View Single Post
  #179  
Old 11-22-2014, 01:35 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot View Post
Obviously, we know Jay was lying, at least about some things. He changed his story about six times.
True, but he was also know he told the truth about many things, so we can't throw out everything he says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot View Post
We have reason to suspect police corruption. Detective Ritz was later involved in a case of serious police misconduct, where a man was exonerated after spending ten years in prison for murder.
I agree, but how much evidence do we have for those suspicions? If he was that corrupt, don't you think he would have not recording Jay's multiple conflicting stories?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot View Post
We have reason to think that the investigation was sloppy. Evidence found at the crime scene was not tested, etc.
Not testing "evidence" is very common and not usually an indication of sloppiness at all. Mostly because anything near or around the crime scene is not real evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot View Post
We have reason to question how great a job Adnan's lawyer, Cristina Gutierrez, did, and to suspect that she bungled the case, on purpose or otherwise. She was later disbarred for mishandling her client's money.
So mishandling money means you purposefully bungled a case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. jp View Post
For the rest of the points I still think they are almost irrelevant, for the reasons I stated above.
How is the victim of a murder writing you a scathing letter saying you are possessive and taking their breakup particularly hard not pretty good circumstantial evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I said that I believe there is insufficient evidence to convict him or murder.
But you have not heard all the evidence, so how can you be at all certain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
In addition, a reputable team of Innocence Project lawyers seem to agree with the fact that the evidence was insufficient to convict.
They are law STUDENTS taking a class at UVA save the professor. They are also reading transcripts 15 years after the fact. Being at the trial means a lot given lots of information is not conveyed via a transcript. That like looking at a box score to tell you how exciting a baseball game was.