View Single Post
  #413  
Old 03-26-2015, 02:10 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
Sigh. Do you understand that one can believe that Adnan committed the murder of Hae, and that he should have been acquitted?
Yes. Do you get that a jury thinking he did it after listening to the evidence means they will likely convict, and that they did not fail, or act in a manner contrary to the law?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
If so, do you get why saying, "hey, the judge thinks Adnan did it even after listening to the podcast" isn't a meaningful response to, "I think he should have been acquitted"?
Those weren't your full comments that I was responding to. You alleged the jury failed, and then listed a bunch of things that are not required for a jury to do their job correctly. I was responding that YOUR opinion as someone listening to a podcast 15 years after the crime is less valid than the people who were there and were charged with making this very judgement. That your 10 hours or so of podcast doesn't math them listening to evidence for 6 weeks. You alleged the jury didn't take it seriously, so I explained to you that the judge and numerous other people who do seem to take their jobs seriously also think Adnan is guilty and that the state met their burden.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
Most of the rest of your post is appeal to authority (the judge and jury listened to the whole trial, all you did was listen to a biased podcast? How dare you have an opinion?) and some nonsense sidetrack about SK believing that Adnan murdered Hae (seriously?)
You do know that an appeal to authority is not really a fallacy, right? If you want to know about DNA, would you ask a layperson or a scientist? It doesn't mean the authority is always right, but it does mean likely they know more about something specific they have studied than you, for example.

Now if you want to argue that those people are wrong in this case, do so. Don't just rant about how Jay is not credible as if that is the end all be all of the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
I don't think the jury knew a single thing that isn't in the public record at this point, and we know many things the jury did not. If you have a counter-argument, I'm all ears. But the appeal to authority ain't cutting it.
Many of the things you "know" are inadmissible in a court of law or are hearsay. Further, what the jury SAW and HEARD is very different from hearing someone editorialize about it 15 years later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
And come on. I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you're claiming Sarah Koenig believes Jay's claim that Adnan is guilty (in the factual, not legal, sense.) You must be using 'credible' in some other sense, right?
I am using credible in the dictionary definition sense:

1. able to be believed; convincing.
2. capable of persuading people that something will happen or be successful.

Clearly both she and the jury did not believe every word he said. However, everyone who has spoken to him seems to acknowledge he is credible, which makes your incredulity that the jury would believe him completely misplaced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt View Post
SK's story is Jay's attorney was arranged by the DA, this came out during cross-examination of Jay, Christina Gutierrez blew a gasket, the judge agreed that it was improper, but because Jay didn't seem to realize he had received something of value, he wasn't tainted. Agree with the judge's ruling or not as you wish, but you are just factually wrong here.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Addressing your general point, I agree that the default assumption should involve belief in the jury. But that doesn't mean that juries are infallible. And it seems that this case is in some ways atypical, though in other ways not especially unusual. Put in another way, if juries have a 2% failure rate that would leave plenty of scope for radio shows about convicted innocents. SK wouldn't have bothered reporting on a slam dunk case.
Oh, I am not arguing juries never get it wrong. I am saying it's unfair to claim listening to a podcast gives you so much of a better perspective that you can go from thinking the jury reached the wrong conclusion, to that they are failures who didn't take it seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
Personally, like Ezra Klein and others I perceived a lot of reasonable doubt.
But that is a lot of ex post facto stuff like Jay's new interview. Additionally, there are a bunch of dubious claims like Jay being the soul of the case and claims without proper context (eg. the vast majority of murder cases have no physical evidence).

Now the fact that the new Jay interview muddied the waters is fairly important in terms of determining factually guilt, but if you are gonna weight that evidence, you need to weight other things the jury didn't hear like Adnan never calling Hae after she died, Adnan still lying about the ride, Adnan calling Jay pathetic, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
ETA: Apropos nothing, I think it's kind of cool that fans of the series can have such differing views of the case.
It is, but I wish podcast had been a bit more balanced and fair to those who think Adnan is guilty.