View Single Post
Old 08-14-2019, 04:20 PM
echoreply's Avatar
echoreply is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 958
Originally Posted by Mahaloth View Post
I may be misremembering, but is there not a followup to Serial that explains the powerful case against that certainly makes it look a lot more clear that, well, he probably did do it?
There was the Undisclosed podcast, and then an HBO special about the case. I'm sure there were lots of other podcasts, too, as anybody can yammer at their phone for 30 minutes about some stuff they heard.

After listening to Serial, then a bunch of Undisclosed, but not the HBO show, I'm not terribly surprised by the Maryland court's decision. The takeaway I got from those podcasts was that case against him was very weak and the evidence was deeply flawed. It certainly wouldn't have been enough for me to vote guilty, but I also didn't hear anything I considered exculpatory. Of course, I really discount any eye witness testimony of exactly what time something happened.

Considering all that, lots of convictions seem to be based on what to me appears to be very flimsy evidence. I know the court wasn't deciding whether the evidence was believable, that was the jury's job, but my point is that the court is used to convictions on flimsy evidence, so they didn't have much righteous outrage pushing them to find an excuse to vacate the conviction.