Serial Podcast (spoilers starting at post #14) (1 Viewer)

[Neofight]

In which version?

 

[Neofight]

This one is pertinent too, as we look forward to some new info from the DNA evidence.

 

[Capella]

I must have missed the part about two trials. First a mistrial?

I shouldn't listen to these while busy.

 

[MattFancy]

I'm not sure what Jay is hoping to get out of the interviews here. He said he's doing them to "clear his name", well it's not working. I found it funny that he didn't want to talk to SK about the case because the only people he would go into detail about everything surrounding the case were Hae's parents, yet here he is giving an interview to some random lady from some random website.

I also thought it was funny when he was talking about how she only told him at the time it was a "radio" show and it was for "This American Life" and not a "podcast" or "Serial". Would he have talked to her if she said it was a podcast? I thought the email she sent Jay explaining everything and apologizing for showing up at his house was well written and sincere. SK even admitted that it was a "**** move" on her part to just show up at Jay's house.

I feel the same as I did yesterday about Jay when I read the 1st interview. He's done nothing to change my opinion that he's full of crap and more involved in this that he's letting on.

 

[Sweet J]

Uh, jay has an alibi.

What is it?

 

[MattFancy]

Uh, jay has an alibi.

What is it?

Lol for real. I'd love to hear what Jay's alibi is. He's admitted to being involved.

 

[Neofight]

I must have missed the part about two trials. First a mistrial?

I shouldn't listen to these while busy.

First was a mistrial based on the request and actions of the defense attorney (got the judge to call her a liar and protested loudly). After that, the jury was polled and it was determined they would have acquitted Syed.

 

[Neofight]

Part three is up: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/31/jay-speaks-part-3/.

Jay, not surprisingly, does himself no favors.

 

[shuke]

Just started listening to this and am hooked. Although this host is obviously not a journalist.

 

[SIDA!]

So: Adnan was convicted in large part based on the testimony of a guy who repeatedly, repeatedly, lied to police and then lied to the court. At the very least we can tell they are lies based on the cell phone records. Then he admits to lieing in his interview. And jurors admitted that they were influenced by the fact that Adnan didn't take the stand. And they admitted that they were influenced by the "jilted muslims are angry people" theory of motive.

He may or may not have done it, but I see plenty of reasonable doubt. If the star witness hasn't been honest with me, I'd have a hard time convicting.

"Star witnesses" in many murder cases aren't completely honest...especially since they are often times complicit.

What is the reasonable doubt, exactly?

Just because somebody lies that doesn't mean you can't convict someone of a crime.

Adnan doesn't have a credible alibi for basically anything that went down that afternoon/evening. Jay knew where the car was...how did that happen. Adnan's cell phone pinged the tower near where her body was buried during a period of time in which Adnan admitted the phone was in his possession.

Is the reasonable doubt centered on the idea that aliens did it?

Is it centered on the notion that a serial killer randomly struck?

Is it centered on the idea that Jay acted alone?

None of these three scenarios are plausible when you consider the fact that Jay knew where her car was and in the latter case, hatched a plan to murder the girl and waited weeks (months?) for the day that his "buddy" would randomly offer to loan him his car and cell phone so he could frame some other guy for it?

It is not realistic to think that we must know second by second exactly what happened in order to convict someone of a crime.

Ok, let me try this another way: Can we all agree that Adnan and Jay both had the same opportunity to do this crime? Both were lacking on any sort of credible alibi. The ONLY reason that Adnan is in jail is because Jay told the police that Jay killed her. That's it.

But we also know, pretty definitively, that Jay lied, repeatedly, repeatedly, to the police, to the courts, to the prosecutors. Basically, anyone who he talked to he lied to, about something. Everybody who knew him said that he consistently lied about anything and everything.

So, why does Jay get believed by the police and Adnan doesn't? It is because Adnan fits in the "he had a motive" category -- the jilted lover. The ONLY thing that separates Jay from Adnan is motive.

So would I be ready to convict on motive alone? And a flimsy, borderline racist one at that (see the expert report on Muslim male reaction to strong women given to the detectives). Probably not.

So, Jay admitted to burying a dead body. And lied about most all of the details. And said that someone else did it, he was just there to help.

Call me crazy, but I believe that if the Government gets to lock a person in prison for the rest of his life, the Government must do it using witnesses who don't lie.

I don't have time to respond to your post in its entirety and will come back to it later on this week. But, I wanted to briefly touch on the bolded sentence.

I would venture to guess that a significant number of murder convictions involve witness against the defendant who lied at one point in the time to the authorities about their role/what they knew. Not that "The First 48" television show is the gold standard for murder cases, but nearly everyone of these cases seems to involve witnesses saying they had no knowledge of the crime turning around and then subsequently fingering the guy who did it while also sometimes continuing to minimize their own involvement.

In preparation for answering the primary thrust of your comments above, can you clarify something. Is it your contention that reasonable doubt extends to the idea that it was actually Jay who was the killer who framed Adnan or is it also your contention that there is reasonable doubt involving a scenario that had nothing to do with Jay and Adnan at all?

 

[Capella]

This really ended with a whimper. Not just because there was no GOTCHA moment but it was just not interesting. Should've been 5-6 episodes.

I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.

 

[fochs13]

This is copied from a recent reddit thread from someone that "knows" Adnan confessed to 3 people within the muslim community. Take it for what it's worth.

I want to preface this by saying I am Muslim, went to Woodlawn High School (remember Mr. Stoll...only putting this out here so people know I went there) and know many of the parties involved. I will not confirm my identity nor will I get verified (so don't bother asking) because I know there is a witch hunt going on to discover the sources of all information that has come out that goes against Adnan. I don't need Rabia or her pitbulls at my door trying to attack me. It's not my job to make any of you believe me nor do I truly care. My purpose for writing this is to reach those that Adnan confessed to. I have no reason to say anything false about Adnan. What I am about to reveal is the truth for the sake of Hae and justice. As far as I know, there are multiple people that know (first and second hand) what I am about to reveal.

There is one reason and one reason only why I know Adnan is guilty. I am aware that he confessed to at least 3 individuals within the Muslim community. I will reference the three individuals by their first name initial only. They are Mr. H, Mr. T and Mr. B. I implore these three to come out and speak up. Adnan came to these individuals to confide and ask for their advice.

Mr. H, Mr. T and Mr. B, I encourage you to come forward and speak the truth. Please lets stop the madness and not protect a murderer. Think of Hae’s family and what they must be going through. Place yourselves in their shoes. And as much as I feel pain for Adnan’s family and their want of getting their son out they need to know the truth. As Muslims you three need to do the right thing and speak up. If this was your relative you would be begging people to come forward and speak. There are a lot of people that know that Adnan is guilty but are not speaking up. If you three do speak up then I have no doubt these people would come out and support you as well. I know I will. I know there are countless resources being used to help Adnan get out of prison and I would much rather see those resources used for a REAL cause.

Adnan you are selfish and should be ashamed of yourself for putting your family and friends through this. Regardless of whether you get out or not in this lifetime our maker will mete out what’s right in the hereafter. If you actually confessed to what you did today I actually might not have a problem forgiving you. You made a mistake at a young age. Plus 15 years have passed and people change. But the fact you continue to hold onto your innocence and especially after knowing that certain people on the outside know your guilt shows your lack of remorse.

To Mr. Urick and the prosecutor out there evaluating the latest appeal. I hope you fight it and retry Adnan if it comes to that. Do not let anything that has come out in the podcast or otherwise discourage you. I encourage the prosecutor to reach out to me via PM for more information and I will gladly fill you in on specific details.

 

[peaces]

I couldn't get through the first episode...tried 3 or 4 times but I typically can't stand the

NPR monotone so maybe that was it

 

[QuizGuy66]

I couldn't get through the first episode...tried 3 or 4 times but I typically can't stand the

NPR monotone so maybe that was it

This is me with most NPR stuff - somehow Serial was different for me.-QG

 

[bigmarc27]

This is copied from a recent reddit thread from someone that "knows" Adnan confessed to 3 people within the muslim community. Take it for what it's

I hate that subreddit. I tried for a bit during the podcast run, but everyone there is so adamant that Adnon is innocent that there's no actual discussion. It just strikes me as odd that the people there have become 100% positive in his innocence just because of 10 or so hours of biased radio coverage.

I don't know either way, but apparently waivering thoughts aren't welcome there.

 

[The Noid]

Funny spoof just now on SNL.

Video here: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/christmas-serial/2836285

Thanks for the link. Thought it was very well done.

Thought the Funny or Die spoof was way better ("Shrimp sale at the Crab Crib!") and the Weekend Update Serial joke was even better (Michael Che: "The popular podcast Serial had its 12th and final episode this week. For more on that,...ask white people ")

 

[The Noid]

Just started/finished this over the last two weeks and I'm probably in the majority and agree with her conclusion:

Innocent? Probably not. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close.

 

[SIDA!]

Just started/finished this over the last two weeks and I'm probably in the majority and agree with her conclusion:

Innocent? Probably not. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close.

1. What would you need to see to have established reasonable doubt?

2. So, you would rather see nobody in jail and Hae's murder "unsolved" than have Adnan Syed in jail?

 

[MattFancy]

Just started/finished this over the last two weeks and I'm probably in the majority and agree with her conclusion:

Innocent? Probably not. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close.

1. What would you need to see to have established reasonable doubt?

2. So, you would rather see nobody in jail and Hae's murder "unsolved" than have Adnan Syed in jail?

1. Not sure what you're asking here. Are you saying there is no doubt that Adnan did it?

2. Why does someone have to be in jail? If there isn't enough proof Adnan did it, he shouldn't be in jail.

 

[SIDA!]

Just started/finished this over the last two weeks and I'm probably in the majority and agree with her conclusion:

Innocent? Probably not. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close.

1. What would you need to see to have established reasonable doubt?

2. So, you would rather see nobody in jail and Hae's murder "unsolved" than have Adnan Syed in jail?

1. Not sure what you're asking here. Are you saying there is no doubt that Adnan did it?

2. Why does someone have to be in jail? If there isn't enough proof Adnan did it, he shouldn't be in jail.

1. No. I am not saying that there is no doubt. I do leave slight wiggle room for the possibility that an alien did it.

2. I don't think someone should be in jail just for the sake of putting someone in jail. I think someone should be in jail when it is obvious they were involved in the crime.

There is no doubt that Adnan was involved in this crime. You want to put up the theory that Jay was the principal actor and Adnan the bystander, fine. Whatever. We can discuss that further. But there is no doubt that Adnan was involved in her disappearance.

Just because none of us were there and therefore will never have a second by second accounting of the murder, it doesn't mean there is reasonable doubt just because we can't speak with absolute certitude about all the evidence and happenings of that day.

So, again I ask of those who believe he wasn't guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...explain to me what you would need to find him guilty?

 

[MattFancy]

Why isn't he guily beyon a reasonable doubt? Oh I don't know, maybe because Jay has admitted to lying during his testimony and lying to the cops about how the story went down. The key witness in the entire case has admitted that he lied. That's some reasonable doubt there.Or the fact that the call logs don't all line up with the timeline the state laid out. Or the fact that the call log locations aren't always 100% accurate. That's pretty much the state's entire case right there and there's all kinds of holes in each one.

Do I think Adnan did it? Maybe. I can't say for certain, which is why he shouldn't be behind bars.

 

[SIDA!]

So you think Jay concocted a plan to kill Hae and waited for days, weeks, months for the day that Adnan would recommend and encourage Jay to borrow his phone and car to do the crime? And then it just so happened on the day that Adnan made this fortuitous offer out of the kindness of his own heart, he was somehow able to fine Hae after school when she left in her car (maybe he had a GPS tracking device on her bumper), kill her and drive two cars by himself...all while Adnan somehow has absolutely zero alibi or recollection of an alibi on this very day.

This is your position?

Let me let you in on a little secret. I would venture to say that in probably 98% of murder cases the accomplices lie or distort what happened so as to paint themselves in a less negative light and hope to avoid prosecution or more severe prosecution. There is nothing shocking or abnormal about that.

Adnan's defense and what you are apparently buying is..."I didn't do it and I really can't give you one bit of supporting evidence proving to you that what I am telling you is the truth. And oh, by the way, you have to believe me...even though doing so means Adnan cumulatively suffered the most bizarre and one in a trillion times a trillion scenario of "wrong place/wrong time".

So again, I ask. If you were on the jury...what information do you need to see in order to find Adnan guilty? Anything? Anything short of a videotape or personal confession?

 

[MattFancy]

So you think Jay concocted a plan to kill Hae and waited for days, weeks, months for the day that Adnan would recommend and encourage Jay to borrow his phone and car to do the crime? And then it just so happened on the day that Adnan made this fortuitous offer out of the kindness of his own heart, he was somehow able to fine Hae after school when she left in her car (maybe he had a GPS tracking device on her bumper), kill her and drive two cars by himself...all while Adnan somehow has absolutely zero alibi or recollection of an alibi on this very day.

This is your position?

Let me let you in on a little secret. I would venture to say that in probably 98% of murder cases the accomplices lie or distort what happened so as to paint themselves in a less negative light and hope to avoid prosecution or more severe prosecution. There is nothing shocking or abnormal about that.

Adnan's defense and what you are apparently buying is..."I didn't do it and I really can't give you one bit of supporting evidence proving to you that what I am telling you is the truth. And oh, by the way, you have to believe me...even though doing so means Adnan cumulatively suffered the most bizarre and one in a trillion times a trillion scenario of "wrong place/wrong time".

So again, I ask. If you were on the jury...what information do you need to see in order to find Adnan guilty? Anything? Anything short of a videotape or personal confession?

I didn't say Jay did it. I just can't say 100% that Adnan did.

If I was on the jury, I'd want to see some physical evidence and probably more than just the testimony of a guy wasn't lying.

 

[SIDA!]

I want to make sure I am understanding you.

Are you saying that you think there is a potential scenario whereby neither Jay nor Adnan were involved and thus reasonable doubt?

Or are you saying that you believe Jay and Adnan were both involved but there is no evidence directly linking Adnan to the killing?

 

[MattFancy]

I want to make sure I am understanding you.

Or are you saying that you believe Jay and Adnan were both involved but there is no evidence directly linking Adnan to the killing?

This. Nothing I heard in the podcasts or have read since have convinced me 100% that either of those 2 killed her. Could they have? Sure. But I haven't seen enough proof that IMO, leaves me with no doubt.

 

[SIDA!]

I want to make sure I am understanding you.

Or are you saying that you believe Jay and Adnan were both involved but there is no evidence directly linking Adnan to the killing?

This. Nothing I heard in the podcasts or have read since have convinced me 100% that either of those 2 killed her. Could they have? Sure. But I haven't seen enough proof that IMO, leaves me with no doubt.

So, you believe they are both involved in the murder of a human being but because you don't know with absolute certitude the level of involvement of each party that they should both be free men? Are you listening to yourself?

 

[MattFancy]

I want to make sure I am understanding you.

Or are you saying that you believe Jay and Adnan were both involved but there is no evidence directly linking Adnan to the killing?

This. Nothing I heard in the podcasts or have read since have convinced me 100% that either of those 2 killed her. Could they have? Sure. But I haven't seen enough proof that IMO, leaves me with no doubt.

So, you believe they are both involved in the murder of a human being but because you don't know with absolute certitude the level of involvement of each party that they should both be free men? Are you listening to yourself?

Pretty sure you're supposed to convict someone beyond all reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt around this case.

 

[SIDA!]

I want to make sure I am understanding you.

Or are you saying that you believe Jay and Adnan were both involved but there is no evidence directly linking Adnan to the killing?

This. Nothing I heard in the podcasts or have read since have convinced me 100% that either of those 2 killed her. Could they have? Sure. But I haven't seen enough proof that IMO, leaves me with no doubt.

So, you believe they are both involved in the murder of a human being but because you don't know with absolute certitude the level of involvement of each party that they should both be free men? Are you listening to yourself?

Pretty sure you're supposed to convict someone beyond all reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt around this case.

"That is not how this works. That is not how any of this works."

 

[MattFancy]

I want to make sure I am understanding you.

Or are you saying that you believe Jay and Adnan were both involved but there is no evidence directly linking Adnan to the killing?

This. Nothing I heard in the podcasts or have read since have convinced me 100% that either of those 2 killed her. Could they have? Sure. But I haven't seen enough proof that IMO, leaves me with no doubt.

So, you believe they are both involved in the murder of a human being but because you don't know with absolute certitude the level of involvement of each party that they should both be free men? Are you listening to yourself?

Pretty sure you're supposed to convict someone beyond all reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt around this case.

"That is not how this works. That is not how any of this works."

So you're completely fine putting people in jail for life because you think they may have done it, but can't really say for sure?

 

[Thorn]

It would be one thing if he had been convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. But he wasn't. There's certainly reasonable doubt that he committed murder. Had the jury been given a conspiracy charge, SIDA might be on to something. But they weren't.

 

[SIDA!]

I want to make sure I am understanding you.

Or are you saying that you believe Jay and Adnan were both involved but there is no evidence directly linking Adnan to the killing?

This. Nothing I heard in the podcasts or have read since have convinced me 100% that either of those 2 killed her. Could they have? Sure. But I haven't seen enough proof that IMO, leaves me with no doubt.

So, you believe they are both involved in the murder of a human being but because you don't know with absolute certitude the level of involvement of each party that they should both be free men? Are you listening to yourself?

Pretty sure you're supposed to convict someone beyond all reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt around this case.

"That is not how this works. That is not how any of this works."

So you're completely fine putting people in jail for life because you think they may have done it, but can't really say for sure?

You believe Adnan was involved. You also believe Jay was involved. However, you don't know who did what.

If the scenario you heard as a juror included the following:

Jay testifies that Adnan killed Hae, but he helped bury the body.

Adnan testifies that Jay killed Haie, but he helped bury the body.

All other facts remain the same.

Your position as a juror is that neither would and nor should they be found guilty of murder?

 

[MattFancy]

I want to make sure I am understanding you.

Or are you saying that you believe Jay and Adnan were both involved but there is no evidence directly linking Adnan to the killing?

This. Nothing I heard in the podcasts or have read since have convinced me 100% that either of those 2 killed her. Could they have? Sure. But I haven't seen enough proof that IMO, leaves me with no doubt.

So, you believe they are both involved in the murder of a human being but because you don't know with absolute certitude the level of involvement of each party that they should both be free men? Are you listening to yourself?

Pretty sure you're supposed to convict someone beyond all reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt around this case.

"That is not how this works. That is not how any of this works."

So you're completely fine putting people in jail for life because you think they may have done it, but can't really say for sure?

You believe Adnan was involved. You also believe Jay was involved. However, you don't know who did what.

If the scenario you heard as a juror included the following:

Jay testifies that Adnan killed Hae, but he helped bury the body.

Adnan testifies that Jay killed Haie, but he helped bury the body.

All other facts remain the same.

Your position as a juror is that neither would and nor should they be found guilty of murder?

Yes

 

[SIDA!]

I want to make sure I am understanding you.

Or are you saying that you believe Jay and Adnan were both involved but there is no evidence directly linking Adnan to the killing?

This. Nothing I heard in the podcasts or have read since have convinced me 100% that either of those 2 killed her. Could they have? Sure. But I haven't seen enough proof that IMO, leaves me with no doubt.

So, you believe they are both involved in the murder of a human being but because you don't know with absolute certitude the level of involvement of each party that they should both be free men? Are you listening to yourself?

Pretty sure you're supposed to convict someone beyond all reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt around this case.

"That is not how this works. That is not how any of this works."

So you're completely fine putting people in jail for life because you think they may have done it, but can't really say for sure?

You believe Adnan was involved. You also believe Jay was involved. However, you don't know who did what.

If the scenario you heard as a juror included the following:

Jay testifies that Adnan killed Hae, but he helped bury the body.

Adnan testifies that Jay killed Haie, but he helped bury the body.

All other facts remain the same.

Your position as a juror is that neither would and nor should they be found guilty of murder?

Yes

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

He did it.

And he was convicted via due process.

So that is that.

It's gonna be so nuts if one day, someone is released from prison after being wrongly convicted.I mean...can you imagine?!

Thing is, the entire judicial system is based on due process. He received that. It's entertaining to imagine that he must not be guilty and csi law and order oh my god! But it was a jury of 12 people who said "guilty". We have somehow entered a phas where sensationalism implicitly says "the cops had an agenda" without acknowledgement that the agenda is to find the guilty party.

He did it. You know how I am sure? Because 12 people that aren't ######ed (literal) say so. He had due process and a trial and that's how this country works. Sorry if that isn't s tidy ending for the podcast.

I don't think you understand the concept of "reasonable doubt"

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I must have missed the part about two trials. First a mistrial?

I shouldn't listen to these while busy.

yes, first one was a mistrial. according to the juror surveys, he probably would have been acquitted in the first trial too.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Just started listening to this and am hooked. Although this host is obviously not a journalist.

she is a (former) journalist though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Koenig

Koenig graduated from the University of Chicago in 1990 and later began working as a reporter at The East Hampton Star.[6] Then she worked in Russia as a reporter for ABC News and later for The New York Times.[7] She covered the State House (politics) for the Concord Monitor and later for the Baltimore Sun.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

The "he did it, because he was convicted" argument is odd.

I think he is guilty, but I bailed about halfway through. I realize, based on its immense popularity, that I'm apparently the only person in the world who didn't find the series compelling. Kind of want to listen to the rest just so I can participate fully in this thread, which I find more interesting than the podcast was.

Perhaps my point would have been illustrated this way; 12 people heard all the evidence. None of the podcast listeners did. The podcast listeners did, however, hear some of the evidence presented in a 12 hour audio series that was (by design) structured to keep them listening.

Jury that heard all the evidence > hearing 12 hours of narrative audio

they heard "all the evidence"? really? you're certain of this?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Your original posts, however, indicated that Adnan did it because the jury said he did. I worked closely with both the Innocence Project and Northwestern's Center on Wrongful Convictions between 1996-2002, including getting to know many people who were convicted and in many instances sentenced to death--some of them by two or three different juries--for crimes they did not commit. As a result I am nowhere near as convinced as you seemed to be that juries always "get it right". In fact in the appeals case that I was directly handling, after being presented with evidence that they did not see at trial, a majority of the jurors in that case said they believed our client was actually innocent.

If you are able I would love to learn more about these cases. I am fascinated by the process and would be eager to see how innocent people were convicted multiple times.

I agree and understand that juries aren't always right. The point I am admittedly struggling to make is that the jury had more information than people abuzz on the Internet.

LINK

 

[Neofight]

New interview coming later today according to @the_Intercept. I hope it's Kevin Urick; that boy has some 'splainin' to do...

ETA: It's Urick (haven't had time to read it yet)

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Exactly. Even DNA doesn't exclude the entire population but that doesn't produce "reasonable doubt@.

what are you talking about?

seriously. it doesn't make any sense trying to read through your posts in here.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Uh, jay has an alibi.

honestly, did you even listen to the podcast?

 

[Thorn]

I want to make sure I am understanding you.

Or are you saying that you believe Jay and Adnan were both involved but there is no evidence directly linking Adnan to the killing?

This. Nothing I heard in the podcasts or have read since have convinced me 100% that either of those 2 killed her. Could they have? Sure. But I haven't seen enough proof that IMO, leaves me with no doubt.

So, you believe they are both involved in the murder of a human being but because you don't know with absolute certitude the level of involvement of each party that they should both be free men? Are you listening to yourself?

Pretty sure you're supposed to convict someone beyond all reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt around this case.

"That is not how this works. That is not how any of this works."

So you're completely fine putting people in jail for life because you think they may have done it, but can't really say for sure?

You believe Adnan was involved. You also believe Jay was involved. However, you don't know who did what.

If the scenario you heard as a juror included the following:

Jay testifies that Adnan killed Hae, but he helped bury the body.

Adnan testifies that Jay killed Haie, but he helped bury the body.

All other facts remain the same.

Your position as a juror is that neither would and nor should they be found guilty of murder?

Yes

Sorry, you're incorrect under your own scenario. If the prosecutor didn't send conspiracy to the jury, and the prosecutor didn't prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, jurors would be correct to acquit.

 

[Neofight]

Your original posts, however, indicated that Adnan did it because the jury said he did. I worked closely with both the Innocence Project and Northwestern's Center on Wrongful Convictions between 1996-2002, including getting to know many people who were convicted and in many instances sentenced to death--some of them by two or three different juries--for crimes they did not commit. As a result I am nowhere near as convinced as you seemed to be that juries always "get it right". In fact in the appeals case that I was directly handling, after being presented with evidence that they did not see at trial, a majority of the jurors in that case said they believed our client was actually innocent.

If you are able I would love to learn more about these cases. I am fascinated by the process and would be eager to see how innocent people were convicted multiple times.

I agree and understand that juries aren't always right. The point I am admittedly struggling to make is that the jury had more information than people abuzz on the Internet.

LINK

Great recommendation! Though I feel if Abe was really interested in these cases he might have examined the one being discussed in this thread a bit more. This case has plenty of inconsistencies and issues to be addressed.

 

[QuizGuy66]

New interview coming later today according to @the_Intercept. I hope it's Kevin Urick; that boy has some 'splainin' to do...

ETA: It's Urick (haven't had time to read it yet)

Good read. Part II will be tomorrow.

-QG

 

[The Noid]

Just started/finished this over the last two weeks and I'm probably in the majority and agree with her conclusion:

Innocent? Probably not. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close.

1. What would you need to see to have established reasonable doubt?

2. So, you would rather see nobody in jail and Hae's murder "unsolved" than have Adnan Syed in jail?

1. Assuming you meant what would establish beyond a reasonable doubt: physical evidence, time of death, witness to the killing, surveillance footage, a confession...

2. Yes. The end shouldn't justify the means in capital murder cases. If you can't prove someone did it; no one should be convicted. Save the low standard of proof for the civil courts.

 

[The Noid]

He was convicted on Jay's testimony. There was no other evidence. Jurors even stated that plainly. But Jay's evidence/story changed in the interviews, it changed again in the first trial, changed again in the second trial and changed 15 years later in his "this is the real truth" interview.

Having that be the basis for convicting someone is a good way to rob a lot of innocent people (for the few that are actually guilty) of the rest of their lives.

If Jay told a consistent story that pointed to Adnan (even 85%-90% of it staying the same with the 10%-15% of inconsistencies being innocuous), I could start to come around on the guilty verdict.

 

[krista4]

New interview coming later today according to @the_Intercept. I hope it's Kevin Urick; that boy has some 'splainin' to do...

ETA: It's Urick (haven't had time to read it yet)

Good read. Part II will be tomorrow.

-QG

Interesting stuff. The 80 mosque "witnesses"...the cell phone technology...interesting.

 

[SIDA!]

Just started/finished this over the last two weeks and I'm probably in the majority and agree with her conclusion:

Innocent? Probably not. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close.

1. What would you need to see to have established reasonable doubt?

2. So, you would rather see nobody in jail and Hae's murder "unsolved" than have Adnan Syed in jail?

1. Assuming you meant what would establish beyond a reasonable doubt: physical evidence, time of death, witness to the killing, surveillance footage, a confession...

2. Yes. The end shouldn't justify the means in capital murder cases. If you can't prove someone did it; no one should be convicted. Save the low standard of proof for the civil courts.

I would venture to guess that the overwhelming majority of murder cases where a defendant does not confess and is sentenced to prison lacks a witness and surveillance footage.

With respect to physical evidence. I am not sure what your criteria for that would be.

His cell phone pinging a tower in Leakin Park at the park where Hae's body was found, the day she went missing and during a time when he stated that he was in possession of his cell phone is pretty good "physical evidence" to me. On top of the fact that you have a witness who testifies that he was there and helped dispose of the body.

His DNA could have been found on her body and some of you would say that they probably had a clandestine quickie in the school bathroom that afternoon.

 

[MattFancy]

Just started/finished this over the last two weeks and I'm probably in the majority and agree with her conclusion:

Innocent? Probably not. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Not even close.

1. What would you need to see to have established reasonable doubt?

2. So, you would rather see nobody in jail and Hae's murder "unsolved" than have Adnan Syed in jail?

1. Assuming you meant what would establish beyond a reasonable doubt: physical evidence, time of death, witness to the killing, surveillance footage, a confession...

2. Yes. The end shouldn't justify the means in capital murder cases. If you can't prove someone did it; no one should be convicted. Save the low standard of proof for the civil courts.

I would venture to guess that the overwhelming majority of murder cases where a defendant does not confess and is sentenced to prison lacks a witness and surveillance footage.

With respect to physical evidence. I am not sure what your criteria for that would be.

His cell phone pinging a tower in Leakin Park at the park where Hae's body was found, the day she went missing and during a time when he stated that he was in possession of his cell phone is pretty good "physical evidence" to me. On top of the fact that you have a witness who testifies that he was there and helped dispose of the body.

His DNA could have been found on her body and some of you would say that they probably had a clandestine quickie in the school bathroom that afternoon.

If they find his DNA on her, that's a game changer. However in the most recent Urick interview with The Intercept, DNA evidence was never presented during the case.

 

[SIDA!]

I want to make sure I am understanding you.

Or are you saying that you believe Jay and Adnan were both involved but there is no evidence directly linking Adnan to the killing?

This. Nothing I heard in the podcasts or have read since have convinced me 100% that either of those 2 killed her. Could they have? Sure. But I haven't seen enough proof that IMO, leaves me with no doubt.

So, you believe they are both involved in the murder of a human being but because you don't know with absolute certitude the level of involvement of each party that they should both be free men? Are you listening to yourself?

Pretty sure you're supposed to convict someone beyond all reasonable doubt. There's plenty of reasonable doubt around this case.

"That is not how this works. That is not how any of this works."

So you're completely fine putting people in jail for life because you think they may have done it, but can't really say for sure?

You believe Adnan was involved. You also believe Jay was involved. However, you don't know who did what.

If the scenario you heard as a juror included the following:

Jay testifies that Adnan killed Hae, but he helped bury the body.

Adnan testifies that Jay killed Haie, but he helped bury the body.

All other facts remain the same.

Your position as a juror is that neither would and nor should they be found guilty of murder?

Yes

Sorry, you're incorrect under your own scenario. If the prosecutor didn't send conspiracy to the jury, and the prosecutor didn't prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, jurors would be correct to acquit.

I can't speak authoritatively on Maryland murder statutes. But it is not uncommon in other parts of the country for accomplices in a murder (who didn't actually do the killing) to be charged with the crime of murder. Hell, there are instances where two thieves commit a crime that leaves one of them dead (from a cop or homeowner, etc.) and the other thief is charged with murder because they both engaged in premeditated acts that led to the death of the other.

So, you may very well be technically right in this case and this jurisdiction. In plenty of jurisdictions he would be guilty of murder.

I ain't losing any sleep over Adnan nor am I going to use him as a poster child for the Innocence Project. About as comparable as using Michael Brown as the poster child for persecuted black youth in inner city America by white cops.