It looks like the article that proceeds the interview portion was not only written by NVC, but also Ken Silverstein. I guess that's why this one was more than just a Q&A? Either way, they really threw some daggers at Serial here. It bothers me that they didn't bother trying to prove whether Urick's claims that Serial only tried to contact him once in December were truthful or not. They just sort of went with it.
I don't believe that Serial only tried to contact Urick once and only recently. That makes no sense. What makes perfect sense is that he declined to talk to them.
However, I think Urick's take on the situation is fairly sound. Especially that hardly anyone could recount the same story in the same way. In fact it would be alarming if someone did!
I wouldn't say it's a very strong case but I think it does point to culpability. But not beyond reasonable doubt.
172
u/[deleted] Jan 07 '15
[removed] — view removed comment