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

[KarmaPolice]

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.

 

[Neofight]

Is Abe's a shared alias? My notebook is years out of date.

 

[pollardsvision]

Did anyone get the sense a few times throughout the entire series that Adnan was about to crack and admit it all?

This is completely whacky for me to say but he always talked like someone who did it. The way he'd even structure his sentences or add on to them to cover his ### came up again for me in this episode when he was saying (and I'm paraphrasing)

"I'm the only one who will ever know for sure if I did it [pause]...and of course...you know....the person who did it."

Just a weird sentence. Sounds very OJ Simpson like with his "if I did it, here's how I would have done it..." type stuff.

This wasn't the only example either, throughout the series, where I felt he worded things very poorly and had to lay something over it afterwards to make it sound better. Almost like, he coached himself up to have a certain mind set, got lost in the conversation and forgot his plan and quickly realized he needs to act a certain way and say certain things.

Great final episode. I think Adnan killed Hae. Which is disappointing to realize for me because, if he did, he had to have pre-meditated it as well. I've been through high school break ups and, of course never thought about killing someone, I remember feeling at the time like this person would be the only person I'd ever love or want to be with again and having intense feelings of generally being upset or irrational. I think that's what happened to Adnan here. Also agree with Tobias, that there was not enough to convict him.

I didn't get that at all.

He was talking about the podcast looking at whether he's innocent or not and whether Koenig had an ending. Here's the full quote:

"I was just thinking the other day...I'm pretty sure she probably has people telling her, like, look, you know, you know, this you know, this case, look, he's probably guilty. You're going crazy trying to find out if he's innocent, which you're not gonna find, cuz he's guilty. I mean, I don't think you'll ever have a 100% or, you know what I'm saying, any type of certainty about it. The only person in the whole world who can have that is me and, I mean, for what it's worth, whoever did it. You know, you'll never have that. I, I don't think you will."

Putting the bolded together, he's saying he and whoever did it are the only ones in the world who can have 100% certainty regarding his innocence. And, he's probably right.

Yeah, it sounded odd at first, but really shouldn't because Adnan was talking in the context of his own innocence or guilt. Not specifically about who killed Hae.

The very small difference there is enough for me not try to read any additional meaning from that.

 

[Bucks]

Funny spoof just now on SNL.

 

[Don Quixote]

Funny spoof just now on SNL.

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

 

[pollardsvision]

That's awesome.

Being ignorant of the number of listeners Serial gets (or the viewership for SNL for that matter), that seems surprising that they'd use Serial for a spoof. I wouldn't think it would widely known enough to resonate. I guess it's probably as widely known as Homeland though (being too lazy to do a quick google search). Probably a lot of crossover between TAL/Serial listeners and SNL viewers too, I guess.

 

[Abraham]

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

 

[bigmarc27]

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

I listened all the way through and then my wife wanted to hear it so I started over last night driving out of town... The more I listen, there are things about this podcast that I think are reckless.Through the first two episodes on re-listen, it's very apparent that she feels Adnon is innocent and that she likes them. Going through, anything positive for Adnon is stated and re-stated, and anything that's not so great it glanced over. In episode 2 for instance, they spend all this time with Adnon saying he would never ask Hae for a ride because she always picked her cousin up from school. They have a direct quote from him saying these things. They then mention a couple of people say that he did indeed ask for a ride and testified as such. After all of that, it's chalked up as Adnon just forgetting.

Even in the final episode, they spend a lot of time on a serial killer angle and then footnote: of course this doesn't explain how Jay knew where the car was...

Anyway, going back I've realized it's a very lopsided story -- I agree with what you're saying that we get a few minutes of what the jury heard and then hours of conjecture.

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

Funny spoof just now on SNL.

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

Wow. That's really hilarious.

 

[Socrates11]

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.

 

[southeastjerome]

I don't get how so many people can say there is reasonable doubt.

1.) Adnan was really the only one that we know of with any sort of motive.

2.) Motive is key here because Jay found the car, obviously Jay was involved and it was not some random serial killer.

3.) Jay had no motive at all to do it himself.

I think Adnan is very convincing and comes off as endearing that is why so many want to think he did not do it, but all of the evidence the jury heard proved otherwise. If I remember correctly, the jury only took 2 hours to convict him. I know it is unorthodox, but I wonder if the defense would have benefited if Adnad took the stand. I could easily see him doing well there and coming off very likeable. Likeable enough to let reasonable doubt creep into the heads of jurors as it has for podcast listeners.

I didn't like the last minute serial killer angle either. Sure, it is odd, but it was mentioned (and glossed over) that the serial killer raped his victims and robbery was a motive on some as well. Toss in the fact that Jay found the car, and that seems to limit the chances of the serial killer being responsible. Kind of a weak attempt at tryiing to create an "oh my God, maybe he didn't do it" moment at the end of the podcast.

 

[southeastjerome]

The defense case was poor. Honestly if I was on that jury I might have convicted him based on the defense attorney's voice alone. (I actually am only half-kidding here - I can totally see her style not helping in this case).

-QG

STEPPPINNNNGGG OUT!?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't get how so many people can say there is reasonable doubt.

1.) Adnan was really the only one that we know of with any sort of motive.

2.) Motive is key here because Jay found the car, obviously Jay was involved and it was not some random serial killer.

3.) Jay had no motive at all to do it himself.

I think Adnan is very convincing and comes off as endearing that is why so many want to think he did not do it, but all of the evidence the jury heard proved otherwise. If I remember correctly, the jury only took 2 hours to convict him. I know it is unorthodox, but I wonder if the defense would have benefited if Adnad took the stand. I could easily see him doing well there and coming off very likeable. Likeable enough to let reasonable doubt creep into the heads of jurors as it has for podcast listeners.

I didn't like the last minute serial killer angle either. Sure, it is odd, but it was mentioned (and glossed over) that the serial killer raped his victims and robbery was a motive on some as well. Toss in the fact that Jay found the car, and that seems to limit the chances of the serial killer being responsible. Kind of a weak attempt at tryiing to create an "oh my God, maybe he didn't do it" moment at the end of the podcast.

- No physical evidence connecting Adnan to crime

- Entire case hinges on single witness whose story changed many times for still-unexplained reasons

- No definitive timeline established

- Based on testimony from friends regarding his behavior, motive for Adnan is pretty weak too

Reasonable doubt is a pretty strict standard. To me, one guy whose story changes all the time says this one guy did it and he knew where the victim's car was doesn't rise to that standard. More likely than not, sure, but not enough for me to put a guy away. YMMV of course, that's why we have juries.

 

[RUSF18]

I didn't like the last minute serial killer angle either. Sure, it is odd, but it was mentioned (and glossed over) that the serial killer raped his victims and robbery was a motive on some as well. Toss in the fact that Jay found the car, and that seems to limit the chances of the serial killer being responsible. Kind of a weak attempt at tryiing to create an "oh my God, maybe he didn't do it" moment at the end of the podcast.

I posted this upthread but worth mentioning again I think. DNA testing on Hae's body and the physical evidence was never conducted, for no apparent reason. The Innocence Project couldn't get the DNA testing done just by requesting it. They needed to offer some sort of reason for why - 15 years later - it should get done. Saying that there was a serial killer, who has strangled an Asian woman in the past and who was mistakenly released from a prison in the area two weeks before Hae disappeared, is supposedly a good enough to get the testing performed. I don't think anyone thinks the serial killer actually could have done it. But if the testing comes back and Hae ends up with Jay's DNA under her nails, or a third person emerges, it could impact Adnan's hope for an appeal. Or it could result in Adnan's DNA coming back and everyone can close the books on this.

 

[krista4]

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

This is a much more reasonable statement. The jury did not "hear all the evidence"--for instance, we know they did not hear the alibi witness--but generally they should be in a better position to judge innocence or guilt than listeners to a podcast.

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.

 

[Murph]

Just spent yesterday and today binging on this. I have very little doubt Adnan is guilty. The key for me is Jay knowing where the car is. Unless someone can convince me Jay had motive and/or Jay's DNA comes back from the Innocence Project request (truly the longest of long shots, I think). And despite holes in the state's case I think it's reasonable that a jury convicted him.

But, the one thing I'm hung up on is the prosecutor setting up Jay with an attorney. Can any FBG lawyers weigh in here? (I skimmed the thread but didn't see it getting much discussion). From what I understand, the judge's reasoning is that Jay didn't understand that this was an improper arrangement therefore it was de facto not a benefit. And therefore his testimony isn't tainted. But, even if he doesn't understand that arrangement is unusual couldn't he still view it as a benefit? And if so, should his testimony be admissible?

 

[ArbyMelt]

Like many others, I think Adnan did it, but not sure if I could convict. If his ex-gf goes missing, and he gets a call from police, there is no doubt in my mind that he remembers EVERYTHING that day. The fact that he didn't, I am convinced he is lying. I also think Jay had more to do with it than he is saying.

We'll never know what happened for sure.

I read somewhere today that Jay said on facebook he'll do an interview, but then deleted the post. I'd like to hear that interview. There are many questions we need jay to answer.

 

[Abraham]

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

This is a much more reasonable statement. The jury did not "hear all the evidence"--for instance, we know they did not hear the alibi witness--but generally they should be in a better position to judge innocence or guilt than listeners to a podcast.

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.

 

[krista4]

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

This is a much more reasonable statement. The jury did not "hear all the evidence"--for instance, we know they did not hear the alibi witness--but generally they should be in a better position to judge innocence or guilt than listeners to a podcast.

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.

The most notable and notorious at the time were the Ford Heights Four, Delbert Tibbs and Rolando Cruz cases. Google those and you'll find lots of interesting info. I became pretty good friends with (was invited to the wedding of, though it didn't ever happen) Dennis Williams of the Ford Heights Four, who sadly never got past the demons and died several years after being released from death row. Delbert Tibbs was one of the most amazing people I've ever known--died last year and I remember learning about it from the NY Times and being devastated (though he was 70something I think). The people who've gone through this often can't recover, but Delbert was a shining example of the best that could happen. There were several others with whom I had contact, but those were the people I got to know the best. I can give you more info if you'd like.

You're not struggling to make your point any more; it wasn't clear at first but is now, and I completely agree with you.

 

[PatsWillWin]

I don't get how so many people can say there is reasonable doubt.

1.) Adnan was really the only one that we know of with any sort of motive.

2.) Motive is key here because Jay found the car, obviously Jay was involved and it was not some random serial killer.

3.) Jay had no motive at all to do it himself.

I think Adnan is very convincing and comes off as endearing that is why so many want to think he did not do it, but all of the evidence the jury heard proved otherwise. If I remember correctly, the jury only took 2 hours to convict him. I know it is unorthodox, but I wonder if the defense would have benefited if Adnad took the stand. I could easily see him doing well there and coming off very likeable. Likeable enough to let reasonable doubt creep into the heads of jurors as it has for podcast listeners.

I didn't like the last minute serial killer angle either. Sure, it is odd, but it was mentioned (and glossed over) that the serial killer raped his victims and robbery was a motive on some as well. Toss in the fact that Jay found the car, and that seems to limit the chances of the serial killer being responsible. Kind of a weak attempt at tryiing to create an "oh my God, maybe he didn't do it" moment at the end of the podcast.

Yeah, I think the podcast was interesting and if nothing else, gives some insight into how a piece of "evidence" can be looked at in different ways and things like that…but the whole time, it really felt like to me that whenever she (the reporter, forget her name) expressed doubt as to Adnan's guilt, she was ignoring the elephant in the room: Jay.

The random serial killer thing at the end is a good example of this. If she was killed by a random serial killer, that must mean that either:

a) Jay was somehow involved with said serial killer.

b) Jay was not involved with the serial killer, but somehow found out where the car was, and decided to make everything up about it being Adnan which, in addition to making no sense, would be a pretty huge coincidence given that Jay was holding on to Adnan's phone and car and all the call records, etc.

For whatever reason, it was a compelling listen, but there's really no question that Jay was involved somehow directly with the dead body (at least), and that means that he either did it alone and framed Adnan, which I don't think makes sense because Jay has an alibi, or that there was some level of involvement by both Adnan and Jay, ranging from 50/50 or Jay's story pretty much being true.

The existence of Jay makes every second of the "random serial killer" angle completely ridiculous and really undermined her credibility with me. Just makes no sense at all. Really the only way Adnan is 100% innocent is if Jay did it and masterfully framed him, and there's no evidence of any motive by Jay to do that.

 

[southeastjerome]

I don't get how so many people can say there is reasonable doubt.

1.) Adnan was really the only one that we know of with any sort of motive.

2.) Motive is key here because Jay found the car, obviously Jay was involved and it was not some random serial killer.

3.) Jay had no motive at all to do it himself.

I think Adnan is very convincing and comes off as endearing that is why so many want to think he did not do it, but all of the evidence the jury heard proved otherwise. If I remember correctly, the jury only took 2 hours to convict him. I know it is unorthodox, but I wonder if the defense would have benefited if Adnad took the stand. I could easily see him doing well there and coming off very likeable. Likeable enough to let reasonable doubt creep into the heads of jurors as it has for podcast listeners.

I didn't like the last minute serial killer angle either. Sure, it is odd, but it was mentioned (and glossed over) that the serial killer raped his victims and robbery was a motive on some as well. Toss in the fact that Jay found the car, and that seems to limit the chances of the serial killer being responsible. Kind of a weak attempt at tryiing to create an "oh my God, maybe he didn't do it" moment at the end of the podcast.

Yeah, I think the podcast was interesting and if nothing else, gives some insight into how a piece of "evidence" can be looked at in different ways and things like that…but the whole time, it really felt like to me that whenever she (the reporter, forget her name) expressed doubt as to Adnan's guilt, she was ignoring the elephant in the room: Jay.

The random serial killer thing at the end is a good example of this. If she was killed by a random serial killer, that must mean that either:

a) Jay was somehow involved with said serial killer.

b) Jay was not involved with the serial killer, but somehow found out where the car was, and decided to make everything up about it being Adnan which, in addition to making no sense, would be a pretty huge coincidence given that Jay was holding on to Adnan's phone and car and all the call records, etc.

For whatever reason, it was a compelling listen, but there's really no question that Jay was involved somehow directly with the dead body (at least), and that means that he either did it alone and framed Adnan, which I don't think makes sense because Jay has an alibi, or that there was some level of involvement by both Adnan and Jay, ranging from 50/50 or Jay's story pretty much being true.

The existence of Jay makes every second of the "random serial killer" angle completely ridiculous and really undermined her credibility with me. Just makes no sense at all. Really the only way Adnan is 100% innocent is if Jay did it and masterfully framed him, and there's no evidence of any motive by Jay to do that.

Completely agree. That is why I do not understand how many are so quick to say that there is no way they could convict. Jay obviously was involved in some capacity because he knew where her car was. Jay has a solid alibi for the murder. So that lends a ton of credence to his story, or at least the basis of it imo. Toss in the Nisha call and the cell ping that has Adnan at the burial site at the time Jay says the burial happened, that's pretty damning. I really think that a lot of folks heard the story and Adnan and really wanted him to be innocent.

 

[Don Quixote]

Jay gives an interview: https://t.co/cMj0BpDLS3

 

[Neofight]

That man should really speak to a lawyer.

 

[SIDA!]

I don't get how so many people can say there is reasonable doubt.

1.) Adnan was really the only one that we know of with any sort of motive.

2.) Motive is key here because Jay found the car, obviously Jay was involved and it was not some random serial killer.

3.) Jay had no motive at all to do it himself.

I think Adnan is very convincing and comes off as endearing that is why so many want to think he did not do it, but all of the evidence the jury heard proved otherwise. If I remember correctly, the jury only took 2 hours to convict him. I know it is unorthodox, but I wonder if the defense would have benefited if Adnad took the stand. I could easily see him doing well there and coming off very likeable. Likeable enough to let reasonable doubt creep into the heads of jurors as it has for podcast listeners.

I didn't like the last minute serial killer angle either. Sure, it is odd, but it was mentioned (and glossed over) that the serial killer raped his victims and robbery was a motive on some as well. Toss in the fact that Jay found the car, and that seems to limit the chances of the serial killer being responsible. Kind of a weak attempt at tryiing to create an "oh my God, maybe he didn't do it" moment at the end of the podcast.

Yeah, I think the podcast was interesting and if nothing else, gives some insight into how a piece of "evidence" can be looked at in different ways and things like that…but the whole time, it really felt like to me that whenever she (the reporter, forget her name) expressed doubt as to Adnan's guilt, she was ignoring the elephant in the room: Jay.

The random serial killer thing at the end is a good example of this. If she was killed by a random serial killer, that must mean that either:

a) Jay was somehow involved with said serial killer.

b) Jay was not involved with the serial killer, but somehow found out where the car was, and decided to make everything up about it being Adnan which, in addition to making no sense, would be a pretty huge coincidence given that Jay was holding on to Adnan's phone and car and all the call records, etc.

For whatever reason, it was a compelling listen, but there's really no question that Jay was involved somehow directly with the dead body (at least), and that means that he either did it alone and framed Adnan, which I don't think makes sense because Jay has an alibi, or that there was some level of involvement by both Adnan and Jay, ranging from 50/50 or Jay's story pretty much being true.

The existence of Jay makes every second of the "random serial killer" angle completely ridiculous and really undermined her credibility with me. Just makes no sense at all. Really the only way Adnan is 100% innocent is if Jay did it and masterfully framed him, and there's no evidence of any motive by Jay to do that.

Completely agree. That is why I do not understand how many are so quick to say that there is no way they could convict. Jay obviously was involved in some capacity because he knew where her car was. Jay has a solid alibi for the murder. So that lends a ton of credence to his story, or at least the basis of it imo. Toss in the Nisha call and the cell ping that has Adnan at the burial site at the time Jay says the burial happened, that's pretty damning. I really think that a lot of folks heard the story and Adnan and really wanted him to be innocent.

Pretty much my sentiments as well.

Sometimes I wonder what people think beyond a shadow of a doubt is.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I don't get how so many people can say there is reasonable doubt.

1.) Adnan was really the only one that we know of with any sort of motive.

2.) Motive is key here because Jay found the car, obviously Jay was involved and it was not some random serial killer.

3.) Jay had no motive at all to do it himself.

I think Adnan is very convincing and comes off as endearing that is why so many want to think he did not do it, but all of the evidence the jury heard proved otherwise. If I remember correctly, the jury only took 2 hours to convict him. I know it is unorthodox, but I wonder if the defense would have benefited if Adnad took the stand. I could easily see him doing well there and coming off very likeable. Likeable enough to let reasonable doubt creep into the heads of jurors as it has for podcast listeners.

I didn't like the last minute serial killer angle either. Sure, it is odd, but it was mentioned (and glossed over) that the serial killer raped his victims and robbery was a motive on some as well. Toss in the fact that Jay found the car, and that seems to limit the chances of the serial killer being responsible. Kind of a weak attempt at tryiing to create an "oh my God, maybe he didn't do it" moment at the end of the podcast.

Yeah, I think the podcast was interesting and if nothing else, gives some insight into how a piece of "evidence" can be looked at in different ways and things like thatbut the whole time, it really felt like to me that whenever she (the reporter, forget her name) expressed doubt as to Adnan's guilt, she was ignoring the elephant in the room: Jay.

The random serial killer thing at the end is a good example of this. If she was killed by a random serial killer, that must mean that either:

a) Jay was somehow involved with said serial killer.

b) Jay was not involved with the serial killer, but somehow found out where the car was, and decided to make everything up about it being Adnan which, in addition to making no sense, would be a pretty huge coincidence given that Jay was holding on to Adnan's phone and car and all the call records, etc.

For whatever reason, it was a compelling listen, but there's really no question that Jay was involved somehow directly with the dead body (at least), and that means that he either did it alone and framed Adnan, which I don't think makes sense because Jay has an alibi, or that there was some level of involvement by both Adnan and Jay, ranging from 50/50 or Jay's story pretty much being true.

The existence of Jay makes every second of the "random serial killer" angle completely ridiculous and really undermined her credibility with me. Just makes no sense at all. Really the only way Adnan is 100% innocent is if Jay did it and masterfully framed him, and there's no evidence of any motive by Jay to do that.

Completely agree. That is why I do not understand how many are so quick to say that there is no way they could convict. Jay obviously was involved in some capacity because he knew where her car was. Jay has a solid alibi for the murder. So that lends a ton of credence to his story, or at least the basis of it imo. Toss in the Nisha call and the cell ping that has Adnan at the burial site at the time Jay says the burial happened, that's pretty damning. I really think that a lot of folks heard the story and Adnan and really wanted him to be innocent.

Pretty much my sentiments as well. Sometimes I wonder what people think beyond a shadow of a doubt is.

a good start would be able to present a reasonable time frame and location of the actual muder. I dont buy the time frame (and just basing it on the 2x call being THAT call) or that he did it in a location like that without being seen.

I understand what you are saying, and i agree to a point. I think i was guilty as well of getting wrapped up in the story as well. Jay knowing where the car is was damning. But, even if most of us think Adnan did it, as another poster stated, there was no physical proof and the case essentially relied on a stoner who changed his stoey several times. Shocked people would have 0 probablem convicting on this. (Yes i realize we aren't privy to all the info the jury was.)

 

[Capella]

Just started listening today.

 

[Abraham]

The jay interview is interesting for sure.

 

[krista4]

I don't get how so many people can say there is reasonable doubt.

1.) Adnan was really the only one that we know of with any sort of motive.

2.) Motive is key here because Jay found the car, obviously Jay was involved and it was not some random serial killer.

3.) Jay had no motive at all to do it himself.

I think Adnan is very convincing and comes off as endearing that is why so many want to think he did not do it, but all of the evidence the jury heard proved otherwise. If I remember correctly, the jury only took 2 hours to convict him. I know it is unorthodox, but I wonder if the defense would have benefited if Adnad took the stand. I could easily see him doing well there and coming off very likeable. Likeable enough to let reasonable doubt creep into the heads of jurors as it has for podcast listeners.

I didn't like the last minute serial killer angle either. Sure, it is odd, but it was mentioned (and glossed over) that the serial killer raped his victims and robbery was a motive on some as well. Toss in the fact that Jay found the car, and that seems to limit the chances of the serial killer being responsible. Kind of a weak attempt at tryiing to create an "oh my God, maybe he didn't do it" moment at the end of the podcast.

Yeah, I think the podcast was interesting and if nothing else, gives some insight into how a piece of "evidence" can be looked at in different ways and things like that…but the whole time, it really felt like to me that whenever she (the reporter, forget her name) expressed doubt as to Adnan's guilt, she was ignoring the elephant in the room: Jay.

The random serial killer thing at the end is a good example of this. If she was killed by a random serial killer, that must mean that either:

a) Jay was somehow involved with said serial killer.

b) Jay was not involved with the serial killer, but somehow found out where the car was, and decided to make everything up about it being Adnan which, in addition to making no sense, would be a pretty huge coincidence given that Jay was holding on to Adnan's phone and car and all the call records, etc.

For whatever reason, it was a compelling listen, but there's really no question that Jay was involved somehow directly with the dead body (at least), and that means that he either did it alone and framed Adnan, which I don't think makes sense because Jay has an alibi, or that there was some level of involvement by both Adnan and Jay, ranging from 50/50 or Jay's story pretty much being true.

The existence of Jay makes every second of the "random serial killer" angle completely ridiculous and really undermined her credibility with me. Just makes no sense at all. Really the only way Adnan is 100% innocent is if Jay did it and masterfully framed him, and there's no evidence of any motive by Jay to do that.

Completely agree. That is why I do not understand how many are so quick to say that there is no way they could convict. Jay obviously was involved in some capacity because he knew where her car was. Jay has a solid alibi for the murder. So that lends a ton of credence to his story, or at least the basis of it imo. Toss in the Nisha call and the cell ping that has Adnan at the burial site at the time Jay says the burial happened, that's pretty damning. I really think that a lot of folks heard the story and Adnan and really wanted him to be innocent.

Pretty much my sentiments as well.

Sometimes I wonder what people think beyond a shadow of a doubt is.

We're just going to let this pass?

(Using the actual standard--reasonable doubt--actually helps your argument even more.)

 

[MattFancy]

The jay interview is interesting for sure.

You talking about the one from The Intercept?

What was he trying to gain by coming out now and talking? To me, it did nothing to change my mind that Jay was way more involved that he lead on and that he's full of crap. Then, the idiot perjures himself by saying he lied to the police with his testimony. What an idiot.

 

[shader]

Time for Sarah Koenig to hastily put together one more Serial episode after that Interview.

Just spending a few minutes on Reddit, his interview totally contradicts a ton of previously held "facts".

 

[Abraham]

The jay interview is interesting for sure.

You talking about the one from The Intercept?

What was he trying to gain by coming out now and talking? To me, it did nothing to change my mind that Jay was way more involved that he lead on and that he's full of crap. Then, the idiot perjures himself by saying he lied to the police with his testimony. What an idiot.

Can you imagine a story where you were a key player taking on such popularity and remaining silent? Not to set the record straight but out of vanity. "Hey everyone, I'm the guy! And I have something to say!"

 

[MattFancy]

Time for Sarah Koenig to hastily put together one more Serial episode after that Interview.

Just spending a few minutes on Reddit, his interview totally contradicts a ton of previously held "facts".

That would be awesome. Wonder what the BCPD thinks of all of it? Like I said, he basically admits lying to the police and in court when he says it really happened at his Grandma's house, but didn't want her to get involved so he made up the Best Buy part. Which really makes you wonder how many other things he could have "made up" during his testimonies which already didn't match.

 

[Neofight]

The jay interview is interesting for sure.

That's one take.

 

[Neofight]

Where Jay goes, holes follow...

 

[Sweet J]

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.

 

[MattFancy]

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.

Agreed. I just don't see how ANYONE thinks Adnan should have been found guilty without a reasonable doubt. There's so much doubt in this case that I don't know what in the world the jury was thinking.

 

[Neofight]

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.

Agreed. I just don't see how ANYONE thinks Adnan should have been found guilty without a reasonable doubt. There's so much doubt in this case that I don't know what in the world the jury was thinking.

It goes beyond simply lies by the star witness and ignorant jurors. The transcripts of the interviews and trials indicate extremely leading questions, coaching and key information possibly shared with said witness by the detectives. Add that to withheld information and a possible Brady violation by the prosecution and you have a tasty, toxic cocktail. McGillivray, Ritz and Urick have to love the fact that Jay decided to open his mouth and present yet another version of a story they helped to shape. If this goes back to the courts on appeal then Jay could be back in that courtroom giving testimony...

In the meantime, I would be sweating that second interview if I was the Baltimore PD or Urick. Would it surprise anyone if Jay started pushing the angle that the detectives crafted the previous accounts of his story to say Adnan premeditated this thing, when now he claims he didn't? What about that sweet plea deal? There's a lot of details in that transaction alone that could prove to be a huge headache for the state.

As an aside, Maryland apparently has no statute of limitations on the perjury issue. This thing is just getting (as my good friend Abe would say) interesting.

 

[Capella]

Just finished episode 6. She totally wants to bang this guy.

 

[Neofight]

Just finished episode 6. She totally wants to bang this guy.

Wait til you get to the end and find out that Jay does too.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Wow that interview really is something. Not a smart move (legally) for Jay to give that interview - don't know the personal hell he may have been catching that might have made him feel the need to speak. Do we know whether or not he was paid for this interview (that surely is a massive get for that website)?

Does that interview present something of a more coherent tale of what happened that day? Yeah - and part two will probably see the angle that Jay was fearful of Adnan come out more. But hey, Jay had plenty of time to craft a more perfect story and as Adnan has generally told things in a way that puts him in the best light (and fudges on key details) the same can really be said of Jay here.

Crazy for Jay to do the interview though after testifying to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

One direct thing I found odd was that Jay seemed to say that Hae wasn't of "The magnet demographic" - does he mean she wasn't in the program? Weird. The other interesting side note (at least I bet from a serial host sorta perspective) was how freely he expressed his resentment of the magnet program.

The sad bottom line of it seems pretty damn certain that one or both of Adnan and Jay did it and that a full punishment for the cry may not happen. But that's part of our justice system and in the overall scheme of all things is a strength of it compared to other countries.

What's the penalty for perjury in a murder trial?
-QG

 

[Neofight]

According to the journalist, Jay was not paid:

Natasha VC

‏@natashavc
I will answer this one more time: Jay was not paid to do the interview. We do not pay our sources.

This puts to rest any theories that Jay is a criminal mastermind.

ETA: another real possibility is that nobody directly involved with Hae Min Lee's killing has served any time... or even been looked at by the authorities.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Part two just released seconds ago:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/30/exclusive-jay-part-2/

-QG

 

[Neofight]

That is one strange cat. Part three tomorrow and hopefully with more follow up. It'd be nice to hear how Jay was privy to the lack of grand jury testimony by spiritual leader "Mr. B", for example.

 

[SIDA!]

I don't get how so many people can say there is reasonable doubt.

1.) Adnan was really the only one that we know of with any sort of motive.

2.) Motive is key here because Jay found the car, obviously Jay was involved and it was not some random serial killer.

3.) Jay had no motive at all to do it himself.

I think Adnan is very convincing and comes off as endearing that is why so many want to think he did not do it, but all of the evidence the jury heard proved otherwise. If I remember correctly, the jury only took 2 hours to convict him. I know it is unorthodox, but I wonder if the defense would have benefited if Adnad took the stand. I could easily see him doing well there and coming off very likeable. Likeable enough to let reasonable doubt creep into the heads of jurors as it has for podcast listeners.

I didn't like the last minute serial killer angle either. Sure, it is odd, but it was mentioned (and glossed over) that the serial killer raped his victims and robbery was a motive on some as well. Toss in the fact that Jay found the car, and that seems to limit the chances of the serial killer being responsible. Kind of a weak attempt at tryiing to create an "oh my God, maybe he didn't do it" moment at the end of the podcast.

Yeah, I think the podcast was interesting and if nothing else, gives some insight into how a piece of "evidence" can be looked at in different ways and things like that…but the whole time, it really felt like to me that whenever she (the reporter, forget her name) expressed doubt as to Adnan's guilt, she was ignoring the elephant in the room: Jay.

The random serial killer thing at the end is a good example of this. If she was killed by a random serial killer, that must mean that either:

a) Jay was somehow involved with said serial killer.

b) Jay was not involved with the serial killer, but somehow found out where the car was, and decided to make everything up about it being Adnan which, in addition to making no sense, would be a pretty huge coincidence given that Jay was holding on to Adnan's phone and car and all the call records, etc.

For whatever reason, it was a compelling listen, but there's really no question that Jay was involved somehow directly with the dead body (at least), and that means that he either did it alone and framed Adnan, which I don't think makes sense because Jay has an alibi, or that there was some level of involvement by both Adnan and Jay, ranging from 50/50 or Jay's story pretty much being true.

The existence of Jay makes every second of the "random serial killer" angle completely ridiculous and really undermined her credibility with me. Just makes no sense at all. Really the only way Adnan is 100% innocent is if Jay did it and masterfully framed him, and there's no evidence of any motive by Jay to do that.

Completely agree. That is why I do not understand how many are so quick to say that there is no way they could convict. Jay obviously was involved in some capacity because he knew where her car was. Jay has a solid alibi for the murder. So that lends a ton of credence to his story, or at least the basis of it imo. Toss in the Nisha call and the cell ping that has Adnan at the burial site at the time Jay says the burial happened, that's pretty damning. I really think that a lot of folks heard the story and Adnan and really wanted him to be innocent.

Pretty much my sentiments as well.

Sometimes I wonder what people think beyond a shadow of a doubt is.

We're just going to let this pass?

(Using the actual standard--reasonable doubt--actually helps your argument even more.)

Good catch. I totally whiffed on that and typed the opposite of what I was thinking.

 

[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.

 

[Abraham]

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

 

[KarmaPolice]

According to the journalist, Jay was not paid:

Natasha VC



45]

‏@natashavc

I will answer this one more time: Jay was not paid to do the interview. We do not pay our sources.

This puts to rest any theories that Jay is a criminal mastermind.

ETA: another real possibility is that nobody directly involved with Hae Min Lee's killing has served any time... or even been looked at by the authorities.

I think Jay knowing where her car was squashes theory of another guy doing it besides him or Adnan.

 

[Neofight]

According to the journalist, Jay was not paid:

Natasha VC

45]

‏@natashavc

I will answer this one more time: Jay was not paid to do the interview. We do not pay our sources.

This puts to rest any theories that Jay is a criminal mastermind.

ETA: another real possibility is that nobody directly involved with Hae Min Lee's killing has served any time... or even been looked at by the authorities.

I think Jay knowing where her car was squashes theory of another guy doing it besides him or Adnan.

Did he? First time he guessed wrong. I'd look at the transcripts a bit more closely.

Also, Jim Trainum, who played a prominent role in a few episodes, did another podcast years ago for TAL (called Confessions, I believe). I remembered it the moment they brought him on for Serial. That podcast and reading about groups like the West Memphis Three and the Central Park Five will open your eyes...

Here it is. Not as old as I recalled. Memories are a funny thing. Especially when made up (or coached).

 

[Sweet J]

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.

 

[Abraham]

Uh, jay has an alibi.