View Single Post
Old 03-26-2015, 04:54 PM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,177
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
You are wrong. Once again, Jay utilized an attorney working pro bono. EVERY OTHER INDIGENT DEFENDANT would either have an attorney working pro bono, or they would get a lawyer paid by the state. He was not paid, the attorney was not paid. The only "suspicious" thing was that the DA Kevin Urick, suggested Jay's lawyer contact him, and that this event was not disclosed. Urick did not PROVIDE Jay and attorney, and said attorney did not negotiate the deal proffered to Jay. This was already ruled on and commented upon in the appeal Adnan filed which was rejected. The lawyer herself did not agree to take Jay as a client until after meeting with him, and there is no evidence of a conspiracy or malfeasance.

Now unless you literally don't know what the word "paid" means, I think you need to stop saying something that is clearly false.
I'm using 'paid' to mean he received something of value in exchange for his testimony. I'm not sure if you are just going off a faulty memory of the podcast, or are leveraging some other source of information you haven't felt the need to cite, but this is not consistent with the podcast. If you have another source, put it out there. Otherwise, here is the relevant transcript:

Originally Posted by Sarah Koenig
If Jay got a free lawyer thanks to the State, Christina argues, thatís whatís called a benefit. Itís worth money, and it could look like Jay is being paid by the State for his testimony, or else maybe Jay felt beholden to the State for giving him this benefit, and therefore might lie to please them. If it could look like that, she says, then the defense was entitled to know about it before the second trial, or the first trial began. And here she was learning about it at this late date. That, she said, was a violation of the rules of discovery. She sounds so mad, the jury is not present for this ranting, by the way. But probably, she was also giddy with gotcha excitement. She told the judge, this is so patently improper.
The Judge, Wanda Heard, agreed with Christina. That this arrangement looked fishy at best. She was not happy about it. But she also said ďthe witness in question, that is, Jay, he doesnít seem to be aware that itís messed up. He doesnít appear to think that heís getting a benefit, or being paid in some way for his testimony, or that anything untoward went on.Ē So, it would seem his testimony isnít tainted by any of this and thatís the main thing. So, ĎAí for effort, Judge Heard tells Christina, but overruled. And that, more or less, was that.

I can't reply to everything you've posted today, and most of it has already been rehashed, but - for your litany of evidence - as far as actually meeting the state's bar of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, most of it is nothing. The nurse's opinion on Adnan's state of mind? Irrelevant. How often he called Hae? Irrelevant (did she even have a cell phone? Wouldn't calling her house, when she's known to be missing, be odd?) The "I'm going to kill" note - which is from, what, over a month before the murder? Means nothing. A bunch of zeros added together is still zero. What you do have is:

* Jay knew where the car was, and he puts it all on Adnan.
* The cell phone record putting him somewhere in the vicinity of Leakin Park when the body was being dropped off.

That's really about it.

On the other hand, you have that Jay's story changes multiple times that we know of, doesn't match actual facts known from the call logs and how long travel between points takes and seems to be inconsistent with anyone's understanding of where a pay phone at Best Buy might have been, he was paid for his testimony, he's been arrested on violence charges several times since, whereas Adnan has been a model citizen in prison, a complete lack of any physical evidence directly tying Adnan to the crime, etc. More than enough for reasonable doubt, even at the time of Adnan's trial.