Top products from r/serialpodcast

So this is the thing: I'm a lawyer, which is a career in the pursuit of persuasion, but isn't necessarily a rhetoric degree. I have met people from Universities that offer a specific degree in rhetoric, but that's not me.

Off the top of my head...without searching google: the best book that I think would be available to laypersons is "The Legal Analyst." http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226238350/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1/175-4668907-7869735?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=0BAXZK8EV16FHS7DNQ77&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=1944687682&pf_rd_i=0674062485

It's intended for new law school graduates and t hose thinking about going to law school. It opens your eyes into the intricacy of information presentation and how to poke holes in other people's presentation of evidence. Very concise, very well written.

personally, I've read: THe Legal Analyst and "The Art of War." -- The Art of War was a favorite of Bill Clinton. One book I've heard of amongst people who are into this is. How to win friends and influence people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People)

If you're interested in more information, you can google "game theory" in general, and that brings up a lot of information.

I personally stay away from "how to win friends" and a lot of stuff of that nature because there is a point where you study something so much that it becomes fake, and I don't want the friends I have to be fake or acquired through strategy, and not through my own charming personality. :)

> Finally, I am going to ask you one last time to stop using the term "prior" incorrectly. I understand what you are saying but what you are referring to IS NOT A PRIOR. At least not in the way Bayesian statisticians have defined the prior for the last 50 years.

It's amazing to me that someone with a background in statistics can be so oblivious to the history and the conceptual foundations of probability theory. What I have described is the standard Bayesian interpretation of probability and the standard use of prior probability within that tradition. Have you actually ever read Bayes's original paper? Are you familiar with Bayesians such as Bruno de Finetti, E. T. Jaynes, Richard Jeffreys? It's pretty incredible to believe that stastistics departments can award a BSc in statistics to someone who is not even familiar with one of the standard interpretations of probability theory. I assume you are all indoctrinated in the frequentist interpretation and then you get some Bayesian ideas sprinkled on top. I strongly recommend that you read this book by Donald Gillies. It's a very good introduction to various approaches to the conceptual foundations of probability, including the subjective Bayesian approach. Since I'm partial to an objective Bayesian interpretation, however, I'd also recommend this book by Jon Williamson.

> I think your problem is that you are so sure that you are right you become sure that others who disagree with you must simply not understand how to think. SK doesn't understand how corroboration works? Since I do not share the level of certainty that you have in Adnan's guilt I must be guilty of not understanding basic probabilistic reasoning? Do you ever consider that someone could disagree with you without having some inability to reason? Do you concede that you have your own biases and that you are unable to consider the case without them? I do. I admit that my background, being a minority, seeing police injustice, growing up where I grew up, etc., all shape my world view. I try not to let it affect things but I am not perfect.

Biases affect us all. Me, you, and everyone else. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive to look at the evidence objectively in a case like this. I happen to share your views about the cops in general (although I don't think that the detectives handled this case badly) and I think the prosecutors crossed a lot of ethical lines in this trial, but I still believe the evidence clearly shows that Adnan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I don't fault people for having a different treshold of reasonable doubt than me. What really boggles my mind here is the people who actively believe Adnan is innocent, who actively believe Jay did it, or who actively believe a random serial killer killed Hae. I really don't think those people are looking at the evidence dispassionately. But if you look at the evidence and you say "He probably did it but I don't feel his guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt", I simply assume that we have different conceptions of what doubts are reasonable. I also think it's hard to know what evidence was presented at trial from a 12-hour podcast. Even Deirdre Enright says that the show only presented about 1/8 of the material pertaining to this case.

Cheers. And yeah, Dobash & Dobash have done a lot of work in this area. They recently released a book called 'When Men Murder Women' which looks to be a culmination of all of their work on this topic. It looks like a great read and I'm considering diving into it at some stage.

I'm glad you liked the post!

So you expect Gov. Hogan to run Maryland's Twitter feed?

Do you really think the State of Maryland is wasting money on a PR campaign for a PCR proceeding? Maybe I'd agree with you if there was a pro-guilt podcast, or a celebrity taking up the banner for Hae's family, or even Hae's family taking an active part in the media surrounding the case. None of that is happening.

On the other hand, we have TV shows in which Adnan's defense team and advocates were interviewed, but the State's weren't (http://www.investigationdiscovery.com/tv-shows/adnan-syed-innocent-or-guilty/).

We have TV segments in which Adnan's defense team and advocates are interviewed (http://www.msnbc.com/shift/watch/the-docket-serial-special-part-ii-422338627656).

We have Adnan's alibi witness going on television shows (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/twist-adnan-syed-serial-murder-trial-41610902).

We have two books discussing Adnan's innocence (https://www.amazon.com/Adnans-Story-Search-Justice-Serial/dp/1250087104 and https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Serial-Alibi-McClain-Chapman/dp/1682611582/).

And I haven't even reiterated the things I mentioned earlier in this thread. Take a look at all that, and tell me which side appears to be using the media in this case.

It still seems to be vanishingly unlikely -- yes, there have been honor killings, though the US is not the UK, and there are (as far as I can tell) no similar cases in the US. Especially since it was Ramadan; I imagine that Adnan's father -- as well as the imam & others -- have very good alibis.

Also, I really don't think a neocon think tank is the best source on the Middle East, especially given Pakistan is not the Middle East.

It is very important to remember that Muslims are not a monolith; that domestic violence is more common in other ethnic groups (that is, not South Asian), that Islam and Islamism are very different things. I can find no evidence that Muslim men in America are more likely to commit murder than white men, and if we're opening the investigation to every man who knew Hae existed, we're going to be here a really long time.

I'd recommend [Karima Bennoune's Your Fatwa Does Not Apply Here]
(http://www.amazon.com/Your-Fatwa-Does-Apply-Here/dp/0393350258/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1419736930&sr=8-1&keywords=your+fatwa+does+not+apply+here) to get an idea of the diversity of adherents to Islam.

Oh, and the vision of the mosque Adnan's father attended?

"ISB aspires to be the anchor of a growing Muslim community with diverse backgrounds, democratically governed, relating to one another with inclusiveness and tolerance, and interacting with neighbors in an Islamic exemplary manner."

They also have an interfaith council, which is generally a sign that the mosque is not very fundamentalist.

You are severely, severely overestimating people's memory abilities (and likely what memory even is). There's been so much written about this it's hard to even point to where you could start reading, but this is as good a place as any: http://www.amazon.com/In-Search-Memory-Emergence-Science/dp/0393329372

Here's some free stuff:

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91569-memory-and-forgetting/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/science/memories-become-weaker-without-reinforcement-study-finds.html

This is now the #1 Children's Painting Book, and sold out on Amazon.

Thanks Serial!

Check out the book "Until You Are Dead", a fascinating true story about one of Canada's most notorious cases...

http://www.amazon.ca/Until-You-Are-Dead-Truscotts/dp/0676973817

It could be almost anything at all.
However, it is likely not a "good fit" for Koenigs well crafted and entertainingly produced narrative of a wart infested criminal detection and punishment system.
Why else, in the age of Web publishing ease, has Koenig withheld the trial transcripts and other legal documents that would demonstrate how much her P.O.V. of this case has been confabulated, in Reddit discussions and other public perceptions, with the actual record.

Suggested further readings:

Malcom, Janet The Journalist and the Murderer
> " . . . In this book, she examines the psychopathology of journalism. . . "
http://www.amazon.com/The-Journalist-Murderer-Janet-Malcolm/dp/0679731830

> Every journalist is "a kind of confidence man . . . gaining . . . trust and betraying . . . without remorse," says Malcolm. . . (Judy Quinn, "Library Journal")

(someone should lend a copy of this to Rabia Choudry)

Ah, you're referring to a statement she corrected.

In any event, Justin Brown is not taking advice from Rabia or you. He's making indisputably savvy strategic decisions without assistance from Internet randos.
In any event,

Read away!

http://www.amazon.com/If-Did-It-Confessions-Killer/dp/0825305934

I think we already did.

Maybe there's something to being separated by the Atlantic. I'm not really interested in other American experiences with GWOT, but I read Sniper One to see what some of you guys have been up to over there.

Can't take credit, see Daniel Kahneman.

Or watch the video.

Try this one about the Kitty Genovese murder revisted. Amazing book.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0393239284/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/190-5264730-7539544

...as long as people are willing to spend $23 on Rabia's book - http://www.amazon.com/Adnans-Story-Murder-Justice-Captivated/dp/1250087104 - it's worth all the insanity. It's just business.

I think it's possible that marijuana impacted adnan's memory. It's a known side effect and just as common with habitual smokers, if not more.


>recent studies have indicated that adolescents may be at greater risk than adults for THC induced impairment of learning and memory

Source: http://www.amazon.com/Buzzed-Straight-Alcohol-Ecstasy-Edition/dp/0393329852

I also wonder if paranoia (from smoking) and/or legit worry about the consequences of getting caught. Law enforcement took weed a lot more seriously circa 1999.

True Story by Michael Finkel is a remarkable story with some similarities to SK's investigation into the Syed case, but much more disturbing and bizarre. Soon to be a major motion picture starring James Franco.

Except not: "Confessions of a Serial Alibi" (http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Serial-Alibi-McClain-Chapman/dp/1682611582/180-8424432-2962149?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0). You do see the difference, don't you? The OP was being unfair, and tendentious, since Asia has never claimed to be "the alibi", just "an alibi" for a particular period of time. So it is not unusual that she would have no claim about whether Adnan was guilty or not, because her evidentiary knowledge is limited to what she experienced first hand..

I don't personally like the phrase "mind control" and I have some professional experience there. Margaret Singer did the most definitive research on cult brainwashing and while she gets some things correct, she goes a little too far into vague undefinable concepts like "mind control" and "brainwashing". There is a legitimate basis for this research but its not what early "cult" researchers made it out to be.

Its more accurate to talk about environmental and psychological conditions that affect individual decision making. This can be things like "nudges" from behavioral economics to psychological induced effects such as the reciprocity effect of giving gifts.

This explains Nudges the best:
http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X

On Gifts and Reciprocity:
https://ideas.repec.org/h/eee/givchp/1-04.html

I think by implementing things from behavioral economics and social psychology we can rehabilitate many prisoners. However I don't feel Breivik or the Colorado movie theatre murderer fall into that category. While it is rare, there are people who are, for lack of a better term, diabolical. Breivik and the Colorado murderer fit that category. I don't think knowledge about behavioral economics and cognitive and social psychology is at a level in human evolution where we can adequately rehabilitate diabolical personalities (Breivik, Manson, Colorado murderer). Those people are too calculating and diabolical to ever let back out into society at this point in time. Maybe in the future technology could provide us with controls on that but at this point I don't see it as feasible to ever let those types back out into society.

As a side note, the most effective prisoner rehabilitation program I am aware of is still Timothy Leary's 1960s Concord Prison Experiment using hallucinogens to induce life changing experiences.