This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Why is that a game changer? What does the DNA prove? That he came in physical contact with her in some way throughout the day? Does it even prove that?
I think when and where someone tells you they killed someone, and then showed you said killed person, that's pretty material to the story.
In the scenario I presented, both individuals admitted to being an accomplice to a murder and said they helped dispose of the body. In many jurisdictions, accomplices and not the actual killer are often tried and found guilty of murder. So, I am not really following you here.
Weird read; I still can't get a handle on why Vargas-Cooper comes across as so critical of Serial (though I have my suspicions) nor how she is so certain the system didn't fail here (again have some suspicions)...
&
The thing is, Jay always contended that the "come get me call" was at 3:40pm. It is one of the very few points he was ever consistent about (pre-Intercept). The cell records hardly matched Jay's earlier versions (note: read the comments section of this article) of the story and most definitely not his latest in the Intercept. Couple that with Urick moving the goal posts on the State's alleged time of the call from the Best Buy and... seems like Jay wasn't alone in fabricating stories.
The toughest part with this stuff (both Koenig and Natasha VC) is that you have to pause and think about what their angle is. But that's really true of anything you read ever.
Agreed. I'm really surprised Jay and Urick even agreed to these. Doesn't seem like there is much either would really be able to gain by doing them. Why not just try and stay out of the spotlight instead of bringing attention to yourself and not really clearing anything up?
Ego. You know Urick feels like he did nothing wrong with the whole "getting Jay a lawyer" and surely felt that the podcast made him look bad for that. And even if he actually believes that, he's going to want a shot at convincing people he was right. He will come off looking worse in whatever his defense is, guaranteed.
Ego definitely seems like the driving factor for sure. I will say one thing, the interviews that Jay and Urick have given so far, have to be making Adnan feel better, no? I mean neither one has been very convincing and they have changed their stories from what was told in court.
If he's innocent, it probably pisses him off that these were the principals involved in putting him away.
There is new evidence that the IP is pursuing: the PERK kit that was collected and the finger nail clippings. There is still quite a bit to see here. This may or may not help Syed.
It's certainly not to their benefit to do these. If the Intercept could somehow manage to get MacGillivary (& Ritz) to tempt fate, they would have achieved an unholy trinity of sorts. Those unrecorded interviews with Wilds hold a ton of relevant information to this case.
It's hard to say if these interviews will do any good for Adnan, but they certainly aren't making him look any worse, that's for sure.
I'll leave the legal angle to the lawyers (from what I've read many seem to think Jay may have violated terms of his plea deal and the link I provided explains one view of Urick's statements). But yes, I wholeheartedly agree, this case makes The Wire look a bit less imaginative; the truth is stranger than fiction.
I believe Jay said he lied about this because he didn't want to get his grandmother involved. He also talked about this when he spoke about selling drugs out of his grandmother's house. He was afraid of her becoming involved or losing her house in some way.
I wouldn't say you have to throw everything out, but agree that it does make him less credible. You have to wonder if there are other details he is hiding or what not.
I don't know about in Maryland, but in California, there is a jury instruction that says that if a witness testified untruthfully about something important, then you can throw out everything the witness says (though you don't have to).
Right. And this is basically the job of the juror. What did he lie about it? How important is it? Is there a reason that he'd lie about that particular thing? Etc. All factors into reasonable doubt.
Which grandmother's house are you referring to? He lived with one (on the record) and dealt from another. The grandmother's house located in the Forest Park neighborhood was used by a handful of other criminals that Jay's grandmother bailed out and put up, and this is very likely the house that Jay wanted the cops to stay away from (and where the cell records indicate he was near the day of the abduction).
I question if several posters in here even paid attention or had it on in the background while they watched football. The number of people in here that think that they are putting the serial killer forth as an actual suspect is really a head scratcher.
Just read all three. Makes me sympathetic for Jay, but I still see no way to convict Adnan based on the evidence discussed during the Serial podcast.
I didn't really feel sympathetic for Jay, but I agree with the rest. I can't say for certain if Adnan did it or not, but I do know that the evidence presented wasn't strong enough to put someone behind bars for life.
It's called "bad evidence". Listen the the TAL podcasts I linked to that pertain up-thread. In one Jim Trainum breaks down how bad evidence will be ignored and false confessions can be manufactured out of whole cloth by detectives (even when they don't intend to).
I don't disagree with anything here.
This question can easily answer itself. If you dig deep enough into the case, you find that Jay actually gave the police the wrong location on (at the very least) his first attempt. I've mentioned before that there are at least three possibilities that Jay could have know where the car was without him having been directly involved in the murder, and the most obvious one would be that the cops gave him the location-the others being covering for someone else (someone from "momma's" house in Forest Park?) and the location being local knowledge (Mr. S didn't just stumble upon Hae Min Lee's burial site, did he?)- and not vice versa. If you've watched the Ryan Ferguson video I linked previously you'll see a pretty enlightening patrol car evidentiary video of how this happens. It goes pretty much according to how Jim Trainum describes in the Confessions video; cops don't need to have bad intentions to screw these things up in a rather spectacular fashion, they can just be lazy, take shortcuts and look for easy answers. Something we know MacGillavray and Ritz to have done/been. Now imagine one or both was actually corrupt and/or with bad intentions.
I get what you're saying. But I'm not going to get into imagining. I'll let the DNA evidence play out.
I'd call it speculation (which, of course, requires imagination). If I were Urick I'd refer to it as building a case (sans the Islamaphobia). If I was one of the main detectives on this case I would've called it... Well, they actually lack the imagination. Perhaps they actually did believe they were doing a good job with this case.IOW, speculation is all that the State had. That, and the word of a confessed liar.
I just finished the final episode and then started binge-reading this thread. I think you nailed it. The staffer who talked about how if Adnon didn't do it, he's the unluckiest guy ever, was spot on. If I was a juror, I would vote to convict and it is not close IMO.
Absolutely. Thoroughly entertaining (and the SNL skit was great, too). Though I think Adnan is guilty I'd have a very hard time to convict someone with absolutely no physical evidence. Glad I didn't have to sit on this jury, though.
I thought the exact same thing. In the little 15- or 30-second clips we get to listen to, she exhibits a really weird combination of nasality, whininess, and a nursery-book speaking cadence that all come together in a stew of shrillness. I wonder if it somehow doesn't become more effective as jurors get used to it. In small bites, I want to punch her in the face, but obviously it worked for her if she built her career on this shtick.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
