View Single Post
  #410  
Old 03-25-2015, 04:43 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
First, I don't care that anyone - judge included - thinks Adnan "did it". It's completely orthogonal to my post.
It's completely relevant as the judge and jury had no prior knowledge of this case beyond what was presented in court. Given they think he did it, it strongly suggest the state put forth enough evidence to convict Adnan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
I think he should have been acquitted. I trust you understand the difference between "he should have been acquitted" and "he was innocent."
Why do you think you are in a better position to judge whether he should have been convicted than the judge and jury who heard the evidence at the time? You are basically saying listening to podacst full of inadmissable evidence and hearsay is puts you in a better position than the jury when it doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
Second, cite that Sarah and Julie think Jay was credible?
In episode 8 among other places:

Quote:
Sarah Koenig: Jay was, understandably, skeptical of us and of our motives. When we left, Jay said hed think about an interview and get back to us. He left a strong impression. On Julie maybe, even more than on me.

Julie Snyder: Even just hearing him so forcefully deny, you know? And so forcefully say I know he did it. You know, youre face to face, hes right there, hes a person. Hes saying it. He seems like he really means it. This is not pleasant for him to talk about. And so, it sounds believable.

Sarah Koenig: It does, I totally saw the appeal of him, as like a person and a friend and a witness.
Additionally, SK has stated multiple times that she doesn't think Jay did it. I think it's fair to say she found him credible on the larger issue of whether Adnan did it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
Third, of course the information presented in the podcast could be slanted. It almost surely is. It's not credible, however, to claim that Jay's story was consistent. It's not credible to claim it's true, even at the end (I haven't read his more recent interview.) I say he's not credible because his story changed consistently and disagrees with actual, objective facts.
Almost no one's story is consistent including Adnan's. The larger issue is less with consistency (since you can be consistently wrong), and more to do with whether the material facts stated are credible and substantiated. Jay's largely are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
They ought not hold a lack of testimony by the accused against him.
And they should not consider things stricken from the record, but neither thing happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
They ought not convict based on a theory of the crime not presented at trial.
What are you basing this on? The immaterial aspects of the theory of the crime are not why a jury should or shouldn't convict.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
A theory brought up only in the jury room can't be responded to by the defense.
It has nothing to do with jury room theories, and there is no evidence they convicted him on that basis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
If the state botches their job so badly that they only way the jury can convict is by resorting to their own theory, they should acquit.
Who said they did that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
This jury did significant things they ought not do. I suspect that's common. It's disappointing. It's why we're constantly reading articles about people being exonerated after spending 20 years in prison because someone gets around to a DNA test.
Actually, most exonerations are based on what is typically considered strong evidence: direct testimony. The problem has often been that juries over estimate stranger eyewitness testimony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
Inevitably, you find a case where a jury convicted on extremely thin evidence. A case kind of like this one.
What basis do you have to state the evidence was thin, or that it was thinner than most cases?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
And even more lastly, it's a minor point, but Jay was paid. This was not in dispute. He was given a pro bono attorney arranged by the state.
No, he was not paid. This is a fact. He was entitled to a court appointed attorney, which was partially arranged by the DA. He was not paid, and he did not receive anything more than any other defendant would have. You are 100% wrong on this point.