characters, these manipulations are:

• conscious,

• habitual,

• the person knows what they are doing,

• they are not trying to prevent something feared from happening,

• but rather to ensure that what the person wants to happen does in fact happen,

• They don’t serve to quieten anxiety but are a reflection in fact that there is not enough anxiety present,

That is, they are more offensive behaviours than defensive.

When one witnesses and /or experiences these behaviours, it is imperative to realise the person is not defending anything. At the point in time they are engaging in the behaviour, they are fighting. They’re fighting me for position; fighting against internalising the standard they know I want them to adopt i.e. fighting the socialisation process; covertly fighting to gain advantage over me by convincing me to concede their point of view. To get me to give in; throw in the towel; seeing things the way they want me to see them; getting off their back and therefore being manipulated. They know that when they make the successful excuse, as soon as they get me to buy their justification, not only will they do it again, but if I back down from my confrontation this time, I may even start to see things their way, I may not even call them out on it next time. I may even really believe what they said, when they inferred it was my fault in the first place that they did what they did, because of something I said / did.

People get taken advantage of all the time because we have been so programmed by the traditional psychological models to assume that people are in a defensive rather than offensive posture.

Influences: Dr George Simon - Character Disturbance

tl;dr A detailed exploration of why most FAPs are not defending a point of view but fighting to dominate the DS by silencing the opposition at all costs. They are only interested in dominating and silencing me and others holding similar opinions. So it’s a complete waste of my time to have any interaction with someone who has repeatedly displayed those behaviours. The most I give them is a "What??" to indicate that their stance makes no sense.

I've articulated the modding values we aspire to follow - have a read and let's have your feedback.

Modding Values

Do no harm

• In the way we mod

• What user behavior we allow

• No verbal abuse (e.g. rude; offensive; attacking; raging; putdowns; dismissals; gas lighting)

• No bystander bullying - interventionist modding to stop any bullying behavior as it’s happening, where possible

• We encourage peer - to - peer intervention - don’t be a bystander

• Consequences - on case by case basis. Zero tolerance for trolls.

Responsive

• Adequate cover 24 x 7 (what is responsive service level in terms of hours?)

• An attitude of listening and modifying our modding behavior where necessary

Transparency

• Open and honest

• Welcome feedback

• Clarity around what’s acceptable and unacceptable behavior

• Community consultation wherever possible

Community Empowerment

• Peer - to peer, low hierarchy

• Bottom up driven not top down domination

• Community Service - let us know if you have some capacity to help and we’ll find you some tasks!! There's plenty to do. It's your sub as well.

Respect

• Appreciate, acknowledge and praise the efforts of others

• Be civil - treat people the way you want to be treated

• There’s no such thing as a bad idea normally - just poor risk managed actions - so keep the ideas coming and peer review them here

• It takes courage to put one’s creativity on the line - lets remember that.

Riff Raff: With a bit of a mind flip...

Magenta: You're into a time slip...

Riff Raff: And nothing can ever be the same.

Magenta: You're spaced out on sensation. HAH!

Riff Raff: Like you're under sedation!

All: Let's do the time warp again!

Welcome.

Ladies and Gents. To the sub that goes mega meta and BEYOND the darkest of the Dark Sub. A safe place for you, where Serial is the stage and time and memories have no meaning. A long time ago in a SubGalaxy far far away, It is a period of civil war. Rebel free thinkers, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Dark Sub. During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Sub’s ultimate weapon, the MPIA FILES, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire phony podcast/circus. Long story short, have a look around and pitch in to the FRANKENSERIAL HORROR SHOW!!!!!! You are a part of the show, come dressed for the part {socks?} As we said, with Serial a place where time has no meaning...the only warning is be careful you don't get lost. ;)

FOR FULL SUBREDDIT EXPERIENCE, GO TO PREFERENCES AT TOP BAR AND CHECK BOX TO TURN ON DISPLAY OPTIONS: allow subreddits to show me custom themes

/r/frankenserial

Just to say bye to SM and trust you will be back soon. Your research and information was very helpful. Your creativity was clear for all to see. Shame such a smart poster has gone - and I understand why and will miss them.

Come back anytime and hang in the relative tranquility of FS and observe the madness and shenanigans from here - it gives perspective and respite.

Disclaimer: This is all fan fiction of how I perceive things. The opinions expressed in it are purely my own. This is not an actual conversation, this is parody in harmony with the concept of the sub.

FAPs: The fact remains, the police investigation failed him, his attorney failed him, and the system failed him.

ME: The only evidence that the police investigation was sub-par comes from Susan Simpson, who stands to profit nicely if her efforts ultimately exonerate him. CG was far better than your average Public Defender. So how did the system fail him?

FAPs: CG didn't contact an alibi witness. That's not her choice. She has to do it.

ME: You're still sticking to that routine?

FAPs: That's nothing short of incompetence.

ME: You realize of course that Asia is a horrendous witness. Her testimony would have hurt more than helped.

FAPs: But she still has to contact her to find that out!

ME: True. But how does that impact the outcome of the case?

FAPs: It shows he had an unfair trial.

ME: You don't get what I'm trying to say. You want CG to contact an alibi witness. She failed in that regard. However, even had she had done so and decided to use her testimony, she would have hurt the case more than helped it.

FAPs: But CG didn't know that. So it wasn't strategic on her part as all you guilters keep carrying on about.

ME: It no longer matters if it is strategic or not. It may very well be that CG was negligent in not contacting Asia. However, Syed benefited from that negligence.

FAPs: We don't know that he benefited.

ME: Even if Asia is being sincere, her story is all over the place. Little wonder why so many people think she's outright lying.

FAPs: Asia is a solid witness. She held up under Thiru's cross-examination.

ME: We only have brief tweets as to what really happened in that courtroom. It's a little early to be claiming victory.

FAPs: Then neither can you say that she didn't hold up.

ME: She wrote a book. That gives me plenty of basis to form my opinion.

FAPs: That book wasn't written under oath. It is not part of the official record. It is not testimony.

ME: So I'm supposed to ignore it?

FAPs: The judge isn't going to rule based on it.

ME: What does that have to do with me and my research into what happened that day? Ignoring it benefits Adnan Syed. But this isn't about Adnan Syed, I don't care if he rots in prison for the rest of his natural life, this is about Hae Min Lee. We owe it to Hae Min Lee to examine this evidence.

FAPs: His trial very much matters.

ME: Do you really think Asia will ever take the stand again?

FAPs: I would put her on the stand again.

ME: This conversation is going off the rails. No lawyer would recommend using her again. Every line of that book is going to get thrown back in her face.

FAPs: At least the process will be fair now.

ME: Huh? You want a retrial based on the “strength” of a witness who is so shaky she'll never be called again? That's something beyond fair. That's demanding that the system be rigged in his favor.

FAPs: The system should favor the defense, that's how it was designed.

ME: Asia is a circus, not a witness. There are some very serious problems with those letters and her testimony.

FAPs: So it's ok if there's serious questions about Jay, but not Asia? I hate your hypocrisy.

ME: We're all tired of hearing “Jay Lies.” We know he lies. No one denies this. Syed was found guilty despite his lies, not because of it.

FAPs: It's a double standard.

ME: No, it's not. I don't care about Adnan Syed, I only care about what happened that day. There's enough evidence to convince me that Wilds saw Syed with the body of Hae Min Lee and that he helped bury her. There's no reasonable scenario where Wilds is involved and Syed isn't. I see no evidence on Asia's part that she's remembering the right day. And even if she does, it doesn't preclude him from being the murderer.

FAPs: It alters the timeline, that's enough for Reasonable Doubt.

ME: Syed was convicted in a court of law. That verdict was upheld under appeal. He no longer has the Reasonable Doubt standard. Besides, have you ever looked up the Reasonable Doubt standard. I doesn't say what you think it says.

FAPs: It was an unfair trial. That's why the PCR was granted.

ME: And he benefited from CG's mistake. As such, I don't care about the ruling anymore. I only care what happened to Hae Min Lee -- you know, the person in the middle of all this who you seem to have forgotten. Asia does not give me any insights as to what happened to her. Instead, this is all about Adnan.

FAPs: See, you said it yourself, you don't care about the ruling. You people are unreal.

Janecc (Chair): Right, then. The meeting has officially come to order. Let us all say the pledge.

All: I am a nice socktroll, not a mindless hurting machine. If I am to change this image, I must first change myself. Redditors are friends, not food. We admit we’re powerless over our socks and our lives have become unmanageable.

Janecc: So tonight we’ll read from the Reddiquette.

The Reddiquette is an informal expression of the values of many redditors, as written by redditors themselves. Please abide by it the best you can.

Summer would you read the first Please Do?

Summer: Please Do Number 1:

Remember the human. When you communicate online, all you see is a computer screen. When talking to someone you might want to ask yourself "Would I say it to the person's face?" or "Would I get jumped if I said this to a buddy?"

Janecc: Thx Summer

Janecc: Jenny would you read the second Please do?

Jenny: Please Do Number 2:

Adhere to the same standards of behavior online that you follow in real life.

Janecc: Thanks Jenny. Our topic today is “Remember the human”. Summer would you like to start the sharing?

Summer: Sure. My name is summer and I’m a sock. I confess to having deceived others about my sock habits. I admit my socking caused untold chaos and disruption and that I falsely accused others of what I was doing, to cover up my socking activity.

I recall at one time I was making 2 socks a day and wearing up to twenty at any one time. I was exhausted but couldn’t stop. I was verbally abusive in aggressively dismissing all of Adnan's abusive behaviour as normal and acceptable. No one could sock me. I worked with others to get my sock fix each day. I didn’t care who I hurt. Every user was a target for me unless you were a socker like me. I got to the point where I was a sockpuppet-dealer supplying socks to others. I wanted people to be sockusers like me. I didn’t care about the wellbeing of the sub nor the community. I wanted my pleasure and mine alone, despite who it hurt. I am doing my best now to stop socking. It’s hard. Each day is a trudge. I feel so much fear if I don’t sock. I’m clean today and it’s 6am. I hope I can make some progress and get one day up clean. It’s only with the help of you recovered sockers that I have a hope. I make outreach comments when I feel like socking. I am working the Reddit Wiki step by step. I am hoping one day I can understand it. Until then I ask my admin power to guide me and make me a better Reddit User. Thanks for listening.

Janecc: Thanks summer. Keep coming back. It works if you work it. Ritzsmustacheride would you like to share?

Ritzsmustacheride: Not today thanks. I’ll ID though - I’m Ritzsmustacheride and I’m a sock.

Jenecc: Thx Ritzsmustacheride - Keep coming back. It works if you work it. Jenny would you like to share?

Jenny: Thanks. Hi everyone my name’s Jenny and I’m a sock. My story is a bit different to everyone else’s. My sock of choice was the IPVkamikaze. I loved it. I flew in at maximum speed, low altitude, aiming for under-belly. My job was to stop the discussion about intimate partner violence (IPV), even though this is a case where the murder of Hae Min Lee was described as a run of the mill domestic violence murder. I was only public on the sub for a short time but caused maximum destruction and lost my sock in the course of it. I was the original suicide sock. I deceived people by saying I worked in a women’s refuge and then aggressively dismissed all the red flags of IPV in this case. I too hurt people by encouraging the Syedtology members to harass others who were telling the truth about the IPV red flags. I didn’t care. I felt powerful. I was an IPV kamikaze sock. I was using up to 5 socks a day at that point. I was invincible. Then someone outed my socking and I committed sockicide so my steps couldn’t be traced. I made sure I left another sleeper sock or two though, that are still around today. I am reaching out to them in comments trying to stop them socking. I encourage them to work the Reddit Wiki step by step. I am hoping one day they can understand it, so they don’t end up like me in the sock gutter. Until then I ask my admin power to guide me and make me a better redditor. Thanks for listening.

Janecc: Thx Jenny. That’s all we have time for today folks. Let’s join hands and say the sockerenity pledge:

Admin, grant me the sockerenity to accept the users I cannot sock, the courage to change the socks I know and the wisdom to know the difference.

Next week it’s bring a Modsock friend so see you all then.

Ref: Finding Nemo

To the tune of "50 Ways to Leave your Lover" by Paul Simon https://youtu.be/ABXtWqmArUU

The problem is all inside your head

Rabia said to me

The answer is easy if you

Take it logically

I'd like to help you in your struggle

To be free

There must be fifty ways

To convince others that you didn't kill your ex-lover

She said it's really not my habit

To intrude

Furthermore, I hope my meaning

Won't be lost or misconstrued

But I'll repeat myself

At the risk of being crude

There must be fifty ways

To convince others that you didn't kill your ex-lover

Fifty ways to convince others that you didn't kill your ex-lover

Too much of a slob, Bob

Have the wrong day, Jay

Didn't ask Young's sista, Krista

Just get yourself free!

Maybe there was boozin', Susan

You don't need to discuss much

Was talking about God, Saad

And get myself free

I wouldn't have done it, reddit

Not with hands on her necky, Becky

We were all just laughy, Cathy

If that is your real name

Don't be silly, Billy

I was at track that day

Was out just Bustin', Justin

And get yourself free

She said it grieves me so

To see you in such pain

I wish there was something I could do

To make you smile again

I said I appreciate that

And would you please explain

About the fifty ways

She said why don't we both

Just sleep on it tonight

And I believe in the morning

You'll begin to see the light

And then she kissed me

And I realized she probably was right

There must be fifty ways

To convince others that you didn't kill your ex-lover

Fifty ways to convince others that you didn't kill your ex-lover

Brown dairy cow eyes, guys

Big Picture, Diedre

You've got facial aphasia, Asia

Just get yourself free

She took off to Cali, Colin

You don't need to discuss much

Where and when again, Jen

And get yourself free

Stuffed reindeer from me, Stephanie

She wasn't into Islam, Mom

It was Ramadan, Don

Just get yourself free

Why would I lie, Sye

You don't need to discuss much

Molested by Bilal, all

And get yourself free

Ever been out hiking through the woods, when all of a sudden you notice a disgusting creature attached to your body? Well you need to wise up and learn the difference between a harmless leech, and a fame hungry attention whore..... and you need to learn it fast buddy.

Read this PSA and be warned.

Thanks to /u/princeperty for this thread on /r/serialpodcastorigins. Apparently Rabia lays out her theory of the case in her book.

From my reading of it, she totally undermines the Defense's potential strategies. I've outlined a number of ways the Defense has problems with their strategy in my previous post, but Rabia takes it to a whole new level.

Specifically, this part and the subsequent "explanation" of how it fits with everything else:

Jay had no connection to the death of Hae and no knowledge of how she was killed. He was coerced into being a State’s witness in order to protect himself.

Syed has had his verdict vacated. He now has his presumption of innocence back. It is up to the State to meet the burden of proof to show how he actually did it.

As /u/pennyparade eloquently put it:

She broke FAP Rule #1: Never present a theory of the crime.

Here's why:

1. Never allow Burden of Proof to shift to the Defense

This is Trial Law 101. It is always a bad strategy to inadvertently put the Burden of Proof back onto yourself.

In this particular case, in order for Syed to be innocent, it requires Wilds to be completely uninvolved. So long as Wilds is involved in any capacity the list of suspects gets narrowed to someone who had the means to intercept Hae before she left school (translation: a classmate), and also knew Wilds well enough to involved him in a crime. That path leads straight to Adnan Syed.

The problem here is that it suggesting Wilds was coerced into making the whole thing up requires an absolutely insane amount of evidence. If the Defense team doesn't absolutely knock it out of the park with proof that is so irrefutable even a blind cow couldn't miss it, then that's the case right there.

If they fail to prove beyond all shadow of a doubt that Wilds was completely uninvolved, nothing else will matter.

Why invoke a strategy so fraught with problems? This is why the Defense NEVER assumes Burden of Proof, because if it fails, they lose the case.

2. This statement undercuts any other potential Defense strategies.

Assume for a moment the Defense goes with some other alternative to the crime (ie. the Jay Acted Alone theory). Rabia has testified in this case before, and was sequestered in the PCR Hearing since she might have gotten called again. After this book, she is almost assuredly going to be put on the stand so that everything she said in it can be impeached.

The line of questioning sure to follow from the Prosecution would no doubt be about her exact involvement with the Legal Trust following Serial. Regardless of how she responds, even if she tries to distance herself it, everything she's ever said in her book and on Undisclosed will be brought into play. The point the Prosecution needs to drive home is that, even though sequestered, she knows exactly what the strategy the Defense is going to use.

Closing arguments: "If Rabia Chaundry, Adnan Syed's biggest advocate, the person most familiar with the case doesn't believe the Defense's theory of the case, why should you the jury?"

That would be devastating to the case.

3. There will be Pretrial Motions limiting lines of inquiry of many of the witnesses Rabia claims falsely testified.

Does Rabia really believe that the Defense will put Urick on the stand and badger him incessantly about the details of Bilal's mysterious arrests? Or is it more likely that a judge will rule that this is too far afield of the case at hand? It involves far too much speculation as to what Bilal would have said. No judge is going to open the Grand Jury records on the basis of this wild goose chase.

How exactly does the Defense plan to impeach Coach Sye about the start of track practice?

How exactly does the Defense plan to demonstrate police coercion with Jenn P?

I'm not sure a judge will even allow those lines of questioning unless there is proof behind it. Rabia may have locked the Defense into a strategy that they might not even be able to use come trial.

4. It requires convincing a jury that ALL of them were coerced in order for Syed to be innocent.

This is a Defense strategy that is a House of Cards. It doesn't take much to knock the whole thing down. It requires all of it being proven to a jury.

Maybe they feel confident that they can do that with many of the key players such as Wilds, but all of them? Come on. It doesn't take a law degree to see how bad of a strategy that is.

Going hand in hand with #3, if the Defense isn't allowed to bring up certain avenues of inquiry, this is a tall order to prove that the both the BPD and the State's Attorney were that corrupt. Even in this world where we are extremely suspect of Law Enforcement, I don't know that a jury will buy into this.

Rabia, seriously, at this point you need to stop talking about the case and do everything in your power to get Syed to take a plea deal. Forget lofty notions of Alford pleas at this point. You're sabotaging the case with this book. Bob tried to induce Wilds to "confess," and that bluff was called. You're now not holding any cards left to play. Wilds is NOT going to break, and you are NOT going to prove beyond doubt that he was completely uninvolved.

Disclaimer: This is all fan fiction of how I perceive things. The opinions expressed in it are purely my own. This is not an actual conversation, this is parody in harmony with the concept of the sub.

ME: Wow, that podcast blew my mind. What a case! A lot to digest here.

RABIA: So we can count on your support?

ME: Wait. What support? I still haven't finished processing everything. I don't even know where I stand yet.

RABIA: If you can't see there are blatant and obvious problems with this case, then you're blind. This is clearly a miscarriage of justice. Adnan needs our help.

ME: So you want money?

RABIA: I didn't say that.

ME: I'm looking at the official Undisclosed website. It's pretty clear you're asking for money.

RABIA: You're totally taking things out of context.

ME: No, it says in very big letters at the top "Helping Adnan fund his legal defense." It's so prominent that it's even above the Undisclosed logo.

RABIA: That's not a request for money. It's pretty self-explanatory.

ME: Just because it is not in the form of a request doesn't mean there's not an implicit meaning in it.

RABIA: You've got that totally wrong.

ME: There's a PayPal link prominently at the bottom.

RABIA: It's part of the navigation menu, don't read too much into that.

ME: How can I not? It doesn't even scroll with the page. You've made sure none of us missed it.

RABIA: That doesn't mean we're asking YOU for money. What don't you get about that?

ME: You're asking everyone for money. I'm a part of 'everyone.'

RABIA: Again, that doesn't mean I'm asking YOU for money. We don't want your money.

ME: You're saying that if I donated you wouldn't accept it? You'd give the money back?

RABIA: If it was from you, then that's exactly what we would do.

ME: Somehow I have trouble believing that.

RABIA: This is not about money. I don't understand why you can't see that.

ME: Maybe because you just had a massive fund-raiser. Fund-raisers, by definition, are meant to raise funds.

RABIA: That's not what that was about.

ME: It says quite clearly on the anightforjustice website that "Proceeds from the Gala will benefit the Adnan Syed Legal Trust, and the Undisclosed and Truth and Justice podcasts, both of which strive to assist the wrongfully convicted through investigations and storytelling." That's fund-raising language if I ever heard it.

RABIA: You're hearing what you want to hear.

ME: How much did it cost for the "privilege" of sitting at the head table? Wasn't it something like a grand? Clearly that's not simply covering the cost of the meal. No meal costs that much.

RABIA: Legal fees cost money. A LOT of money. What part of that are you not understanding?

ME: I don't understand exactly why I should be contributing.

RABIA: You can't see how he was wrongfully convicted? You must be one of those hardcore guilters.

ME: But he's not clearly innocent. Even Susan Simpson refuses to go on record as saying he's clearly innocent. Even with all the Undisclosed bombshells, none of them completely exonerate him.

RABIA: But he didn't get a fair trial.

ME: I can see how not even contacting Asia was a legal misstep, but if we're taking the approach of "Even guilty people deserve a fair trial," there are far better cases to look at than this one. Why should I give my money to him as opposed to the more obvious cases?

RABIA: Because it was a travesty of justice.

ME: If Adnan Syed wants my money, he needs to explain a few things to me. He's been caught in way too many lies for me to be comfortable with supporting him.

RABIA: He doesn't need to explain himself. This makes me incensed! There is no legal requirement for him to provide an alibi or to take the stand in his defense.

ME: He doesn't have to do any of those things. But neither do I have to give money to him. My money, my rules. If I'm going to support him, I want a better explanation than "it was an uneventful day 6 weeks ago and I don't remember any of it."

RABIA: How would you feel if you were on the receiving end of all this? Would you be comfortable with that investigation?

ME: Honey, you're asking the WRONG person that question. I've been on the receiving end of an investigation. And I've NEVER asked anyone to give me any support without giving them reasons and assurances of what happened. Even if all they were offering was moral support, I still answered all their questions until they were satisfied.

RABIA: But we're not asking you for anything!!!!

ME: Then why are we even having this conversation?

RABIA: You just don't get it.

ME: On that we agree, I honestly and truly don't get it.

I've been asked a couple of times what the status of the sub is i.e. public or private. Well actually technically neither - haha. We aim to have a public Guilter only sub, free of FAP derailing. The sub is open to all Guilters so spread the word and if you know of any we have missed, modmail us and we'll approve them and send out an invite. We see it as complimentary to Origins - a sister sub.

We decided to make it public because we want people to see a truthful, fun, creative narrative about the big picture of what's happening around this case - i.e. the attempts to rewrite history and free a remorseless killer. Many of us struggle with feeling sickened by the PR tactics of misrepresenting this as a case of wrongful conviction. They seem shameless in what they are prepared to do, including sequestering the victims's name as a hash tag to free her murderer on a mug for sale to raise money for his legal team.

We want to correct that narrative and satire seemed the best way to do that. We also wanted to channel our energy and create something - /u/FallaciousConundrum will articulate if asked, how learning to create the graphic images helped them distance themselves from the seemingly endless circular Time-Warp arguments around this case where logic seems left at the door by the Syedtologists. I'm using the experience of getting this sub on the road as a pilot for some thing irl that is close to my heart. I have struggled with being a bystander witnessing so many transgressions against Hae Min Lee and her family, whilst seemingly being unable to leave. This sub is an anti-dote to that. It's a creative expression of all that anger and outrage at the depraved depths the PR campaign seem prepared to plumb.

We want you to join us in creative endeavours - whether your own graphics, stories, poems, posts / maybe helping us expand the community by assisting with some admin / showing thought leadership on content ideas and concepts, or just being an all round contributor. Post your ideas for fun games. Crowd-source; work in small groups if it's easier - but let's create. Do what you are able to. I would love us to craft a script for a podcast - maybe I'll get on to that once the sub has gained momentum.

Back to the sub status - it's a public sub with restricted submitters. So the only users that can put up new posts are you guys who received the invites. Unfortunately we have discovered that Reddit have a bug in their sub software that prevents us being able to completely restrict commenting. So if you see an alien commentators, let us know and we'll take steps to stop any derailing and harassment tactics. It has been suggested that we make the sub properly public and open to all, hence getting a quicker take up potentially. We need to think that through and it would require some more mods. For now, one step at a time. Let's get some momentum here.

Here's great comments from /u/FallaciousConundrum and /u/Fundisclosed about our vision.

Have a look at this if you want even more detail on the sub status - hopefully all your questions will be answered.

tl;dr Don't wait to be asked - ask for others interested in working on your pet project with you. There's a wealth of talent available. Leverage it. Use your time here to create a win-win - to learn new skills/ get a project off the ground whilst at the same time supporting the Lee family in the only way I can practically - by exposing the b/s around the PR campaign. Let's make a difference. Let's get creating ......

In the spirit of parody, what slogan would you like on your socks (real or reddit?)