View Single Post
Old 03-24-2015, 05:14 PM
Do Not Taunt is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 2,184
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
Why? The reality is they weren't really left with many options given the mountain of evidence against Adnan. Further, consider that the judge in the case still to this day believes Adnan did it even after listening to the podcast. How do you explain that? Why do you think it's more likely that the jury erred rather than perhaps the podcast was not exactly impartial?

Everyone who has seen Jay in person has said he is credible. The jury, the judge, the cops, the DA, and even Sarah and Julie. They all believed him. SK and Julie both knew the whole story when they interviewed him, and they still believed him when he said Adnan killed Hae. Why do you think they were all fooled?

Juries always hold that against you in a sense because you are denying your opportunity to personally put forth a counter narrative.

Actually the state has to do very few of the things from your list to prove guilt.

Jay was not paid.

Jay's original plea required him to do two years in jail on a charge that had a max of 5 years. This deal was pretty common and not at all surprising. It was only by luck that Jay's sentence was suspended.

No, not really. The state can present a theory of the crime, and the jury can still convict even if they disagree with the specifics of that theory, but still think there is enough evidence that substantiated guilt.
I'm not as big a fan as you are at breaking up a person's post into little bits and writing a reply to each one, so let me reply to the major points.

First, I don't care that anyone - judge included - thinks Adnan "did it". It's completely orthogonal to my post. I think he should have been acquitted. I trust you understand the difference between "he should have been acquitted" and "he was innocent."

Second, cite that Sarah and Julie think Jay was credible? I recall them expounding on how, after the meeting, they found him compelling, but they know full well his story was basically fabricated, and spent considerable time cogitating on why, which parts could be true, etc.

And I have no problem dismissing the DA, cops, judge, etc, as simply using motivated reasoning to believe which parts of his story fit their needs.

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.

And lastly, juries can, of course, do pretty much whatever they want. They ought not hold a lack of testimony by the accused against him. They ought not convict based on a theory of the crime not presented at trial. A theory brought up only in the jury room can't be responded to by the defense. 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. 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. Inevitably, you find a case where a jury convicted on extremely thin evidence. A case kind of like this one.

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.

Last edited by Do Not Taunt; 03-24-2015 at 05:17 PM.