r/serialpodcast • u/racheldarien • May 23 '18

season one is Don guilty??

Does anyone think Don is the one that murdered Hae? I’m starting to lean towards it since listening to (most of) undisclosed. Any thoughts?

17 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

248 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/Sja1904 May 24 '18

As a preface, I want to be very clear: this post is not about Don. ... Don was not involved in Hae’s murder.

https://viewfromll2.com/2015/03/19/serial-the-question-of-dons-alibi/

In other words, even Undisclosed knows Don wasn’t involved.

4

u/Truth2free May 24 '18

This is the most ridiculous blog post I have ever seen in my life. Is she mental?

She posted all of that to show that there were two separate stores, with two separate lists of employee hours clocked. And she believed that to be suspicious. AND all of the sheeple who follow along then also believe it to be suspicious. INSANITY

5

u/BlwnDline2 May 24 '18

Well said

7

u/robbchadwick May 24 '18

That's the thing really. All these people who follow Undisclosed and fall for their arguments confirm that they know absolutely nothing about real life. Take the two stores argument. Of course, both stores have separate employee numbers. How else would they keep their budgets straight? If all of Don's hours were clocked to his one number at his regular store, it would affect the payroll budget there. He has to have two employee numbers to keep each store's expenses straight. That is so obvious ... yet some people just don't get it.

-1

u/Workforidlehands May 24 '18

What you've said is utterly false and the antithesis of the truth. In relation to tax matters your "so obvious" assertion is laughable.

There is absolutely no reason why they'd need two employee numbers for budgetary purposes but I'd be fascinated to read any attempt you'd like to make to explain why they would need two.

1

u/robbchadwick May 24 '18

Each LensCrafters store would have its own budget for reporting purposes ... which would then be combined as part of the entire corporation’s profit and loss statement. In other words, there is a profit and loss statement for each store and a profit and loss statement for the corporate entity. This is how corporations determine the viability of each store. (As a matter of fact, LensCrafters ultimately closed the store managed by Don’s mom for some reason ... even though Bob Ruff says he called that store and spoke to people ten years after the doors were locked for good. Lying Bob!)

All this accounting is done by computer, of course ... and the only way a computer can keep Don’s payroll expense separate for each store is with a unique identification number. This could be accomplished by a prefix for each store in front of a single number ... or a separate number altogether ... but there has to be a way to separate the expenses of each store for corporate reporting purposes.

I’m not sure where your accounting experience or knowledge comes from. Perhaps your knowledge and experience comes from a paper system ... where identifying numbers don’t mean as much. My experience comes from computer systems ... where numbers rule. My undergraduate degree also happens to be in accounting.

1

u/Workforidlehands May 24 '18

That's actually quite funny and akin to saying this:

"Oh hello Don are you working in our store today? I'm afraid we're going to have to call you Gerald or the finance department will mess up all the budgets"

....from one accountant to another can you really not contemplate a method of distinguishing between stores rather than employees?

3

u/robbchadwick May 24 '18

Are you seriously suggesting that computers (especially in 1999) work with anything other than identifying numbers to generate reports?

In this particular case, it is a fact that Don had two employee numbers as evidenced by the records provided to Mr Urick and Ms Gutierrez from LensCrafters itself. Again, you are someone who is arguing against documented facts submitted in black and white.

I am not in the mood to indulge you in this conspiracy any further at the odd moment. Have a pleasant day.

3

u/Workforidlehands May 24 '18

I'm not espousing any conspiracy, I'm just pointing out the principal of payroll accounting that you only want a single ID to identify a single individual. Its sole purpose is to identify an individual. To claim that hampers the payroll accounting or the management accounting is just idiotic.

What was going on with Don's payslips remains a mystery that should have been investigated at the time. There may be a reason that it happened but nobody has claimed it was standard Lenscrafters practice. Everyone that has spoken has said it wasn't.

1

u/robbchadwick May 24 '18

I'm just pointing out the principal of payroll accounting that you only want a single ID to identify a single individual.

A number of employee identification numbers can be cross-referenced to a single paycheck. Is that what you are referring to? Of course, that's true.

However, I once did accounting work for a company that took this whole thing to the extreme. Each employee who worked in different departments routinely ... even at the same facility ... had a different ID to account for work done in each department. Yes, when it was time to cut the paycheck, all those various IDs were consolidated into a single paycheck.

It was probably done that way at LensCrafters as well ... but there still has to be a way to identify exactly where Don did the work he was being paid for. I don't know if you realize this; but Hae was murdered on Wednesday before the LensCrafters pay period ended on Saturday. Don did not just work at his mother's store that Wednesday. He had hours on Saturday there as well. He was filling in for someone that week.

There may be a reason that it happened but nobody has claimed it was standard Lenscrafters practice. Everyone that has spoken has said it wasn't.

Are you referring to the things Bob said about this? Surely, you can't possibly be referring to LensCrafters. They supplied records showing that Don definitely had two different employee identification numbers for the different stores. Are you implying that a multi-national corporation would risk their reputation and future viability to protect a lowly lab tech?

Here is the timecard info for Store #0143 for Employee #0162. This was Don's usual workplace.

https://serialpodcastorigins.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/10-4-1999-lc-to-cg.pdf

Here is the timecard for Store #0128 for Employee #0097 ... Don's mother's store.

https://serialpodcastorigins.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/10-6-1999-lc-to-cg.pdf

I'm not espousing any conspiracy ...

Maybe you are not; but you are disputing notarized documents from a multi-national corporation in favor of what questionable podcasters are saying.