Perjury, Witness Tampering, Obstruction of Justice, and it's only Tuesday! Rabia's latest post!

A bunch of non-answers and side steps and new assertions designed to undermine RC & SS's reputations without an offer of proof. Why is it so hard for you to a sewer some simple factual questions. You demand accountability but won't play by the same rules? Pretty hypocritical.

So here goes again:

If you don't think...

My question wasn't about what I think, but about your evidence for asserting that Rabia held herself out to be the #1 legal authority.

For the record, I never thought she was a legal authority and I also never had the impression she forensically examined the case like a litigation lawyer would (while SS has). So I was interested in how you gained that impression, and how RC misrepresented herself in that respect. I guess the answer is that you don't actually have a basis for the claim.

If you haven't heard any of Adnan's supporters say...

I don't really follow Adnan supporters that much, so I don't know what they're saying (though some of them seem equally clueless about what does and doesn't constitute perjury and also prone to making hyperbolic claims).

You claimed Rabia and SS were doing all this so they could say 'there's renewed interest', but now you suggest other people are saying it. Given all the media interest and Twitter expressions, and the explosion on the sub, it's kind of a trite statement. You initially attributed it to these two women, so do you now retract your original claim?

They don't care about the evidence at this stage. For now, they just care about the IAC.

With all due respect, this sentence is nonsense: the IAC ground will only be successful if the court accepts there is evidence of ineffective assistance. So, by definition if 'they' (and I mean Adnan's actual lawyers and their client) are persuaded that's a legitimate case to make, then, by definition they care about that evidence.

Rabia accepts payment as a public speaker to talk about how keeping the public interested in a case is key to getting a judge's attention and influencing the outcome.

Again, an assertion without evidence.

Firstly, do you personally have any direct knowledge of the fees received by RC for speeches that state (uncontroversially) that public interest may assis the legal case?

If so, can you name the institutions and the amounts received by her?

I personally don't think there's anything wrong or unusual about speakers being reimbursed travelling expenses or being put up in a hotel for a night, but perhaps there's dome ethical rule about that which makes any public speaker suspect if they accept money to cover their expenses. Might ask some ex-presidents about that. Their reputation seems to suffer terribly each time they make an appearance for a cause. I doubt that speaking about this case is incredibly lucrative, but if you have evidence about payments received, now's the time to show us!

Rabia wasn't trying to help TAL come up with a keen idea for their podcast.

That's true, because she had no idea there would be a podcast, she wrote to SK for media attention (which if you're an advocate that's pretty much the name of the game). By all reports she'd never listened to TAL and no one apart from the production team knew about a series of podcasts. Not sure how that is meant to discredit her.

Adnan pays the price.

It's touching how much your ad hominem attacks on Rabia are based on your sincere concern for Adnan's welfare.

Now if you could just give us some actual facts, rather than ambit claims, it would seriously improve your reputation, even while it would take down these terrible women.

/r/serialpodcast Thread Link - splitthemoon.com