|
CortezFantastic posted:Except it totally isn't, because it isn't a current affair. The trial was 15 years ago. The only people offended are literal pussies. You're more offended by the removal of the tweet than anyone was by the original posting of it Riptor fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Dec 12, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
the Best Buy tweet is a smart commentary on how stupid and glib people can be about this show. WOO YEAH NEW SERIAL EPISODE #EXCITED #ANONFORADNAN #ONTHECRAPPER
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Bulkiest Toaster posted:That Best Buy tweet is a bit like if the Arizona Ice tea company or the people who made skittles tried to tweet a clever joke about Trayvon Martin liking their product during the height of the Zimmerman trial. This comparison is a billion times more offensive than anything Best Buy could have said you moron
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
CortezFantastic posted:Except it totally isn't, because it isn't a current affair. The trial was 15 years ago. The only people offended are literal pussies. Just FYI, being mad that other people are sensitive about certain topics is a sure fire sign that you're an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
I, too, am offended that people are using a true life murder mystery that I gossip constantly about for profit The Horror
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:Just FYI, being mad that other people are sensitive about certain topics is a sure fire sign that you're an rear end in a top hat. Everyone has a sensitive topic. That doesn't mean the fun should be sucked out of everything. It's a silly joke with literally zero harmful intent. You are a sensitive pussy. There, we can both insult each other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Bulkiest Toaster posted:That Best Buy tweet is a bit like if the Arizona Ice tea company or the people who made skittles tried to tweet a clever joke about Trayvon Martin liking their product during the height of the Zimmerman trial. Maybe it is funny, but at the end of the day its a corporation trying to market themselves using a real life murder. You kinda just shake your head from a public relation standpoint because you know people will be offended. I think the apology is more for "This comes across as opportunistic" more than "People were offended." Some social media lackey thought "Hey, Best Buy keeps coming up in Serial, this is zeitgeisty, it's trending, I should capitalize on this." Later someone up the PR ladder came back to them and said "Hey, I don't think directly linking ourselves with this is the best association for our Brand, let's reel that one in, use some of the boilerplate apology language from our master PR doc." JethroMcB fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Bitchkrieg posted:Koenig managed to destroy the most thoughtful aspects of Serial today, reducing the series to an anti-climactic, 40 minute milquetoast college freshman Psych101 "well, everyone has the capacity for evil!" episode. I work murder cases in my job and there's a ton of stuff in this episode about the psychology of homicide that I constantly have to explain to laypeople. It's really important to grasp that a murderer can be nice, calm, friendly and helpful, but that doesn't make them a psychopath. Also the stuff about premeditation is pretty legally complex, but presented quite clearly here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
In all, this podcast isn't so much awesome for its satisfying whodunit story as it is in relaying the lack of black and white surrounding murder and justice. It sure isn't an episode of Law and Order or Perry Mason. I have to admit I wanted it to be The Thin Blue Line really bad, though. I'm sometimes frustrated with SK, but overall I think she and her crew have done a good job on the podcast. Part of me hopes the next season is just as divisive and unsatisfying. I'm a bit like Adnan, too: I can't wait for it to be done with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I work murder cases in my job and there's a ton of stuff in this episode about the psychology of homicide that I constantly have to explain to laypeople. It's really important to grasp that a murderer can be nice, calm, friendly and helpful, but that doesn't make them a psychopath. Also the stuff about premeditation is pretty legally complex, but presented quite clearly here. Thanks for saying this, because the episode is kind of annoying (I do NOT care what the people at the mosque think of Adnan), and it overshadows some of that value. "Well, he doesn't act like a murderer." "He's a psychopath!" Holy cow, this makes me question the jury system. Huge aside: I watched "Mind of a Rampage Killer" earlier this week (http://video.pbs.org/video/2332614200/) and these two teenage boys stab a girl to death, and videotape themselves before and after it. It's such a weird murder, because the motive seems so flimsy. It's like they kind of dared each other implicitly by talking it up so much that the momentum carried them right through it (with a core of teenaged angst and heartbreak, I guess). Reminds me of when that murder cop started listing ways in which Hae could "accidentally" or half-intentionally be strangled. Hearing him talk, I could see how it could get totally out of hand for Adnan, without a profound change in his personality. So he wouldn't "act" like a murderer, because of that moment in time in which he just wasn't himself, or took something too far. doctorfrog fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Talk about clickbait.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
doctorfrog posted:I'm sometimes frustrated with SK, but overall I think she and her crew have done a good job on the podcast. Part of me hopes the next season is just as divisive and unsatisfying. Chipping in to agree. Much like TAL, it's easy to parody and pick out their foibles. Is Serial a whodunnit, an exploration of the justice system, a journalists self-examination, all/none of the above? But it's good and a worthy experiment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
doctorfrog posted:Holy cow, this makes me question the jury system. Yeeeeah if this podcast has reminded me of one thing, it's that methods of obtaining "justice" aren't actually evidence-based, just opinion-based with the assumption that people's opinions will be the "right" one if you stick enough evidence under their noses and have two people argue with each other about how that evidence is framed. And sometimes it's just a judge instead of a jury, which means you entrust the having of the "right" opinion to a single, jaded person (usually with legal experience and a JD, at least) instead of twelve people off the street (after each side does its best to cull the people who might be most biased towards the other). EDIT: Just to be clear, the justice system does seem to "function," in a limited sense of the word, and the vast majority of cases never see a jury or a judge thanks to plea bargaining. Which just means prosecutors get to have all the fun, yay. Mr. Flunchy posted:I work murder cases in my job and there's a ton of stuff in this episode about the psychology of homicide that I constantly have to explain to laypeople. I really think people assume that, just by being human, they gain some fundamental, unshakeable understanding about the way all people behave and the way violence works. What they really think is just what they've been watching on TV. And before you think "don't be stupid people can distinguish between TV and reality" they cannot (at least when it comes to these fundamental assumptions about the way violence works and human behavior). From research released this summer: quote:Our findings support the notion that dramatic depictions of effective torture can increase the public’s support for torture. There is also a more striking implication. The Senate report argues that torture was largely ineffective at eliciting actionable intelligence. But showing people evidence that torture was ineffective did not make them support it any less. While extrajudicial torture isn't the same thing as murder being judged in a courtroom, similar biases exist. Randall Collins has similarly examined actual evidence of violent situations, and based off of that, argues that violence looks absolutely nothing like it is almost ever depicted in the media. And it might very well be be that no matter how much evidence you're shown in a courtroom, or "experts" who talk about the evidence, most people will go for the simple narrative — the narrative they know — every drat time, even if they're shown evidence that defies that narrative. And the fact that this particular story doesn't have a simple narrative to latch on to is really making some people lose their minds. Combed Thunderclap fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Dec 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
I'm just going to say this now because otherwise it may not get said; one of my favourite films is the '57 version of 12 Angry Men, and, I know people are going to call me out can't help but notice the similarities between the case in the script and Adnan's case, you've got the whole unreliable witnesses forming the basis of the case, the racial element biasing opinions, and in the case of Adnan the lack of even the circumstantial physical evidence. And although yeah I may, if I was on the Jury, have been removed for laying out my opinions like this there is no way I could have in good consistence voted Guilty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Sivart13 posted:I have so much trouble understanding why you'd believe that that I wonder if what you're saying is sarcastic. Two points: on the about page season one of the Serial is described as an attempt to answer, "How can you know a person’s character? How can you tell what they’re capable of?" I suppose I should have paid more attention to this at the start because it is SK's motivation. She is not interested in the case except as a frame mechanism for an investigation into Adnan's character. The story of the theft answers the question that SK has had since the beginning of the podcast and it is lucky for her that people called in with the story otherwise she would have not had anything nearly as compact to base episode 11, the climax, around. Also, go back and listen to the way SK questions Adnan in prior episodes. A constant theme of her questioning is the search for a positive answer to the 'are you sure you are telling us everything,' question. In episode 11, she finally has the 'everything' part and not from Adnan's mouth. His indignation is understandable because he knows that it has nothing to do with Hae's murder and that SK is twisting his arm. Furthermore, SK follows up Adnan's confession with a reference to Jay's testimony (she blithely mentions that 'Jay tells the cops' without either mentioning or understanding that Jay told the cops an awful lot of things and those were, excepting two points, subject to change) where Jay describes Adnan's pride in strangling Hae and his cold-hearted character. With the theft story, SK can finally close the 'depraved heart story' loop. Sivart13 posted:Since there isn't likely to be many more hard facts emerging about what happened in this murder case, a valid avenue to explore is the character of the involved parties. It seems to me that she was just investigating all possible leads into the content of Adnan's character, and I have no idea how you've read all this other stuff into it. SK's exploration into the facts of the case has been lacking and she has more or less ignored or been ignorant of really interesting material that is in the court documents. However, this is understandable considering that SK's motivation is not to explore a questionable conviction or a murder investigation but to answer the questions that have been the premise of the season, "How can you know a person’s character? How can you tell what they’re capable of?" Her person is Adnan and aside from cursory examinations into the character and motives of the other people involved her efforts have been spent in ferreting out the material that would allow her to answer those two questions as they relate to Adnan. bedpan fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Tormented posted:Police documents show that they did not find the car until Jay took them to the row of houses the car was stashed. They have been looking for days, it would be strange to just happen to find the car the day that Jay came and talked to them. Something SK glosses over is what you describe in your last sentence: aside from those two points, nothing else in Jay's testimony can be independently or conclusively verified. Perhaps this would be of less concern had the everything else in Jay's testimony not shifted and changed from interview to interview and from interview to the witness stand, but far from being, 'strong' or 'consistent' as I believe SK describes Jay's story, Jay's testimony has some definite problems and weaknesses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
I really, really disagree with you. What justifies your claim that Adnan's character is the real focus of the series besides a stray piece of copy that could just as well have come from marketing intern as SK or her team. The vast majority of the reporting is about the events that transpired on the day of the murder and during the investigation and trial. So why is that all fluff compared to this episode? Hell I didn't even get the impression that SK is somehow convinced he did it because of the thefts. She even explicitly identifies with his annoyance at the probing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Eggnogium posted:I really, really disagree with you. What justifies your claim that Adnan's character is the real focus of the series besides a stray piece of copy that could just as well have come from marketing intern as SK or her team. The vast majority of the reporting is about the events that transpired on the day of the murder and during the investigation and trial. So why is that all fluff compared to this episode? Hell I didn't even get the impression that SK is somehow convinced he did it because of the thefts. She even explicitly identifies with his annoyance at the probing. Well, that copy is what Serial is saying about itself and it describes the arc that Serial has followed thus far. SK is telling a story about a person's character with the murder investigation as the backdrop and skeleton. In episode one the whole tale is described as being Shakespearean but set at a high school. Her investigative work is not fluff, it is important but secondary to the descriptions and details of the characters and their motivations. Also during episode one SK mentions that she is convinced either Adnan or Jay is lying but from early on and continuing into episode 11 is that in spite of evidence to the contrary, she does not really doubt Jay in any way. Adnan, Adnan's story, and Adnan's character are treated with attention and suspicion but not so with Jay. Problems with Jay's testimony and his version of the events are discussed but SK never applies those to her investigation or considers what they mean in terms of the case as a whole. In choosing how to tell this story SK decided to go with Adnan being the liar and with Jay telling the truth. The person with the flawed character then is Adnan and determining that flaw is what allows SK to answer the questions and square the mismatch between the murder and the murderer. Again, SK follows Adnan's own confession of a flawed character with Jay's testimony on Adnan's flawed character. As she says, "Could someone who looks like that really strangle his girlfriend?" bedpan fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
bedpan posted:Well, that copy is what Serial is saying about itself and it describes the arc that Serial has followed thus far. SK is telling a story about a person's character with the murder investigation as the backdrop and skeleton. In episode one the whole tale is described as being Shakespearean but set at a high school. Her investigative work is not fluff, it is important but secondary to the descriptions and details of the characters and their motivations. I just get a completely different impression from the show. I think Serial is telling the story of a murder investigation with the narrator's opinions and emotional journey through the investigation included but not necessarily primary. I also don't see how you get the impression that SK presents Jay as truthful. She spends multiple episodes scrutinizing the particulars of Jay's testimony. She offers alternative explanations for events or testimony that seems to corroborate Jay's testimony (e.g. the friend who overhears Adnan on the phone). When she finally meets Jay she admits shock at finding him somewhat believable because before then her bias had strongly been against him telling the truth. Yes, she eventually dead ends and the last two episodes have focused more on Adnan but that's because (a) Adnan is still the center of known information about the case, investigation, and trial as a whole and (b) Adnan, his family, and his community are cooperating with SK so there is more material there. I also think the doubts that SK expresses about Adnan's character are clearly presented as gnawing irrationalities that, frustratingly for her, cannot be proven or disproven and thus moved on from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
I agree, I think, that Koenig's focus has always been on the human side of this story, at least as much as it's been on the facts and the flaws of the case. She's certainly not out to either crucify or exonerate him (though if she were capable of either, I suspect she would), she's out to tell his story. I disagree that she's been trying to shape the narrative the way you're describing, though. If she were trying to paint a stark picture of Jay as Misunderstood Hero and Adnan as Well-Spoken Supervillain she could have done a lot better job of it than, for example, having everyone and their brother all but laugh in her face when she brings up the idea that maybe Adnan's a psychopath, repeatedly pointing out the inconsistencies in Jay's testimony, in the cell tower records, in the state's case against Adnan in general, getting Adnan hooked up with a loving Innocence Project that volunteered to take his case on, and the list goes on. Besides which, if she had wanted this revelation to be a big smoking gun, she wouldn't have spent most of the episode pointing out that (a) 99% of the rumors she was sent about Adnan were bullshit, (b) this one was also largely bullshit (he didn't steal 'hundreds of thousands of dollars' as was alleged), and (c) it wasn't exactly behavior that painted Adnan as anything but a teenage boy. If she were trying to make him look guilty, she certainly wouldn't have gone into explanations of his public behavior while in prison, wouldn't have emphasized once again that it's really rare for anyone but actual innocent people to maintain their innocence this long after being convicted, and so forth. And she certainly wouldn't have ended with mention of that letter wherein Adnan expresses, among other things, regret that he couldn't have been friendlier with her for fear of undermining his own case, and that she's kind of put him through hell with this podcast. She seemed to me to feel pretty guilty about that. But hey, maybe she's a psychopath too. Let's find out if she ever stole anything as a teenager.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:Just FYI, being mad that other people are sensitive about certain topics is a sure fire sign that you're an rear end in a top hat. To be fair, society should not set it's standards to those of its most easily offended citizens - that's basically Puritanism, and in general people should be more concerned about their own actions than shock and moral outrage over others' speech. I don't think anyone could ever seriously argue that the Puritans weren't a bunch of assholes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
bedpan posted:[Everything you've said] I disagree so much with every single thing you've said to the point that I think you're either lying or crazy. Pretty much for the reasons people have mentioned above. For anything you said to make sense, you have to ignore entire portions of episodes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
I think it's been blatantly obvious that Sarah is, beyond moments of doubt, believing Adnan TOO much. She's seemed at least 95% convinced of his innocence since episode one, and every time she brings up Jay her voice betrays a "I'm going to tell you what he said and try and be impartial, but come on this guy is obviously full of poo poo" attitude. I can almost hear her making that "jerk off" motion whenever she brings him up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
bad day posted:To be fair, society should not set it's standards to those of its most easily offended citizens - that's basically Puritanism, and in general people should be more concerned about their own actions than shock and moral outrage over others' speech. I don't think anyone could ever seriously argue that the Puritans weren't a bunch of assholes. You can say "Hey Best Buy, it's kinda crass to use a murder that (might have) happened in your parking lot to promote your business" without being offended.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Does sending a tweet constitute promoting your business? It shouldn't. It's an intern somewhere, who cares, don't get yer panties in a bunch over it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
What exactly do you think is the purpose of businesses creating Twitter accounts and having interns run them, if not to promote themselves?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
bad day posted:Does sending a tweet constitute promoting your business? It shouldn't. It's an intern somewhere, who cares, don't get yer panties in a bunch over it. I'd be most interested in learning what possible alternate uses there are for an official corporate Twitter account other than promoting the brand. E: I mean, if it's just as a goof then why didn't the intern post those tweets under his own name? The only reason a corporate Twitter account exists is to promote the brand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:I think it's been blatantly obvious that Sarah is, beyond moments of doubt, believing Adnan TOO much. She's seemed at least 95% convinced of his innocence since episode one, and every time she brings up Jay her voice betrays a "I'm going to tell you what he said and try and be impartial, but come on this guy is obviously full of poo poo" attitude. I can almost hear her making that "jerk off" motion whenever she brings him up. I forget which episode it was, but in one of the calls between Sarah and Adnan, there was a brief moment where it sounded like she had a little crush on him. She caught herself and totally changed her speech pattern the next time she spoke, but to me it sounded like she found him completely charming. After thinking that, I've been looking at how she presents things a little differently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
You realize these conversations are edited to hell before airing, right? There's no way to tell whether there's a five second or five day gap between two sentences. Trying to tease out how someone "really feels" based on a quaver in their voice in a This American Life-produced podcast is pretty stupid. I bet you can tell if total strangers are lying to you by looking deep into their eyes too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Rusty Shackelford posted:I forget which episode it was, but in one of the calls between Sarah and Adnan, there was a brief moment where it sounded like she had a little crush on him. She caught herself and totally changed her speech pattern the next time she spoke, but to me it sounded like she found him completely charming. After thinking that, I've been looking at how she presents things a little differently. Doesn't she actually describe him as "charming" a few times? It didn't even occur to me that she was ever very neutral on the subject of Adnan's innocence. She agonises over "but what if he's guilty?" more than the opposite. She's certainly strove for even-handed reporting but I don't think there's any doubt as to her opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
From my perspective, there seems to be some retconning going on, a la Lost and "It's all about the characters." I call bullshit if you think Serial got this big as a character study. The storytelling and character stuff are important but merely serve to support the mystery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:From my perspective, there seems to be some retconning going on, a la Lost and "It's all about the characters." I call bullshit if you think Serial got this big as a character study. The storytelling and character stuff are important but merely serve to support the mystery. What serial was originally intended to be, how it progressed, & what people expected when they signed on as listeners could all very well be different.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:From my perspective, there seems to be some retconning going on, a la Lost and "It's all about the characters." I call bullshit if you think Serial got this big as a character study. The storytelling and character stuff are important but merely serve to support the mystery. Like Lost, a lot of people zoom onto the part they enjoy to the exclusion of everything else in the actual show. People glom onto the mystery aspect of Serial because the brain craves mysteries and puzzle-solving but that's really not the whole thing is about, even the thing on the official website says so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:From my perspective, there seems to be some retconning going on, a la Lost and "It's all about the characters." I call bullshit if you think Serial got this big as a character study. The storytelling and character stuff are important but merely serve to support the mystery. If there's some sort of bombshell in the next episode that proves his innocence or that implicates someone else, everyone involved is pretty much a horrible person for holding on to it and not taking it to the authorities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
GigaPeon posted:If there's some sort of bombshell in the next episode that proves his innocence or that implicates someone else, everyone involved is pretty much a horrible person for holding on to it and not taking it to the authorities. Though really, if you want to find any real "purpose" in this, it does a great job of making the case that Adnan got hosed by his counsel which will go a long way to getting him his appeal. But, again, the system is broken.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
This show really could have just been 2 This American Life episodes. All of the important facts were pretty much vomited on us in the first episode, and the other 10 have been SK getting weirdly attached to this guy, to the point he even says "Hey, uh, lady, you don't know me. Back off." I like the episodes where SK looks at facts and examines details of the case. Unfortunately, that was mostly done in the 1st episode and has been happening less and less with each episode. Last episode is the best example of that. We spent 45 minutes hearing people speculate if a convicted murder stole some money when he was 12. I'm sure his mythos in the community didn't build that up at all, and, either way, what the gently caress does it even matter? I don't know what I was expecting with that. I know what I wanted: a hard yes or no answer, a solution to the puzzle at the end. I guess that's not really possible to get (because of the internet, we'd already have it, right?) but without a definitive end it feels really empty. I know someone else mentioned it earlier, but it does feel like LOST. The way SK presented it, and the advertising framed it, the show was made to seem like a murder mystery when really it just ends up being a slice of life piece and a commentary on our judicial system (sorta?).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Bedpan is the SuperMechaGodzilla of Serial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Not all mysteries are puzzles, a distinction the internet fails to see time and time again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
TheJoker138 posted:I think it's been blatantly obvious that Sarah is, beyond moments of doubt, believing Adnan TOO much. She's seemed at least 95% convinced of his innocence since episode one, and every time she brings up Jay her voice betrays a "I'm going to tell you what he said and try and be impartial, but come on this guy is obviously full of poo poo" attitude. I can almost hear her making that "jerk off" motion whenever she brings him up. I sort of feel this is true, right up until she actually meets him. After that she's a little more neutral in her presentation of him, though it's still clear that he's not been telling the whole truth. I think, now we have one episode left, that they should've maybe ended it with the Innocence Project people coming in. Yes, in the timeline it's basically lying, but it's as close to an ending as the show could have while still sort of being a satisfying closure. I can't see the next episode being anything more than a recap. Anyway, I've enjoyed it a lot, and I never once thought that it would end with any sort of resolution. It's a confusing, confounding, case to be sure and I still don't know if the right person is behind bars. However, when you think about it there is motive there. If you go back to Hae and Adnan breaking up. He doesn't seem as cool with it as maybe he and others were making out. Hae does make small mention of that fact in her diary. Is it ever really established when he found out about her and Don, I can't remember if the show actually talks about it or not? It's a harder call to make to say that it was pre-meditated or not, but it's not hard to see a situation in which Adnan confronts Hae about their relationship and things very briefly get out of hand. Didn't he call her 3 times in the evening prior to the murder, and then never calls her again? It's as if he knows that she's not going to be able to pick up the phone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Didn't he call her 3 times in the evening prior to the murder, and then never calls her again? It's as if he knows that she's not going to be able to pick up the phone. I can't remember, did Hae have a cell phone? If not it would maybe explain why Adnan didn't call after Hae was reported missing. There's not much point in calling the house of a missing person whose family is home.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2014 00:50
|
|
