Straight Dope Message Board

[Crotalus]

Thanks, folks. I thought I remembered that Hae had no cell phone. Adnan not calling her after she was known to have disappeared makes perfect sense. 401

[Simplicio]

She did have a pager though.

Even though I think he did it, I thought Adnan's explanation for not paging her was pretty reasonable (basically, he knew her other friends were trying to reach her, and he figured if she wasn't responding than she didn't want to be reached). Plus Hae's current boyfriend (Don) didn't call her either. Presumably both of them didn't kill her, so not calling can't be viewed as that suspicious. 402

[amarinth]

There is not enough information for the phone calls to be meaningful. Yes he called her 3 times the day before she went missing*, and none after. But was that day typical? What were his calling patterns in the two or three weeks before that? If he'd called her two or three times every day or even most days in that time frame, then his stopping the calls is somewhere between interesting and damning. If he only called her sporadically in those two weeks (3 times one day, none for the next few days, etc.) then it isn't strange at all that he didn't call her the next few days, that fits his pattern. I don't know which one of those things is true. I'm suspicious that the prosecution only brought up evidence from the day before.


*they don't know exactly when Hae died. She could have been killed any time in the interval between her last day of school and when her body was found. 403

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by amarinth

There is not enough information for the phone calls to be meaningful. Yes he called her 3 times the day before she went missing*, and none after. But was that day typical? What were his calling patterns in the two or three weeks before that? If he'd called her two or three times every day or even most days in that time frame, then his stopping the calls is somewhere between interesting and damning. If he only called her sporadically in those two weeks (3 times one day, none for the next few days, etc.) then it isn't strange at all that he didn't call her the next few days, that fits his pattern. I don't know which one of those things is true. I'm suspicious that the prosecution only brought up evidence from the day before.

I don't think a pattern really shows anything one way or another. Presumably Hae going missing was an unusual event, so there's plenty of reason for Adnan to change his calling behavior, whether he knew she was dead or not. The Prosecution said he should've started calling more often because she was missing, he said he stopped calling because he knew other people were already trying to reach her, and if she wasn't returning their calls she obviously didn't want to talk. Either way, no one is saying his behavior should have or did remain unaltered. 404

[bbonden]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

She did have a pager though.

Is this confirmed? If so, I really don't see how Adnan doesn't page her after she goes missing. On the other hand, if she did not have a pager, then the reddit explanation of the three calls makes sense.

Originally posted by amarinth
She could have been killed any time in the interval between her last day of school and when her body was found.

Not really.

I mean, sure, we don't know to a degree of metaphysical certainty that Hae did not drive from Baltimore to Los Angeles and back, stopping for a quick PB-and-banana with Elvis on the way. But there is no reason to believe that is the case, or that Hae's first deviation from her routinized life (missing the wrestling meet, missing her cousin) wasn't also the last.

Everything is subject to new evidence, etc., but these are pretty much givens:

- Hae disappeared on January 13, 1999, in the afternoon, and was almost certainly killed and buried then.

- Jay was involved.

- Jay was in the same place as Adnan's brand-new cell phone all day. 405

[Do Not Taunt]

Just finished listening to the whole podcast over the course of about a week. The two entities that I think come out looking worst in the podcast are:

* Jay. Of course.
* The jury. Wow, they really just completely failed at their job. I'm not convinced they even took their job all that seriously. Jay was credible? The what? I can't even.. And that nonsense about holding Adnan's non-appearance against him? Holy shit.

I served on a jury in (a much more minor) criminal case, and that experience, this podcast, and years of Law and Order has informed what I expect from the state in a criminal case:

1) A story
2) backed by evidence
3) that isn't contradicted by other evidence
4) which proves the facts of the case
5) which prove the defendant broke the law(s) that he is charged with
6) where there is no other plausible story

The state here just flat failed on #3. Nothing else matters. I don't care how suspicious Adnan seemed for calling or not calling or why he would have lent his phone and car to Jay or how Nisha got called or any other that. As a juror, I would have found the state's theory of the crime to be lacking and acquitted on that alone.

The state could have tried to make the case differently. They could have never put Jay on the stand, and pieced together a story from the call logs (particularly the calls putting Adnan in the vicinity of Leakin Park that night), and focused on Adnan's motive and all that. They could have tried to make that case, and maybe they could have done it, but my suspicion is they would have failed #6.

But it doesn't matter. They didn't do that. Instead they put a completely non-credible witness on the stand, told a story that is specifically contradicted by actual phone log evidence, paid him for his story, did not disclose that to the defense, gave him a sweetheart deal for his own involvement, etc. The crime did not happen the way they said it did. That's all the jury needs to acquit.

Instead, they got a shitty jury, who must have reasoned something like, sure the crime didn't happen that way, but Adnan still had to be involved. I mean, he didn't testify, and Arabs sure are bad to their women, amirite?

This confirms all my worst fears about juries, and I completely get why even innocent defendants are so eager to take plea deals. What a colossal fuck up. 406

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

* The jury.

Why? The reality is they weren't really left with many options given the mountain of evidence against Adnan. Further, consider that the judge in the case still to this day believes Adnan did it even after listening to the podcast. How do you explain that? Why do you think it's more likely that the jury erred rather than perhaps the podcast was not exactly impartial?

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Jay was credible?

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

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

And that nonsense about holding Adnan's non-appearance against him? Holy shit.

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

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Nothing else matters.

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

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

paid him for his story

Jay was not paid.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

gave him a sweetheart deal for his own involvement

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

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

The crime did not happen the way they said it did. That's all the jury needs to acquit.

No, not really. The state can present a theory of the crime, and the jury can still convict even if they disagree with the specifics of that theory, but still think there is enough evidence that substantiated guilt. 407

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Why? The reality is they weren't really left with many options given the mountain of evidence against Adnan. Further, consider that the judge in the case still to this day believes Adnan did it even after listening to the podcast. How do you explain that? Why do you think it's more likely that the jury erred rather than perhaps the podcast was not exactly impartial?



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




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



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



Jay was not paid.



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



No, not really. The state can present a theory of the crime, and the jury can still convict even if they disagree with the specifics of that theory, but still think there is enough evidence that substantiated guilt.

I'm not as big a fan as you are at breaking up a person's post into little bits and writing a reply to each one, so let me reply to the major points.

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

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

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

Third, of course the information presented in the podcast could be slanted. It almost surely is. It's not credible, however, to claim that Jay's story was consistent. It's not credible to claim it's true, even at the end (I haven't read his more recent interview.) I say he's not credible because his story changed consistently and disagrees with actual, objective facts.

And lastly, juries can, of course, do pretty much whatever they want. They ought not hold a lack of testimony by the accused against him. They ought not convict based on a theory of the crime not presented at trial. A theory brought up only in the jury room can't be responded to by the defense. If the state botches their job so badly that they only way the jury can convict is by resorting to their own theory, they should acquit. This jury did significant things they ought not do. I suspect that's common. It's disappointing. It's why we're constantly reading articles about people being exonerated after spending 20 years in prison because someone gets around to a DNA test. Inevitably, you find a case where a jury convicted on extremely thin evidence. A case kind of like this one.

And even more lastly, it's a minor point, but Jay was paid. This was not in dispute. He was given a pro bono attorney arranged by the state. 408

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

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

Jay is an admitted liar, so the jury by definition disbelieved at least part of his testimony given to the police. Ditto for the cops, who massaged Jay's story accordingly. And I have no idea why you say Sarah Koenig and her associate believe Jay. Sarah said the spine of Jay's story was unchanged while she reported that the details varied a lot. That's not exactly a claim of belief.

Originally Posted by bbonden

Everything is subject to new evidence, etc., but these are pretty much givens:

- Hae disappeared on January 13, 1999, in the afternoon, and was almost certainly killed and buried then.

- Jay was involved.

- Jay was in the same place as Adnan's brand-new cell phone all day.

Clarification: Hae was buried at night, based on Jay's most recent interview. I don't know when she was killed. 409

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

First, I don't care that anyone - judge included - thinks Adnan "did it". It's completely orthogonal to my post.

It's completely relevant as the judge and jury had no prior knowledge of this case beyond what was presented in court. Given they think he did it, it strongly suggest the state put forth enough evidence to convict Adnan.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

I think he should have been acquitted. I trust you understand the difference between "he should have been acquitted" and "he was innocent."

Why do you think you are in a better position to judge whether he should have been convicted than the judge and jury who heard the evidence at the time? You are basically saying listening to podacst full of inadmissable evidence and hearsay is puts you in a better position than the jury when it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Second, cite that Sarah and Julie think Jay was credible?

In episode 8 among other places:

Sarah Koenig: Jay was, understandably, skeptical of us and of our motives. When we left, Jay said he’d think about an interview and get back to us. He left a strong impression. On Julie maybe, even more than on me.

Julie Snyder: Even just hearing him so forcefully deny, you know? And so forcefully say “I know he did it.” You know, you’re face to face, he’s right there, he’s a person. He’s saying it. He seems like he really means it. This is not pleasant for him to talk about. And so, it sounds believable.

Sarah Koenig: It does, I totally saw the appeal of him, as like a person and a friend and a witness.

Additionally, SK has stated multiple times that she doesn't think Jay did it. I think it's fair to say she found him credible on the larger issue of whether Adnan did it.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Third, of course the information presented in the podcast could be slanted. It almost surely is. It's not credible, however, to claim that Jay's story was consistent. It's not credible to claim it's true, even at the end (I haven't read his more recent interview.) I say he's not credible because his story changed consistently and disagrees with actual, objective facts.

Almost no one's story is consistent including Adnan's. The larger issue is less with consistency (since you can be consistently wrong), and more to do with whether the material facts stated are credible and substantiated. Jay's largely are.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

They ought not hold a lack of testimony by the accused against him.

And they should not consider things stricken from the record, but neither thing happens.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

They ought not convict based on a theory of the crime not presented at trial.

What are you basing this on? The immaterial aspects of the theory of the crime are not why a jury should or shouldn't convict.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

A theory brought up only in the jury room can't be responded to by the defense.

It has nothing to do with jury room theories, and there is no evidence they convicted him on that basis.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

If the state botches their job so badly that they only way the jury can convict is by resorting to their own theory, they should acquit.

Who said they did that?

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

This jury did significant things they ought not do. I suspect that's common. It's disappointing. It's why we're constantly reading articles about people being exonerated after spending 20 years in prison because someone gets around to a DNA test.

Actually, most exonerations are based on what is typically considered strong evidence: direct testimony. The problem has often been that juries over estimate stranger eyewitness testimony.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Inevitably, you find a case where a jury convicted on extremely thin evidence. A case kind of like this one.

What basis do you have to state the evidence was thin, or that it was thinner than most cases?

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

And even more lastly, it's a minor point, but Jay was paid. This was not in dispute. He was given a pro bono attorney arranged by the state.

No, he was not paid. This is a fact. He was entitled to a court appointed attorney, which was partially arranged by the DA. He was not paid, and he did not receive anything more than any other defendant would have. You are 100% wrong on this point. 410

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

It's completely relevant as the judge and jury had no prior knowledge of this case beyond what was presented in court. Given they think he did it, it strongly suggest the state put forth enough evidence to convict Adnan.

Sigh. Do you understand that one can believe that Adnan committed the murder of Hae, and that he should have been acquitted? Seriously - do you understand that? If so, do you get why saying, "hey, the judge thinks Adnan did it even after listening to the podcast" isn't a meaningful response to, "I think he should have been acquitted"?


Most of the rest of your post is appeal to authority (the judge and jury listened to the whole trial, all you did was listen to a biased podcast? How dare you have an opinion?) and some nonsense sidetrack about SK believing that Adnan murdered Hae (seriously?)

Here's the thing: there's a ton of information out there. There are approximately a billion posts on Reddit about the podcast and the case. There are attorneys who are continually digging into this and offering progressively crazier theories about what happened. And I haven't seen one thing that makes me think SK's representation was devoid of sufficient material data to make a call here. I don't think the jury knew a single thing that isn't in the public record at this point, and we know many things the jury did not. If you have a counter-argument, I'm all ears. But the appeal to authority ain't cutting it.

And come on. I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you're claiming Sarah Koenig believes Jay's claim that Adnan is guilty (in the factual, not legal, sense.) You must be using 'credible' in some other sense, right?

No, he was not paid. This is a fact. He was entitled to a court appointed attorney, which was partially arranged by the DA. He was not paid, and he did not receive anything more than any other defendant would have. You are 100% wrong on this point.

I get that I've probably listened to this podcast more recently than you, so I don't hold this against you, but, no, not based on the information presented in Serial. SK's story is Jay's attorney was arranged by the DA, this came out during cross-examination of Jay, Christina Gutierrez blew a gasket, the judge agreed that it was improper, but because Jay didn't seem to realize he had received something of value, he wasn't tainted. Agree with the judge's ruling or not as you wish, but you are just factually wrong here. 411

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Additionally, SK has stated multiple times that she doesn't think Jay did it. I think it's fair to say she found him credible on the larger issue of whether Adnan did it.

The quote says Jay left a strong impression. I'm sure he did. That doesn't mean he's not a liar. More generally, SK made Jay look very bad during the series, and she wanted to show that she didn't have it in for him.

As for, "SK has stated multiple times that she doesn't think Jay did it," cite? If true, that's a piece of the puzzle. She may have said something like, "I'm not saying that Jay did it," but that's a very different sort of claim. Right?


Addressing your general point, I agree that the default assumption should involve belief in the jury. But that doesn't mean that juries are infallible. And it seems that this case is in some ways atypical, though in other ways not especially unusual. Put in another way, if juries have a 2% failure rate that would leave plenty of scope for radio shows about convicted innocents. SK wouldn't have bothered reporting on a slam dunk case.


Personally, like Ezra Klein and others I perceived a lot of reasonable doubt.


ETA: Apropos nothing, I think it's kind of cool that fans of the series can have such differing views of the case. 412

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Sigh. Do you understand that one can believe that Adnan committed the murder of Hae, and that he should have been acquitted?

Yes. Do you get that a jury thinking he did it after listening to the evidence means they will likely convict, and that they did not fail, or act in a manner contrary to the law?

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

If so, do you get why saying, "hey, the judge thinks Adnan did it even after listening to the podcast" isn't a meaningful response to, "I think he should have been acquitted"?

Those weren't your full comments that I was responding to. You alleged the jury failed, and then listed a bunch of things that are not required for a jury to do their job correctly. I was responding that YOUR opinion as someone listening to a podcast 15 years after the crime is less valid than the people who were there and were charged with making this very judgement. That your 10 hours or so of podcast doesn't math them listening to evidence for 6 weeks. You alleged the jury didn't take it seriously, so I explained to you that the judge and numerous other people who do seem to take their jobs seriously also think Adnan is guilty and that the state met their burden.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Most of the rest of your post is appeal to authority (the judge and jury listened to the whole trial, all you did was listen to a biased podcast? How dare you have an opinion?) and some nonsense sidetrack about SK believing that Adnan murdered Hae (seriously?)

You do know that an appeal to authority is not really a fallacy, right? If you want to know about DNA, would you ask a layperson or a scientist? It doesn't mean the authority is always right, but it does mean likely they know more about something specific they have studied than you, for example.

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

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

I don't think the jury knew a single thing that isn't in the public record at this point, and we know many things the jury did not. If you have a counter-argument, I'm all ears. But the appeal to authority ain't cutting it.

Many of the things you "know" are inadmissible in a court of law or are hearsay. Further, what the jury SAW and HEARD is very different from hearing someone editorialize about it 15 years later.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

And come on. I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you're claiming Sarah Koenig believes Jay's claim that Adnan is guilty (in the factual, not legal, sense.) You must be using 'credible' in some other sense, right?

I am using credible in the dictionary definition sense:

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

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

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

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

You are wrong. Once again, Jay utilized an attorney working pro bono. EVERY OTHER INDIGENT DEFENDANT would either have an attorney working pro bono, or they would get a lawyer paid by the state. He was not paid, the attorney was not paid. The only "suspicious" thing was that the DA Kevin Urick, suggested Jay's lawyer contact him, and that this event was not disclosed. Urick did not PROVIDE Jay and attorney, and said attorney did not negotiate the deal proffered to Jay. This was already ruled on and commented upon in the appeal Adnan filed which was rejected. The lawyer herself did not agree to take Jay as a client until after meeting with him, and there is no evidence of a conspiracy or malfeasance.

Now unless you literally don't know what the word "paid" means, I think you need to stop saying something that is clearly false.

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Addressing your general point, I agree that the default assumption should involve belief in the jury. But that doesn't mean that juries are infallible. And it seems that this case is in some ways atypical, though in other ways not especially unusual. Put in another way, if juries have a 2% failure rate that would leave plenty of scope for radio shows about convicted innocents. SK wouldn't have bothered reporting on a slam dunk case.

Oh, I am not arguing juries never get it wrong. I am saying it's unfair to claim listening to a podcast gives you so much of a better perspective that you can go from thinking the jury reached the wrong conclusion, to that they are failures who didn't take it seriously.

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Personally, like Ezra Klein and others I perceived a lot of reasonable doubt.

But that is a lot of ex post facto stuff like Jay's new interview. Additionally, there are a bunch of dubious claims like Jay being the soul of the case and claims without proper context (eg. the vast majority of murder cases have no physical evidence).

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

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

ETA: Apropos nothing, I think it's kind of cool that fans of the series can have such differing views of the case.

It is, but I wish podcast had been a bit more balanced and fair to those who think Adnan is guilty. 413

[Acsenray]

"Fair to those who think Adnan is guilty?"

That's a weird thing to say. Why should a podcast have an obligation to be fair to people who think any particular thing? 414

[brickbacon]

Just to put some of this out there now. Here is an as short as possible list of why I think Adnan is guilty:

1. To believe Adnan is completely innocent, you have to believe he spent the better part of a day with a murderer or accomplice to murder without recognizing anything being weird. Additionally, Jay, who was almost certainly involved, killed Hae for no known logical reason, then began to frame Adnan soon after the murder without actually planting evidence, coming up with a consistent story, or knowing whether Adnan had an alibi. Jay, a Black guy who occasionally sells drugs, also thinks that cops will buy his story without almost any evidence (as far as he knows) of it being true. Additionally, Jay just a happens to get lucky that his story about Adnan asking for a ride was verified by unrelated, unbiased people (eg. Krista, Aisha), and also have a friend in Jenn who will knowingly lie to the police and her lawyer on his behalf.

2. You have to excuse every known lie or likely lie Adnan has told about this case. You have to reconcile the fact that he says he'd never ask Hae for a ride because he knows she will say no due to having to pick up her cousin with the fact that several people testified to him asking that day and receiving rides on multiple other, different occasions. Additionally, you need to square the initial claim with him also claiming he wasn't worried about Hae even though he knows she would never ditch her cousin.

You are need to reconcile the fact that he says he was over the breakup, yet we have a letter from Hae outlining how he wasn't over the breakup, and how he was possessive and controlling (also in the diary). Additionally, we have Hae's French teacher Hope Schab testifying to how Hae hid from Adnan on multiple occasions, and asked her not to tell him where she was at school because they were fighting, and Adnan basically stalking her. See trial transcripts for details (trial 1: page 9, trial 2: page 142).

You need to reconcile the facts that Adnan says he never thought he was a suspect with the facts that he was interviewed twice, that he told his teacher to stop asking questions about him regarding Hae's disappearance, and that Inez told him he was likely being watched. Additionally, Debbie revealed (trial 2: pg 315) that homicide detectives gave her a list of questions to ask around about Hae's disappearance, including about Adnan. She made a note and put them in her journal. Adnan borrowed the journal and they went missing. Stange coincidence huh?

You need to reconcile the fact that he told SK that he never really had a conversation with Jay and that they were barely acquaintances, with the fact that Will, a track buddy, says Jay picking up Adnan was a regular occurrence. Additionally, it also doesn't jibe with the story Adnan told his lawyer about Jay telling Adnan, his casual acquaintance and best friend of his GF, that he was cheating on her, and that Adnan had to convince Stephanie to stay for an assembly in order for Jay to avoid getting caught. Nice favor to do for a acquaintance huh?

You need to reconcile the fact that Adnan initially admits to asking Hae for a ride at one of the last known times she was alive, then he lied about it. Surprisingly, he doesn't have any suvivor's guilt or curiosity about why she left him hanging. Also note that the only plausible pretense he'd have for asking (eg. Jay had his car), is moot because he was seen asking BEFORE he saw Stephanie and learned about her desire to have Jay get her a present.

You need to reconcile Adnan saying it was an ordinary day with the fact that his ex-GF supposedly ditched him when he asked for a ride then was never heard from again, that he received at least 3 calls about her disappearance, that it was his best friend's birthday, and that he loaned his car to his casual friend.

You need to consider the fact that one of Adnan's first calls with his new cell was to his causal acquaintance Jay, who he is supposedly not friends with. Additionally, you need to consider the fact that Adnan claims he drove to Jay's house during a free period just to ask if Jay had bought Stephanie a gift, rather than just discussing it on the phone when he called him minutes prior.

You need to consider the fact that nurse felt Adnan was faking catatonia, and that Adnan told two radically different stories about his last interaction with Hae to different people. One story was that Hae was begging him to get back together the day before she disappeared.

Also consider the Nisha call, which some undermine because Jay was not working at the video store at the time. It's very telling that Cathy testifies that Jay and Adnan said they just came from the video store when they arrived at her house. So it seems the impossibility of Jay working there could possibly have been a calculated lie to bolster their alibi.

That's not even considering the note saying, "I'm gonna kill" written on the back of a letter joking about Hae's pregnancy scare, the anonymous call telling them to talk to Yaser, him and his friend Yaser discussing how they would bury a hypothetical GF's body, the cell data saying he was in near Leakin Park when he says he was at the mosque, calling her 3 times the night before just to give her his phone number then never calling her again, his fingerprints being on the flowers and the map in Hae's car, Adnan seemingly being okay with Jay makes nearly a dozen expensive calls on his new phone, the testimony of Neighbor Boy, calling Jay pathetic in court, etc. etc.

Perhaps even more telling is despite 15 years, multiple PIs and lawyers working this case, and lots of resources, Adnan STILL doesn't have an alibi or reasonable alternative explanation beyond Jay and/or some serial killer committing the crime. 415

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Acsenray

"Fair to those who think Adnan is guilty?"

That's a weird thing to say. Why should a podcast have an obligation to be fair to people who think any particular thing?

Because the podcast claimed to be balanced and to be a fact finding exercise. When you deliberately skew how certain people are going to be perceived, that strikes me as particularly unfair. Whether it's writing off things Hae wrote in her diary as her being melodramatic, or seeming to avoid asking Adnan any tough questions at all, the correct journalistic approach IMO would be to not leave some many misimpressions. 416

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

You are wrong. Once again, Jay utilized an attorney working pro bono. EVERY OTHER INDIGENT DEFENDANT would either have an attorney working pro bono, or they would get a lawyer paid by the state. He was not paid, the attorney was not paid. The only "suspicious" thing was that the DA Kevin Urick, suggested Jay's lawyer contact him, and that this event was not disclosed. Urick did not PROVIDE Jay and attorney, and said attorney did not negotiate the deal proffered to Jay. This was already ruled on and commented upon in the appeal Adnan filed which was rejected. The lawyer herself did not agree to take Jay as a client until after meeting with him, and there is no evidence of a conspiracy or malfeasance.

Now unless you literally don't know what the word "paid" means, I think you need to stop saying something that is clearly false.

I'm using 'paid' to mean he received something of value in exchange for his testimony. I'm not sure if you are just going off a faulty memory of the podcast, or are leveraging some other source of information you haven't felt the need to cite, but this is not consistent with the podcast. If you have another source, put it out there. Otherwise, here is the relevant transcript:

Originally Posted by Sarah Koenig

If Jay got a free lawyer thanks to the State, Christina argues, that’s what’s called a benefit. It’s worth money, and it could look like Jay is being paid by the State for his testimony, or else maybe Jay felt beholden to the State for giving him this benefit, and therefore might lie to please them. If it could look like that, she says, then the defense was entitled to know about it before the second trial, or the first trial began. And here she was learning about it at this late date. That, she said, was a violation of the rules of discovery. She sounds so mad, the jury is not present for this ranting, by the way. But probably, she was also giddy with gotcha excitement. She told the judge, this is so patently improper.
...
The Judge, Wanda Heard, agreed with Christina. That this arrangement looked fishy at best. She was not happy about it. But she also said “the witness in question, that is, Jay, he doesn’t seem to be aware that it’s messed up. He doesn’t appear to think that he’s getting a benefit, or being paid in some way for his testimony, or that anything untoward went on.” So, it would seem his testimony isn’t tainted by any of this and that’s the main thing. So, ‘A’ for effort, Judge Heard tells Christina, but overruled. And that, more or less, was that.

(https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing)

I can't reply to everything you've posted today, and most of it has already been rehashed, but - for your litany of evidence - as far as actually meeting the state's bar of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, most of it is nothing. The nurse's opinion on Adnan's state of mind? Irrelevant. How often he called Hae? Irrelevant (did she even have a cell phone? Wouldn't calling her house, when she's known to be missing, be odd?) The "I'm going to kill" note - which is from, what, over a month before the murder? Means nothing. A bunch of zeros added together is still zero. What you do have is:

* Jay knew where the car was, and he puts it all on Adnan.
* The cell phone record putting him somewhere in the vicinity of Leakin Park when the body was being dropped off.

That's really about it.

On the other hand, you have that Jay's story changes multiple times that we know of, doesn't match actual facts known from the call logs and how long travel between points takes and seems to be inconsistent with anyone's understanding of where a pay phone at Best Buy might have been, he was paid for his testimony, he's been arrested on violence charges several times since, whereas Adnan has been a model citizen in prison, a complete lack of any physical evidence directly tying Adnan to the crime, etc. More than enough for reasonable doubt, even at the time of Adnan's trial. 417

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Because the podcast claimed to be balanced and to be a fact finding exercise.

1. "Balanced" is a tricky word. It should not mean "I pick two sides and give them equal weight and importance regardless of what my investigations turn up."

2. Of course it should be "fair." But very often, fair and balanced are in conflict.

3. I would say they should present the facts fairly, but the issue of fairness should be based on the facts, not, as in the wording I pointed out "fair to those who think Adnan did it."

They have an obligation to be fair. They have no obligation to be fair "to people who think X," whatever X might be.

5. For the record, I think Adnan did it and I don't think there was anything unfair about the way the podcast was done. 418

[bbonden]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

I'm using 'paid' to mean he received something of value in exchange for his testimony. I'm not sure if you are just going off a faulty memory of the podcast, or are leveraging some other source of information you haven't felt the need to cite, but this is not consistent with the podcast.

I think that you each are right here. The benefit was not that Jay got counsel - all defendants are entitled to that. The benefit was the timing: Jay got access to counsel before he was indicted.

It's certainly a benefit, but it doesn't fit any traditional understanding of "getting paid" and it is easy to believe that Jay would have no idea that the right to free counsel attached only later (or upon invocation, which he did not do).

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

What you do have is:

* Jay knew where the car was, and he puts it all on Adnan.
* The cell phone record putting him somewhere in the vicinity of Leakin Park when the body was being dropped off.

That's really about it.

Even setting aside Adnan's many inconsistencies (which are possibly as numerous as Jay's, and more damning), I am not sure how this is "about it." This is a lot.

Jay knowing where the car is = Jay is complicit. Period, end of story. I said this upthread, but it is infuriating that the podcast spent time on payphones and butt-dialing, rather than the single most important fact in the case, certainly is tops.

Leakin Park cell phone = confirmation that Jay is complicit. Hae almost certainly was buried pre-ice storm. That means January 13. Jay being near the body is just further confirmation of his complicity.

And then - again, even setting aside all of Adnan's inconsistencies - you have the complete absence of any compelling alternate theory that involves Jay, but not Adnan. I mean, Adnan's lawyer was well-known and effective, at least earlier in her career. The lawyer had clerks, and a private detective. Adnan had friends who supported, and still support, him. There was a podcast team doing its own investigation with (some of ) the resources of NPR. There was the innocence project that the podcast got involved. There is the reddit community and thousands upon thousands of followers in the crowdsourced world. And yet - no truly plausible alternate stories. That's not DNA, or a carpet fiber, or an eyewitness. But it is strongly, strongly indicative of the final result. 419

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

I'm using 'paid' to mean he received something of value in exchange for his testimony.

That is generally not a description of what went on here. The fact is he was not paid as he didn't get something someone else in his position would not have gotten. Unless you are going to argue Adnan was paid because the state drove him to and from jail...

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

I'm not sure if you are just going off a faulty memory of the podcast, or are leveraging some other source of information you haven't felt the need to cite, but this is not consistent with the podcast.

Read the transcript of this and the appeal document that I cited before. You are wrong.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

I can't reply to everything you've posted today, and most of it has already been rehashed, but - for your litany of evidence - as far as actually meeting the state's bar of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, most of it is nothing.

And yet, he was convicted, and has lost every appeal. Funny how that works.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

The nurse's opinion on Adnan's state of mind? Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant, but inadmissible given her lack of expertise. This was actually ruled on and she was not allowed to testify on this point.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

How often he called Hae? Irrelevant (did she even have a cell phone?

She had a pager, not a cell phone. How do you not know this basic fact, yet have such strident opinions?

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Wouldn't calling her house, when she's known to be missing, be odd?)

She had a pager, and her house number still worked given Hae's brother called Adnan looking for her. The fact that he completely stopped trying to contact her, and didn't even bother to offer help when all of her other friends were is highly suspicious.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

The "I'm going to kill" note - which is from, what, over a month before the murder? Means nothing.

That's hilarious.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

That's really about it.

Do you honesty think the trial took 6 weeks and that that was all that was presented? Read the transcripts that are available if you want to have a more informed opinion.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

seems to be inconsistent with anyone's understanding of where a pay phone at Best Buy might have been

Just for the record. There was a payphone. CG mentioned it in her opening, and multiple other people have verified this fact that SK couldn't for some odd reason.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

he was paid for his testimony

No, he wasn't.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

he's been arrested on violence charges several times since, whereas Adnan has been a model citizen in prison, a complete lack of any physical evidence directly tying Adnan to the crime, etc. More than enough for reasonable doubt, even at the time of Adnan's trial.

How would that be reasonable doubt during a trial when it happened after the fact, and since when is being arrested and not convicted evidence of anything?

Originally Posted by Acsenray

5. For the record, I think Adnan did it and I don't think there was anything unfair about the way the podcast was done.

Look at the transcripts and evidence that has come out since the podcast ended. For example, there's a whole episode about driving to BB, or a mysterious phone booth that clearly existed, but nothing about him telling the French teacher to stop asking questions about him, and Hae hiding from him? Given the teacher actually testified, how do you justify that not making it into the podcast? 420

[panamajack]

I would have thought it fairly clear from the outset of the podcast that it was never about demonstrating Adnan's guilt or innocence, it was about whether Sarah Koenig thought Adnan was guilty. It is fair to say that it certainly invited the audience to form its own opinion based on what she reported, and that she at least (but not everyone involved) seemed to side with Adnan more often than not. It's also obvious that the question of Adnan's guilt and how the justice system works are much more interesting topics from the show than one reporter's opinion.

But I feel like it's being nearly held to a legal standard, as if it were arguing the case, and I never got that impression from it. 421

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Look at the transcripts and evidence that has come out since the podcast ended. For example, there's a whole episode about driving to BB,

The podcast is neither a trial nor a legal argument. It was always clear from the beginning what the point of view of Sarah Koenig was: That she personally found it hard to believe that Adnan was a murderer. The entire series is her exploration of whether that feeling was justified. I certainly don't believe she pulled the wool over my eyes.

Koenig was not setting forth a thorough summary of all the evidence at trial and the podcast was not entirely scripted in advance. Week-to-week, the podcast explored areas in a way that her personal explorations led her.

And most tellingly, she did not end the podcast saying, "I have proved that Adnan was innocent" or anything even close to that. 422

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by bbonden

I think that you each are right here. The benefit was not that Jay got counsel - all defendants are entitled to that. The benefit was the timing: Jay got access to counsel before he was indicted.

It's certainly a benefit, but it doesn't fit any traditional understanding of "getting paid" and it is easy to believe that Jay would have no idea that the right to free counsel attached only later (or upon invocation, which he did not do).

Jay is entitled to counsel, whether he can afford it or not, under Gideon v. Wainwright. But, in addition to the timing point you raise, there's the point that Jay wasn't charged for it (I'm not sure on Maryland law specifically, but states charging defendants for their public defenders' time is consistent with Gideon), and the DA arranged for him pro bono representation. He did not go through the public defender program. That's why the judge agreed Jay received a benefit (ie, was paid.) She just didn't believe he was materially tampered with.

Even setting aside Adnan's many inconsistencies (which are possibly as numerous as Jay's, and more damning), I am not sure how this is "about it." This is a lot.

Jay knowing where the car is = Jay is complicit. Period, end of story. I said this upthread, but it is infuriating that the podcast spent time on payphones and butt-dialing, rather than the single most important fact in the case, certainly is tops.

Leakin Park cell phone = confirmation that Jay is complicit. Hae almost certainly was buried pre-ice storm. That means January 13. Jay being near the body is just further confirmation of his complicity.

And then - again, even setting aside all of Adnan's inconsistencies - you have the complete absence of any compelling alternate theory that involves Jay, but not Adnan. I mean, Adnan's lawyer was well-known and effective, at least earlier in her career. The lawyer had clerks, and a private detective. Adnan had friends who supported, and still support, him. There was a podcast team doing its own investigation with (some of ) the resources of NPR. There was the innocence project that the podcast got involved. There is the reddit community and thousands upon thousands of followers in the crowdsourced world. And yet - no truly plausible alternate stories. That's not DNA, or a carpet fiber, or an eyewitness. But it is strongly, strongly indicative of the final result.

I actually agree that between Jay knowing about the car and the Leakin Park cell phone calls, there's a reasonable case there. But it's not enough: if those were literally the only two facts, it would be easy to put together a counter-narrative that Jay committed the murder, buried Hae, and had Adnan's cell phone the whole time. That's what the state attempted to actually put together a narrative, answering questions such as:

* When and where did the murder occur
* When was the body buried
* Who was involved
* What did the principals do in the meantime
* What did they do prior to the murder

And there's a fair amount of supporting evidence in there. The problem, thought, is that they ultimately relied on a witness who gave contradictory accounts, none of which matched actual evidence (the cell phone records), and presented a timeline at trial that didn't happen. They lucked out and caught a jury that didn't really care and let their biases slip into their decision making against the judge's instructions. But it should bother all of us that the state can do such a sloppy job and get a conviction at the end. And that should bother us regardless of how much we think Adnan 'did it', because it contradicts our ideals of how our criminal justice system should work: that defendants are supposed to have the presumption of innocence, they they should have an unbiased jury, and that the state is supposed to meet a high bar of burden of proof. Sadly, I didn't see any of that happen here. 423

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Read the transcript of this

Uh, I read it. Then I quoted it. Then I linked to it. If you think it contradicts what I said, feel free to explain why.

and the appeal document that I cited before. You are wrong.

Uh-huh. Feel free to link to and/or quote whatever you think helps you here. You didn't cite anything to me, and to be honest, I skimmed most of your posts where you were in that slapfest with Acsenray, I think it was. I think everyone did. 424

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

But, in addition to the timing point you raise, there's the point that Jay wasn't charged for it (I'm not sure on Maryland law specifically, but states charging defendants for their public defenders' time is consistent with Gideon), and the DA arranged for him pro bono representation.

Again, you are incorrect. Jay's attorney wasn't a public defender, and thus would in most cases not be paid at all. The DA did not arrange for pro bono representation, he asked a lawyer he knew to meet with Jay. Jay's lawyer testified that she didn't agree to represent him until after meeting with him. To quote the Jay's testimony from Adnan's initial appeal:

Originally Posted by Syed Appeal

Wilds testified the he was first given his charging documents, and then taken up to meet the prosecutor, who introduced him to his attorney. Wilds also explained that his attorney ,"wasn't forced on me. It wasn't like they said, this is your lawyer. They asked me, they said well, you can meet with her and see if you want her to be your lawyer."

Wilds testified that his attorney told Judge McCurdy that she had been contacted by the State and that she looked at Wilds' case before deciding whether to take his case.

... his attorney informed Judge McCurdy that she came to represent Wilds because "she does pro bono work and that she found a case where she felt there was a need where someone needed help"

The above is largely the reason his appeal claims on that issue were rejected. That and the fact that the jury was told about this fact during the trial.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

He did not go through the public defender program. That's why the judge agreed Jay received a benefit (ie, was paid.)

First, "received a benefit" doesn't mean he was "paid". I don't know why you keep repeating this absurd claim. Second, he couldn't get a public defender because he had not yet been charged. That issue had nothing to do with any benefit he may have received. He was likely not charged initially for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with him feeling obligated to set up Adnan.

The reality is that Jay gave his statements, which implicated him in a murder, to the police prior to getting a deal. Any benefit he received was not a prerequisite for testifying against Adnan. That's why the judge and the appeals court agreed that the state's "procurement" of Jay's lawyer didn't taint his testimony.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

They lucked out and caught a jury that didn't really care and let their biases slip into their decision making against the judge's instructions. But it should bother all of us that the state can do such a sloppy job and get a conviction at the end. And that should bother us regardless of how much we think Adnan 'did it', because it contradicts our ideals of how our criminal justice system should work: that defendants are supposed to have the presumption of innocence, they they should have an unbiased jury, and that the state is supposed to meet a high bar of burden of proof. Sadly, I didn't see any of that happen here.

Did you read the TRIAL transcripts? If not, why do you feel qualified to judge this? 425

[bbonden]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

I actually agree that between Jay knowing about the car and the Leakin Park cell phone calls, there's a reasonable case there. But it's not enough: if those were literally the only two facts, it would be easy to put together a counter-narrative that Jay committed the murder, buried Hae, and had Adnan's cell phone the whole time. That's what the state attempted to actually put together a narrative, answering questions such as:

* When and where did the murder occur
* When was the body buried
* Who was involved
* What did the principals do in the meantime
* What did they do prior to the murder

And there's a fair amount of supporting evidence in there. The problem, thought, is that they ultimately relied on a witness who gave contradictory accounts, none of which matched actual evidence (the cell phone records), and presented a timeline at trial that didn't happen. They lucked out and caught a jury that didn't really care and let their biases slip into their decision making against the judge's instructions. But it should bother all of us that the state can do such a sloppy job and get a conviction at the end. And that should bother us regardless of how much we think Adnan 'did it', because it contradicts our ideals of how our criminal justice system should work: that defendants are supposed to have the presumption of innocence, they they should have an unbiased jury, and that the state is supposed to meet a high bar of burden of proof. Sadly, I didn't see any of that happen here.

I think that you are looking at a fictional detective/TV standard. In the real world, this is a pretty simple case.

Jay is complicit. There is no getting around that (unless you unwind the "knew where the car is," which no one even tried to do). The only question then is whether it is Jay alone, or Jay + Adnan, or Jay + someone else. That's it. That's the universe.

Jay + "I believe him when it comes to Adnan" = beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not an abdication of the jury's role, that is the jury's role. They saw the witnesses, they heard the contradictions in various parts of Jay's testimony, and they disregarded those contradictions when it came to assessing Adnan's guilt or innocence.

Nor is it a cop-out. Jay had Adnan's car and brand-new mobile phone. Of the many, many people who could have come forward and said that Jay did it, or at least that Jay had motive to do it, not one did. Not Jenn, not Stephanie, not even Adnan. Of the tens of thousands of people (at least) who know the essential facts of the case, not one has even come up with a plausible alternate theory that incorporates the undisputed facts, the timeline and motives.

Sarah Koenig did a wonderful job narrating, and built a compelling product. But she also is very lucky that Jay told so many different stories, because without them there would not have been much to talk about. 426

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Again, you are incorrect. Jay's attorney wasn't a public defender, and thus would in most cases not be paid at all. The DA did not arrange for pro bono representation, he asked a lawyer he knew to meet with Jay. Jay's lawyer testified that she didn't agree to represent him until after meeting with him. To quote the Jay's testimony from Adnan's initial appeal:



The above is largely the reason his appeal claims on that issue were rejected. That and the fact that the jury was told about this fact during the trial.



First, "received a benefit" doesn't mean he was "paid".

Wait, so you acknowledge that he received a benefit? Or are you stating this as a hypothetical?

And are you parsing "paid" as meaning "received cash"? Because I've been clear that I meant he was paid by receiving a thing of value, namely an arrangement with an attorney to which he was not entitled.

Did you read the TRIAL transcripts? If not, why do you feel qualified to judge this?

Look, if I wanted to straw man your position, I'd say you would feel that no one can make a judgment without perfect information. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you realize you have to make judgments all the time with imperfect data. So what's the minimum to have an opinion here? Is it reading the transcripts in their entirety? What about being briefed on the undisputed facts of the case? Not enough? 427

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by bbonden

I think that you are looking at a fictional detective/TV standard. In the real world, this is a pretty simple case.

Jay is complicit. There is no getting around that (unless you unwind the "knew where the car is," which no one even tried to do). The only question then is whether it is Jay alone, or Jay + Adnan, or Jay + someone else. That's it. That's the universe.

Jay + "I believe him when it comes to Adnan" = beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not an abdication of the jury's role, that is the jury's role. They saw the witnesses, they heard the contradictions in various parts of Jay's testimony, and they disregarded those contradictions when it came to assessing Adnan's guilt or innocence.

Nor is it a cop-out. Jay had Adnan's car and brand-new mobile phone. Of the many, many people who could have come forward and said that Jay did it, or at least that Jay had motive to do it, not one did. Not Jenn, not Stephanie, not even Adnan. Of the tens of thousands of people (at least) who know the essential facts of the case, not one has even come up with a plausible alternate theory that incorporates the undisputed facts, the timeline and motives.

Sarah Koenig did a wonderful job narrating, and built a compelling product. But she also is very lucky that Jay told so many different stories, because without them there would not have been much to talk about.

We agree on much. But believing Jay on anything that isn't independently corroborated is too far to go - he's proven himself to be too unreliable.

You're right that if Jay tells one story implicating Adnan, sticks to it, and it isn't materially contradicted by known facts, there wouldn't be anywhere to go. But, well, that isn't the case here. 428

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Wait, so you acknowledge that he received a benefit? Or are you stating this as a hypothetical?

Strictly speaking yes, he received a benefit. Not from the state's conduct per se, but because he got a lawyer for nothing as many would have to pay for such services.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

And are you parsing "paid" as meaning "received cash"? Because I've been clear that I meant he was paid by receiving a thing of value, namely an arrangement with an attorney to which he was not entitled.

You cannot be "entitled" to someone else's services. Second, there is no reasonable definition of "paid" that is as broad as "receiving a material benefit". By that logic, convicts are paid by the state for the food they eat and the bed they sleep in is "free" to them. Kids would be paid to go to public school because they get free books and transportation, and Starbucks pays it's customers because they offer free wifi. The fact is you are using the term to impugn the character and motives of the witness rather than trying to make an accurate statement.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Look, if I wanted to straw man your position, I'd say you would feel that no one can make a judgment without perfect information. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you realize you have to make judgments all the time with imperfect data. So what's the minimum to have an opinion here? Is it reading the transcripts in their entirety? What about being briefed on the undisputed facts of the case? Not enough?

What are the undisputed facts of the case, and why do you think a jury would only base their opinions on undisputed facts? Think about that for a second. A trial is basically all about disputed "facts". That's why there is a trial.

Be honest, did you even know about the nurse or French teacher in this case, or Hae actively hiding from Adnan? If not, then maybe you should have some humility in realizing that at a bare minimum, you shouldn't rely on a podcast with a clear bias/agenda to form a definitive opinion. Or that if you are going to do so, you should be open to more information and less inclined to making definitive statements about what happened. 429

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

We agree on much. But believing Jay on anything that isn't independently corroborated is too far to go - he's proven himself to be too unreliable.

He was independently corroborated on a number of points:

The burial time he testifies to coincided with the cell data
He knew where the body was and how it was positioned
His description of the body is consistent with the medical evidence
He knew where car was
He testified Adnan asked for a ride for the same reasons other testified he asked for
He said Adnan was late for class. Adnan denied this, but the school verified he was late

There is more, but you get the point. 430

[Do Not Taunt]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Strictly speaking yes, he received a benefit. Not from the state's conduct per se, but because he got a lawyer for nothing as many would have to pay for such services.

Arranged by the DA.

You cannot be "entitled" to someone else's services. Second, there is no reasonable definition of "paid" that is as broad as "receiving a material benefit". By that logic, convicts are paid by the state for the food they eat and the bed they sleep in is "free" to them. Kids would be paid to go to public school because they get free books and transportation, and Starbucks pays it's customers because they offer free wifi. The fact is you are using the term to impugn the character and motives of the witness rather than trying to make an accurate statement.

I didn't realize I was going to have to get into a discussion about the meaning of the word pay, but, fine. Here's Miriam-Webster's definition:

Originally Posted by Miriam Webster

to make due return to for services rendered or property delivered

Your examples don't meet that definition because they aren't in compensation for a service rendered or property delivered. Jay's payment (the lawyer arranged by the DA) is - it was arranged in exchange for his testimony.

What are the undisputed facts of the case, and why do you think a jury would only base their opinions on undisputed facts? Think about that for a second. A trial is basically all about disputed "facts". That's why there is a trial.

Well, first, this isn't always true. The jury I served on considered two charges, and for one charge, there was no material dispute about the facts. The only question was whether or not it met the legal definition of assault. But secondly, perhaps you should go back and review the thread of conversation to this point. I simply never claimed that a jury should base their opinions only on undisputed facts. The only context in which I've used the phrase in this thread was in reference to your question as to why I dared to think I could second-guess the jury if I hadn't read the trial transcripts. I observed that we make decisions all the time on imperfect information, and threw it back to you as to what was, in your opinion, the minimum informational bar here. Here's what I said, which you basically didn't respond to (which is fine - we all pick and choose what we have time to respond to. I point this out only because in lieu of actually answering, you decided to lecture me about the purpose of trials, which was pretty off-point.)

Originally Posted by me

Look, if I wanted to straw man your position, I'd say you would feel that no one can make a judgment without perfect information. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: you realize you have to make judgments all the time with imperfect data. So what's the minimum to have an opinion here? Is it reading the transcripts in their entirety? What about being briefed on the undisputed facts of the case? Not enough?

See - that part about undisputed facts? Nothing about the jury there..

Be honest, did you even know about the nurse or French teacher in this case, or Hae actively hiding from Adnan? If not, then maybe you should have some humility in realizing that at a bare minimum, you shouldn't rely on a podcast with a clear bias/agenda to form a definitive opinion. Or that if you are going to do so, you should be open to more information and less inclined to making definitive statements about what happened.

I'm open to more information. Do you actually believe you've provided any?

He was independently corroborated on a number of points:

Again, I never said he was wrong about everything, and I have no problem taking his story where there is independent corroboration. I do have a problem accepting his story where there isn't. 431

[brickbacon]

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Arranged by the DA.

It wasn't arranged by the DA. That's what you keep missing. Yes, he asked her to meet with him, but there was no exchange, cooperation, agreement, or payment made that made the actions taken by the DA illicit.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

I didn't realize I was going to have to get into a discussion about the meaning of the word pay, but, fine.

None of those definitions fit. Even the closest approximation that he was given a free lawyer in return for his services is false because he was not given a lawyer, and said law services were not in return for his testimony. In fact, the plea deal his lawyer signed could be withdrawn by either party at any time, or for his failure to truthfully testify. Your attempt to make this transactional notwithstanding, there is no definition of pay that fits here.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Your examples don't meet that definition because they aren't in compensation for a service rendered or property delivered.

First, you are moving the goalposts. Your initial claim was that that someone receiving a benefit was "paid", which is absurd and clearly inflammatory. But fine, you want to change you standards that's fine. Is it fair to imply the jury is biased because they are literally paid by the state? What about the judge?

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Jay's payment (the lawyer arranged by the DA) is - it was arranged in exchange for his testimony.

No, it wasn't arranged in exchange for his testimony. How do you know this? Look at the documentation on the plea agreement or consider the fact that if Jay decided not to testify, his lawyer would not have quit? In fact, his lawyer advised him and recommended the the reporter from The Intercept who did his recent interview. She wasn't paid in either case, and neither was Jay.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Well, first, this isn't always true. The jury I served on considered two charges, and for one charge, there was no material dispute about the facts. The only question was whether or not it met the legal definition of assault.

You are being needlessly obtuse here. If the disagreement is whether something is actually assault, then it's in dispute. The state alleges this is a fact, the defense says it isn't. That is the dispute. Obviously not every fact is in dispute. Facts like the name of the defendant, and basic background stuff all the way up to "what happened" may or may not be in dispute technically speaking. The issue is that the jury is there to deal with disputed facts (eg. is X assault in this case).

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Here's what I said, which you basically didn't respond to (which is fine - we all pick and choose what we have time to respond to. I point this out only because in lieu of actually answering, you decided to lecture me about the purpose of trials, which was pretty off-point.)

I did respond. Here is what I said: What are the undisputed facts of the case, and why do you think a jury would only base their opinions on undisputed facts? The first part is a direct question to you. The second part is relevant given you are impugning the jury's verdict. Now to specifically answer your initial question, yes, I think reading the transcripts and having an idea of what was actually said at trial is a bare minimum before one lashes out at the jury for their "failure".

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

I'm open to more information. Do you actually believe you've provided any?

I have, but I will make this easy for you. Go here, look on the side for the court docs. Read them or at least read the cliff notes about what was said and done.

Originally Posted by Do Not Taunt

Again, I never said he was wrong about everything, and I have no problem taking his story where there is independent corroboration. I do have a problem accepting his story where there isn't.

Yes, but one is a function of the other. His credibility is based in part on his info being verifiable in other contexts. Regardless, Adnan would have likely been convicted without Jay ever opening his mouth. 432

[brickbacon]

Just to highlight why listening to the podcast isn't enough evidence to say the jury failed, we have SK openly admitting her reporting was not always dispassionate:

Koenig admitted that she had a complicated relationship with her subject, who is serving life in prison.

“Sometimes, as uncomfortable as it is to admit it, there’s a little bit of flirting going on,” Koenig said, of listening back on her reporting. “I’m a little cringe-y looking back. I’m laughing too much. It sounds like we’re friends.”

When a reporter admits something like that, isn't it reasonable to think perhaps her reporting wasn't as fair and authoritative as it seems? 433

[Dr. Righteous]

A new podcast called Undisclosed "will examine and explore the case in greater detail, from an investigatory perspective instead of a narrative one."

Let's meet back and discuss it here on 4/14! 434

[Tangent]

Originally Posted by Dr. Righteous

A new podcast called Undisclosed "will examine and explore the case in greater detail, from an investigatory perspective instead of a narrative one."

...sponsored by "The Adnan Syed Trust." 435

[Dr. Righteous]

Yeah. It won't pretend to be in any way objective... but I would be lying if I said I wouldn't be giving it a listen.

The first thing I thought when I saw that was "I wonder how people who donated to that fund feel?" If I had donated I would assume the money would be used to pay for legal fees. I know when you give someone money like that they can use it for whatever they want, but this seems like they're creating a situation where it is even less likely that they'll be able to find an impartial jury. Is that some sort of weird but sneakily brilliant legal angle I'm not understanding, or am I wrong in assuming that.... or am I correct and they're being idiotic?

We shall see. 436

[Acsenray]

Originally Posted by brickbacon

Just to highlight why listening to the podcast isn't enough evidence to say the jury failed, we have SK openly admitting her reporting was not always dispassionate:







When a reporter admits something like that, isn't it reasonable to think perhaps her reporting wasn't as fair and authoritative as it seems?

What it means is that accusing it of being unauthoritative is not an appropriate criticism.

It also misses the mark to call it unfair. The starting point of the entire story was based on the premise "Can I discover something that will help me believe that this guy I and a few of his really like personally committed this horrible act?"

When she tells you explicitly from the start that this is her point of view, it misses the point to criticize it for being unfair in this particular way. 437

[wonky]

I just finished listening to it, only a year late. I wasn't spoiled at all, which is a miracle.

I can't see any justification for a jury finding him guilty with that evidence. The jurors explicitly saying they held Adnan's lack of testimony against him is maddening.

Personally, I find it fairly likely that the cops massaged Jay's story to fit what they needed it to fit.

I was interested to see that prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, Asia's alibi, and the cell phone records are all now to be brought up in a new hearing. 438

[Tangent]

By the way, the new season of Serial--which will be about Bowe Bergdahl--is supposed to start "soon." 439

[wonky]

I actually dreamed about this story last night. In my dream, I had what seems to me to be a novel idea, that the story that Adnan and Jay might potentially be hiding is innocent but very culturally damaging. What if Jay and Adnan had a sexual relationship? That would give both reason to be weird about certain events/timing without it meaning anything. Or, of course, it could potentially give more of a motive to one or both to kill Hae if she knew/found out/threatened to out them.

Just a wild speculation! 440

[ISiddiqui]

Adnan got his conviction vacated and a new trial granted:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...630-story.html

Welch wrote in his opinion that Syed's trial attorney "renedered ineffective assistance when she failed to cross-examine the state's expert regarding the reliability of cell tower location evidence."

441

[wonky]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Adnan got his conviction vacated and a new trial granted:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...630-story.html

This is excellent news. Adnan Syed may be a murderer, but that trial was deeply flawed. 442

[Elendil's Heir]

Bumped.

I just finished Serial S1 myself. Syed's conviction was reinstated by Maryland's top court in March; he did not and now very likely will not receive a new trial:

https://serialpodcast.org/posts/2019...ion-reinstated
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/cr...222-story.html 443

[Mahaloth]

Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir

Bumped.

I just finished Serial S1 myself. Syed's conviction was reinstated by Maryland's top court in March; he did not and now very likely will not receive a new trial:

https://serialpodcast.org/posts/2019...ion-reinstated
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/cr...222-story.html

I may be misremembering, but is there not a followup to Serial that explains the powerful case against Syed....one that certainly makes it look a lot more clear that, well, he probably did do it? 444

[echoreply]

Originally Posted by Mahaloth

I may be misremembering, but is there not a followup to Serial that explains the powerful case against Syed....one that certainly makes it look a lot more clear that, well, he probably did do it?

There was the Undisclosed podcast, and then an HBO special about the case. I'm sure there were lots of other podcasts, too, as anybody can yammer at their phone for 30 minutes about some stuff they heard.

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

Considering all that, lots of convictions seem to be based on what to me appears to be very flimsy evidence. I know the court wasn't deciding whether the evidence was believable, that was the jury's job, but my point is that the court is used to convictions on flimsy evidence, so they didn't have much righteous outrage pushing them to find an excuse to vacate the conviction. 445