# Serial (the podcast) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 4, 2014, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417 "2014-10-04T23:42:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/341 "2014-12-29T17:55:37Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Rabia was not at the trial. You have said this a couple of times. What are you basing that on? Rabia disagrees. [QUOTE=Rabia Chaudry] The trial was hard, really painful to sit through. I was thoroughly confused. How was she a star attorney? From my bench in the courtroom her defense was a disaster. [/QUOTE] She does say that she did not attend the first trial. [Source.](http://www.splitthemoon.com/serial-episode-10-a-mile-in-these-shoes/) ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/342 "2014-12-29T18:08:10Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > You have said this a couple of times. What are you basing that on? Rabia disagrees. She does say that she did not attend the first trial. > > [Source.](http://www.splitthemoon.com/serial-episode-10-a-mile-in-these-shoes/) Thanks for the correction. My apologies for the mistake. ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/343 "2014-12-29T18:18:50Z")
Just poking my head in to mention that I’m pretty sure people that worked with CG on this or other cases have said that she was distracted and taking on too much while battling illness. I thought that specifically came from an assistant on this case but I may be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/344 "2014-12-29T18:33:06Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Yes we do know enough. The prosecution had a shit case that she was unable to overcome. What professional credentials do you have to state that, and why would you state that without seeing all the evidence? Again, please link to documents outlining the sum total of their case? > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Your statement makes no sense any other way than an implication that I thought CG was a shit lawyer. Pease stop back pedaling and admit your mistake. No, it is my editorializing obviously. The fact that you think it means I was quoting you as opposed to saying that that was the thrust of your argument (which it was), shows how you don’t grasp basic English concepts. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > One person is not many. I dismissed. I didn’t deflect. I personally know of many others. You can just search on reddit or google to find others who came to the same conclusion given what Adnan said even if they think he should think she did a bad job. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > He absolutely would not. He doesn’t even have very much bad to say about the guy who accused him of murder. I think he clearly explained WHY he wasn’t saying much at all about Jay. The same reasoning doesn’t apply to CG. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Why? Are you suggesting that there is more evidence of significance that we don’t know about? Cite, please. Otherwise, I think we know what evidence the prosecution had on Adnan. I am saying we don’t know what we don’t know. And if you think you know all of the evidence, please link to something outlining all the evidence presented in both trials? > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > No I didnt. I certainly didn’t carpet bomb my posts with them like you did after you ran out of argument. How disingenuous you are. Let’s look at how this started. You said: > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > I’m pretty sure that I remember Adnan saying that he does think she did a bad job. Which is demonstrably false. When I linked to the relevant text, you said: > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > There are plenty of criminal prosecutors and defense attorneys who have publicly stated that she screwed up, big time. You can find them and their specific criticisms online. Which is probably true, but unrelated to your first claim. Then you said: > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > It’s absurd to think that a criminal defense attorney cannot make a qualified decision on her performance based on the facts of the case, hearing snippets of the trial, knowing how long the jury deliberated, etc. They absolutely do not have to have heard the entire trial. If you can find a single attorney who did read the entire transcript, and who says that she did a good job, I’d be happy to listen. Here is where you start with the hyperbole and histrionics. The fact that you can even argue hearing snippets and the time of jury deliberations means the lawyer was bad is mind boggling to me and really shows how out of your depth you are. Then you continued to move the goalposts by arguing this: > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Fact is, you can’t find one single attorney who is saying she did a good job in this case. I’ve just got your word vs all the attorneys who have offered their opinions, including a friend who has defended celebrities in national high-profile cases and who happens to be very good at what he does. I have no idea how much more than the podcast he might have seen or read, but if he’s comfortable making that call, then I’m going with his assessment. Bonus points for the anonymous lawyer friend who defends celebrities, but you have completely changed the issue. I never said CG was a good lawyer or that she did a good job. I said _Adnan_ seems to think she did a pretty good job and that WE, people who have seen just a snippet of her performance, are not in a position to accurately judge that. Then it just devolves from there. I get that you disagree and think CG was clearly bad because you heard her talk for 30 seconds and she lost the case, but the reality is MOST lawyers lose the vast majority of murder cases. That, in and of itself, doesn’t mean much in terms of how well they represented their client. The fact that you feel so desirous to deem CG incompetent is just strange given how little we know about what happened in court. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/345 "2014-12-29T18:45:39Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > What professional credentials do you have to state that, and why would you state that without seeing all the evidence? Again, please link to documents outlining the sum total of their case? I don’t need to have credentials. I have linked to several people who do. Your entire argument is that nobody is qualified to judge her performance. Everyone here, plus numerous other attorneys, disagree with you. > [@](#): > > No, it is my editorializing obviously. The fact that you think it means I was quoting you as opposed to saying that that was the thrust of your argument (which it was), shows how you don’t grasp basic English concepts. Ah, another personal attack. So predictable. It makes no sense if you aren’t attributing that stance to me. Try again. > [@](#): > > I personally know of many others. You can just search on reddit or google to find others who came to the same conclusion given what Adnan said even if they think he should think she did a bad job. But none who can show that Adnan said anything remotely close to it, right? > [@](#): > > I think he clearly explained WHY he wasn’t saying much at all about Jay. The same reasoning doesn’t apply to CG. Cite, please. > [@](#): > > I am saying we don’t know what we don’t know. And if you think you know all of the evidence, please link to something outlining all the evidence presented in both trials? [Here](http://serialpodcast.org). If you don’t think that’s a fair summary of all the pertinent evidence, then you really have no business in this thread. > [@](#): > > How disingenuous you are. Another personal attack. So, I guess this is where you demonstrate why I’m disingenuous on that point. > [@](#): > > Let’s look at how this started. You said: Here it comes… > [@](#): > > Which is demonstrably false. When I linked to the relevant text, you said: Not yet… > [@](#): > > Which is probably true, but unrelated to your first claim. Then you said: Not yet… > [@](#): > > Here is where you start with the hyperbole and histrionics. The fact that you can even argue hearing snippets and the time of jury deliberations means the lawyer was bad is mind boggling to me and really shows how out of your depth you are. Not yet… > [@](#): > > Then you continued to move the goalposts by arguing this: Not yet… > [@](#): > > Bonus points for the anonymous lawyer friend who defends celebrities, but you have completely changed the issue. I never said CG was a good lawyer or that she did a good job. I said _Adnan_ seems to think she did a pretty good job and that WE, people who have seen just a snippet of her performance, are not in a position to accurately judge that. > > Then it just devolves from there. I get that you disagree and think CG was clearly bad because you heard her talk for 30 seconds and she lost the case, but the reality is MOST lawyers lose the vast majority of murder cases. That, in and of itself, doesn’t mean much in terms of how well they represented their client. The fact that you feel so desirous to deem CG incompetent is just strange given how little we know about what happened in court. Wow, what does any of that have to do with personal attacks? You really went off on a bit of a rant there, didn’t ya. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/346 "2014-12-29T18:49:09Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > What professional credentials do you have to state that, and why would you state that without seeing all the evidence? Again, please link to documents outlining the sum total of their case? I don’t need to have credentials. I have linked to several people who do. Your entire argument is that nobody is qualified to judge her performance. Everyone here, plus numerous other attorneys, disagree with you. > [@](#): > > No, it is my editorializing obviously. The fact that you think it means I was quoting you as opposed to saying that that was the thrust of your argument (which it was), shows how you don’t grasp basic English concepts. Ah, another personal attack. So predictable. It makes no sense if you aren’t attributing that stance to me. Try again. > [@](#): > > I personally know of many others. You can just search on reddit or google to find others who came to the same conclusion given what Adnan said even if they think he should think she did a bad job. But none who can show that Adnan said anything remotely close to it, right? > [@](#): > > I think he clearly explained WHY he wasn’t saying much at all about Jay. The same reasoning doesn’t apply to CG. Cite, please. [I am saying we don’t know what we don’t know. And if you think you know all of the evidence, please link to something outlining all the evidence presented in both trials? [/quote] [Here](http://serialpodcast.org). If you don’t think that’s a fair summary of all the pertinent evidence, then you really have no business in this thread. > [@](#): > > How disingenuous you are. Another personal attack. So, I guess this is where you demonstrate why I’m disingenuous on that point. > [@](#): > > Let’s look at how this started. You said: Here it comes… > [@](#): > > Which is demonstrably false. When I linked to the relevant text, you said: Not yet… > [@](#): > > Which is probably true, but unrelated to your first claim. Then you said: Not yet… > [@](#): > > Here is where you start with the hyperbole and histrionics. The fact that you can even argue hearing snippets and the time of jury deliberations means the lawyer was bad is mind boggling to me and really shows how out of your depth you are. Not yet… > [@](#): > > Then you continued to move the goalposts by arguing this: Not yet… > [@](#): > > Bonus points for the anonymous lawyer friend who defends celebrities, but you have completely changed the issue. I never said CG was a good lawyer or that she did a good job. I said _Adnan_ seems to think she did a pretty good job and that WE, people who have seen just a snippet of her performance, are not in a position to accurately judge that. > > Then it just devolves from there. I get that you disagree and think CG was clearly bad because you heard her talk for 30 seconds and she lost the case, but the reality is MOST lawyers lose the vast majority of murder cases. That, in and of itself, doesn’t mean much in terms of how well they represented their client. The fact that you feel so desirous to deem CG incompetent is just strange given how little we know about what happened in court. Wow, what does any of that have to do with personal attacks? You really went off on a bit of a rant there, didn’t ya. (Plus, you’re putting words in my mouth again. I never said she was incompetent. Or a shit lawyer.) ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/347 "2014-12-29T20:44:42Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > I don’t need to have credentials. I have linked to several people who do. Really? In what post can I find those links? > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Your entire argument is that nobody is qualified to judge her performance. Everyone here, plus numerous other attorneys, disagree with you. Nope. My opinion is that only people who have seen the actual performance are qualified to judge the performance. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Ah, another personal attack. So predictable. It makes no sense if you aren’t attributing that stance to me. Try again. Again, your lack of comprehension gets you in trouble. There is a difference between accusing someone of saying something explicitly and summarizing their sentiments in your own words. You accused me of the former, demanding I cite you saying that, when that was not the point. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > But none who can show that Adnan said anything remotely close to it, right? None that have withheld judgment? I already linked to one person. Again, I have never said she did a good job. My point was that Adnan seems to think she did and that we don’t have evidence she did a poor job. How this very basic concept manages to continually escape you is beyond me. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Cite, please. In short, criticizing Jay hurts his appeal, his image, and opens him and SK up to various charges. Criticizing CG doesn’t do any of that, doubly so since he is appealing on grounds of ineffective counsel. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > [Here](http://serialpodcast.org). If you don’t think that’s a fair summary of all the pertinent evidence, then you really have no business in this thread. Ah, the podcast is my cite. You must be joking? GIVE ME A LIST OF ALL THE EVIDENCE THE PROSECUTION PRESENTED. If it’s so easy, why are you just linking to the front page of the podcast? > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Another personal attack. So, I guess this is where you demonstrate why I’m disingenuous on that point. You stated the childish behavior and personal attacks by calling my analogy stupid among other things. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > (Plus, you’re putting words in my mouth again. I never said she was incompetent. Or a shit lawyer.) Where did I say you said she was incompetent? ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/348 "2014-12-29T21:32:44Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Really? In what post can I find those links? [Here](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/10/our-jury-is-in-on-serial) is one. > [@](#): > > Nope. My opinion is that only people who have seen the actual performance are qualified to judge the performance. We’ve only heard the opinion of one attorney who was present at the trial. She said CG did a terrible job. We also heard from Adnan and at least one juror, both of whom said that CG failed to put forth a coherent outline of what her defense was supposed to even be. > [@](#): > > Again, your lack of comprehension gets you in trouble. No it doesn’t, but thanks for showing everyone that you haven’t abandoned your dependence on personal attacks. > [@](#): > > There is a difference between accusing someone of saying something explicitly and summarizing their sentiments in your own words. You accused me of the former, demanding I cite you saying that, when that was not the point. I’m saying your summary bears no resemblance to anything he said, and is plucked from thin air. > [@](#): > > we don’t have evidence she did a poor job. Yes we do. > [@](#): > > In short, criticizing Jay hurts his appeal, his image, and opens him and SK up to various charges. Criticizing CG doesn’t do any of that, doubly so since he is appealing on grounds of ineffective counsel. Personally criticizing CG would hurt his image just as much as criticizing Jay. I have no doubt that his attorneys have advised him to leave the criticisms of his council to them. > [@](#): > > Ah, the podcast is my cite. You must be joking? GIVE ME A LIST OF ALL THE EVIDENCE THE PROSECUTION PRESENTED. If it’s so easy, why are you just linking to the front page of the podcast? The entire podcast lay out the evidence available to the prosecution. If you want to dispute what she says, or claim that Serial leaves out important pieces of evidence, then you’re in the wrong thread. > [@](#): > > You stated the childish behavior and personal attacks by calling my analogy stupid among other things. You are not your analogy. I attacked what you said, not you. > [@](#): > > Where did I say you said she was incompetent? Seriously? > [@](#): > > The fact that you feel so desirous to deem CG incompetent… I didn’t say she was incompetent, nor do I desire to call her incompetent. I think Adnan killed Hae, so I have no idea why you’re ascribing motives to me. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/349 "2014-12-29T22:00:53Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > [Here](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/10/our-jury-is-in-on-serial) is one. Where had you linked to that post in this thread? You said you already linked to several people before. What post did you link to that cite? More importantly, few of these people comment at all on the job CG did, and half of them are idiots. If you think voting not guilty because, “Adnan isn’t a psychopath” makes sense then I don’t know what to tell you. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > We’ve only heard the opinion of one attorney who was present at the trial. She said CG did a terrible job. We also heard from Adnan and at least one juror, both of whom said that CG failed to put forth a coherent outline of what her defense was supposed to even be. So the opinions of two people mean she did a terrible job? First, Rabia is clearly biased and not really reliable. Second, the juror’s opinion could partly be the result of the evidence being what it is, not bad counsel. Adnan’s legal team has already been ruled against on some of the counts of ineffective counsel, so not everyone thinks she did a demonstrably terrible job. Either way, she very may well have. The issue is pronouncing this without having even read the complete (or even a large part) trial transcripts is foolish. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > I’m saying your summary bears no resemblance to anything he said, and is plucked from thin air. And you would be wrong. If multiple people come to the opposite conclusion you do, maybe you should reevaluate. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Yes we do. Great, please cite that evidence and the evidence you have that it was a misstep rather than a strategy, or that if it was strategy, please state why you think the strategy was bad? > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Personally criticizing CG would hurt his image just as much as criticizing Jay. I have no doubt that his attorneys have advised him to leave the criticisms of his council to them. Nonsense. He is appealing because of ineffective counsel. He is essentially accusing her of incompetence even if you want to argue it is a legal ruse. the idea he wouldn’t come out a say that if he believed it to be true is without basis. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > The entire podcast lay out the evidence available to the prosecution. Wrong. The podcast omits some things and introduces others that didn’t exist at the time or weren’t allowed into trial. Examples include the nurse’s testimony and summer’s testimony. I have no idea why you think a 10 hour or so podcast could introduce every piece of detail and evidence in a 2-month trial is beyond me. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > If you want to dispute what she says, or claim that Serial leaves out important pieces of evidence, then you’re in the wrong thread. Please don’t tell me where I can post. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > You are not your analogy. I attacked what you said, not you. And you are not your logical reasoning skills. > [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > I didn’t say she was incompetent, nor do I desire to call her incompetent. I think Adnan killed Hae, so I have no idea why you’re ascribing motives to me. Because you keep questioning semantics like a petulant child despite it being pretty clear I am not intended to quote you verbatim. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/350 "2014-12-29T22:31:13Z")
On a lighter note, here is a present day [interview](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-wilds-star-witness-adnan-syed-serial-case-pt-1/) with Jay. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/351 "2014-12-29T22:37:14Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Where had you linked to that post in this thread? You said you already linked to several people before. What post did you link to that cite? I thought I linked to it earlier. If I didn’t, I just posted it. Why are you complaining? > [@](#): > > More importantly, few of these people comment at all on the job CG did, and half of them are idiots. That leaves several credible defense attorneys who think she did a bad job. > [@](#): > > So the opinions of two people mean she did a terrible job? It’s further evidence that she did a bad job. > [@](#): > > First, Rabia is clearly biased and not really reliable. She’s reliable, and only biased in Adnan’s favor, not against CG. > [@](#): > > Second, the juror’s opinion could partly be the result of the evidence being what it is, not bad counsel. Nope. They specifically spoke to Her ability to lay out a clear strategy. > [@](#): > > Adnan’s legal team has already been ruled against on some of the counts of ineffective counsel, so not everyone thinks she did a demonstrably terrible job. That’s not true. They ruled on very specific points, not the quality of her overall defense. > [@](#): > > And you would be wrong. No I woukdnt. The quotes I’ve heard from Adnan sound like a person who does not think she did a pretty good job. [quotes] If multiple people come to the opposite conclusion you do, maybe you should reevaluate. [/quotes] Right. Which is why I’ve shown you multiple people, somebody whom are criminal defense attorneys, who think CG did a bad job with this case. Great, please cite that evidence and the evidence you have that it was a misstep rather than a strategy, or that if it was strategy, please state why you think the strategy was bad? > [@](#): > > Nonsense. He is appealing because of ineffective counsel. He is essentially accusing her of incompetence even if you want to argue it is a legal ruse. the idea he wouldn’t come out a say that if he believed it to be true is without basis. Nope. You let your attorneys hammer away at the technicalities, while you refrain from badmouthing her overall performance. [quote] Wrong. The podcast omits some things and introduces others that didn’t exist at the time or weren’t allowed into trial. Examples include the nurse’s testimony and summer’s testimony. I have no idea why you think a 10 hour or so podcast could introduce every piece of detail and evidence in a 2-month trial is beyond me. [/quotes] I said major pieces of evidence. Neither of the two examples you gave would turn the case either way. > [@](#): > > Please don’t tell me where I can post. Cite that I did? [quote] And you are not your logical reasoning skills. [/wuote] Yes, I am. That is a part of me, personally, as opposed to the words I am saying. > [@](#): > > Because you keep questioning semantics like a petulant child Another personal attack. You’re on a roll. ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/352 "2014-12-29T22:42:00Z")
Can you guys just argue without cutting and pasting each point like this? (See current ATMB thread about why this is annoying). ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/353 "2014-12-29T22:45:59Z")
> [@GrandWino](#): > > Can you guys just argue without cutting and pasting each point like this? (See current ATMB thread about why this is annoying). Sure, but it’s easier to address individual points that way. At least, it was before I started posting from my phone and screwed up the tags. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/354 "2014-12-29T23:25:53Z")
I think you could both save yourselves a lot of time and the rest of us a lot of scrolling if you’d just take turns writing “Nuh-uh!” and “Yuh-huh!” ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2014, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/355 "2014-12-29T23:27:28Z")
Not to distract from the ongoing discussion, but [Jay was interviewed](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-wilds-star-witness-adnan-syed-serial-case-pt-1/) (not by Serial) and gave another account of the day’s events. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/356 "2014-12-30T00:38:06Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > I think you could both save yourselves a lot of time and the rest of us a lot of scrolling if you’d just take turns writing “Nuh-uh!” and “Yuh-huh!” Fair enough. He’s not worth wasting my time on. > [@panamajack](#): > > Not to distract from the ongoing discussion, but [Jay was interviewed](https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-wilds-star-witness-adnan-syed-serial-case-pt-1/) (not by Serial) and gave another account of the day’s events. I linked to that earlier. ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/357 "2014-12-30T00:48:23Z")
You did indeed. Sorry I missed it. Anyway, I think even if you don’t trust everything Jay says (personally I find the reasons for his lies to the police at least sensible), one thing to be drawn from it is that Jay doesn’t seem too convinced that it was really premeditated at all. The possibility is then that Adnan did call him to come pick him up in the 2:[39?] call, but it was before Hae-Min was killed. ---
**Author:** ![Labrador\_Deceiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7c8e57/32.png) [@Labrador\_Deceiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labrador_Deceiver)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/358 "2014-12-30T00:53:45Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Fair enough. He’s not worth wasting my time on. Easily the gretest punchline I’ve seen after a 5-day setup. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/359 "2014-12-30T01:07:21Z")
> [@Labrador\_Deceiver](#): > > Easily the gretest punchline I’ve seen after a 5-day setup. Last word. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417/360 "2014-12-30T01:08:31Z")
> [@panamajack](#): > > You did indeed. Sorry I missed it. > > Anyway, I think even if you don’t trust everything Jay says (personally I find the reasons for his lies to the police at least sensible), one thing to be drawn from it is that Jay doesn’t seem too convinced that it was really premeditated at all. > > The possibility is then that Adnan did call him to come pick him up in the 2:[39?] call, but it was before Hae-Min was killed. Yes, but the whole thing is kinda perplexing given he is telling yet another story. He answers a few questions, then creates a few more. What is his deal exactly? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/serial-the-podcast/700417.md?page=19)