Yeah, well, when I was hearing the “Jay is scared” story all I was thinking was:
Guy Who Smokes A Lot Of Weed Gets Paranoid! Film At 11:00.
Her statement simply proves Jay told her Adnan committed murder. It doesn’t say anything about the truthfulness of what Jay said. If Jay was the killer, his comment to Jenn could simply be the start of his efforts to place the blame on Adnan.
Or not. Who knows?
I think this blogger does a pretty good job of summing up the evidence and showing why it adds up to less than it might appear at first.
However, I don’t have all the details of the case committed to memory. Maybe she leaves some things out or exaggerates the pro-Adnan possibilities.
Right. But it does seem to rule out Jay not being involved at all, and his story being simply fabrication.
Which makes a third party scenario a whole lot less likely. The thing is, I can get on board with a random serial killer theory. But Jay in cahoots with a serial killer? That just seems way too far-fetched. So, then we’re left with Jay doing it. And with no motive at all for Jay doing it on his own, well… I don’t know.
Also, it means that I could spend any amount of time taking apart Jay’s story, or show how all of it could be fed to him by the cops, and it wouldn’t make a difference. No matter how bizarre and incoherent his narrative is, the only really important thing is that Jen was told about the murder from Jay on the 13th. The pay phone thing? Doesn’t matter. Could the cops have showed him the car? Who cares. Is he a he crazy pathological liar? Maybe, it makes no difference. The details don’t really matter.
I go back and forth on this thing. I speculate a lot. See any of my earlier posts for proof of that. But then I have those days when I sort of sober up, look at the whole thing a bit more cynically, and think: “Come on, get real, do the math. What’s most likely here?”
It’s either Jay, or some combination of Adnan and Jay. What makes more sense?
And that’s when, maybe, I start understanding what the jury might have been thinking. Not that don’t think there is reasonable doubt. I think there’s plenty. I just, maybe, start to see the other side of it.
And that’s all because of Jen’s testimony. If it wasn’t for Jen, I would probably be wearing a “Free Adnan” T-shirt at this point.
Jen could be lying to protect Jay.
The cops talk to Jen because she was called from Adnan’s phone. She talks to Jay (because she knows he was the one calling her). He tells her his story, and tells her that he wants her to say he told her back then. This makes his story that much more believable for a variety of reasons. If she believes him and he is important to her, I can see her going along with that lie.
There’s plenty of time for this conversation to happen, and for them to get their story straight, because Jen didn’t talk to the cops until the day after they called her asking questions.
I’m not suggesting that’s what happened, but there are a variety of motives Jen might have for claiming that Jay told her of his involvement before he actually told her.
She was disbarred for misconduct and the state paid out 28 claims. She took money and failed to file paperwork. She failed to keep clients’ money in trust.
Such as? Not picking on you, I would genuinely love to have a good motive for it.
Because I can’t see it. What’s the utility of it? How does it protect anyone? What is the benefit for Jay?
It also makes Jen herself look more culpable, since it means that she knew about the murder since day one, and only came forward once the police got to her. According to SK, Jen was afraid that she herself might be charged, presumably as an accessory. And it seems to me that she had reason to be afraid. So why would she make herself look like even more of an accessory?
Don’t get me wrong, I already think that Jen is lying about some things, to protect Jay. She testified that Jay was at her house until 3:40, which is contradicted by the call records. I just don’t see why she would lie about that one thing. And I also can’t see how it’s something that she might misremember.
Oh, wait, sorry. I see. Her knowing about it from the start makes Jay’s story more believable.
Well… it makes Jay being involved in the murder more believable. But is that something that Jay is trying to make more believable? His lies do have a pattern: Distancing himself from the crime. Not the other way around.
Yeah, still, maybe it’s something, at least. Still not much, though.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with Adnan’s case. Again, Adnan thinks she did a pretty good job. Where is the evidence she completely fucked up the case beyond the Monday morning quarterbacking done by fans of the podcast?
There are plenty of criminal prosecutors and defense attorneys who have publicly stated that she screwed up, big time. You can find them and their specific criticisms online.
And again, I don’t think Adnan has said she did a pretty good job. I can’t recall exactly, but I think he said that he trusted and liked her at the time, and that he isn’t angry at her.
This is how I would characterize it too, he seems to have genuinely liked her, I got the feeling he appreciated that she (at least seemed to, to him) believed in his case. I don’t think as a 19 year old kid he would have been realizing all the things that she was doing wrong in terms of structuring his defense. Now, he seems to have a greater awareness that the mechanics of the case could have/should have been handled differently, but as far as I could tell from how it was presented in the podcast, he’s separated this from his opinion of her as a person.
Nothing to do with it? You think she went all the way through Adnan’s case with total integrity and capability, then flipped a switch and became incompetent and dishonest for her other clients?
Here’s Rabia Chaudry on Gutierrez.
That’s pretty clear.
They played excerpts of Gutierrez on the podcast. Did you think any of them made a convincing argument? How many times did Sarah have to apologize for the confusing bit and explain what the lawyer was getting at? Do you think she just failed to play any tape where Gutierrez was effective and convincing? I think there isn’t any.
Adnan has filed a claim based on inadequate representation. So, no, he doesn’t seem to think she did a pretty good job.
I think you’re giving the nice things Adnan says about her on the podcast too much weight. For one, he knows well that he’s on display, and that it doesn’t do him any good to sound bitter. He doesn’t really say anything bad about Jay either, except for his claim that Jay lied and set him up for a life in prison.
I’m no sure you understand that Monday morning quarterbacking is precisely the point of this entire podcast. SK didn’t spend 12 episodes researching and reporting on the original police investigation, evidence, witness testimony, defense, jury deliberation and verdict just to extol its virtues.
Unless they have actually read all the transcripts, I will take their critiques with the appropriate grains of salt.
I think my phrasing is fair. The relevant text is below:
[QUOTE=Serial]
"But now I’m going to address this question head on. Did she blow it?
You might be surprised to hear that Adnan’s only beef with Christina, in terms of what happened at trial is that she never contacted Asia McClain. He thinks it wasn’t deliberate on her part, he just thinks she made a mistake, like a surgeon’s slip of the scalpel. Personally, she was nothing but compassionate to him he said, always asking him how he was going, she made sure he got the skin medication he needed, the glasses he needed. She was his protector.
Adnan Syed
I mean I loved her, I still-- I just have a great deal of affection for her. I just really felt like she really really had my back. You understand? So–"
[/QUOTE]
I think “pretty good job” is a fair characterization of the above given he literally has one issue with the job she did and doesn’t even think it was intentional.
But we are hearing his thoughts in the present. If he felt she did a bad job, why doesn’t he say so?
She was a well-respected and accomplished lawyer by almost all accounts even up until the point she was hired for Adnan’s case. Obviously, it went off the rails somewhere, but when and where is up for debate. We certainly don’t have enough evidence to say she was particularly bad in Adnan’s case beyond speculation from biased parties with incomplete information.
Rabia is a crackpot. Irrespective of Adnan’s guilt or innocence, you should triple check any and everything she says. This is the woman who thinks CG threw the trial to make more money on the appeal, which is one of the dumbest theories I have heard posited in relation to the case, maybe even eclipsing the “serial killer did it” and the “Hae committed suicide” supposition.
You mean the clip she played to justify the conclusion she was making? The trial was (IIRC) almost 2 months long. Do you really think she never said anything logical or convincing? SK has an agenda, even if you only think that agenda is to make an interesting podcast. Calling out a lawyer based on 30 seconds of a podcast is presumptuous at best.
Why? Lawyers are generally not allowed to just ramble nonsensically for 2 months straight. If you really think she failed to make ANY convincing arguments, then you are fooling yourself.
Adnan wants to get out of jail. He has appealed for basically any reason you can appeal. I put no stock in this tactical choice. By that logic, Adnan’s desire to plea out twice is evidence of his guilt.
I assure you I understand the point of the podcast. It’s not MMQBing as it’s typically understood as SK is not saying she would have done things differently for the most part.
I haven’t listened to it yet, but Fresh Air has a new interview with Sarah Koenig about Serial.
brickbacon, from my perspective, you have awfully high standards of evidence for believing the claim “Adnan’s attorney did a bad job”, and awfully low standards of evidence for believing the claim “Adnan murdered Hae”. It seems to me that it’s the latter claim that should require a higher standard of evidence. But perhaps I’m misinterpreting. Do you think you’re applying the same level of skepticism to both?
I think we (podcast listeners) have no where near enough evidence to say CG did a bad job. She very well may have, but you can’t know that from listening to a few seconds of a podcast. We have no idea what Adnan told her or why she choose to do what she did. Instead he have people speculating and making asinine comments intimating she never made any good arguments during Adnan’s trial.
The evidence for Adnan killing Hae is better than you get in many murder trials and was compelling enough for those judging him at the time to found him guilty in near record time. The judge, having listened to the podcast, commented on how she still thinks he is manipulative and guilty, and how the evidence was overwhelming.
I get that it’s nice to think Adnan might have been framed or that a serial killer did it, but the evidence suggests that he did it. His innocence hangs on people explaining away how the Hae’s concerns about Adnan being controlling and not getting over the breakup were high school drama and how the Nisha call was a butt dial, and a hundred other things that need to be explained away for Adnan to have been convicted. At a certain point, you need to ask yourself which scenario is more likely, and it’s not Jay or a serial killer killing Hae.
True, as a personal question, that does need to be answered. As a legal question that is the wrong question.
I have no personal problem with the idea that he killed Hae and yet, based on the information available to us or the court, should not be in jail.
Evidence against Adnan
-
Opportunity - Hae died less than an hour after school ended. It wasn’t long before her parents panicked about her failing to arrive at her cousin’s school. This means that someone got into her car at Woodlawn and convinced her to drive to the location of the murder. If Jay acted alone, how the hell did he lure Hae to that fateful place?
-
The day of her disappearance, he admits to the officer that he asked Hae for a ride but later declined. Weeks later, he contradicts this statement by telling another cop that he wouldn’t have asked Hae for a ride because he has his own car. Throughout the podcast interview, he says January 13 was just another day. Yeah, a normal afternoon complete with track practice, weed, and a cop telling you your friend is missing.
-
Cell phone tower evidence shows that Adnan’s phone was used around Leakin Park at the time he claimed to have the phone in his possession
-
How did Jay strangle Hae, coordinate the hiding of her car, bury her body, dispose of the evidence, and clean up just in time to pick up Adnan from track practice?
-
Nisha testified that Adnan put Jay on the phone for a couple of minutes but there’s some confusion about the date
-
Something that supports the whole jilted lover angle: they found a note from Hae stashed away in Adnan’s house that suggests he couldn’t move on from the relationship. I dunno. It could have been a preemptive form of consolation from Hae, but it’s something to consider.
-
In my opinion, this is the most fascinating piece of evidence - Adnan’s friend testified that they smoked weed together in the same area of the Best Buy parking lot some time after Hae’s disappearance.
-
You can rationalize this all you want, but it’s incredibly hard to believe that an innocent person would maintain for 15 years that he doesn’t know why his friend framed him for murder and that he can’t point fingers at Jay without evidence WHEN JAY LED DETECTIVES TO HAE’S CAR AND THEN PINNED THE FUCKING MURDER ON ADNAN.
I just finished a marathon of all episodes, and it’s good to see other people are on the same page as I am: I’m suspicious of Adnan, but I’m appalled that he was convicted.
There was one person in the courtroom who admitted to knowing Hae was going to be killed, admitted to burying Hae, who admitted to lying to police over and over, and who allegedly (I’m certainly worried about contamination) knew where her car was. And that person - that liar who admitted burying her body and got a deal (using a lawyer procured by the prosecution) with no jail time, is basically the only evidence against the defendant. While my sympathies changed episode to episode, nothing ever cleared up the ample reasonable doubt I discerned from the beginning.
And of course opening the “black box” of the jury is worse than watching sausage being made. “Oh we were told not to consider that he didn’t testify, but it really influenced me.” “We’re not allowed to act as ad hoc expert witnesses, but during deliberations one guy said Arabs [sic] treat their women poorly.” ARGH!
Good thing this isn’t a court and we aren’t asking legal questions. Not to mention that a legal question cannot likely be answered by people listening to a podcast. The entire series was around 10 hours or so. Adnan’s trial was almost two months IIRC. To even think we are qualified or able to answer the legal question makes no sense. Yes, the courts have a presumption of innocence and standard or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but they also have rules of evidence, cross examination, and other things that don’t transparently benefit defendants. I don’t know why people listening to the podcast think the former things should apply to our analysis when the latter ones don’t, or that ANY of them are relevant in this case.
You haven’t seen all the information available to the court, nor did you see and hear the witnesses on the stand, so you have no way of making a valid inference as to what they should have done then. His judge, to this day, still thinks he did it and that there was overwhelming evidence (her words). Why do you think you are in a better position to judge 15 years after the fact with less and/or different information?