View Single Post
  #327  
Old 12-28-2014, 03:59 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
I'm saying that it's very reasonable for a defense attorney to assess the ability for the defense council to get an acquittal, based on the quality of the prosecution's case.
Yes, but you don't know the quality of the prosecution's case as you have seen a small fraction of the evidence and testimony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
It's beyond dumb to say that we can't judge her performance based on what we now know. It's like saying I can't judge the performance of a defense that gave up 450 yards and 48 points in a football game unless I watched the whole thing.
You can't really. Were they playing Tom Brady in his prime or were they playing Marc Sanchez? Did they win by 24 points and thus not need to play defense in the fourth quarter? There are a hundred explanations for the numbers beyond, the defense must suck. Your analogy is like saying if the plane crashed the pilot must suck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Fact is, you can't find one single attorney who is saying she did a good job in this case.
I pretty much only discuss this case with lawyers and EVERY ONE declines to answers since they don't know all the evidence and haven't seen enough to say she did such a poor job that it is really relevant. Most of them do this out of professional courtesy and because CG death means she cannot defend herself.

Along those lines, CG supposedly had several people helping her with this case. Why don't we hear them saying what a bad job she did if it was transparently obvious?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
I've just got your word vs all the attorneys who have offered their opinions, including a friend who has defended celebrities in national high-profile cases and who happens to be very good at what he does. I have no idea how much more than the podcast he might have seen or read, but if he's comfortable making that call, then I'm going with his assessment.
You're right, I suppose we should all accept the word of your unnamed, famous friend . Why would you feel comfortable with this friend making a judgement without seeing the vast majority of the trial transcript?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
In other words, Adnan hasn't even come close to saying she did a good job.
I said, "pretty good job", and I stand by the fact that if you think your lawyer made one mistake worth mentioning, it is a fair synopsis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by obfusciatrist View Post
I asked myself "should Adnan be in jail."
Okay, but how could you make that judgment 15 years after the fact by listening to a podcast? Answering that question requires us to put ourselves in the place of the jury to some extent, so how can you confidently make the judgement without having even heard the prosecution's main witness speak on the stand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by obfusciatrist View Post
But I've also not seen anybody pull out of those materials anything that I think substantively undermines the presentation of the podcast.
There are a handful of people who have "all" the evidence: Rabia, SK, DE, the jury, the lawyers, and the judge. The vast majority think he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt: the jurors (all 12), the judge, and the prosecution. SK seems to be on the fence re: his guilt, but thinks he should have been acquitted. Three people think he is innocent: Rabia (biased and not at the trial), DE (not at the trial and biased), and (presumably) CG. Of the people actually there, most think he is guilty, and they think the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, Wanda Heard, the judge in the second trial recently said on FB:

Quote:
...And I listened to the pod cast and see how this very intelligent young man manipulated the writer - the evidence was overwhelming! I can see how 16 years later he has regrets that he wasted his life by planning and carrying out the murder of his girlfriend. Very sad indeed.
She has since deleted the comment. That said, for this woman to feel that strongly about it to this day says a lot in my mind. Note she didn't lament Adnan's poor defense or the prosecution overstepping. She didn't say the evidence was scant and that CG was inept. She said the evidence was OVERWHELMING. Could it be that maybe the podcast didn't do a great job or conveying what it would was like in the court listening to the actual people involved and hearing them speak?

Quote:
Originally Posted by obfusciatrist View Post
More than happy to consider the damning trial evidence that will change my find (cognizant that once having reached a conclusion I'm just as unlikely as anybody else to view contradictory information without bias) and SK refused to present.
Are you willing to consider the fact that most murder cases are equally as "flimsy" and that the objections raised in this podcast are largely unreasonable? Most murder cases have no physical evidence, and many murder cases have people who have lied, etc. The fact is that this podcast set an unrealistic standard that we should use trials to get the "truth" but, we don't get the "truth" the vast majority of the time. All you can do is present a reasonable approximation of what you think happened that is supported by the evidence you have, and includes the people you think did it. Many cases break down when you put undue skepticism on every detail. This is why people believe in JFK conspiracies and 9/11 truther stories.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
I made those comments, backed up by the recollection of someone who was there for the trial.
Rabia was not at the trial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
You think Rabia's a crank. I don't. Obviously, she's biased, but her arguments and evidence make sense. Have you read any of her blog posts?
I think I have read all of them. She is not reliable, rational, or reasonable. Just a portion of the evidence for this is her lying to SK about where Leakin Park is and thinking CG threw the trial to make money on the appeal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
This is begging the question.
No, you asked me why I had different standards for CG's competence and Adnan's guilt. I explained that I don't and that the evidence against Adnan is strong. Strong evidence doesn't preclude the possibility of wrongful conviction. It just means my standards are not different. I am open to more evidence swaying my opinion in both cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
That some friends said he was controlling and some didn't isn't very convincing.
Why? Why is everything damaging to Adnan waved off despite the fact that it is relevant and very telling? Whether it's him writing I will kill or Hae's note, everyone just assumes it is insignificant. Why?

Yes, it is circumstantial, but the circumstances here are that the author of that letter ended up dead weeks later and one of the few people we know with means, motive, and opportunity was described as controlling. Why shouldn't we view those things more skeptically?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
Nisha recounts a call where Jay was at the job he didn't get until after Hae's disappearance is not very convincing.
It doesn't really matter that much. Nisha WAS called and someone likely spoke to her or someone at that number. You could argue it was a butt dial but then you have to assume that she was on speed dial (unsubstantiated), that Jay had the phone in his pocket (possible), that nobody picked up the phone at her house for 2+ minutes, and that despite all that, Nisha felt comfortable enough testifying against a guy she seems to have cared about even though the call wasn't familiar to her. Yes, all those stars could have aligned, but which scenario is more likely?

Furthermore, do you ever see the other side trying to explain away phone calls that don't support their scenario as butt dials?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
I also think you didn't really answer my question. You are arguing that Adnan did it, and that Gutierrez didn't do a bad job.
No, I am arguing Adnan did it, and we don't have enough evidence CG did a BAD job- a sufficiently bad job that it rises to a level that requires redress from an appeals court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
Do you think you're applying the same level of skepticism to both claims? It seems to me that you're applying sort of a "preponderance of the evidence" standard for claims about Adnan's guilt ("which scenario is more likely"), which seems too low, and an extremely high standard for claims about Gutierrez ("Impossible to say without having read the entire transcript.").
I disagree. We have heard almost nothing about the job CG did beyond the not calling Asia, and 15 second of her cross on Jay. Some of the latter just focused on the optics like her voice being grating and this "White lady" (CG isn't White) yelling at Jay. Sure, we hear Rabia and SK saying they think she did a bad job, and we hear about how she eventually broke down, but that doesn't speak to her choices in this trial.

On the main points that I think most people would see as weak points in the prosecution's case (Jay and the time line), she seems to have mounted an argument. She pressed Jay on his inconsistencies, the issues with how he obtained a lawyer, etc. I don't know what she said regarding the time line, but she seems to have done some of the things most lawyers would do. Maybe if we could see all the evidence without Rabia holding it hostage, we could make a more informed judgement. Until then, I think it's more fair to reserve judgement on a dead woman who cannot defend herself.