This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Let me get this straight.Neofight said:
A couple of months ago, I believe you said something like:Neofight said:
If the police/prosecution think Adnan did it, they should put on the evidence they have with their REAL theory for how it happened.
I thought the weather reports were in line with her statement, not contradicting it. She said she remembers the day well because her boyfriend was jealous about her talking to Adnan, and then she got snowed in at her boyfriend's house that night, which the weather confirmed.
What makes more sense:
Shuke
The bolded part collectively easily gets me over the "reasonable doubt" standard. I can't come up with any reasonable alternative hypothesis that explains this stuff other than "Adnan did it." When you're reduced to arguing that some serial killer may be the real murder, which is where the Innocence Project apparently is, that's just not plausible.Buckychudd said:
As I understand it (not sure this is completely accurate) the Innocence Project is just using the serial killer to get the DNA tested. They don't legitimately think or intend to argue that he did it.
Good point. In fairness, it seems to me that you really shouldn't need an argument to get DNA tested -- that should be something that's granted automatically. Maybe there's a good reason for doing it the way they do it. but it seems to encourage a degree of disingenuousness.
Yeah I listened through twice... First time through I was aware of it, but it didn't bother me too much. On the re-listen, it was almost unbearable. She was like a schoolgirl:
I'm just going by the evidence and what I-and many others, some of whom are quite educated and with more detailed knowledge of the case-have discerned by examining publicly available information (MD court databases, trial records, maps, etc.)... basically doxing the most obvious parties and their various connections.
Who are these people and what knowledge do you have? Please don't say reddit - I will laugh at you.
You need to get a better understanding of this case. Cristina Gutierrez was disbarred for mishandling clients funds and not providing services for which she was paid. It's entirely feasible that she simply dropped the ball due to failing health and declining ability to keep up with her case load.
Ok, if that's the case can you answer my questions above? What was jay's motive, who helped him, and what was his opportunity (i.e. How did he meet up with Hae)?
I believe I have linked to the blogs of two attorneys that write about this case and other legal issues. They post on reddit too. I'll let them know that you might be laughing at them.
I'm just discussing a podcast, I'm not claiming to be some inside expert that has spent days and nights pouring over the details. Also yes, I'm laughing at the people on reddit who have wrapped themselves up so tightly in this that they can't even hear a dissenting opinion without flipping out. They remind me of the people who watch court tv all day and then pretend they know what they're talking about in regards to trial law. This was good entertainment for me, nothing more. So, no I don't see any irony at all actually.
Motive is like some inverse beauty; you can see it one way and others will see it another. Motive is more often just lawyer spin and not really useful in determining the "how" of a case (or even the "why"). What was Adnan's motive? (that's rhetorical)
It's basically what I was getting at earlier - there's this weird grouping of people now who have listened to 10 hours of a slanted podcast and are now just 1000% sure that everyone was lying and it's all BS and that he's got to be innocent. There's no other explanation. It's goofy to me.
No idea of what? Motive? How about Jay was feeling so much animal rage at the time?
I get exactly what you are saying, but there are people who actually do know what happened. The problem is that they likely weren't examined because the investigation was so poorly handled and the prosecution had a single minded determination to get a conviction. The case itself is paper thin and yet a man sits in jail for a crime he quite likely did not commit, all because some low level drug dealer with a record and a healthy imagination said so. Plenty of evidence was left untested for the word of a confessed liar who had a reason to implicate someone else...
What was Syed's motive? That's not rhetorical (just don't say he was besmirched, for the love of Allah).
It's really not convenient for people that are falsely accused and wrongfully imprisoned. But You take a stab at it: what was Syed's motive?
I didn't say it was convenient for people that are falsey accused and wrongfully imprisoned. I said it was convenient for your theory.
No, it really doesn't given the facts of the case. It worked for a group of disinterested jurors who had no concept of the 5th amendment rights and would've rather been at Walmart though. I guess that is good enough?
Have you ever known someone who was wrongfully imprisoned? How about murdered? I have on both accounts, and I can tell you from experience that motive is window dressing to the nuts and bolts of a case.
Well since you know what the jurors were thinking 15 years ago during these trials, I suppose there's nowhere else to go. It amazes me that you were able to conclude his innocence by listening to this 10 hour podcast, but their feeble minds were unable to think critically and just bought everyone's lies for the weeks they sat in that courtroom.
Ahhh I think I know where this is going. I get the feeling that you're about to slam your race card down on the table.
I'm sorry that you know someone who was wrongfully imprisoned and someone else who was murdered. Truly, I am. That would be terrible.
I didn't say he was innocent. I sad that the evidence doesn't point to him. At all. Juries in general are disinterested. Two hours on a case with this little evidence tells me they were practically comatose. And don't assume that I only listened to the podcast, especially when I've indicated otherwise.
I have, yes. I enjoy reddit in some cases, but I think it does more harm as a groupthink in cases like this. The upvote/downvote system leads to popular opinions, not necessarily facts while any dissenting opinions are swiped from view. Also reddit loves itself a good witch hunt - see the boston marathon bombing for one of the more egregious examples of how dangerous the group think over there can become.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
