Straight Dope Message Board

[mr. jp]

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

The nuttiest theory I've seen on Reddit today: The location where Hae's car was found, off Edmonson avenue, is right next to Leakin Park. If the cops had really been looking all over for the car, they couldn't have been looking very hard. So maybe they already knew where it was when Jay was brought in, and they fed that information to Jay. Crazy? Maybe. Serious police corruption? Yes. But detective Ritz, at least, was apparently involved with some serious misconduct in a different case, so maybe we shouldn't put that past the Baltimore police.

Thank you.

As I said, I don't believe Adnan did it, but I can't create an alternative scenario. Which is mostly because of that damn car location identification.

As in one thread on reddit where someone posted an elaborate theory about someone else doing it, and the top post was just: "Jay. Car."

However, if it's at all possible that this information was fed to him, then all of a sudden Mr. S could have done it again, and he seems like a vastly more likely culprit than Adnan.

It doesn't even have to be police corruption. Let's say that all the police knew where it was. At some point someone says it and Jay overhears, and perhaps he knows exactly where that is. And the police don't want to make a big deal out of this because they believe his story (and want to believe his story because it can get a conviction.) They push him into accusing Adnan by saying that else they would go after him both about weed and about the murder (plus maybe they had even more).

The Nisha call I don't think is such a big problem. Perhaps Jay calls Nisha, it rings for a while, she picks up and they talk for a bit. Or perhaps Jay lends the phone to someone else and that person calls Nisha. In a scenario where both Jay and Adnan are innocent of this crime, it's not really so difficult to explain. 151

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

Well, now episode 9 gave us Adnan saying explicitly that he had nothing to do with the murder. So, yeah, so much for my pattern in clouds. Throwing that out, then.

Also, probably no pay phone at all at Best Buy? And Hae seen at school after the time when was supposed to be dead?

Seems like the deeper you dig, the less you know. Is there anything at all left of Jay's narrative that makes sense now, except maybe the part about the burial in Leakin Park that evening?

Indeed. The cops timeline is now all shot to Hell, IMO. 152

[Sam Lowry]

I know there have been a million articles about Serial, but I thought this one was very interesting and relevant: What Serial Gets Wrong

You can't tell us Adnan's story without talking about what it means to be a defendant in a courtroom in 1999, as America was putting the finishing touches on its most incarceratory decade yet. Over 350 new state prisons built in one single decade, each quickly filled to capacity. This is when incarceration was accelerating disconcertingly fast but before any of us were talking about it.

And Baltimore at that time. Jesus. Grim and poor and punitive. More than half of young black men in the city were in the criminal justice system—if they weren't incarcerated they were on probation or parole.

Think about this. In early 1999, the prosecutor's office was a public relations nightmare. They had no time, no money, but more charging power than ever. Plus they must have had tactics—after all, they were putting a shocking amount of people away while vastly under-resourced.

And then two months after a girl disappeared, someone is pointing to the boyfriend. That's open and shut, quick and clean. I don't think it's crazy to consider the fact that the police were overlooking Jay's six remixes to his own story to get a win and get it off their desk.

This reinforces what I've thought before, that Adnan very well might be guilty of killing Hae Min, but I don't know if he should have been convincted based on the evidence they had. It might be interesting to dig into more of the institutional stuff, but it's maybe not as dramatic. 153

[davidw]

Very engrossing episode today.

One thing I noticed about my experience while listening. In the first few episodes, I believed that Adnan was probably not guilty, and I would mentally dismiss evidence that conflicted with that view.

Around episode 6 or so, it became too much to dismiss and I flipped to believing that Adnan was likely guilty. Listening to the latest episode, I found myself dismissing evidence that conflicted with that view.

I like to think of myself as an open-minded person, but it's interesting seeing how I latch onto a narrative and how much it takes to shake me off of it once I do. 154

[carlb]

Sounds like next episode will focus on Adnan's first attorney. Should be interesting.

I hope at some point we get a recap of the evidence presented at trial; essentially a digest of each side's case. Because, based on what I've heard so far, I can't imagine voting to convict if I had been on that jury. Sounds like lots of reasonable doubt.

Also, I was really disturbed by the judge's comments at sentencing. Granted, we were not at the trial, and haven't heard much of the actual trial, but the judge's characterization of Adnan as manipulative sounded like it came out of left field. I wonder what that was all about? 155

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

Early witness interviews aren't necessarily the same sort of animal as the later interviews that are used to construct final evidence. They're not necessarily treated like "rough drafts."

They don't have to be. If the cops influenced Jay's story, why did they report all inconsistencies. To do so makes no sense. Those notes and tapes could have easily "disappeared", but they didn't.

Originally Posted by Acsenray

And just because misbehavior isn't accomplished with perfect precision doesn't mean that it isn't misbehavior.

It's nowhere near perfect precision. Yes, there are corrupt cops, but there are very few corrupt, stupid cops who also take detailed, seemingly unaltered notes which document their corruption.

Originally Posted by Acsenray

There are things such as chains of evidence. It's not always possible to make evidence disappear easily after it has been created, especially if someone else already knows about it.

There are THEIR notes. Chain of evidence has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Acsenray

None of this has anything to do with whether that's actually what happened in this case. It's just clear to me that the unrecorded interviews were unrecorded because the cops were helping Jay get his final story straight. Whether that final story was falsely constructed is a different issue, but the suspicion that this missing time creates is a reason that we shouldn't allow it.

You are basing this on nothing. More importantly, you wouldn't document the process if that is what you were doing.

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

So maybe they already knew where it was when Jay was brought in, and they fed that information to Jay.

So they convinced Jay, a kid who doesn't trust cops, to implicate himself and make himself an accessory rather than have him just say Adnan told him where the car was?

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

At this point my gut feeling is not to believe a single word of Jay's story. None of it. At all.

Do you think both Jenn and Chris are lying too?

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

Another thing: Why, oh why, was Adnan not allowed to take the stand? He's charismatic, charming, believable and ready to insist on his innocence.

He'd be a terrible witness because he has no alibi, was caught lying, and the parts of his story he does remember sound like complete bullshit.

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

Furthermore: No signs of violent or sociopathic behavior in prison for the fifteen years that he's been there.

Well, he is in jail with men. The environment is not as conducive for a guy who has murdered a woman.

Originally Posted by totallyanon

This is not a case where a victim is identifying an assailant. This is a case where a co conspirator has a constantly changing story, so I very much get worried that his testimony is really the only proof used to send someone to jail.

It's not the only proof.

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

So overall, the case against Adnan is very weak and full of reasonable doubt.

Remember, the jury didn't hear everything we heard in the way we heard it. 156

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Remember, the jury didn't hear everything we heard in the way we heard it.

That's really the bottom line, isn't it? SK has not uncovered any new evidence in her investigation. All she's done is shine a new light on evidence that's been sitting around for the past 15 years. Given what's been presented thus far, I'm inclined to think that there is sufficient reason to have this case be brought back in front of a judge on appeal. Not because I'm convinced the wrong guy is doing life in prison but because there was insufficient evidence to convict him in the first place. 157

[totallyanon]

It's not the only proof.

Actually it is. they have nothing physical, only Jay and the timeline he concocted with the police doesn't work anymore now that there are multiple people who saw Hae at school when the police say she was murdered.

Remember, the jury didn't hear everything we heard in the way we heard it.

This is one point where I agree with you and makes me believe the only reason Adnan is in jail is because his lawyer did nothing for him. My god, there wasn't even a phone booth at the Best Buy - without the phone booth Jay's story is even more completely messed up and riddled with lies - especially when Jay notes specifically the Adnan was wearing red gloves while waiting for him at the pay phone. The phone that didn't exist. All Adnan's lawyer has to do is introduce in court that the phone booth wasn't there and Adnan never gets convicted. 158

[GrandWino]

On Reddit I saw discussion about another murder around the same time of another student at Woodlawn. Also killed by strangulation and body found in a park.

Someone was convicted and is actually serving time in the same prison as Adnan. I wonder if this guy was ever looked at as a suspect for Hae's murder.

Here's the Reddit thread w/ links to the info. Here's the article on the other murder.

There are holes that don't match up w/ the timeline, but as we know - the timeline is pretty bunk at this point. 159

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

That's really the bottom line, isn't it? SK has not uncovered any new evidence in her investigation.

In a sense she has because we hear from Adnan.

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

All she's done is shine a new light on evidence that's been sitting around for the past 15 years. Given what's been presented thus far, I'm inclined to think that there is sufficient reason to have this case be brought back in front of a judge on appeal.

On what grounds?

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Not because I'm convinced the wrong guy is doing life in prison but because there was insufficient evidence to convict him in the first place.

Insufficient evidence is up to a jury (or a judge in limited circumstances), and they clearly disagreed in record time. You can't just get a new trial because you think you lawyer should have been better. Ineffective counsel is very hard to prove and has a pretty high bar.

Originally Posted by totallyanon

Actually it is. they have nothing physical, only Jay and the timeline he concocted with the police doesn't work anymore now that there are multiple people who saw Hae at school when the police say she was murdered.

Most murder cases don't have physical evidence. This study says only 13.5% of murder cases they reviewed did.

Plus, there is more evidence than that. Here is a fairly comprehensive list without Jay's testimony just off the top of my head. I am sure I left things out:

1. Jen's testimony
2. Hae's letter to Adnan about being controlling on which he wrote, "I'm going to kill".
3. Hae's diary
4. Adnan's prints on the map cover found in Hae's trunk which had the Leakin Park page torn out
5. The cell tower evidence showing his phone was in Leakin Park when she was likely buried
6. The Nisha call and the voice mail call
7. Adcock's testimony that Adnan lied about asking for a ride
8. Adnan's brother calling him a "masterful liar"
9. Cathy's testimony that Adnan received a call and was acting strange
10. The numerous holes in Adnan's account of where he was and why he did the things he did (eg. lending his car to Jay, calling Hae 3 times the night before she disappears, thinking Hae went to CA).
11. Adnan never trying to contact Hae again after the 13th.
12. He loans his car and cell phone to, and hangs out most of the day with Jay, a person who admits being an accessory to murder.
13. Hae being strangled, a very personal and inefficient way to kill someone
14. Hae likely going missing from the last place Adnan was, and a place Jay wouldn't be. Also that she wouldn't have stopped for just anyone before picking up her cousin.
15. Anonymous tipster with Asian accent fingers Adnan.
16. Yasser, Adnan's good friend states Adnan said if he ever killed his GF, he would dump her car in a lake or the woods.
17. Witnesses state Adnan asked Hae for a ride the day she disappeared.
18. Adnan essentially led a double life and has lots of experience lying convincingly.
19. Adnan has no credible alibi, plausible alternative theory of what happened, or desire to look for any exculpatory evidence.
20. Adnan, and AFAIK, only Adnan has motive, means, and opportunity to kill Hae.

I suppose no single numbered item above means he did it, but the totality of it all is very damning even absent Jay's testimony.

Originally Posted by totallyanon

My god, there wasn't even a phone booth at the Best Buy - without the phone booth Jay's story is even more completely messed up and riddled with lies - especially when Jay notes specifically the Adnan was wearing red gloves while waiting for him at the pay phone. The phone that didn't exist. All Adnan's lawyer has to do is introduce in court that the phone booth wasn't there and Adnan never gets convicted.

Or, maybe the phone was there. Honestly, do you think his lawyer was THAT bad? Don't you also think someone would have caught that at the time if it were true? 160

[mr. jp]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

1. Jen's testimony
2. Hae's letter to Adnan about being controlling on which he wrote, "I'm going to kill".
3. Hae's diary
4. Adnan's prints on the map cover found in Hae's trunk which had the Leakin Park page torn out
5. The cell tower evidence showing his phone was in Leakin Park when she was likely buried
6. The Nisha call and the voice mail call
7. Adcock's testimony that Adnan lied about asking for a ride
8. Adnan's brother calling him a "masterful liar"
9. Cathy's testimony that Adnan received a call and was acting strange
10. The numerous holes in Adnan's account of where he was and why he did the things he did (eg. lending his car to Jay, calling Hae 3 times the night before she disappears, thinking Hae went to CA).
11. Adnan never trying to contact Hae again after the 13th.
12. He loans his car and cell phone to, and hangs out most of the day with Jay, a person who admits being an accessory to murder.
13. Hae being strangled, a very personal and inefficient way to kill someone
14. Hae likely going missing from the last place Adnan was, and a place Jay wouldn't be. Also that she wouldn't have stopped for just anyone before picking up her cousin.
15. Anonymous tipster with Asian accent fingers Adnan.
16. Yasser, Adnan's good friend states Adnan said if he ever killed his GF, he would dump her car in a lake or the woods.
17. Witnesses state Adnan asked Hae for a ride the day she disappeared.
18. Adnan essentially led a double life and has lots of experience lying convincingly.
19. Adnan has no credible alibi, plausible alternative theory of what happened, or desire to look for any exculpatory evidence.
20. Adnan, and AFAIK, only Adnan has motive, means, and opportunity to kill Hae.

I suppose no single numbered item above means he did it, but the totality of it all is very damning even absent Jay's testimony.

1. True, but it's perhaps related to Jay's testimony.
2. I don't think this is strong evidence. If you go through all the notes of any random teenager back then (when more notes were taken on paper), you're going to find something that is in some way incriminating.
3. If anything, I think her diary points more towards him being innocent. I would expect way more ill will and talk about violent outbursts and such, if it was a diary featuring a murderer.
4. This is nothing. They were together for many months, of course his fingerprints are on some of the stuff.
5. Or he could've been a number of other places, right? Given the cell tower location technology.
6. In absence of Jay's testimony, it has no significance.
7. Of course you are going to say something that a cop trying to prosecute you will critique. Given that, this is mild.
8. Not good evidence that he is a murderer.
9. Was it a testimony, or was it something she said 15 years later, when her mind could have completely reshaped and colored the events?

Etc etc. I don't think any points on this list (except the first) is good evidence for guilt if he is fully innocent.

Or, maybe the phone was there. Honestly, do you think his lawyer was THAT bad? Don't you also think someone would have caught that at the time if it were true?

I actually also think the phone was there. Seems like someone would've pointed it out if it wasn't. 161

[mr. jp]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

15. Anonymous tipster with Asian accent fingers Adnan.

Which episode was this from? I missed it. 162

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by mr. jp

1. True, but it's perhaps related to Jay's testimony.
2. I don't think this is strong evidence. If you go through all the notes of any random teenager back then (when more notes were taken on paper), you're going to find something that is in some way incriminating.
3. If anything, I think her diary points more towards him being innocent. I would expect way more ill will and talk about violent outbursts and such, if it was a diary featuring a murderer.
4. This is nothing. They were together for many months, of course his fingerprints are on some of the stuff.
5. Or he could've been a number of other places, right? Given the cell tower location technology.
6. In absence of Jay's testimony, it has no significance.
7. Of course you are going to say something that a cop trying to prosecute you will critique. Given that, this is mild.
8. Not good evidence that he is a murderer.
9. Was it a testimony, or was it something she said 15 years later, when her mind could have completely reshaped and colored the events?

Etc etc. I don't think any points on this list (except the first) is good evidence for guilt if he is fully innocent.

All you are doing is pointing out that damning circumstantial evidence can have an theoretical innocuous explanation. That is why it's circumstantial. One issue could be brushed off, but not 20+ items in addition to Jay's testimony. 163

[mr. jp]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

All you are doing is pointing out that damning circumstantial evidence can have an theoretical innocuous explanation. That is why it's circumstantial. One issue could be brushed off, but not 20+ items in addition to Jay's testimony.

No, its not just that I think they can have an innocuous explanation, its that I think they are innocuous (most of them). Like they are so commonplace that they would happen to any innocent person.

I think the kid in Twelve Angry Men is certainly guilty because of the same type of argument you use here (that multiple lines of evidence add up), which interestingly people mostly do not agree with. So I agree with that way of looking at it. I just dont think a lot of really weak indicators add up to that much. 164

[don't ask]

A couple of things that I find puzzling are:

We have no idea where or when the murder took place. The entire police theory is built on the bogus 2.36 phone call being Adnan calling Jay to be picked up at Best Buy. However Jay had originally said Adnan called at 3.45 but no such incoming call exists so it had to be the 2.36 call. It can't be the 3.15 call because Jay's testimony makes that impossible. But several witnesses say Hae was at school too late to be murdered by 2.36. The Baltimore Sun has a gallery of the orignal news pieces. In those the Baltimore police state that Hae was seen leaving the school at 3.00.

In the initial pieces Hae's car, which was a recent model, is described and the registration given. We only have Jay's testimony that it was dumped on the day that Hae disappeared. I wonder whether this was confirmed after the car was found? It seems surprising that no-one noticed it for weeks.

I'm also a bit concerned about brickbacon's "evidence." On the basis of things like:

19. Adnan has no credible alibi, plausible alternative theory of what happened, or desire to look for any exculpatory evidence.

substitute my name for his and maybe I did it. 165

[mr. jp]

Originally Posted by don't ask

In the initial pieces Hae's car, which was a recent model, is described and the registration given. We only have Jay's testimony that it was dumped on the day that Hae disappeared. I wonder whether this was confirmed after the car was found? It seems surprising that no-one noticed it for weeks.

I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying. Is it that the car was too nice to go unnoticed, or? 166

[don't ask]

Yeah. It just seems odd that it was all in the public eye and no-one spotted the car. It may be just me but I would actively keep an eye out for a car mentioned in a missing persons report.

A couple of weeks ago I was driving around for a day or two with a plate number in my head that I knew the police were looking for. 167

[Don't Panic]

Originally Posted by don't ask

Yeah. It just seems odd that it was all in the public eye and no-one spotted the car. It may be just me but I would actively keep an eye out for a car mentioned in a missing persons report.

A couple of weeks ago I was driving around for a day or two with a plate number in my head that I knew the police were looking for.

The car is starting to bug me now. As I said earlier, if the police really had been looking all over for it, and not found it, they couldn't have been looking that hard, since it was parked close to Leaking Park. Another thing (although this could be nothing) is how Jay could be so sure that it was even still there. A nice car, parked in shady area of Baltimore for weeks? Sounds like it might at least be conceivable that someone would hot wire it and take off with it. But when the police asks Jay to take them there, he doesn't hesitate or say "well, if it's still there". It's just "yes, no problem". It sounds a bit like the cops told him "we're going to go to a location, and you'll point at a car". 168

[Don't Panic]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Do you think both Jenn and Chris are lying too?

I'm not concerned about Chris. If I remember correctly, he's recounting what Jay told him, and it's much later. He could be wrong about when Jay told him the story. Maybe it was after the police had already talked to Jay.

Jen, however, does bother me. Jen is probably the biggest problem of all. Forget the Nisha call. Forget the cell records. Those can be explained away if Jay is making his story up wholesale (or even if he isn't). But I can't see why Jen would lie to the police, especially that early in the investigation. And there's obviously no reason for Jay to tell her what he did on the 13th, if he wasn't involved with the murder. He wouldn't yet know that there was a murder to make up stories about. So, yeah. For any hypothetical scenario where neither Adnan or Jay are involved, Jen is the show stopper. 169

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by mr. jp

No, its not just that I think they can have an innocuous explanation, its that I think they are innocuous (most of them). Like they are so commonplace that they would happen to any innocent person.

I disagree. How many innocent people lend their car and brand new phone to a casual acquaintance admittedly involved in a murder of someone that acquaintance barely knows but that you do know well? How many write, "I'm going to kill" on a letter from an ex who was subsequently murdered that accuses you of being possessive and substantiates a clear motive for murder? How many people's close friends and family tell cops who they know suspect you of murder that you talked about how you would get rid of evidence from a murder of an ex you committed, or that you are a masterful liar? Yes, the map could be innocuous (although who keeps a map in their trunk), but it's likely not given other circumstantial evidence. That doesn't ALL happen to innocent people.

Originally Posted by mr. jp

I think the kid in Twelve Angry Men is certainly guilty because of the same type of argument you use here (that multiple lines of evidence add up), which interestingly people mostly do not agree with.

I again disagree. The vast majority of murder cases have NO physical evidence. The conviction rate is usually in the 90%+ range. Clearly, people feel no compunction about convicting someone based on circumstantial evidence and direct testimony as we have in this case.

Originally Posted by don't ask

Yeah. It just seems odd that it was all in the public eye and no-one spotted the car. It may be just me but I would actively keep an eye out for a car mentioned in a missing persons report.

Do you know how many missing person reports there were in a city like Baltimore in the 90's? People don't look out for missing cars, and there was some possibility the car wasn't anywhere near Baltimore. This case was not in the public eye. Try to find articles or info about this case pre-Serial. There are maybe 5 articles in only Baltimore papers. This wasn't the OJ case. This was also pre-amber alert, so people didn't think to insinuate themselves in crime solving like some do now.

Originally Posted by don't ask

A couple of weeks ago I was driving around for a day or two with a plate number in my head that I knew the police were looking for.

Nice thing to do I guess, but that is not the norm even today.

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

I'm not concerned about Chris. If I remember correctly, he's recounting what Jay told him, and it's much later. He could be wrong about when Jay told him the story. Maybe it was after the police had already talked to Jay.

Jay told the cops he told Chris at the time. There is little reason to doubt Chris's memory. 170

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

In a sense she has because we hear from Adnan.

On what grounds?

On the grounds that we now able to examine evidence without the police leading us down the garden path of their choosing.

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Insufficient evidence is up to a jury (or a judge in limited circumstances), and they clearly disagreed in record time. You can't just get a new trial because you think you lawyer should have been better. Ineffective counsel is very hard to prove and has a pretty high bar.

This is not a case involving finding motives behind why the jury concluded what they concluded and how quickly they did so. Juries make mistakes. Legal counsel is sometimes incompetent. Judges often disinterested or over-worked. It's an imperfect system. Shining a new light on the evidence ought not include "but the jury thought he was guilty in record time!" as part of that evidence.

Originally Posted by brickbacon

1. Jen's testimony
2. Hae's letter to Adnan about being controlling on which he wrote, "I'm going to kill".
3. Hae's diary
4. Adnan's prints on the map cover found in Hae's trunk which had the Leakin Park page torn out
5. The cell tower evidence showing his phone was in Leakin Park when she was likely buried
6. The Nisha call and the voice mail call
7. Adcock's testimony that Adnan lied about asking for a ride
8. Adnan's brother calling him a "masterful liar"
9. Cathy's testimony that Adnan received a call and was acting strange
10. The numerous holes in Adnan's account of where he was and why he did the things he did (eg. lending his car to Jay, calling Hae 3 times the night before she disappears, thinking Hae went to CA).
11. Adnan never trying to contact Hae again after the 13th.
12. He loans his car and cell phone to, and hangs out most of the day with Jay, a person who admits being an accessory to murder.
13. Hae being strangled, a very personal and inefficient way to kill someone
14. Hae likely going missing from the last place Adnan was, and a place Jay wouldn't be. Also that she wouldn't have stopped for just anyone before picking up her cousin.
15. Anonymous tipster with Asian accent fingers Adnan.
16. Yasser, Adnan's good friend states Adnan said if he ever killed his GF, he would dump her car in a lake or the woods.
17. Witnesses state Adnan asked Hae for a ride the day she disappeared.
18. Adnan essentially led a double life and has lots of experience lying convincingly.
19. Adnan has no credible alibi, plausible alternative theory of what happened, or desire to look for any exculpatory evidence.
20. Adnan, and AFAIK, only Adnan has motive, means, and opportunity to kill Hae.

I suppose no single numbered item above means he did it, but the totality of it all is very damning even absent Jay's testimony.

No single item above means he did it because there is a plausable and reasonable explanation for virtually all of them other than: therefore he did it. There is no trail of evidence based on above. It's a scatter plot. That the judge took so little interest in the case while hearing it is more concerning to me than what a jury of amateurs concluded in record time.

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Or, maybe the phone was there. Honestly, do you think his lawyer was THAT bad? Don't you also think someone would have caught that at the time if it were true?

His lawyer seemed less than competent. The cops were busy building a case and had little motivation to include evidence that undermined that case. 171

[Don't Panic]

I'm trying not to become too voyeuristic about this whole thing, but... oh, the fuck am I kidding, I'm not really trying.

I came across this on Reddit. Some old news footage about the case. There's a clip that claims to be from a short interview with Hae, apparantly from some unrelated local TV news report. You can watch her play lacrosse for a few seconds, too.

Is that really her? I didn't really imagine her like that, even from the photos.

Still. That clip really got to me, somehow. 172

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

On the grounds that we now able to examine evidence without the police leading us down the garden path of their choosing.

That is completely speculative and even if it were true, it would have no legal weight.

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

This is not a case involving finding motives behind why the jury concluded what they concluded and how quickly they did so.

You misunderstood. You said there was insufficient evidence for conviction. That is a claim that is evaluated by a judge, DA, police, and a jury. All of whom upon hearing more evidence than 9 hours of a podcast determined there was. Your opinion in that matter is based on almost nothing.

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Juries make mistakes. Legal counsel is sometimes incompetent. Judges often disinterested or over-worked. It's an imperfect system.

Sure, the juries have made mistakes. There is no evidence they did here though.

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Shining a new light on the evidence ought not include "but the jury thought he was guilty in record time!" as part of that evidence.

It's part of the evidence that undermines your claim that their is not suffient evidence or that there is no evidence of his guilt.

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

No single item above means he did it because there is a plausable and reasonable explanation for virtually all of them other than: therefore he did it.

Look up the definition of circumstantial evidence. Again, it's not that those things couldn't happen to you or I, it's that ALL of them happening to someone whose ex was murdered while he was completely uninvolved and unaware is highly, highly unlikely. It would be like winning 40 blackjack hands in a row. The casino would naturally be convinced you were cheating.

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

There is no trail of evidence based on above.

Sure there is. It's make even more explicit via Jay's testimony.

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

That the judge took so little interest in the case while hearing it is more concerning to me than what a jury of amateurs concluded in record time.

So now the judge is bad too? I guess everyone but Adnan is corrupt, lying, out to get him, etc.

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

His lawyer seemed less than competent. The cops were busy building a case and had little motivation to include evidence that undermined that case.

How do you I so is lawyer was incompetent? For all we know Adnan could have confessed to her. You listened to less than 9 hours of a show and you think that gives you enough evidence to impune everyone involved in this case from Jenn to the judge? At what point do the mental gymnastics you've performed to conclude Adnan didn't do it because he's a "nice guy" run into the cold reality that you are slandering multiple people with serious accusations? 173

[Don't Panic]

Well, some of the people who are being slandered here have already shown themselves to be not exactly the Virgin Mary.

Obviously, we know Jay was lying, at least about some things. He changed his story about six times.

We have reason to suspect police corruption. Detective Ritz was later involved in a case of serious police misconduct, where a man was exonerated after spending ten years in prison for murder.

We have reason to think that the investigation was sloppy. Evidence found at the crime scene was not tested, etc.

We have reason to question how great a job Adnan's lawyer, Cristina Gutierrez, did, and to suspect that she bungled the case, on purpose or otherwise. She was later disbarred for mishandling her client's money. 174

[mr. jp]

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

Jen, however, does bother me. Jen is probably the biggest problem of all. Forget the Nisha call. Forget the cell records. Those can be explained away if Jay is making his story up wholesale (or even if he isn't). But I can't see why Jen would lie to the police, especially that early in the investigation. And there's obviously no reason for Jay to tell her what he did on the 13th, if he wasn't involved with the murder. He wouldn't yet know that there was a murder to make up stories about. So, yeah. For any hypothetical scenario where neither Adnan or Jay are involved, Jen is the show stopper.

I forgot what exactly happened with Jen. Which episode was that from? 175

[mr. jp]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

I disagree. How many innocent people lend their car and brand new phone to a casual acquaintance admittedly involved in a murder of someone that acquaintance barely knows but that you do know well? How many write, "I'm going to kill" on a letter from an ex who was subsequently murdered that accuses you of being possessive and substantiates a clear motive for murder? How many people's close friends and family tell cops who they know suspect you of murder that you talked about how you would get rid of evidence from a murder of an ex you committed, or that you are a masterful liar? Yes, the map could be innocuous (although who keeps a map in their trunk), but it's likely not given other circumstantial evidence. That doesn't ALL happen to innocent people.

That people tell the cops that they suspect him of murder is obviously a strong argument. It is also pretty much the only strong argument. For the rest of the points I still think they are almost irrelevant, for the reasons I stated above. 176

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

You misunderstood. You said there was insufficient evidence for conviction. That is a claim that is evaluated by a judge, DA, police, and a jury. All of whom upon hearing more evidence than 9 hours of a podcast determined there was. Your opinion in that matter is based on almost nothing.

....

How do you I so is lawyer was incompetent? For all we know Adnan could have confessed to her. You listened to less than 9 hours of a show and you think that gives you enough evidence to impune everyone involved in this case from Jenn to the judge? At what point do the mental gymnastics you've performed to conclude Adnan didn't do it because he's a "nice guy" run into the cold reality that you are slandering multiple people with serious accusations?

At no time did I say that I think Adnan is innocent because he's a "nice guy". I said that I believe there is insufficient evidence to convict him or murder. For all I know, he may be guilty. For all you know, Jay may be guilty.

In addition, a reputable team of Innocence Project lawyers seem to agree with the fact that the evidence was insufficient to convict. 177

[mr. jp]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

I disagree. How many innocent people lend their car and brand new phone to a casual acquaintance admittedly involved in a murder of someone that acquaintance barely knows but that you do know well? How many write, "I'm going to kill" on a letter from an ex who was subsequently murdered that accuses you of being possessive and substantiates a clear motive for murder? How many people's close friends and family tell cops who they know suspect you of murder that you talked about how you would get rid of evidence from a murder of an ex you committed, or that you are a masterful liar? Yes, the map could be innocuous (although who keeps a map in their trunk), but it's likely not given other circumstantial evidence. That doesn't ALL happen to innocent people.

I will go through them 1 by 1 and evaluate how unlikely I think it is, in a scenario where Adnan is completely innocent.

"lend their car and brand new phone to a casual acquaintance"

Unlikeliness : 2/10

I think that happened all the time in this environment. If you have some arguments that this was not the case I could take it up again. Casual acquaintance seems to also understate things, given that we at least knew they hung out somewhat regularly.


"admittedly involved in a murder of someone that acquaintance barely knows but that you do know well?"

Unlikeliness: 9/10


"How many write, "I'm going to kill" on a letter from an ex"

Unlikeliness: 2

I think if you go through every single note from any innocent teenager, you are going to find something that is at least this discriminating.


"who was subsequently murdered that accuses you of being possessive and substantiates a clear motive for murder?"

Unlikeliness: N/A

I disagree with this. I think that her accusations were extremely mild, and I don't think there was a motive for murder, and it was definitely not substantiated.


"Yes, the map could be innocuous (although who keeps a map in their trunk), but it's likely not given other circumstantial evidence."

Unlikeliness: 1

Innocuous things that suddenly become damning just because there is other circumstantial evidence against someone. Then everyone would be guilty once you start accusing them, due to roll-on effect of a multitude of small random things. 178

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

Obviously, we know Jay was lying, at least about some things. He changed his story about six times.

True, but he was also know he told the truth about many things, so we can't throw out everything he says.

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

We have reason to suspect police corruption. Detective Ritz was later involved in a case of serious police misconduct, where a man was exonerated after spending ten years in prison for murder.

I agree, but how much evidence do we have for those suspicions? If he was that corrupt, don't you think he would have not recording Jay's multiple conflicting stories?

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

We have reason to think that the investigation was sloppy. Evidence found at the crime scene was not tested, etc.

Not testing "evidence" is very common and not usually an indication of sloppiness at all. Mostly because anything near or around the crime scene is not real evidence.

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

We have reason to question how great a job Adnan's lawyer, Cristina Gutierrez, did, and to suspect that she bungled the case, on purpose or otherwise. She was later disbarred for mishandling her client's money.

So mishandling money means you purposefully bungled a case?

Originally Posted by mr. jp

For the rest of the points I still think they are almost irrelevant, for the reasons I stated above.

How is the victim of a murder writing you a scathing letter saying you are possessive and taking their breakup particularly hard not pretty good circumstantial evidence?

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

I said that I believe there is insufficient evidence to convict him or murder.

But you have not heard all the evidence, so how can you be at all certain?

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

In addition, a reputable team of Innocence Project lawyers seem to agree with the fact that the evidence was insufficient to convict.

They are law STUDENTS taking a class at UVA save the professor. They are also reading transcripts 15 years after the fact. Being at the trial means a lot given lots of information is not conveyed via a transcript. That like looking at a box score to tell you how exciting a baseball game was. 179

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by mr. jp

I will go through them 1 by 1 and evaluate how unlikely I think it is, in a scenario where Adnan is completely innocent.

"lend their car and brand new phone to a casual acquaintance"

Unlikeliness : 2/10

I think that happened all the time in this environment. If you have some arguments that this was not the case I could take it up again. Casual acquaintance seems to also understate things, given that we at least knew they hung out somewhat regularly.


"admittedly involved in a murder of someone that acquaintance barely knows but that you do know well?"

Unlikeliness: 9/10


"How many write, "I'm going to kill" on a letter from an ex"

Unlikeliness: 2

I think if you go through every single note from any innocent teenager, you are going to find something that is at least this discriminating.


"who was subsequently murdered that accuses you of being possessive and substantiates a clear motive for murder?"

Unlikeliness: N/A

I disagree with this. I think that her accusations were extremely mild, and I don't think there was a motive for murder, and it was definitely not substantiated.


"Yes, the map could be innocuous (although who keeps a map in their trunk), but it's likely not given other circumstantial evidence."

Unlikeliness: 1

Innocuous things that suddenly become damning just because there is other circumstantial evidence against someone. Then everyone would be guilty once you start accusing them, due to roll-on effect of a multitude of small random things.

Multiple all those probabilities together and tell me how likely it is all of them happen? 180

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

But you have not heard all the evidence, so how can you be at all certain?

Fair enough; I believe, based on the information presented thus far, there was insufficient cause to convict.

But it begs the question, what other evidence is there? What do you know that we do not from the 9 podcasts thus far? Are you holding out on us, counselor? 181

[Don't Panic]

Originally Posted by mr. jp

I forgot what exactly happened with Jen. Which episode was that from?

Episode 4, "Inconsistencies". The police notice from Adnan's cell records that Jen was called six times on the day of the murder. They go to talk to her on January 26th. At first she tells them nothing, then the next day, the 27th, she goes back to them, armed with a lawyer. According to SK, she was afraid that she might be charged, and Jay had told her to tell the cops what she knew and send them his way.

Jen's story to the police is that Jay told her about the murder the very day that it happened, on the 13th, when Adnan dropped off Jay that night. In this version of Jay's story, he had refused to take part in the burial, which he would later admit to, and the murder happened at Best Buy.

Jen then says that she later gave Jay a ride to where he and Adnan dumped the shovels, so that Jay could wipe prints off them and get rid of them. She also knows, from Jay, that Hae was strangled. I don't think that would have been common knowledge at that point.

Note that this is before the police speak to Jay. He is first questioned on the 28th.

So, yeah. Maybe, if I'm drunk enough, I can go along with a theory where some unknown third party did it, Jay is completely uninvolved, and he makes up his story wholesale with info from the police. But with Jen's testimony taken into account, that seems like fairy tale territory. It Jay isn't involved, I can't see why Jen tells them what she does on the 27th and points the cops to Jay.

I also have a hard time imagining a realistic scenario where Jay is involved, but not Adnan. It's both of them or neither, I think.

On the other hand: Jen could still be lying about something, in some way. She was clearly willing to shut up about her knowledge of the crime until the cops showed up, presumably the protect Jay. She's not a model citizen. So, there's still a lot of room for speculation, I guess. 182

[Don't Panic]

On a completely unrelated note, I just realized why we're all hooked on Serial, and what it does that makes it innovative. Audience participation. This isn't a podcast, it's a game. 183

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally Posted by Cubsfan

If anything Jay was a full fledged accomplice in the actual murder. There is really no mystery about Adnan. He can't actually accuse Jay of helping him because in the process he will have to admit he did it and knows what happened etc...

Jay admitted to being an accessory after the fact at least, if his version of events is true. But didn't the prosecution allow him to plead out to a much lesser offense in order to get his testimony?

I'm not convinced of Adnand's guilt, or of Jay's for that matter. It seems that all attempts to corroborate circumstantial with actual physical evidence have failed. A key point seems to be Anand's having called up Jay from a pay phone

SPOILER:

that was supposed to have been in the parking lot of a Best Buy. But nobody seems to have been able to confirm that there ever was such a pay phone. One of the interviewees on the podcast suggests the phone was inside the lobby area of the store itself. Huh? I have never seen such a thing in any Best Buy or similar store.

We have one pothead and one pothead/pot retailer, but that's it. As far as I can tell neither one seems to be the gangster type. IIRC Jay alleged that Anand had blackmailed him into helping him after the fact, or else he would tell the police about Jay's marijuana dealing. I can see how Jay might have been pressured into helping Anand move the body and bury it, because Jay wanted to keep his dealing on the down low, but that theory only makes sense if it's already established through other means that Anand was the murderer. The prosecution's argument seems to be: Anand pressured Jay into helping him with the body, and therefore Anand was the murderer. In my non-lawyerly opinion, this works only if you've already concluded that Anand was the murderer in the first place.

Friends and acquaintances indicate that Anand and Hae remained on good terms after they broke up. This doesn't make it impossible that Anand murdered her, of course, but if I were on that jury the near-absence of any kind of smouldering resentment on Anand's part would definitely concern me. 184

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Sure, the juries have made mistakes. There is no evidence they did here though.

We have heard from two jury members so far.

One of them said that she believed Jay because why would he lie about being involved in such a thing when it would send him to jail too. Which it didn't.

The other implied that she and other members of the jury held Adnan's failure to testify during his trial against him, despite being explicitly instructed not to do so. 185

[Don't Panic]

Originally Posted by mr. jp

I actually also think the phone was there. Seems like someone would've pointed it out if it wasn't.

It would be completely mental if it wasn't there. Just utterly incomprehensible. Best Buy is the single most important location in Jay's story. It's supposed to be the freaking murder scene. Surely the cops would go there and try to reconstruct Adnan's movements. Then surely Adnan's lawyer would do the same thing. We're supposed to believe that no one, at any point, would go, "Um, there's no phone here"? And would Jay tell a story at trial, even if it is full of holes, that could be shot down that easily? That cross-examination would be one quick and easy day's work for Adnan's lawyer. "There's no phone at Best Buy, dude. Mind telling us what really happened?" would be enough to get Adnan off. Trial over.

If there was no phone, then... I give up, I think. Just release the guy from prison already, because clearly everyone involved in the case, from the detectives, to his lawyer, to the key witness, were all either blubbering idiots or utterly corrupt liars.

So, I'm with you. For now I'm going with the assumption that there was a phone there in 1999, even if one shoplifter remembers otherwise. 186

[VarlosZ]

Disclaimer: Adnan may well be guilty. I don't see anything so far that would tend to prove his innocence in any meaningful way. I wouldn't quibble with anyone who thinks he probably did it.


However, I think that people who are saying it's almost certain that he's guilty may be losing sight of what is actually meaningful evidence. There's a whole laundry list of accusations (that have mostly dominated this thread): Adnan stopped calling Hae after she went missing, Adnan can't remember specifically what he was doing on the day of the murder, someone said later that they thought Adnan was acting weird that night, etc.

Stop and look at what this stuff is actually capable of proving: if we didn't have Jay's story, how many facts such as these would it take to get us past reasonable doubt? 100? 1,000? You can't do it, because this is not real evidence. It doesn't tell us anything about what actually happened and/or is laughably unreliable. Now, some of the stuff on the list can help us evaluate the actual evidence, and I would consider a few of the things to be slightly damning on their own (like not calling after the disappearance). Mostly, though, I give almost no weight to this stuff.


Unless I've forgotten something (which is entirely possible), I see two pieces of real evidence:

1) Adnan's cell phone would seem to place him in the vicinity of the burial site on the night of the disappearance. It's a reasonably big vicinity, and we're not 100% certain that Hae was buried that day, but this is relevant, no doubt.

2) Jay says that Adnan showed him the body and told him he killed her. Obviously that's the big one, and ultimately the case comes down to whether (and to what extent) we believe him.

Jay's testimony has some things going for it:
-- He doesn't have an obvious reason to make up the story.
-- Jen says that he told her the same story shortly after the murder.
-- There's good evidence he was actually involved in the crime (he knew where Hae's car was), and during the time when we think the murder and/or disposal of the body was occurring, Adnan's cell phone was with him (which, of course, implies that Adnan was with him).

Now, I'm not too troubled by the fact that we'd need a reason for him to lie (which probably means a reason to kill Hae), in large part since we'd need to do the same thing for Adnan: construct a plausible motive (e.g. jealous rage, or violent argument) that's simply not in evidence. Yes, it's a shorter leap in Adnan's case, but I'm satisfied that he was not devastated and broken in the weeks leading up to the murder. Likewise, it helps that Jay told the story to someone else, but if he's lying then this is the story he's chosen to tell ... so how much does it really matter whether he tells it to one person, or two? I also certainly wouldn't discount the possibility that he could get his girlfriend to lie for him, either in whole or in part.

I'm only really impressed by the fact that he's travelling with Adnan's cell phone. Actually, I forget offhand what the rationale for supposedly loaning it to Jay was (little help?), but that's just not something I (or most others) would do casually. This tendency may well be less universal for a HS kid in 1999, but it's usually a safe assumption that Presence of Phone = Presence of Owner.


Ok, but then what are the reasons we might not find Jay credible? Well, first of all, he's Jay. At the risk of offending all the benevolent weirdos out there, Jay is clearly a weirdo, and sometimes weirdos do or say things that are (to us) inexplicable. More tangibly, he was "the criminal element" at the school (his words), he's been arrested for domestic violence since the murder, and he cultivated a widespread reputation as a liar. Of course, I wasn't there at that time and can't be certain how that came to pass, but I'm inclined to extrapolate from my own experience. I only knew one or two people in high school who my friends and I would describe as "liars," and do you know why they got that reputation? Because they lied all the damn time, about anything, for no apparent reason. Supposedly like Jay, they didn't lie about "big things," but only because they normally didn't have big things to lie about. Simply put, that multiple people would describe someone as a liar should make us much less likely to believe him.

Also, I kind of don't understand why Anand would involve Jay in this crime instead of someone else, but I really don't understand why Anand would involve a second person in this crime at all. Unless I'm misremembering the logistics of the thing (again, which is possible), it's just not believable to me that Anand would recruit Jay in anything like the manner he describes. What does he benefit from having an accomplice? He can dig a hole faster, and he doesn't have to take a cab to practice. Neither of those things really matter. Even leaving the car (with the body) unattended for a couple of hours is a much, much smaller risk than revealing evidence of your murder to an unwilling (and unnecessary) accomplice with a clumsy attempt to intimidate him. This is simply not believable to me.

Finally, of course, Jay's story changes from one telling to the next, and in any event the details don't seem to jibe with the available facts. The best way to square these issues to the point of plausibility is to hypothesize that he's lying about the details of the crime to hide the actual nature of his involvement. Ok, that's totally possible. But, then we're stuck arguing that Jay really is credible ... because he's lying.


This is longer than I planned. Look, I don't mean to undersell the real chance of Adnan's guilt, but with Jay and Jay's testimony being what they are, I'd need something more that ties him to the crime to vote to convict.

(If brickbacon or someone else decides to reply to this post, please don't chop it up into 17 quotes. I just don't feel like there's anywhere to go from there.) 187

[VarlosZ]

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

So, I'm with you. For now I'm going with the assumption that there was a phone there in 1999, even if one shoplifter remembers otherwise.

IMO, the safest assumption would be that there was no phone. There was only a two year period when the phone could have come down, the cops wouldn't feel it necessary to check every detail of a story they believe, and the defense attorney seems not to have done a thorough job (and anyway I'm not sure it would even occur to me to check something like that).

Again, I don't know, but there's good reason not to take it for granted that the phone was there. 188

[Don't Panic]

Originally Posted by VarlosZ

Again, I don't know, but there's good reason not to take it for granted that the phone was there.

But wouldn't someone back then have done what Sarah and Dana do in the "Route Talk" episode? That is, drive to the Best Buy, and trace Adnan's alleged movements, to see if it was even logistically possible according to the timeline? Or at least see if the layout of the parking lot matches with Jay's description?

Actually, come to think of it, I guess they didn't. The way Adnan poses the challenge to Sarah, and his reaction to the result, seems to mean that no one has done it before, not at the time, and not in the fifteen years since.

Huh. I would have thought that would be basic investigation stuff. Goes to show what I know. 189

[QuickSilver]

These are the puzzling things about the evidence (as it's being presented to us via the podcast); things like cell phone location records that can be misleading, Jay's story with it's multiple versions, lack of concrete evidence to physically link Adnan with his phone were enough for the jury to convict. But hard evidence like the phone booth, untested DNA evidence found near the body, no search of Jay's apartment are all dismissed as irrelevant or unworthy of investigation or consideration by the jury.

As to motive... Jay had motive to kill Hae in a fit of anger. The defense attorney raised that possibility but maybe not convincingly. 190

[Don't Panic]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

As to motive... Jay had motive to kill Hae in a fit of anger. The defense attorney raised that possibility but maybe not convincingly.

A fit of anger brought on by what? If Adnan's motive is weak sauce, then the closest thing to a motive anyone has come up with on Jay's part would be weak sauce in a homeopathic concentration. There have been ideas floating around about Hae planning to confront Jay about him cheating on Stephanie. That is just teenage drama, and there is no evidence that it's even true. As far as anyone can tell, Jay and Hae barely knew each other. Maybe there was something going on between them that none of their friends knew about, but that's fiction territory.

Also, Hae disappeared between leaving the school and the time she was supposed to pick up her cousin. Would she spend that time going to Jay's house and pick an argument with him? Or did he flag down her car?

I mean, it's not impossible. It just seems very far fetched.

On the other hand, there is certainly something strange about Jay. His reasons for why he agreed to help with the burial and cleanup don't make sense either, and basically come down to "well, Adnan asked me". And as VarlosZ said, there's really no good reason for Adnan to recruit Jay as an accomplice in the first place. So much about this case is already very far fetched. So who knows, I suppose. 191

[Don't Panic]

Actually, the more I think about the idea of Jay being an accomplice after the fact, recruited on short notice, the less sense it makes. What are the chances that Adnan, on the day of the murder, would reason "I'll call Jay to help, he's the right guy for the job", as opposed to "if I call Jay to help, he'll go to the police straight away"? You'd have to be an idiot to reason like that. Why risk it? And then, what are the chances that Jay actually goes along with it?

They must either have a) planned it together in advance, b) been there together when it happened, if it was a spur of the moment thing, or c) Jay did it on his own.

I just can't believe that it happened as Jay says. It's just too ridiculous on the face of it. 192

[QuickSilver]

This podcasts is all about armchair sleuthing and hair brained theories. I'm rolling with the theory that there is not sufficient evidence to convict Adnan and that Jay is sketchy as hell but evidence to pin this on him is just as inconclusive. So I would love to see this brought before the court again. 193

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Martian Bigfoot

They must either have a) planned it together in advance, b) been there together when it happened, if it was a spur of the moment thing, or c) Jay did it on his own.

Vacillate much? 194

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

This podcasts is all about armchair sleuthing and hair brained theories.

Also, *harebrained* ... 195

[Don't Panic]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Vacillate much?

I... go back and forth. 196

[GrandWino]

The Innocence Project people have multiple viable other suspects in the murder and are pursuing having DNA testing done in regards to one of these viable suspects. 197

[VarlosZ]

By the way, here's the Best Buy parking lot. You can't really see the spot where the murder supposedly took place from the road, but it's clearly a wide open public area where you wouldn't want to be dragging a dead body into the trunk in broad daylight.

However, you can pretty much see where the cell phone is supposed to have been based on Jay's map. It looks like it's supposed to be all the way over on the side of the parking lot nearest to the McDonald's (which is also still there). Problem: that just doesn't look like a realistic spot where a pay phone might be. The border of the Best Buy side is all parking spaces, then there's a steep grassy embankment, then there's the parking spaces in the McDonald's lot. There's just no place to put a phone (even if we should expect there to be one in a parking lot at all, which in itself would strike me as weird). You could argue the phone was on the sidewalk, but (A) that's not what Jay describes, and (B) that too is not where pay phones go. It's not a residential area, there's virtually no foot traffic.

For this and other reasons, I'm actually very confident that the whole thing didn't go down the way Jay claims. The only thing that directly ties Adnan to the crime is a statement that can't be made plausible unless we assume that it's a lie. That makes it unreliable by definition, doesn't it? 198

[Renee]

Until a few years ago, there was a payphone in a grocery store parking lot near my mom's house that was similarly situated. That actually makes me think it's more likely that a payphone was there because it's an area where it might not be readily noticed, and that's why people are saying there wasn't a phone there. I have a hard time believing that none of the people involved in this trial discovered the non-existence of the phone, if in fact it didn't exist. Which is not to say that I think the timeline is convincing. I just don't find that a particularly implausible place to have had a payphone. 199

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

(although who keeps a map in their trunk)

I used to keep phone books and lots of maps in my trunk before the Internet and GPS.

Originally Posted by brickbacon

You are basing this on nothing. More importantly, you wouldn't document the process if that is what you were doing.

It is—it was—absolutely routine for cops to shut off recordings during certain points of final interviews. I've seen some such recordings myself.

Regardless of what has been recorded in days or weeks or months of prior interviews or notes it happened as a matter of course.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that in every single last one of these instances what is happen ending during those interview gaps is that the cops are "helping" the witness smooth out his story for the final recording.

That doesn't mean they are always helping the witness construct a false story but they are definitely smoothing out final inconsistencies and bumps and dead ends and anything that might distract the jury from their main through-line.

And in every case there are records of old interviews that the defense will use to try to impeach the final testimony. Yeah, it happens, but most of the time, a jury will convict anyway, so the cops don't worry too much about that. 200