The Case Against Adnan Syed - HBO

[oSuJeff97 3435]

10 minutes ago, lateshow said:

I just finished Serial/S1. I think that Adnan probably killed her, but I also don't know if the state provided solid enough evidence to convict. I'm pretty much in the same boat as Sarah.

I remember that being how I felt after I listened to the podcast... thinking that Adnan might have done... maybe even *probably* did it, but thinking that in no way, shape or form was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[HoustonHorn 1059]

This is my biggest issue. Same with MoaM. You are putting someone away to die in prison for a crime your day they committed. Make the fucking case beyond a reasonable sounds and without all the shady bullshit.

[billfromlaketravis 11352]

7 hours ago, CurlyDumps said:

Yes, because Hae never made it to pick up her cousin at school at 3:15 or 3:30pm. So she had to have encountered her killer sometime between 2:15pm and 3:15 pm.  Jen and Jay both say Jay was at Jen's house playing video games with Jen's brother until 3:30 or 3:45pm.  This is one story point they both actually agree on, that hasn't changed multiple times, so it seems truthful.  Jay has a pretty solid alibi for that window of time. For some reason though, the cops never interviewed Jen's brother. BPD gonna BPD.

I was interested in seeing Jen for the first time. I think she fudged her story to police for Jay.  I don't think Jay said anything about the murder the night of the 13th. I think Jay started talking to Jenn about the murder after he was already talking to police.

There's a portion  of Jenn's police interview that will make your head spin.  She tells the cops a story about being at a sports bar with Jay toward the end of January. She's not sure of the date but it's probably a week or two after Hae's disappearance. She says Jay came up to her while she was dancing, and tells her he just saw a news report on TV about Hae's disappearance.

She literally says this is when she found out Hae was missing.  And she doesn't say "we" knew.  She says "he" knew. She says "he" was concerned.  The fuck? So, he was concerned but you weren't? How does Jen suddenly forget she knew about the murder? I think this is leakage. I think Jen slipped up and told the truth. 

Here's another Jen head-scratcher:

So Jen says she drove Jay to a dumpster to wipe his prints off a shovel (but didn't see anything), the next day drives Jay around to get rid of clothes (during that really bad ice storm with horrible driving conditions), but she doesn't think Jay helped him?

She also says this toward the end:

Some comments from her interview in the doc that stood out to me:

- "I really thought that everything I knew was like hearsay. Cause I didnt see anything and i didn't experience anything.  Everything was told to me by someone else." IOW, everything she knows was told to her by Jay. This is a telling statement to me - Jen just parroted what Jay told her in her interviews, and at trial. And if she didn't know Hae was missing until days or more  - she's fudging her story. She's distancing herself from her statements, and Jay, as much as possible. A sign of deception.

-  "He was a good storyteller. He would make you believe his shirt was green if it was blue."  Sounds like someone who could convince you you drove him to a dumpster when they never actually happened.

- "Jay obviously picks and chooses what he wants to tell to..." then she trails off. "Me" is what she wanted to say there. 

- "And at this point, it's created such a mess." Mess - interesting choice of words.

 

Curly for Thread President. 

[billfromlaketravis 11352]

If Jen isn't in Narcotics Anonymous, nobody is. 

[billfromlaketravis 11352]

So the State called Jen as a witness to corroborate Jay's story? It's a strange move, everything she knows is second hand from Jay. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

Yeah...I don’t understand how anyone would rely on Jenn’s testimony for anything, other than what meth taste like 

[billfromlaketravis 11352]

Jay seems really good at wiggling off the hook. 

[CurlyDumps 4439]

the “next week on” seems to tease that Kristy was in class until 9pm on Jan. 13. If so, that means she was remembering the wrong day. that’s new information and a huge blow to the state’s case.

[billfromlaketravis 11352]

4 minutes ago, CurlyDumps said:

the “next week on” seems to tease that Kristy was in class until 9pm on Jan. 13. If so, that means she was remembering the wrong day. that’s new information and a huge blow to the state’s case.

Kristy testified that Adnan came over to her apartment to smoke weed and he was acting weird, right? 

[CurlyDumps 4439]

25 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Kristy testified that Adnan came over to her apartment to smoke weed and he was acting weird, right? 

Yeah, and said it was around 6pm bc they were watching Judge Judy. 

 

[billfromlaketravis 11352]

Thanks Curly. 

I slept on it last night.  I’m in the Syed did it, but Jay was way more involved than an accessory after the fact boat. Jay is almost certainly a career criminal. 

[Kyle 207]

15 hours ago, HoustonHorn said:

This is my biggest issue. Same with MoaM. You are putting someone away to die in prison for a crime your day they committed. Make the fucking case beyond a reasonable sounds and without all the shady bullshit.

Between a couple of pop culture true crime stories and becoming an old fart, I have watched a lot more Datelines and 20/20s during the past few years. I'm regularly surprised at the dearth of evidence that convicts many people, particularly when there is a spousal or romantic relationship. Senility killing name recall, but watched one yesterday about a guy in New York convicted of killing his ex-wife and there was virtually no circumstantial, direct, or demonstrative evidence. Basically just the guys scorned ex said he was a jackass and asked her to help him kill his ex-wife for custody. Between that an means, motive, opportunity, jury convicted. (he probably did it but not sure I would have convicted)

Edited March 19, 2019 by Kyle

[TwiceHorn 31184]

4 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Between a couple of pop culture true crime stories and becoming an old fart, I have watched a lot more Datelines and 20/20s during the past few years. I'm regularly surprised at the dearth of evidence that convicts many people, particularly when there is a spousal or romantic relationship. Senility killing name recall, but watched one yesterday about a guy in New York convicted of killing his ex-wife and there was virtually no circumstantial, direct, or demonstrative evidence. Basically just the guys scorned ex said he was a jackass and asked her to help him kill his ex-wife for custody. Between that an means, motive, opportunity, jury convicted. (he probably did it but not sure I would have convicted)

Jurors are dumb as shit and Americans are fearful and too deferential to law enforcement.  As a civil lawyer, I tend to trust jurors (the sometimes idiotic bases of their decisions sometimes make real cosmic sense), but in criminal cases, less so.

[4th&Five 41457]

Jury’s also tend to trust cops for some reason. 

[Kyle 207]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Jurors are dumb as shit and Americans are fearful and too deferential to law enforcement.  As a civil lawyer, I tend to trust jurors (the sometimes idiotic bases of their decisions sometimes make real cosmic sense), but in criminal cases, less so.

Fair enough. Having worked adjacent to criminal attorneys, always said they preferred stupid jurors that they could manipulate (with that lawyer's swagger of unlimited confidence in their abilities of logic and persuasion ). 

Random rabbit ... no value judgement on the theoretical academic veracity of the following, but I do tend to fall back on (and I suspect many jurors might to ...): assuming the defendant had means, motive, and opportunity, some evidence pointing to guilt and no provable alibi, the fact there is zero evidence pointing to anyone else is compelling to me. At the end of the day (sorry no stats), I believe the overwhelming amount of violence (ex. robbery?) is committed by someone known to the victim. As an aside, I always chuckle at the paradox many of the so-called supporters of these pop culture cases have: many seem simultaneously to expect video of the suspect committing the crime in order for doubt to be reasonable while pointing the finger at alternative suspects based on virtually no evidence ... but I digress. 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Kyle

[TwiceHorn 31184]

17 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Jury’s also tend to trust cops for some reason. 

Yeah, juror stats show that cops are regarded as the most credible group or category of witnesses.  Gross.

The funny thing of course, is that "means, motive and opportunity" have nothing to do with the elements of proof of any crime, much less murder.  They're just the commonly accepted psychological elements of a STORY that secures a guilty verdict.  I'm not sure if that is troubling or not.

Similarly, there can be reasonable doubt without an alternate suspect.  But that can be a big part of any defense.

In any legal case, civil or criminal, the plaintiff/prosecutor must prove the elements of their case according to the burden of proof.  But, every trial lawyer feels that they have to weave those elements into a credible story of the bigger picture of human behavior.  Jurors, even a bunch of morons, can be pretty good, collectively, at judging whether that story is credible or makes sense and thus whether the plaintiff/prosecutor should win.  But, there's always the risk that the story can take the focus away from those elements that must be proven or the level to which they must be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt).  Criminal cases sometimes go so far beyond the realm of rational human experience, that I think the odds of a jury being distracted by a story get higher.

Edited March 19, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[NWBuck 8543]

I seriously see the thread title and think that this guy did something awful:

[Neonmoon 38127]

It’s so sad entire people’s lives are ruined by people just half assing their jobs. 

[Helobious 9477]

That Rabia chick is so ridiculous: "Well the lawyer has been around the muslim community before so I know he's good". 

And is it really that hard to believe that the stoner sorority girl might've skipped her night class that day? 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Well, Kristi herself said that class was a winter term class that only met for three evenings. And she received a grade of B. And that if she skipped one class - which would mean missing 1/3 of the classes - she would not have been able to make a B.

Jen sure got angry and defensive when confronted with the class schedule.

I’m not sure if Adnan is guilty or innocent but I am sure the state didn’t prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

And some sincere fuckery went on with the police investigation.

Test all the untested DNA evidence and hold a new trial. If the evidence is there and the state is so sure he’s guilty then they should have no problem with it.

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

The cellphone records they convicted him on are pure garbage. How did he get denied a new trial on those grounds when the state’s own witness has already backtracked?

Edited March 25, 2019 by Catdaddyhorn

[Scooter Monzingo 820]

On 3/19/2019 at 12:42 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Jurors are dumb as shit and Americans are fearful and too deferential to law enforcement.  As a civil lawyer, I tend to trust jurors (the sometimes idiotic bases of their decisions sometimes make real cosmic sense), but in criminal cases, less so.

Interesting take on those individuals who make up your community. Mind sharing your practice, so those with access can view Martindale-Hubbell and see what your peers think of you?

[RPM 26185]

On 3/19/2019 at 5:28 PM, NWBuck said:

I seriously see the thread title and think that this guy did something awful:

He did.

 

[billfromlaketravis 11352]

I’d say Episode 3 points the finger in Jay’s direction in a very deliberate way. I wonder if crack head Jen’s “albi” saved Jay from a murder rap? 

While Jen isn’t very credible, an albi from her is still better than Syed’s “I don’t remember, I was really high that day” story. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by billfromlaketravis

[Fozzz 152]

I think he did it.

[victory88 5654]

His alibi was not given a chance to speak in court.  The cell phone records they used are straight trash and don't prove anything.  The witness himself stated that.  They have not tested the DNA evidence from the car.  They also convicted him based off the testimony of Jen and Jay whom both are about as shady people as you will run into.  Both their stories have changed multiple times and Jay was facing a murder charge if he didn't cooperate with the cops.  

There needs to be a new trial.  It's been a while since I listened to the podcast but was there actual evidence that linked Adnan to the murder?  Or is this all based of Jay's and Jen's word?
 

[C-Man 26992]

On 3/17/2019 at 11:59 PM, Celery Man said:

One of my takeaways so far is that life in bmore must come hard.  Some busted 39 year olds.

My wife and I watched the first installment last night. I said the same thing. These girls are my wife's age or one year younger -- and look a decade older.

[billfromlaketravis 11352]

1 hour ago, victory88 said:

His alibi was not given a chance to speak in court.  The cell phone records they used are straight trash and don't prove anything.  The witness himself stated that.  They have not tested the DNA evidence from the car.  They also convicted him based off the testimony of Jen and Jay whom both are about as shady people as you will run into.  Both their stories have changed multiple times and Jay was facing a murder charge if he didn't cooperate with the cops.  

There needs to be a new trial.  It's been a while since I listened to the podcast but was there actual evidence that linked Adnan to the murder?  Or is this all based of Jay's and Jen's word?
 

Curly can answer it better than me, but I believe all the evidence against Syed is circumstantial. No physical evidence that Syed killed Hae. 

The State made their case on faulty cell records, and the testimony of Jen, Jay, and Kristi. 

[4th&Five 41457]

this legal fuckery happens every single day and if it isn't given a spotlight then nobody blinks an eye.  i thought the latest season of serial did an even better job of pointing out just how fucked it is.

[CurlyDumps 4439]

Nikisha's (Jay's baby mama) statements about Jay telling her he was caught with weed was interesting and feeds a theory on how Jay initially got involved.  Jay was arrested in late January 1999 ( Jan. 26th or 27th IIRC), about two weeks after Hae went missing.  He was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, held overnight, and then released. This was the first of his cases that was "stetted" or whatever, so the charges were more or less dropped.  I read an interesting reddit theory a while back - this person speculated Jay was actually caught with drugs that night, and that is when this all started. Jay made something up about Adnan to wriggle out of drug charges. It could have started with something small, like "Adnan showed me the body in the trunk of his car" and then everything just snowballed from there. Jay got in way over his head.  The way Jen and Chris (Jay's friend) describe Jay in their interviews, it sounds totally on brand for Jay. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by CurlyDumps

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

I used to think Jay was guilty of murdering Hae, but now I think it's probably more likely in my mind that the other boyfriend or a random stranger (the guy who discovered her body) killed her.  One thing is for sure is it isn't Adnan. 

[Jerry Callo 8658]

14 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

I used to think Jay was guilty of murdering Hae, but now I think it's probably more likely in my mind that the other boyfriend or a random stranger (the guy who discovered her body) killed her.  One thing is for sure is it isn't Adnan. 

How did Jay know the location of the car if it were Don or a random stranger?

Edited March 25, 2019 by Jerry Callo

[CurlyDumps 4439]

On 3/18/2019 at 11:58 AM, CurlyDumps said:

Some comments from her interview in the doc that stood out to me:

- "I really thought that everything I knew was like hearsay. Cause I didnt see anything and i didn't experience anything.  Everything was told to me by someone else." IOW, everything she knows was told to her by Jay. This is a telling statement to me - Jen just parroted what Jay told her in her interviews, and at trial. And if she didn't know Hae was missing until days or more  - she's fudging her story. She's distancing herself from her statements, and Jay, as much as possible. A sign of deception.

-  "He was a good storyteller. He would make you believe his shirt was green if it was blue."  Sounds like someone who could convince you you drove him to a dumpster when they never actually happened.

- "Jay obviously picks and chooses what he wants to tell to..." then she trails off. "Me" is what she wanted to say there. 

- "And at this point, it's created such a mess." Mess - interesting choice of words.

 

After seeing/hearing Jen in part three, I'm starting to lean another way on her. I used to think Jen was a relatively innocent victim in this case who was coerced into giving mostly-true statements with some fudged facts - but now I'm thinking she was completely innocent.  I think she was a scared, confused pothead who was fed a bunch of confusing information from Jay and did her best to simply relay what she'd been told.  For example, I doubt she remembered  when Jay told her "Adnan had strangled Hae." She said it was the night of Jan.13th because Jay and the cops told her it was the 13th. They could have told her it was February 13th and she would have agreed.

"I really thought that everything I knew was like hearsay. Cause I didnt see anything and i didn't experience anything.  Everything was told to me by someone else." 

If we take Jen at her word, all the weirdness and inconsistencies in her story actually make a lot of sense. And now there's even more confusion because Kristy was likely remembering a different day. Which means Jen was also remembering a different day -  combining stories from two different days into one - further complicating things. 

Edited March 25, 2019 by CurlyDumps

[lateshow 1303]

24 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

I used to think Jay was guilty of murdering Hae, but now I think it's probably more likely in my mind that the other boyfriend or a random stranger (the guy who discovered her body) killed her.  One thing is for sure is it isn't Adnan. 

What would have been Jay's motivation for murdering Hae? From what I remember from Serial,  he really didn't even know her. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

I don't know if Adnan is guillty or not, but this case is another brick in the wall of complete fuckery that is our justice system. I've watched thousands of episodes of true crime, and it is astonishing the lack of evidence that people continually get convicted on. There are so many people in jail convicted on a "best guess" by the cops or just pure laziness. They will make whatever circumstantial evidence they have fit, or coerce witnesses to help. 

Never speak to a police officer without a lawyer. 

[4th&Five 41457]

a conviction of a innocent person is better than no conviction at all to many cops and prosecutors. 

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

3 hours ago, Jerry Callo said:

How did Jay know the location of the car if it were Don or a random stranger?

Police told him.  

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

4 hours ago, CurlyDumps said:

Nikisha's (Jay's baby mama) statements about Jay telling her he was caught with weed was interesting and feeds a theory on how Jay initially got involved.  Jay was arrested in late January 1999 ( Jan. 26th or 27th IIRC), about two weeks after Hae went missing.  He was charged with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct, held overnight, and then released. This was the first of his cases that was "stetted" or whatever, so the charges were more or less dropped.  I read an interesting reddit theory a while back - this person speculated Jay was actually caught with drugs that night, and that is when this all started. Jay made something up about Adnan to wriggle out of drug charges. It could have started with something small, like "Adnan showed me the body in the trunk of his car" and then everything just snowballed from there. Jay got in way over his head.  The way Jen and Chris (Jay's friend) describe Jay in their interviews, it sounds totally on brand for Jay. 

Yeah, this is where I'm at too.  I don't believe he or Adnan were actually involved.  I think Jay used Hae's disappearance as a ploy to wiggle his way out of a drug charge, and combined with the what we now know to be BS cell tower data and phone records, Ritz, McGilivary, and Jay pieced together a timeline to fit the evidence that they had at the time.  Ulrich is also a piece of shit, but that is just SOP for prosecutors as far as I can tell.

I'm with the surveyor dude - no one would have walked that far astray to take a piss and stumble upon that body.  I think he either did it himself or was told about her location by someone else and used the piss story to help bring closure to her family.

[billfromlaketravis 11352]

I can’t get there on Syed didn’t do it. The whole Asia albi thingy seems shady and he still can’t give an accurate accounting of what he did that day. 

[Hank Scorpio 17712]

I've been saying it was Jay ever since I saw a picture of him. Just a feeling I got from looking at him. 

[Seasick Sailor 3747]

2 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

I've been saying it was Jay ever since I saw a picture of him. Just a feeling I got from looking at him. 

[Eskimohorn 5610]

I can’t get there on Syed didn’t do it. The whole Asia albi thingy seems shady and he still can’t give an accurate accounting of what he did that day. 

What happens when a murder investigation doesnt get started for weeks. Witnesses, including Syed, have their days all mixed up. When it favored the state, they put them on the stand. When it favored Syed, it didnt. Under scrutiny, the entire cell phone record/Jay testimony fell apart.

[Bartles 769]

20 hours ago, victory88 said:

Both their stories have changed multiple times and Jay was facing a murder charge if he didn't cooperate with the cops. 

Quote

Yet it obscures the basic fact that the most significant aspect of Wilds’s story — that Syed showed him Lee’s body, and Wilds then helped bury her — has remained consistent through multiple tellings, despite other details changing over the years.

That and some other details from the Vox review on the previous page.  There is all kinds of reasonable doubt as to convicting Adnan, but it's not as much of a reach as the HBO/Serial shows would indicate.

[CurlyDumps 4439]

2 hours ago, Bartles said:

That and some other details from the Vox review on the previous page.  There is all kinds of reasonable doubt as to convicting Adnan, but it's not as much of a reach as the HBO/Serial shows would indicate.

Jay gave four different versions  of the “trunk pop” story with four different places it allegedly happened. And in the 2015 interview, suddenly changed the burial time from 7pm to midnight (likely because of new evidence that will be covered in part 4).  Neither of those two details “remained consistent through multiple retellings.” So the Vox writer is wrong. Or I’m not sure what “consistent” means to him.

 If I say I saw a body at Best Buy, and then later say oh actually I saw it at a pool hall, is that consistent?

[CurlyDumps 4439]

 

10 hours ago, Seasick Sailor said:

He was referring to the Rodman piercings, you racist.

Edited March 26, 2019 by CurlyDumps

[Catdaddyhorn 3444]

1 hour ago, CurlyDumps said:

Jay gave four different versions  of the “trunk pop” story with four different places it allegedly happened. And in the 2015 interview, suddenly changed the burial time from 7pm to midnight (likely because of new evidence that will be covered in part 4).  Neither of those two details “remained consistent through multiple retellings.” So the Vox writer is wrong. Or I’m not sure what “consistent” means to him.

 If I say I saw a body at Best Buy, and then later say oh actually I saw it at a pool hall, is that consistent?

Not to mention the Vox writer making such a glaringly incorrect statement like this:

"If this documentary added anything substantially new to the conversation that Serial began in 2014, its efforts might feel more worthwhile. Instead, in its determination to uncritically embrace the narrative Serial created, it accomplishes the opposite of its aim to show that Syed was wrongfully convicted."

I'd say the expert cellphone guy recanting his entire testimony is exceedingly significant. 

[wutang75 434]

What happens when a murder investigation doesnt get started for weeks. Witnesses, including Syed, have their days all mixed up. When it favored the state, they put them on the stand. When it favored Syed, it didnt. Under scrutiny, the entire cell phone record/Jay testimony fell apart.

Agreed but the doc is so one sided. Surely they are going to cover the state’s evidence at some point? The podcast was the same way. Will they discuss the teachers statement that Hae was openly afraid of Syed and asked the teacher to hide her on one occasion? Or that he wrote “I’m going to kill....” (of course that really could be anything, but these things should be mentioned).

Also - I just don’t understand how Kristi is getting convinced she was in a class that evening but 10 years ago she didn’t even consider it.

I feel the same way I did after the podcast - he should not be in jail, not enough evidence (that we have seen), but he probably did it. Sociopath.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Viper 12011]

My impression was that Koenig went into this trying to act neutral but really wanted Adnan to be innocent. I think she gave up hope when they went through the whole order of events and driving and it turned out to be enough time for him to do it. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by Viper

[billfromlaketravis 11352]

Other than motive, why would the State focus on Syed instead of Jay? I think there’s something they couldn’t use at trial but was well known to the prosecution. 

Based on the judge’s comments during sentencing, they seem convinced Syed is a sociopath and he did it. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by billfromlaketravis

[billfromlaketravis 11352]

4 hours ago, Viper said:

My impression was that Koenig went into this trying to act neutral but really wanted Adnan to be innocent. I think she gave up hope when they went through the whole order of events and driving and it turned out to be enough time for him to do it. 

Curly will probably come at me with quotes, but I think one could argue that Koenig is overwhelmingly pro-defendant in Serial Seasons 1-3. 

Season 2 on Bergdahl and Season 3 on the criminal justice system in Cleveland are much more professional. More facts. Better interviews. A more logical presentation. But the stories are less compelling than Syed. 

Season 1 is certainly a page turner, but Koening spends too much time thinking out loud. She’s an excellent podcaster and has gotten sharper in every season. 

Edited March 26, 2019 by billfromlaketravis