View Single Post
Old 11-16-2014, 07:51 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,822
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
I disagree. It's an important counterbalance to what we have heard from Adnan, 15 years down the road. It's hard to fairly compare the two of them when our impression of Adnan is based on present day conversations while our impression of Jay is based on taped interrogations/confessions 15 years ago. I think a lot of what makes people believe Adnan is innocent is his supposedly charming calm present day demeanor relative to Jay's shifty inconsistency 15 years ago. Up until now, we heard a teenager without the ability to respond arguing against a grown man with 15 years of hindsight and contemplation. Giving Jay the chance to answer some of those critiques, and a chance for SK to judge his demeanor, was important.
I'm not charmed or impressed by Adnan's current day arguments any more than I am by Jay's. He's had plenty of time (nothing but time!) to iron out the wrinkles in his story and rationalize away whatever inconsistencies present themselves in his account of events. I honestly don't know which of the two is more/less guilty of the murder, if at all.

Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
I think you are overstating their motivations a bit, and understanding the reality of the situation. Yes, there is something a bot unseemly about the concept of "bad evidence", but it is largely a reflection of how hard it is to piece together past events or crimes involving uncooperative people absent really compelling direct evidence.

When you are dealing with circumstantial evidence, the weight of the evidence is primarily based on the narrative you can uncover or entirely create to explain it's relevance. Not testing or not probing too deeply into things that don't fit a reasonable narrative is less likely to impede justice in the long run if your narrative is sound.

Similarly, witness testimony is also problematic because memory is malleable. Yes, they could have pressed Jay and others on their inconsistencies, but if even honest people tell conflicting stories. The heart of the matter is presenting a cogent and cohesive story to a jury that implicates the guilty party. That more than anything is what ensures justice.
Here's the thing that bothers me though, and you expressed it well - a good cohesive story is more important than the contradicting evidence. Both the legal team from the Innocence Project and the ex-cop/private investigator agree that the evidence to convict Adnan is weak. Additionally, the cops eagerly made a deal with Jay because he handed Adnan to them on a silver platter. They failed to DNA test some of the evidence and they failed to search Jay's apartment to try to trace the fibers found on the scene. And unless I've missed a key part of the story, the prosecution did not successfully link Adnan to the phone for those critical 4 hours after school. Yes, the phone travelled but how do we know Adnan travelled along with it?