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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
- A story
- backed by evidence
- that isn’t contradicted by other evidence
- which proves the facts of the case
- which prove the defendant broke the law(s) that he is charged with
- 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.
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.
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.
Clarification: Hae was buried at night, based on Jay’s most recent interview. I don’t know when she was killed.
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.
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.
In episode 8 among other places:
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.
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.
And they should not consider things stricken from the record, but neither thing happens.
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.
It has nothing to do with jury room theories, and there is no evidence they convicted him on that basis.
Who said they did that?
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.
What basis do you have to state the evidence was thin, or that it was thinner than most cases?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I am using credible in the dictionary definition sense:
- able to be believed; convincing.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
It is, but I wish podcast had been a bit more balanced and fair to those who think Adnan is guilty.
“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?
Just to put some of this out there now. Here is an as short as possible list of why I think Adnan is guilty:
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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:
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
(Episode 10: The Best Defense is a Good Defense - Google Docs)
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.
-
“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.”
-
Of course it should be “fair.” But very often, fair and balanced are in conflict.
-
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.
- For the record, I think Adnan did it and I don’t think there was anything unfair about the way the podcast was done.
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).
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.
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…
Read the transcript of this and the appeal document that I cited before. You are wrong.
And yet, he was convicted, and has lost every appeal. Funny how that works.
Not irrelevant, but inadmissible given her lack of expertise. This was actually ruled on and she was not allowed to testify on this point.
She had a pager, not a cell phone. How do you not know this basic fact, yet have such strident opinions?
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.
That’s hilarious.
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.
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.
No, he wasn’t.
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?
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?