Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 12-20-2014, 08:28 AM
Trion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 3,430
Yeah, well, when I was hearing the "Jay is scared" story all I was thinking was:

Guy Who Smokes A Lot Of Weed Gets Paranoid! Film At 11:00.
  #302  
Old 12-20-2014, 05:54 PM
Clark K is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Illinois
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot View Post
Jen told the police that Jay told her about the murder on the 13th. And I don't see why she would lie. So Jay must have known about it then. And then it can't be all fantasies.
Her statement simply proves Jay told her Adnan committed murder. It doesn't say anything about the truthfulness of what Jay said. If Jay was the killer, his comment to Jenn could simply be the start of his efforts to place the blame on Adnan.

Or not. Who knows?

I think this blogger does a pretty good job of summing up the evidence and showing why it adds up to less than it might appear at first.

http://viewfromll2.com/2014/12/08/se...st-adnan-syed/

However, I don't have all the details of the case committed to memory. Maybe she leaves some things out or exaggerates the pro-Adnan possibilities.
  #303  
Old 12-20-2014, 06:40 PM
Don't Panic's Avatar
Don't Panic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark K View Post
Her statement simply proves Jay told her Adnan committed murder. It doesn't say anything about the truthfulness of what Jay said. If Jay was the killer, his comment to Jenn could simply be the start of his efforts to place the blame on Adnan.
Right. But it does seem to rule out Jay not being involved at all, and his story being simply fabrication.

Which makes a third party scenario a whole lot less likely. The thing is, I can get on board with a random serial killer theory. But Jay in cahoots with a serial killer? That just seems way too far-fetched. So, then we're left with Jay doing it. And with no motive at all for Jay doing it on his own, well... I don't know.

Also, it means that I could spend any amount of time taking apart Jay's story, or show how all of it could be fed to him by the cops, and it wouldn't make a difference. No matter how bizarre and incoherent his narrative is, the only really important thing is that Jen was told about the murder from Jay on the 13th. The pay phone thing? Doesn't matter. Could the cops have showed him the car? Who cares. Is he a he crazy pathological liar? Maybe, it makes no difference. The details don't really matter.

I go back and forth on this thing. I speculate a lot. See any of my earlier posts for proof of that. But then I have those days when I sort of sober up, look at the whole thing a bit more cynically, and think: "Come on, get real, do the math. What's most likely here?"

It's either Jay, or some combination of Adnan and Jay. What makes more sense?

And that's when, maybe, I start understanding what the jury might have been thinking. Not that don't think there is reasonable doubt. I think there's plenty. I just, maybe, start to see the other side of it.

And that's all because of Jen's testimony. If it wasn't for Jen, I would probably be wearing a "Free Adnan" T-shirt at this point.

Last edited by Don't Panic; 12-20-2014 at 06:42 PM.
  #304  
Old 12-20-2014, 08:18 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot View Post
On the flip side, again, there's Jen. Jen is starting to become my "Nisha call", as it were. Like SK, I can go pretty far in some hypothetical directions, but then there's this one thing that makes it all crumble. Jen told the police that Jay told her about the murder on the 13th. And I don't see why she would lie. So Jay must have known about it then.
Jen could be lying to protect Jay.

The cops talk to Jen because she was called from Adnan's phone. She talks to Jay (because she knows he was the one calling her). He tells her his story, and tells her that he wants her to say he told her back then. This makes his story that much more believable for a variety of reasons. If she believes him and he is important to her, I can see her going along with that lie.

There's plenty of time for this conversation to happen, and for them to get their story straight, because Jen didn't talk to the cops until the day after they called her asking questions.

I'm not suggesting that's what happened, but there are a variety of motives Jen might have for claiming that Jay told her of his involvement before he actually told her.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon
Care to point to anything else substantive and substantiated?
She was disbarred for misconduct and the state paid out 28 claims. She took money and failed to file paperwork. She failed to keep clients' money in trust.
  #305  
Old 12-21-2014, 03:58 AM
Don't Panic's Avatar
Don't Panic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
I'm not suggesting that's what happened, but there are a variety of motives Jen might have for claiming that Jay told her of his involvement before he actually told her.
Such as? Not picking on you, I would genuinely love to have a good motive for it.

Because I can't see it. What's the utility of it? How does it protect anyone? What is the benefit for Jay?

It also makes Jen herself look more culpable, since it means that she knew about the murder since day one, and only came forward once the police got to her. According to SK, Jen was afraid that she herself might be charged, presumably as an accessory. And it seems to me that she had reason to be afraid. So why would she make herself look like even more of an accessory?

Don't get me wrong, I already think that Jen is lying about some things, to protect Jay. She testified that Jay was at her house until 3:40, which is contradicted by the call records. I just don't see why she would lie about that one thing. And I also can't see how it's something that she might misremember.
  #306  
Old 12-21-2014, 04:12 AM
Don't Panic's Avatar
Don't Panic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,098
Oh, wait, sorry. I see. Her knowing about it from the start makes Jay's story more believable.

Well... it makes Jay being involved in the murder more believable. But is that something that Jay is trying to make more believable? His lies do have a pattern: Distancing himself from the crime. Not the other way around.

Yeah, still, maybe it's something, at least. Still not much, though.
  #307  
Old 12-21-2014, 02:08 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
She was disbarred for misconduct and the state paid out 28 claims. She took money and failed to file paperwork. She failed to keep clients' money in trust.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with Adnan's case. Again, Adnan thinks she did a pretty good job. Where is the evidence she completely fucked up the case beyond the Monday morning quarterbacking done by fans of the podcast?

Last edited by brickbacon; 12-21-2014 at 02:10 PM.
  #308  
Old 12-21-2014, 02:42 PM
Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 7,713
There are plenty of criminal prosecutors and defense attorneys who have publicly stated that she screwed up, big time. You can find them and their specific criticisms online.

And again, I don't think Adnan has said she did a pretty good job. I can't recall exactly, but I think he said that he trusted and liked her at the time, and that he isn't angry at her.
  #309  
Old 12-21-2014, 11:16 PM
delphica is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The Empire State
Posts: 6,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post

And again, I don't think Adnan has said she did a pretty good job. I can't recall exactly, but I think he said that he trusted and liked her at the time, and that he isn't angry at her.
This is how I would characterize it too, he seems to have genuinely liked her, I got the feeling he appreciated that she (at least seemed to, to him) believed in his case. I don't think as a 19 year old kid he would have been realizing all the things that she was doing wrong in terms of structuring his defense. Now, he seems to have a greater awareness that the mechanics of the case could have/should have been handled differently, but as far as I could tell from how it was presented in the podcast, he's separated this from his opinion of her as a person.

Last edited by delphica; 12-21-2014 at 11:16 PM.
  #310  
Old 12-21-2014, 11:37 PM
Tangent's Avatar
Tangent is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Cowtown
Posts: 9,999
SNL Serial parody
  #311  
Old 12-22-2014, 10:58 AM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
Yes, but that has nothing to do with Adnan's case. Again, Adnan thinks she did a pretty good job. Where is the evidence she completely fucked up the case beyond the Monday morning quarterbacking done by fans of the podcast?
Nothing to do with it? You think she went all the way through Adnan's case with total integrity and capability, then flipped a switch and became incompetent and dishonest for her other clients?

Here's Rabia Chaudry on Gutierrez.
Quote:
From my bench in the courtroom her defense was a disaster. I remember thinking over and over “my God, a brand new graduate could do a better job”.

I often could not follow Christina. She rambled, repeated the same questions so many times the judge would ask her to move on already, missed tens of dozens of opportunities to nail a prosecution witness, not only failed to convey a cohesive narrative, but mostly failed to make any point at all by asking some of the strangest, most irrelevant questions.
That's pretty clear.

They played excerpts of Gutierrez on the podcast. Did you think any of them made a convincing argument? How many times did Sarah have to apologize for the confusing bit and explain what the lawyer was getting at? Do you think she just failed to play any tape where Gutierrez was effective and convincing? I think there isn't any.

Adnan has filed a claim based on inadequate representation. So, no, he doesn't seem to think she did a pretty good job.

I think you're giving the nice things Adnan says about her on the podcast too much weight. For one, he knows well that he's on display, and that it doesn't do him any good to sound bitter. He doesn't really say anything bad about Jay either, except for his claim that Jay lied and set him up for a life in prison.

Last edited by iamthewalrus(:3=; 12-22-2014 at 10:59 AM.
  #312  
Old 12-22-2014, 11:32 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
Where is the evidence she completely fucked up the case beyond the Monday morning quarterbacking done by fans of the podcast?
I'm no sure you understand that Monday morning quarterbacking is precisely the point of this entire podcast. SK didn't spend 12 episodes researching and reporting on the original police investigation, evidence, witness testimony, defense, jury deliberation and verdict just to extol its virtues.
  #313  
Old 12-24-2014, 12:12 AM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
There are plenty of criminal prosecutors and defense attorneys who have publicly stated that she screwed up, big time. You can find them and their specific criticisms online.
Unless they have actually read all the transcripts, I will take their critiques with the appropriate grains of salt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
And again, I don't think Adnan has said she did a pretty good job. I can't recall exactly, but I think he said that he trusted and liked her at the time, and that he isn't angry at her.
I think my phrasing is fair. The relevant text is below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serial
"But now Iím going to address this question head on. Did she blow it?
You might be surprised to hear that Adnanís only beef with Christina, in terms of what happened at trial is that she never contacted Asia McClain. He thinks it wasnít deliberate on her part, he just thinks she made a mistake, like a surgeonís slip of the scalpel. Personally, she was nothing but compassionate to him he said, always asking him how he was going, she made sure he got the skin medication he needed, the glasses he needed. She was his protector.

Adnan Syed

I mean I loved her, I still-- I just have a great deal of affection for her. I just really felt like she really really had my back. You understand? So--"
I think "pretty good job" is a fair characterization of the above given he literally has one issue with the job she did and doesn't even think it was intentional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by delphica View Post
I don't think as a 19 year old kid he would have been realizing all the things that she was doing wrong in terms of structuring his defense. Now, he seems to have a greater awareness that the mechanics of the case could have/should have been handled differently, but as far as I could tell from how it was presented in the podcast, he's separated this from his opinion of her as a person.
But we are hearing his thoughts in the present. If he felt she did a bad job, why doesn't he say so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
Nothing to do with it? You think she went all the way through Adnan's case with total integrity and capability, then flipped a switch and became incompetent and dishonest for her other clients?
She was a well-respected and accomplished lawyer by almost all accounts even up until the point she was hired for Adnan's case. Obviously, it went off the rails somewhere, but when and where is up for debate. We certainly don't have enough evidence to say she was particularly bad in Adnan's case beyond speculation from biased parties with incomplete information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
That's pretty clear.
Rabia is a crackpot. Irrespective of Adnan's guilt or innocence, you should triple check any and everything she says. This is the woman who thinks CG threw the trial to make more money on the appeal, which is one of the dumbest theories I have heard posited in relation to the case, maybe even eclipsing the "serial killer did it" and the "Hae committed suicide" supposition.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
They played excerpts of Gutierrez on the podcast. Did you think any of them made a convincing argument?
You mean the clip she played to justify the conclusion she was making? The trial was (IIRC) almost 2 months long. Do you really think she never said anything logical or convincing? SK has an agenda, even if you only think that agenda is to make an interesting podcast. Calling out a lawyer based on 30 seconds of a podcast is presumptuous at best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
Do you think she just failed to play any tape where Gutierrez was effective and convincing? I think there isn't any.
Why? Lawyers are generally not allowed to just ramble nonsensically for 2 months straight. If you really think she failed to make ANY convincing arguments, then you are fooling yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
Adnan has filed a claim based on inadequate representation. So, no, he doesn't seem to think she did a pretty good job.
Adnan wants to get out of jail. He has appealed for basically any reason you can appeal. I put no stock in this tactical choice. By that logic, Adnan's desire to plea out twice is evidence of his guilt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I'm no sure you understand that Monday morning quarterbacking is precisely the point of this entire podcast. SK didn't spend 12 episodes researching and reporting on the original police investigation, evidence, witness testimony, defense, jury deliberation and verdict just to extol its virtues.
I assure you I understand the point of the podcast. It's not MMQBing as it's typically understood as SK is not saying she would have done things differently for the most part.
  #314  
Old 12-24-2014, 12:29 PM
Lamia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 13,350
I haven't listened to it yet, but Fresh Air has a new interview with Sarah Koenig about Serial.
  #315  
Old 12-24-2014, 01:43 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,095
brickbacon, from my perspective, you have awfully high standards of evidence for believing the claim "Adnan's attorney did a bad job", and awfully low standards of evidence for believing the claim "Adnan murdered Hae". It seems to me that it's the latter claim that should require a higher standard of evidence. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting. Do you think you're applying the same level of skepticism to both?
  #316  
Old 12-26-2014, 12:20 AM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
brickbacon, from my perspective, you have awfully high standards of evidence for believing the claim "Adnan's attorney did a bad job", and awfully low standards of evidence for believing the claim "Adnan murdered Hae". It seems to me that it's the latter claim that should require a higher standard of evidence. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting. Do you think you're applying the same level of skepticism to both?
I think we (podcast listeners) have no where near enough evidence to say CG did a bad job. She very well may have, but you can't know that from listening to a few seconds of a podcast. We have no idea what Adnan told her or why she choose to do what she did. Instead he have people speculating and making asinine comments intimating she never made any good arguments during Adnan's trial.

The evidence for Adnan killing Hae is better than you get in many murder trials and was compelling enough for those judging him at the time to found him guilty in near record time. The judge, having listened to the podcast, commented on how she still thinks he is manipulative and guilty, and how the evidence was overwhelming.

I get that it's nice to think Adnan might have been framed or that a serial killer did it, but the evidence suggests that he did it. His innocence hangs on people explaining away how the Hae's concerns about Adnan being controlling and not getting over the breakup were high school drama and how the Nisha call was a butt dial, and a hundred other things that need to be explained away for Adnan to have been convicted. At a certain point, you need to ask yourself which scenario is more likely, and it's not Jay or a serial killer killing Hae.
  #317  
Old 12-26-2014, 08:33 AM
obfusciatrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 5,629
Quote:
At a certain point, you need to ask yourself which scenario is more likely, and it's not Jay or a serial killer killing Hae.
True, as a personal question, that does need to be answered. As a legal question that is the wrong question.

I have no personal problem with the idea that he killed Hae and yet, based on the information available to us or the court, should not be in jail.

Last edited by obfusciatrist; 12-26-2014 at 08:33 AM.
  #318  
Old 12-26-2014, 02:10 PM
sneakyflute is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1
Evidence against Adnan

1. Opportunity - Hae died less than an hour after school ended. It wasn't long before her parents panicked about her failing to arrive at her cousin's school. This means that someone got into her car at Woodlawn and convinced her to drive to the location of the murder. If Jay acted alone, how the hell did he lure Hae to that fateful place?

2. The day of her disappearance, he admits to the officer that he asked Hae for a ride but later declined. Weeks later, he contradicts this statement by telling another cop that he wouldn't have asked Hae for a ride because he has his own car. Throughout the podcast interview, he says January 13 was just another day. Yeah, a normal afternoon complete with track practice, weed, and a cop telling you your friend is missing.

3. Cell phone tower evidence shows that Adnan's phone was used around Leakin Park at the time he claimed to have the phone in his possession

4. How did Jay strangle Hae, coordinate the hiding of her car, bury her body, dispose of the evidence, and clean up just in time to pick up Adnan from track practice?

5. Nisha testified that Adnan put Jay on the phone for a couple of minutes but there's some confusion about the date

6. Something that supports the whole jilted lover angle: they found a note from Hae stashed away in Adnan's house that suggests he couldn't move on from the relationship. I dunno. It could have been a preemptive form of consolation from Hae, but it's something to consider.

7. In my opinion, this is the most fascinating piece of evidence - Adnan's friend testified that they smoked weed together in the same area of the Best Buy parking lot some time after Hae's disappearance.

8. You can rationalize this all you want, but it's incredibly hard to believe that an innocent person would maintain for 15 years that he doesn't know why his friend framed him for murder and that he can't point fingers at Jay without evidence WHEN JAY LED DETECTIVES TO HAE'S CAR AND THEN PINNED THE FUCKING MURDER ON ADNAN.
  #319  
Old 12-26-2014, 05:51 PM
Unauthorized Cinnamon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 5,051
I just finished a marathon of all episodes, and it's good to see other people are on the same page as I am: I'm suspicious of Adnan, but I'm appalled that he was convicted.

There was one person in the courtroom who admitted to knowing Hae was going to be killed, admitted to burying Hae, who admitted to lying to police over and over, and who allegedly (I'm certainly worried about contamination) knew where her car was. And that person - that liar who admitted burying her body and got a deal (using a lawyer procured by the prosecution) with no jail time, is basically the only evidence against the defendant. While my sympathies changed episode to episode, nothing ever cleared up the ample reasonable doubt I discerned from the beginning.

And of course opening the "black box" of the jury is worse than watching sausage being made. "Oh we were told not to consider that he didn't testify, but it really influenced me." "We're not allowed to act as ad hoc expert witnesses, but during deliberations one guy said Arabs [sic] treat their women poorly." ARGH!
  #320  
Old 12-26-2014, 06:55 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by obfusciatrist View Post
True, as a personal question, that does need to be answered. As a legal question that is the wrong question.

I have no personal problem with the idea that he killed Hae and yet, based on the information available to us or the court, should not be in jail.
Good thing this isn't a court and we aren't asking legal questions. Not to mention that a legal question cannot likely be answered by people listening to a podcast. The entire series was around 10 hours or so. Adnan's trial was almost two months IIRC. To even think we are qualified or able to answer the legal question makes no sense. Yes, the courts have a presumption of innocence and standard or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but they also have rules of evidence, cross examination, and other things that don't transparently benefit defendants. I don't know why people listening to the podcast think the former things should apply to our analysis when the latter ones don't, or that ANY of them are relevant in this case.

You haven't seen all the information available to the court, nor did you see and hear the witnesses on the stand, so you have no way of making a valid inference as to what they should have done then. His judge, to this day, still thinks he did it and that there was overwhelming evidence (her words). Why do you think you are in a better position to judge 15 years after the fact with less and/or different information?
  #321  
Old 12-27-2014, 11:27 AM
Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 7,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
Unless they have actually read all the transcripts, I will take their critiques with the appropriate grains of salt.
It's absurd to think that a criminal defense attorney cannot make a qualified decision on her performance based on the facts of the case, hearing snippets of the trial, knowing how long the jury deliberated, etc. They absolutely do not have to have heard the entire trial. If you can find a single attorney who did read the entire transcript, and who says that she did a good job, I'd be happy to listen.




Quote:
I think "pretty good job" is a fair characterization of the above given he literally has one issue with the job she did and doesn't even think it was intentional.
Nowhere in that quote does he say anything close to "good job". Nowhere. He basically says she was nice and that he isn't pissed off.

Last edited by Labrador Deceiver; 12-27-2014 at 11:31 AM.
  #322  
Old 12-27-2014, 02:46 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
It's absurd to think that a criminal defense attorney cannot make a qualified decision on her performance based on the facts of the case, hearing snippets of the trial, knowing how long the jury deliberated, etc.
Of course it is. We've literally heard less than a minute of her at trial, and we know nothing of what Adnan told her beyond what is in her notes. And the facts of the case are beyond her control and don't count against her performance. No fair person would make a judgment based only on that. You are almost literally arguing we should judge a book by it's cover.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
They absolutely do not have to have heard the entire trial. If you can find a single attorney who did read the entire transcript, and who says that she did a good job, I'd be happy to listen.
As far as I know, only the lawyers involved in the trial, Rabia, and DE have read the full transcript. Hardly big enough a group to make a definitive statement either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Nowhere in that quote does he say anything close to "good job". Nowhere. He basically says she was nice and that he isn't pissed off.
SK says the only thing he holds against her is not calling Asia and even that he thinks was a simple oversight. If during a two month trial, there is only one bad decision you think your lawyer made out of the dozens of things they did, I think pretty good is a fair rating.
  #323  
Old 12-27-2014, 04:29 PM
Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 7,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
Of course it is. We've literally heard less than a minute of her at trial, and we know nothing of what Adnan told her beyond what is in her notes. And the facts of the case are beyond her control and don't count against her performance. No fair person would make a judgment based only on that. You are almost literally arguing we should judge a book by it's cover.
I'm not even figuratively arguing that. It's a stupid analogy. 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. It's done by all lawyers before they decide to take a case. It's done by the DA before deciding to prosecute. 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.

Fact is, you can't find one single attorney who is saying she did a good job in this case. 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.




Quote:
SK says the only thing he holds against her is not calling Asia and even that he thinks was a simple oversight. If during a two month trial, there is only one bad decision you think your lawyer made out of the dozens of things they did, I think pretty good is a fair rating.
In other words, Adnan hasn't even come close to saying she did a good job.
  #324  
Old 12-27-2014, 06:50 PM
obfusciatrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Oakland, CA, USA
Posts: 5,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
Good thing this isn't a court and we aren't asking legal questions. Not to mention that a legal question cannot likely be answered by people listening to a podcast. The entire series was around 10 hours or so.
True. But personally, i didn't not listen to the podcast asking myself "did Adnan do this or is some other scenario more likely."

I asked myself "should Adnan be in jail."

Personally, it is hard for me to think he should be. I could easily be wrong. You're right that I did not sit through the trial nor have I seen all of the trial materials. But I've also not seen anybody pull out of those materials anything that I think substantively undermines the presentation of the podcast.

I do not think I am better qualified than anybody else. But based on the information available to me, which includes no real expectation that trials are infallible or that judges don't have a vested interest in believing that all of their trials ended correctly, I feel it seems that the court reached a bad conclusion. Not through maliciousness, just through human fallibility.

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.
  #325  
Old 12-27-2014, 08:42 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
Instead he have people speculating and making asinine comments intimating she never made any good arguments during Adnan's trial.
I made those comments, backed up by the recollection of someone who was there for the trial. 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?

Quote:
The evidence for Adnan killing Hae is better than you get in many murder trials and was compelling enough for those judging him at the time to found him guilty in near record time.
This is begging the question. The evidence for every wrongly-convicted person was enough for the jury to find them guilty. And it's not like this is a random case. It's one that Sarah Koenig picked because it was so controversial and questionable.

Quote:
I get that it's nice to think Adnan might have been framed or that a serial killer did it, but the evidence suggests that he did it. His innocence hangs on people explaining away how the Hae's concerns about Adnan being controlling and not getting over the breakup were high school drama and how the Nisha call was a butt dial, and a hundred other things that need to be explained away for Adnan to have been convicted. At a certain point, you need to ask yourself which scenario is more likely, and it's not Jay or a serial killer killing Hae.
His lack of guilt ought to hang on reasonable doubt. That some friends said he was controlling and some didn't isn't very convincing. That Nisha recounts a call where Jay was at the job he didn't get until after Hae's disappearance is not very convincing. I think it is more likely than not that Adnan did it. But that's a long way from "no reasonable doubt".

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. 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.").

Last edited by iamthewalrus(:3=; 12-27-2014 at 08:42 PM.
  #326  
Old 12-28-2014, 02:05 PM
Don't Panic's Avatar
Don't Panic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,098
Something odd happened to me yesterday. There was a commotion in my apartment building. Some guy who was visiting my downstairs neighbors had been drinking too much, and got into a violent altercation with, I think, his girlfriend and some of the people living in the apartment. Someone called the police, who promptly showed up and hauled him away. A window was broken in the common area, near the main entrance to the building (or rather, to be more specific, a glass insert in a door).

So, it was the drunken, violent guy who broke the window, right? Slam dunk, case closed. I even spoke to a witness (I think another visitor, I don't remember seeing him before) who confirmed it.

Except, no, according to my downstairs neighbor, the one who the drunk was visiting (and also, I think, the same one who called the cops). I talked to him a bit later. He, the neighbor, was the one who had broken the window, he said, not the drunk guy, and it had been by accident. His story was that the two episodes had occurred at almost exactly the same time, within minutes of each other, but were unconnected. The window thing was a freak occurrence. My neighbor had just opened the door as usual, and the glass insert came loose and shattered. The frame must have been weakening over time (it's an old door), and something finally snapped. He showed me the cuts on his hand from the glass. And unlike the visitor, he was neither intoxicated nor violent. He seemed honest. Trustworthy. He kept apologizing for what had happened.

This doesn't seem to make sense. What are the chances? The window breaking at exactly the same time as a fight and a visit from the cops, and there's no connection? With a person, the neighbor, involved in some way in both incidents? Yeah, right. Pull the other one.

So maybe someone is lying here. Me neighbor could be protecting the drunk guy. But why take the fall? Also, he seemed genuinely sincere. He just doesn't seem like a liar. And what is the utility of the lie? The drunk is in trouble anyway. Why cover for him about the window? Also, the cuts on the hand.

But what about the witness, who claimed that it was the drunk who did it? Now it gets even murkier. A bit later, when confronted with the alternative set of facts, he changed his story, and said that he had simply been speculating. He had just put two and two together, and assumed the obvious. He never actually saw it happen.

So what's the truth? Someone lying for unclear reasons, a bizarre coincidence, something else? Maybe we'll never have an answer.

Anyway, it made me think of Serial. Mysteries where neither explanation adds up do, apparently, happen in real life. Maybe "who broke the window" could be the story for season 2.
  #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.
  #328  
Old 12-28-2014, 06:45 PM
Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 7,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
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.
Yes you can. Like I said, the quality of the prosecution's case is judged by both sides before the trial ever begins.

Quote:
You can't really. Were they playing Tom Brady in his prime or were they playing Marc Sanchez?
That kind of performance sucks either way.

Quote:
Did they win by 24 points and thus not need to play defense in the fourth quarter?
Doesn't matter. The defensive performance still sucked. It doesn't matter if it didn't cost them the game.

Quote:
There are a hundred explanations for the numbers beyond, the defense must suck.
No there are not. There may be 100 explanations for why the defense sucked, but it still sucked. No question about it. None.

Quote:
Your analogy is like saying if the plane crashed the pilot must suck.
You are really, really bad at analogies. Like, embarrassingly bad. I'm saying that we know something went wrong if the plane went down. You are saying that we can't know that unless we know exactly what happened the entire flight.

Quote:
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.
That is side-splittingly hilarious. None of your buddies will discuss a case with you one-on-one out of professional courtesy to a dead lawyer that none of you ever knew? Bullshit.

Quote:
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?
Because that would look bad for them. Have you even thought this through? At all?

Quote:
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?
I didn't say we all should. I said that I am taking his word (and I never said he was famous) over yours, and I've already outlined the ridiculousness of saying that it's impossible to judge a lawyer's performance without hearing every word. You can keep saying it, but you'll still be wrong.



Quote:
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.
I guess it's easy for you to stand by things that you made up out of whole cloth. It's fantasy.
  #329  
Old 12-28-2014, 07:33 PM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,610
Time for me to throw in...

I think there are 2 separate plots here, possibly intersecting.

1. Jay, an amateur drug dealer, arranges an illlicit transaction that is very much out of his depth. He enlists Adnan for assistance in effecting the transaction, demanding that Adnan get a new cell phone and surrender his car to as to make tracing more difficult.

2. The payload of this transaction is referred to as "Stephanie's Birthday Present". Adnan is content to pretend this is the case, though he probably knows better.

3. Adnan needs to get to Best-Buy to make a live-drop of cash or product. He has no intent of involving Hei, but something changes at the last minute.

4. Adnan goes to Best Buy with Hei. Something goes sour. The 3rd party departs Best Buy with Hei in her car, and Adnan is left wondering what happened. At this point I think he wants to believe that Hei just ditched him, knowing that worse things could have happened.

5. Jay gets a panicked call from Adnan describing how things went down, and simultaneously a call from the 3rd party explaining that Jay needs to help bury a body and take other actions to make things right.

Having been party to some amateur drug transactions myself, this is my best reckoning of how this may have gone. Hei saw something that an unstable party felt was a threat, and she was taken. Adnan may not have even seen this... he know she's gone, and that he's partially responsible, but he didn't do it. Likewise Jay didn't observe the murder, but he knows he has some culpability as well.
  #330  
Old 12-28-2014, 07:39 PM
Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 7,713
Doubtful. Why wouldn't Adnan actually tell someone, if that's what happened?
  #331  
Old 12-28-2014, 07:47 PM
Don't Panic's Avatar
Don't Panic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 8,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
Hei
That's "Hae".

I'm sorry, but I'm getting a bit attached to the protagonists in this tale, so I need to see their names spelled correctly.

Could y'all do that for me? I'll hand out cookies if you do.
  #332  
Old 12-28-2014, 11:14 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Yes you can. Like I said, the quality of the prosecution's case is judged by both sides before the trial ever begins.
Bullshit. Things change during a trial. Witnesses change their stories or crack under pressure, etc., etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
That kind of performance sucks either way.
HOW DO YOU KNOW? I cannot believe I debating with someone who thinks judging a trial performance based on about 30 seconds of audio is a fair or good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
You are really, really bad at analogies. Like, embarrassingly bad. I'm saying that we know something went wrong if the plane went down. You are saying that we can't know that unless we know exactly what happened the entire flight.
Yes, you would need to know what happened during the flight. Do you think they just listen to the last few minutes on a black box recording? They listen to the whole tape to figure out what happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
That is side-splittingly hilarious. None of your buddies will discuss a case with you one-on-one out of professional courtesy to a dead lawyer that none of you ever knew? Bullshit.
Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? We discuss the podcast regularly. They, to a person, don't have a strong opinion in whether she was good or bad since we literally have heard almost nothing about what happened in court and why it happened in court.

To piggyback on your football example. Do you ever see commentators say, while I didn't see the game, Tom Brady had a terrible game based on the stats? Of course not because they are not so invested in having an opinion that they don't do basic due diligence in terms of research. The fact that your supposed famous lawyer friend doesn't do that speaks to his lack of integrity, not CG's bad work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Because that would look bad for them. Have you even thought this through? At all?
Bullshit. People admit their mistake all the time. There would be no consequences for doing so, and they might be able to help get an "innocent" man out of jail if they did so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
I didn't say we all should. I said that I am taking his word (and I never said he was famous) over yours, and I've already outlined the ridiculousness of saying that it's impossible to judge a lawyer's performance without hearing every word. You can keep saying it, but you'll still be wrong.
Not every word, but how about more than 30 seconds of audio? The fact that you think this is some absurdly high bar betrays your basic lack of common sense and fairness. Luckily, I doubt anyone trusts you to judge anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
I guess it's easy for you to stand by things that you made up out of whole cloth. It's fantasy.
Explain why you think that is an unfair characterization?

Last edited by brickbacon; 12-28-2014 at 11:16 PM.
  #333  
Old 12-28-2014, 11:30 PM
mr. jp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 3,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot View Post
Anyway, it made me think of Serial. Mysteries where neither explanation adds up do, apparently, happen in real life. Maybe "who broke the window" could be the story for season 2.
I think this is a very relevant story. I don't have a big problem believing it was a coincidence. There are so many ways coincidences can happen, so one or more of them are bound to happen.
  #334  
Old 12-28-2014, 11:37 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
To Labrador Deceiver, just wanted to highlight another lawyer basically backing up my account on two points:

Quote:
3. Christina Gutierrez's tactics were probably very useful for many of her clients....So Christina Gutierrez's approach, which I know irritated most listeners of "Serial," was probably very effective for many of her clients. People thought she sounded overly aggressive, they didn't like the sing-song nature of her cadence, and she generally came off as unlikeable. That may have been a mistake in Adnan's trial and, perhaps, a gentler, more respectful, approach would have ingratiated her with the jury when many of the witnesses came off as sincere and likeable. But for the average criminal defendant, Christina probably seemed like a white knight.
Notice how she doesn't say CG was a shit lawyer? And one more thing:

Quote:
People shouldn't find hypocrisy in the fact that Adnan both thinks Christina Gutierrez did a good job for him and that simultaneously, his current appeal is dependent upon a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Weird that someone else came to that same conclusion. I guess maybe this "fantasy world" I live in, where people correctly parse statements people make, has other people.
  #335  
Old 12-29-2014, 09:03 AM
Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 7,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post

Notice how she doesn't say CG was a shit lawyer? And one more thing:
Notice where he criticized the tactics she used in Adnan's trial? That's a point in my favor, not yours. Or, perhaps you'd like to point out where I ever said she was a shit lawyer. I'll be waiting for that cite. In the meantime, thanks for helping me make my point.



Quote:
Weird that someone else came to that same conclusion. I guess maybe this "fantasy world" I live in, where people correctly parse statements people make, has other people.
So, someone else is making up shit. Not surprising, really.
  #336  
Old 12-29-2014, 09:14 AM
Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 7,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
Bullshit. Things change during a trial. Witnesses change their stories or crack under pressure, etc., etc.
Doesn't matter. We know what the prosecution was dealing with, and so did CG.


Quote:
HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Because that kind of defensive performance on a football field is always bad.

Quote:
I cannot believe I debating with someone who thinks judging a trial performance based on about 30 seconds of audio is a fair or good idea.
You keep saying that, but it isnt true. We are judging the trial based on much more than 30 seconds of audio.

Quote:
s, you would need to know what happened during the flight. Do you think they just listen to the last few minutes on a black box recording? They listen to the whole tape to figure out what happened.
You're moving goalposts. If a plane goes down, you don't need a black box to know that something went wrong with the flight.



Quote:
Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? We discuss the podcast regularly. They, to a person, don't have a strong opinion in whether she was good or bad since we literally have heard almost nothing about what happened in court and why it happened in court.
No reading issue here. Your characterization that every attorney you talk to absolutely refuses to speculate on a dead lawyer's performance in a private and personal conversation out of professional courtesy is the funniest thing I've read all week.

Quote:
To piggyback on your football example. Do you ever see commentators say, while I didn't see the game, Tom Brady had a terrible game based on the stats?
Yes, all the time. If a QB throws 4 INTs with 80 yds passing, he sucked.


Quote:
Explain why you think that is an unfair characterization?
Because he never said it, or came close.
  #337  
Old 12-29-2014, 11:48 AM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Notice where he criticized the tactics she used in Adnan's trial? That's a point in my favor, not yours.
SHE. She's a woman. One demerit for your reading comprehension. Second, those were hardly critiques. On balance, she is saying don't be so quick to judge CG, which is exactly what I said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Or, perhaps you'd like to point out where I ever said she was a shit lawyer. I'll be waiting for that cite. In the meantime, thanks for helping me make my point.
I love this game: Please point out where I said you said she was a shit lawyer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
So, someone else is making up shit. Not surprising, really.
Classic deflection. I guess you get extra points for your commitment to intellectual dishonest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Doesn't matter. We know what the prosecution was dealing with, and so did CG.
No we don't either. We have no idea what arguments thy were going to make, how they made them, the strength of their witnesses, etc. You clearly have no idea of how a trial or the law works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
You're moving goalposts. If a plane goes down, you don't need a black box to know that something went wrong with the flight.
I am not moving the goalposts. My point this whole time is that plane crash ≠ bad pilot just as losing a case ≠ bad lawyer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
No reading issue here. Your characterization that every attorney you talk to absolutely refuses to speculate on a dead lawyer's performance in a private and personal conversation out of professional courtesy is the funniest thing I've read all week.
Then you lead a pretty boring life I guess. I am not sure why it's hard to believe people of a given profession are reticent to roundly condemn the job another did with almost no information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Yes, all the time. If a QB throws 4 INTs with 80 yds passing, he sucked.
Maybe, maybe not. Were those deflection of their own WRs? The point, again, despite your complete miscomprehension of both sports and the law, is that numbers, first impressions, and incomplete information are a shitty basis from which to draw a conclusive opinion. Maybe CG did a bad job, but that opinion is very hard to justify given what we know now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Because he never said it, or came close.
Do you understand what the work characterization means? If he said those words it would not be a characterization; it would be what he said. Maybe we can just chalk up it up to English being another thing you have trouble with.
  #338  
Old 12-29-2014, 12:00 PM
Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 7,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
SHE. She's a woman. One demerit for your reading comprehension. Second, those were hardly critiques. On balance, she is saying don't be so quick to judge CG, which is exactly what I said.
No, she said that she probably made a mistake. Point for me. And your shouldn't be taking about anyone's reading comprehension abilities if you think that I've ever called CG a shit lawyer.



Quote:
I love this game: Please point out where I said you said she was a shit lawyer?
Here:

Quote:
Notice where she doesn't say that CG was a shit lawyer?
If we aren't talking about CG being a shit lawyer, then this is a total non-sequitur.


Quote:
Classic deflection. I guess you get extra points for your commitment to intellectual dishonest.
Dismissing a lame argument that amounts to "someone agrees with me", is not deflection. It's giving your argument all the consideration it deserves.



Quote:
No we don't either. We have no idea what arguments thy were going to make, how they made them, the strength of their witnesses, etc. You clearly have no idea of how a trial or the law works.
Yes we do. The trial is over. We know exactly what kind of limp-wristed case the prosecution put forward. We know what evidence they had.



Quote:
I am not moving the goalposts. My point this whole time is that plane crash ≠ bad pilot just as losing a case ≠ bad lawyer.
And i'm saying, once again, that your analogy is awful. I put forth a better analogy, which you don't seem to understand.



Quote:
Then you lead a pretty boring life I guess.
Not really. What makes you say that?



Quote:
Maybe, maybe not. Were those deflection of their own WRs? The point, again, despite your complete miscomprehension of both sports and the law, is that numbers, first impressions, and incomplete information are a shitty basis from which to draw a conclusive opinion. Maybe CG did a bad job, but that opinion is very hard to justify given what we know now.
No it isn't.



Quote:
Do you understand what the work characterization means? If he said those words it would not be a characterization; it would be what he said. Maybe we can just chalk up it up to English being another thing you have trouble with.
Are personal attacks all you have left? Because really, that seems to be all you have left. So far, I've lost count of the various ways you've engaged in ad hominem attacks in this thread.

Last edited by Labrador Deceiver; 12-29-2014 at 12:02 PM.
  #339  
Old 12-29-2014, 12:31 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
No, she said that she probably made a mistake. Point for me.
First, she says it MAY have been a mistake. Second, she doesn't say she did a bad job at all, which has been my point. CG isn't beyond being critiques for a choice we know she made. Everyone makes mistakes. The point is we don't know enough to say those mistakes were impactful enough to warrant saying she did a bad job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
If we aren't talking about CG being a shit lawyer, then this is a total non-sequitur.
Reading comprehension problems arise again. Please point out where I said you said she was a shit lawyer? If you drew an incorrect inference, that is on you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Dismissing a lame argument that amounts to "someone agrees with me", is not deflection. It's giving your argument all the consideration it deserves.
No, it's deflection given many people think the characterization is fair given what Adnan said. I linked to one other lawyer who says that while you just whine that Adnan didn't say those exact words. If Adnan thought she did a bad job, he would have said that. It doesn't seem he did. Discussing this point more really makes no sense if you cannot parse a basic statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Yes we do. The trial is over. We know exactly what kind of limp-wristed case the prosecution put forward. We know what evidence they had.
Great, so please link to the trial transcripts, the list of witnesses and their statements, the evidence presented in total, and any other relevant information that outlines the entire case the prosecution put forth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Are personal attacks all you have left? Because really, that seems to be all you have left. So far, I've lost count of the various ways you've engaged in ad hominem attacks in this thread.
Excuse me, you started with the personal attacks. Don't bitch and moan now that you painted yourself into a corner as far as the argument is concerned.
  #340  
Old 12-29-2014, 12:51 PM
Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 7,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
First, she says it MAY have been a mistake. Second, she doesn't say she did a bad job at all, which has been my point. CG isn't beyond being critiques for a choice we know she made. Everyone makes mistakes. The point is we don't know enough to say those mistakes were impactful enough to warrant saying she did a bad job.
Yes we do know enough. The prosecution had a shit case that she was unable to overcome.



Quote:
Reading comprehension problems arise again. Please point out where I said you said she was a shit lawyer? If you drew an incorrect inference, that is on you.
Your statement makes no sense any other way than an implication that I thought CG was a shit lawyer. Pease stop back pedaling and admit your mistake.



Quote:
No, it's deflection given many people think the characterization is fair given what Adnan said.
One person is not many. I dismissed. I didn't deflect.


Quote:
while you just whine that Adnan didn't say those exact words.
Look, another personal attack. I guess whining is better than inventing things.

Quote:
If Adnan thought she did a bad job, he would have said that.
He absolutely would not. He doesn't even have very much bad to say about the guy who accused him of murder.


Quote:
Great, so please link to the trial transcripts, the list of witnesses and their statements, the evidence presented in total, and any other relevant information that outlines the entire case the prosecution put forth?
Why? Are you suggesting that there is more evidence of significance that we don't know about? Cite, please. Otherwise, I think we know what evidence the prosecution had on Adnan.



Quote:
Excuse me, you started with the personal attacks.
No I didnt. I certainly didn't carpet bomb my posts with them like you did after you ran out of argument.

Quote:
Don't bitch and moan
Another one!

Last edited by Labrador Deceiver; 12-29-2014 at 12:53 PM.
  #341  
Old 12-29-2014, 12:55 PM
Crotalus's Avatar
Crotalus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio
Posts: 6,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
Rabia was not at the trial.
You have said this a couple of times. What are you basing that on? Rabia disagrees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabia Chaudry
The trial was hard, really painful to sit through. I was thoroughly confused. How was she a star attorney? From my bench in the courtroom her defense was a disaster.
She does say that she did not attend the first trial.

Source.
  #342  
Old 12-29-2014, 01:08 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus View Post
You have said this a couple of times. What are you basing that on? Rabia disagrees. She does say that she did not attend the first trial.

Source.
Thanks for the correction. My apologies for the mistake.
  #343  
Old 12-29-2014, 01:18 PM
GrandWino's Avatar
GrandWino is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Evanstonia
Posts: 9,642
Just poking my head in to mention that I'm pretty sure people that worked with CG on this or other cases have said that she was distracted and taking on too much while battling illness. I thought that specifically came from an assistant on this case but I may be wrong.
  #344  
Old 12-29-2014, 01:33 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Yes we do know enough. The prosecution had a shit case that she was unable to overcome.
What professional credentials do you have to state that, and why would you state that without seeing all the evidence? Again, please link to documents outlining the sum total of their case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Your statement makes no sense any other way than an implication that I thought CG was a shit lawyer. Pease stop back pedaling and admit your mistake.
No, it is my editorializing obviously. The fact that you think it means I was quoting you as opposed to saying that that was the thrust of your argument (which it was), shows how you don't grasp basic English concepts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
One person is not many. I dismissed. I didn't deflect.
I personally know of many others. You can just search on reddit or google to find others who came to the same conclusion given what Adnan said even if they think he should think she did a bad job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
He absolutely would not. He doesn't even have very much bad to say about the guy who accused him of murder.
I think he clearly explained WHY he wasn't saying much at all about Jay. The same reasoning doesn't apply to CG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Why? Are you suggesting that there is more evidence of significance that we don't know about? Cite, please. Otherwise, I think we know what evidence the prosecution had on Adnan.
I am saying we don't know what we don't know. And if you think you know all of the evidence, please link to something outlining all the evidence presented in both trials?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
No I didnt. I certainly didn't carpet bomb my posts with them like you did after you ran out of argument.
How disingenuous you are. Let's look at how this started. You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
I'm pretty sure that I remember Adnan saying that he does think she did a bad job.
Which is demonstrably false. When I linked to the relevant text, you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
There are plenty of criminal prosecutors and defense attorneys who have publicly stated that she screwed up, big time. You can find them and their specific criticisms online.
Which is probably true, but unrelated to your first claim. Then you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
It's absurd to think that a criminal defense attorney cannot make a qualified decision on her performance based on the facts of the case, hearing snippets of the trial, knowing how long the jury deliberated, etc. They absolutely do not have to have heard the entire trial. If you can find a single attorney who did read the entire transcript, and who says that she did a good job, I'd be happy to listen.
Here is where you start with the hyperbole and histrionics. The fact that you can even argue hearing snippets and the time of jury deliberations means the lawyer was bad is mind boggling to me and really shows how out of your depth you are.

Then you continued to move the goalposts by arguing this:

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'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.
Bonus points for the anonymous lawyer friend who defends celebrities, but you have completely changed the issue. I never said CG was a good lawyer or that she did a good job. I said Adnan seems to think she did a pretty good job and that WE, people who have seen just a snippet of her performance, are not in a position to accurately judge that.

Then it just devolves from there. I get that you disagree and think CG was clearly bad because you heard her talk for 30 seconds and she lost the case, but the reality is MOST lawyers lose the vast majority of murder cases. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean much in terms of how well they represented their client. The fact that you feel so desirous to deem CG incompetent is just strange given how little we know about what happened in court.
  #345  
Old 12-29-2014, 01:45 PM
Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 7,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
What professional credentials do you have to state that, and why would you state that without seeing all the evidence? Again, please link to documents outlining the sum total of their case?
I don't need to have credentials. I have linked to several people who do. Your entire argument is that nobody is qualified to judge her performance. Everyone here, plus numerous other attorneys, disagree with you.



Quote:
No, it is my editorializing obviously. The fact that you think it means I was quoting you as opposed to saying that that was the thrust of your argument (which it was), shows how you don't grasp basic English concepts.
Ah, another personal attack. So predictable. It makes no sense if you aren't attributing that stance to me. Try again.



Quote:
I personally know of many others. You can just search on reddit or google to find others who came to the same conclusion given what Adnan said even if they think he should think she did a bad job.
But none who can show that Adnan said anything remotely close to it, right?



Quote:
I think he clearly explained WHY he wasn't saying much at all about Jay. The same reasoning doesn't apply to CG.
Cite, please.


Quote:
I am saying we don't know what we don't know. And if you think you know all of the evidence, please link to something outlining all the evidence presented in both trials?
Here. If you don't think that's a fair summary of all the pertinent evidence, then you really have no business in this thread.



Quote:
How disingenuous you are.
Another personal attack. So, I guess this is where you demonstrate why I'm disingenuous on that point.

Quote:
Let's look at how this started. You said:
Here it comes...

Quote:
Which is demonstrably false. When I linked to the relevant text, you said:
Not yet...



Quote:
Which is probably true, but unrelated to your first claim. Then you said:
Not yet...



Quote:
Here is where you start with the hyperbole and histrionics. The fact that you can even argue hearing snippets and the time of jury deliberations means the lawyer was bad is mind boggling to me and really shows how out of your depth you are.
Not yet....

Quote:
Then you continued to move the goalposts by arguing this:
Not yet...



Quote:
Bonus points for the anonymous lawyer friend who defends celebrities, but you have completely changed the issue. I never said CG was a good lawyer or that she did a good job. I said Adnan seems to think she did a pretty good job and that WE, people who have seen just a snippet of her performance, are not in a position to accurately judge that.

Then it just devolves from there. I get that you disagree and think CG was clearly bad because you heard her talk for 30 seconds and she lost the case, but the reality is MOST lawyers lose the vast majority of murder cases. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean much in terms of how well they represented their client. The fact that you feel so desirous to deem CG incompetent is just strange given how little we know about what happened in court.
Wow, what does any of that have to do with personal attacks? You really went off on a bit of a rant there, didn't ya.

Last edited by Labrador Deceiver; 12-29-2014 at 01:46 PM.
  #346  
Old 12-29-2014, 01:49 PM
Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 7,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
What professional credentials do you have to state that, and why would you state that without seeing all the evidence? Again, please link to documents outlining the sum total of their case?
I don't need to have credentials. I have linked to several people who do. Your entire argument is that nobody is qualified to judge her performance. Everyone here, plus numerous other attorneys, disagree with you.



Quote:
No, it is my editorializing obviously. The fact that you think it means I was quoting you as opposed to saying that that was the thrust of your argument (which it was), shows how you don't grasp basic English concepts.
Ah, another personal attack. So predictable. It makes no sense if you aren't attributing that stance to me. Try again.



Quote:
I personally know of many others. You can just search on reddit or google to find others who came to the same conclusion given what Adnan said even if they think he should think she did a bad job.
But none who can show that Adnan said anything remotely close to it, right?



Quote:
I think he clearly explained WHY he wasn't saying much at all about Jay. The same reasoning doesn't apply to CG.
Cite, please.


[I am saying we don't know what we don't know. And if you think you know all of the evidence, please link to something outlining all the evidence presented in both trials?[/quote]

Here. If you don't think that's a fair summary of all the pertinent evidence, then you really have no business in this thread.



Quote:
How disingenuous you are.
Another personal attack. So, I guess this is where you demonstrate why I'm disingenuous on that point.

Quote:
Let's look at how this started. You said:
Here it comes...

Quote:
Which is demonstrably false. When I linked to the relevant text, you said:
Not yet...



Quote:
Which is probably true, but unrelated to your first claim. Then you said:
Not yet...



Quote:
Here is where you start with the hyperbole and histrionics. The fact that you can even argue hearing snippets and the time of jury deliberations means the lawyer was bad is mind boggling to me and really shows how out of your depth you are.
Not yet....

Quote:
Then you continued to move the goalposts by arguing this:
Not yet...



Quote:
Bonus points for the anonymous lawyer friend who defends celebrities, but you have completely changed the issue. I never said CG was a good lawyer or that she did a good job. I said Adnan seems to think she did a pretty good job and that WE, people who have seen just a snippet of her performance, are not in a position to accurately judge that.

Then it just devolves from there. I get that you disagree and think CG was clearly bad because you heard her talk for 30 seconds and she lost the case, but the reality is MOST lawyers lose the vast majority of murder cases. That, in and of itself, doesn't mean much in terms of how well they represented their client. The fact that you feel so desirous to deem CG incompetent is just strange given how little we know about what happened in court.
Wow, what does any of that have to do with personal attacks? You really went off on a bit of a rant there, didn't ya.

(Plus, you're putting words in my mouth again. I never said she was incompetent. Or a shit lawyer.)
  #347  
Old 12-29-2014, 03:44 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
I don't need to have credentials. I have linked to several people who do.
Really? In what post can I find those links?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Your entire argument is that nobody is qualified to judge her performance. Everyone here, plus numerous other attorneys, disagree with you.
Nope. My opinion is that only people who have seen the actual performance are qualified to judge the performance.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Ah, another personal attack. So predictable. It makes no sense if you aren't attributing that stance to me. Try again.
Again, your lack of comprehension gets you in trouble. There is a difference between accusing someone of saying something explicitly and summarizing their sentiments in your own words. You accused me of the former, demanding I cite you saying that, when that was not the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
But none who can show that Adnan said anything remotely close to it, right?
None that have withheld judgment? I already linked to one person. Again, I have never said she did a good job. My point was that Adnan seems to think she did and that we don't have evidence she did a poor job. How this very basic concept manages to continually escape you is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Cite, please.
In short, criticizing Jay hurts his appeal, his image, and opens him and SK up to various charges. Criticizing CG doesn't do any of that, doubly so since he is appealing on grounds of ineffective counsel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Here. If you don't think that's a fair summary of all the pertinent evidence, then you really have no business in this thread.
Ah, the podcast is my cite. You must be joking? GIVE ME A LIST OF ALL THE EVIDENCE THE PROSECUTION PRESENTED. If it's so easy, why are you just linking to the front page of the podcast?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Another personal attack. So, I guess this is where you demonstrate why I'm disingenuous on that point.
You stated the childish behavior and personal attacks by calling my analogy stupid among other things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
(Plus, you're putting words in my mouth again. I never said she was incompetent. Or a shit lawyer.)
Where did I say you said she was incompetent?
  #348  
Old 12-29-2014, 04:32 PM
Labrador Deceiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 7,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickbacon View Post
Really? In what post can I find those links?
Here is one.



Quote:
Nope. My opinion is that only people who have seen the actual performance are qualified to judge the performance.
We've only heard the opinion of one attorney who was present at the trial. She said CG did a terrible job. We also heard from Adnan and at least one juror, both of whom said that CG failed to put forth a coherent outline of what her defense was supposed to even be.


Quote:
Again, your lack of comprehension gets you in trouble.
No it doesn't, but thanks for showing everyone that you haven't abandoned your dependence on personal attacks.

Quote:
There is a difference between accusing someone of saying something explicitly and summarizing their sentiments in your own words. You accused me of the former, demanding I cite you saying that, when that was not the point.
I'm saying your summary bears no resemblance to anything he said, and is plucked from thin air.


Quote:
we don't have evidence she did a poor job.
Yes we do.



Quote:
In short, criticizing Jay hurts his appeal, his image, and opens him and SK up to various charges. Criticizing CG doesn't do any of that, doubly so since he is appealing on grounds of ineffective counsel.
Personally criticizing CG would hurt his image just as much as criticizing Jay. I have no doubt that his attorneys have advised him to leave the criticisms of his council to them.

Quote:
Ah, the podcast is my cite. You must be joking? GIVE ME A LIST OF ALL THE EVIDENCE THE PROSECUTION PRESENTED. If it's so easy, why are you just linking to the front page of the podcast?
The entire podcast lay out the evidence available to the prosecution. If you want to dispute what she says, or claim that Serial leaves out important pieces of evidence, then you're in the wrong thread.



Quote:
You stated the childish behavior and personal attacks by calling my analogy stupid among other things.
You are not your analogy. I attacked what you said, not you.



Quote:
Where did I say you said she was incompetent?
Seriously?

Quote:
The fact that you feel so desirous to deem CG incompetent...
I didn't say she was incompetent, nor do I desire to call her incompetent. I think Adnan killed Hae, so I have no idea why you're ascribing motives to me.

Last edited by Labrador Deceiver; 12-29-2014 at 04:33 PM.
  #349  
Old 12-29-2014, 05:00 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Here is one.
Where had you linked to that post in this thread? You said you already linked to several people before. What post did you link to that cite? More importantly, few of these people comment at all on the job CG did, and half of them are idiots. If you think voting not guilty because, "Adnan isnít a psychopath" makes sense then I don't know what to tell you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
We've only heard the opinion of one attorney who was present at the trial. She said CG did a terrible job. We also heard from Adnan and at least one juror, both of whom said that CG failed to put forth a coherent outline of what her defense was supposed to even be.
So the opinions of two people mean she did a terrible job? First, Rabia is clearly biased and not really reliable. Second, the juror's opinion could partly be the result of the evidence being what it is, not bad counsel. Adnan's legal team has already been ruled against on some of the counts of ineffective counsel, so not everyone thinks she did a demonstrably terrible job. Either way, she very may well have. The issue is pronouncing this without having even read the complete (or even a large part) trial transcripts is foolish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
I'm saying your summary bears no resemblance to anything he said, and is plucked from thin air.
And you would be wrong. If multiple people come to the opposite conclusion you do, maybe you should reevaluate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Yes we do.
Great, please cite that evidence and the evidence you have that it was a misstep rather than a strategy, or that if it was strategy, please state why you think the strategy was bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
Personally criticizing CG would hurt his image just as much as criticizing Jay. I have no doubt that his attorneys have advised him to leave the criticisms of his council to them.
Nonsense. He is appealing because of ineffective counsel. He is essentially accusing her of incompetence even if you want to argue it is a legal ruse. the idea he wouldn't come out a say that if he believed it to be true is without basis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
The entire podcast lay out the evidence available to the prosecution.
Wrong. The podcast omits some things and introduces others that didn't exist at the time or weren't allowed into trial. Examples include the nurse's testimony and summer's testimony. I have no idea why you think a 10 hour or so podcast could introduce every piece of detail and evidence in a 2-month trial is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
If you want to dispute what she says, or claim that Serial leaves out important pieces of evidence, then you're in the wrong thread.
Please don't tell me where I can post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
You are not your analogy. I attacked what you said, not you.
And you are not your logical reasoning skills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labrador Deceiver View Post
I didn't say she was incompetent, nor do I desire to call her incompetent. I think Adnan killed Hae, so I have no idea why you're ascribing motives to me.
Because you keep questioning semantics like a petulant child despite it being pretty clear I am not intended to quote you verbatim.
  #350  
Old 12-29-2014, 05:31 PM
brickbacon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 4,895
On a lighter note, here is a present day interview with Jay.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017