|
Yep saying that goons will still be debating but probably not crying over how an innocent man is in jail is super hard to follow. Though actually I am curious now. Is there anyone still following this thread who counts themselves in the "Adnan is definitely innocent" camp? If so I'll adjust my expectations.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Your definition of 'facts' is certainly something. I know he is just baiting you, but he is right...it is a fact that he was convicted and as it stands, won't ever be getting out. (Life, right?) effervescible posted:Yep saying that goons will still be debating but probably not crying over how an innocent man is in jail is super hard to follow. Lighten up a little! The internet isn't really serious business.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Kelly posted:I know he is just baiting you, but he is right...it is a fact that he was convicted and as it stands, won't ever be getting out. (Life, right?) A point which I agree on, but he followed with telling me the witness had been coerced, which I've seen no evidence of. I can't be baited, because I don't care about the subject enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:A point which I agree on, but he followed with telling me the witness had been coerced, which I've seen no evidence of. quote:However, prosecutor Kevin Urick disputed this affidavit during one of the appeal proceedings for Syed, claiming McClain told him she'd written it under distress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Yeah that's a guy saying a thing it's not an indisputable fact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Yeah that's a guy saying a thing it's not an indisputable fact. Are you saying the prosecutor committed perjury? A strong accusation to make.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
African AIDS cum posted:Are you saying the prosecutor committed perjury? A strong accusation to make. I'm saying it's a possibility, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:I'm saying it's a possibility, yes. Ok well you are just making things up in your head then aren't you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:A point which I agree on, but he followed with telling me the witness had been coerced, which I've seen no evidence of. Actually...he is referring to Asia McClaine, right? That was disputed, if so. She came out and said none of that was true. The family did not coerce her. quote:Indeed, McClain’s affidavit refutes Urick’s claims that the letters were coerced and reasserts, with certainty, that she saw Syed in the library on the afternoon in question. http://www.dailydot.com/crime/affidavit-serial-rabia-chaudry-asia-mcclain/ Sounds like she outright said she was NOT coerced. Agent Burt Macklin fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Feb 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
African AIDS cum posted:Ok well you are just making things up in your head then aren't you. How so? You told me you had facts, when you had nothing more than testimony from a man who has motive to lie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Kelly posted:Actually...he is referring to Asia McClaine, right? That was totally disputed, if so. She came out and said none of that was true, IIRC. The family did not coerce her. She even signed a new affidavit stating that they did not coerce her and she never told the prosecutor that they did, yeah. Maybe it means nothing—she could remember the wrong date, or she could remember the right date but Adnan did kill Hae at a later time. But maybe it means something. It's one of the things that muddies the waters of the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
effervescible posted:She even signed a new affidavit stating that they did not coerce her and she never told the prosecutor that they did, yeah. Maybe it means nothing—she could remember the wrong date, or she could remember the right date but Adnan did kill Hae at a later time. But maybe it means something. It's one of the things that muddies the waters of the case. What it means is the prosecutor lied, which brings the question, why?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:What it means is the prosecutor lied, which brings the question, why? It could be that he lied and thought nothing of it because hey the guy is guilty so what does it matter. Or it could be that he very conveniently interpreted whatever conversation they had about her getting calls/e-mails about the original affidavit to mean that she felt coerced. I wouldn't really surprised either way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:How so? You told me you had facts, when you had nothing more than testimony from a man who has motive to lie. Be careful, this could be considered slander, and I think he knows his way around the courtroom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
The appeal seems to be predicated on the idea that he didn't receive adequate representation the first time around, and I would find it hard to argue with that. If it goes forward, finding jurors who haven't already formed an opinion about the case is going to be a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
African AIDS cum posted:Be careful, this could be considered slander, and I think he knows his way around the courtroom. Tell him from me he's a oval office and I can prove it with facts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
docbeard posted:The appeal seems to be predicated on the idea that he didn't receive adequate representation the first time around, and I would find it hard to argue with that. . I suppose the counter argument would be to emphasize that Gutierrez was winning the first trial. Besides being abrasive, all she didn't do was use Asia (who had some hosed up stuff in her timeline anyway) or call his entire mosque to the stand, or negotiate a plea deal. But as he's maintaining his innocence, the plea wouldn't have been an issue. There was some weird business about paying witnesses in cash too? I mean, you could apply the "she lost so she's ineffective" logic. But literally anyone who lost a case could argue that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
There are actual legal standards for what constitutes ineffective counsel for that exact reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:42
|
|
Tater Love 
|
Just as a quick aside, I find it funny how quick people are to publicly crucify Brian Williams (and rightfully so), but when it comes to the internet podcast about a murderer, people cannot accept the fact that the dude did it. The entire series was bent in favor of Adnan and now the family has to deal with the news of the possibility of appeal, no matter how slim the chances are. All because internet sleuths believe Jay strangled a girl (VERY personal method of killing btw) he didn't know while the Wolfman made him frame Adnan or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
I can't speak to the contingent who think he's innocent because he seems nice or whatever. I'm not convinced either way, I expect I'll never know for sure and neither will anyone else in this thread, and my opinions on the matter are really only good for Internet bullshitting. I do believe (and maybe I'm wrong) that in a parallel universe where he's innocent, he still gets convicted. And maybe all that says is that it sucks to be a Pakistani Muslim teenager in Baltimore in 1999 with disreputable friends, but I suspect that it says that there's room for improvement in the ways in which we investigate and prosecute murders.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Jay said in the new interview there was no meet at best buy didn't he? So Adnan doesn't have the no time to strangle excuse Adnan went straight to Jays house and popped the trunk basically
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Oh hey, a bunch of new posts in the Serial thread, maybe there's some more news on the appeal or whatev- heh but clearly you just can't accept the facts you idiot bleeding heart
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
bowmore posted:Jay said in the new interview there was no meet at best buy didn't he? So Adnan doesn't have the no time to strangle excuse Or the other story of he found Jay at the pool hall. I dunno. I'm still with the thought of "he shouldn't've been convicted regardless based on the evidence provided at trial."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:I'm saying it's a possibility, yes. you'll have to actually substantiate the claim that the cops and prosecutors are all corrupt. otherwise it just sounds like a desperate attempt to explain away facts and statements you don't like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Kelly posted:I am looking forward to this thread when the appeal goes nowhere and Adnan is in jail for the rest of his life, because that is what is going to happen. This is a hella good post. Talking about ineffective council is fun for people maybe? But I don't really care because the actual murderer is in jail so that's cool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
bowmore posted:Jay said in the new interview there was no meet at best buy didn't he? So Adnan doesn't have the no time to strangle excuse out the front of his grandma's house i think. he was selling drugs from there at the time. he says this is why he kept lying about where the trunk popped occurred, because he didnt want to get his grandmother into any kind of trouble related to his drug dealing. she's dead so that's why he says he's comfortable telling the truth about it now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Oh hey, a bunch of new posts in the Serial thread, maybe there's some more news on the appeal or whatev Oh well, I guess I can just post this and contribute to the problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:out the front of his grandma's house i think. he was selling drugs from there at the time. he says this is why he kept lying about where the trunk popped occurred, because he didnt want to get his grandmother into any kind of trouble related to his drug dealing. she's dead so that's why he says he's comfortable telling the truth about it now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Even though this is about the 10th version of that story he's told now it sounds plausible enough to me. it certainly explains why he gave so many conflicting accounts of the event--he was picking practically anywhere but his grandmothers house.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:you'll have to actually substantiate the claim that the cops and prosecutors are all corrupt. otherwise it just sounds like a desperate attempt to explain away facts and statements you don't like. The witness the prosecutor spoke about in testimony submitted an affidavit which contradicts that testimony, meaning he lied in court. There are no other facts I need to explain away, only possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:The witness the prosecutor spoke about in testimony submitted an affidavit which contradicts that testimony, meaning he lied in court. Is it still considered "lying in court" if the prosecutor believed the incorrect statement was, in fact, correct? That is, the prosecutor legitimately thought Asia had been coerced? Serial brought up some questionable and scummy things done by the cops and the prosecutors, but unless there is some more evidence I have a hard time believing that it's more likely the prosecutor deliberately lied about the Asia thing, versus it being an honest mistake. Orkin Mang is seriously unhinged with the whole "you have to prove they're all corrupt and evil otherwise checkmate  " thing, though 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
docbeard posted:If it goes forward, finding jurors who haven't already formed an opinion about the case is going to be a nightmare. A jury was managed for OJ Simpson. And more recently for Chris Kyle during the exact same period of time as a Oscar nominated movie entirely about his life was in theatres. Hell, the movie even goes as far as to 'convict' the shooter at the very end* and it only took like two days to find that panel. There will be no problems at all finding a jury of people that haven't heard of some podcast called Serial. * granted, there isn't much dispute that Routh pulled the trigger, just that he wasn't mentally well when he did so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Is it still considered "lying in court" if the prosecutor believed the incorrect statement was, in fact, correct? That is, the prosecutor legitimately thought Asia had been coerced? Serial brought up some questionable and scummy things done by the cops and the prosecutors, but unless there is some more evidence I have a hard time believing that it's more likely the prosecutor deliberately lied about the Asia thing, versus it being an honest mistake. He specifically said that the girl had told him she was being coerced. She says she didn't tell him that at all and that she was not coerced. I'm not sure he could have accidentally remembered a thing that never happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
So, unless this is the biggest misunderstanding ever, one of them is lying. I don't think it necessarily follows that the liar is the prosecutor, though it's certainly not impossible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:He specifically said that the girl had told him she was being coerced. She says she didn't tell him that at all and that she was not coerced. I'm not sure he could have accidentally remembered a thing that never happened. Yes, it's impossible that one of them could have misremembered their conversation, or that he could have interpreted what she said incorrectly, or that she could have worded something vaguely, or any number of other little things that would affect his understanding of the conversation. This never happens to anyone ever 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Yes, it's impossible that one of them could have misremembered their conversation, or that he could have interpreted what she said incorrectly, or that she could have worded something vaguely, or any number of other little things that would affect his understanding of the conversation. This never happens to anyone ever It's a very specific thing to misremember, do you disagree?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Please bear in mind he testified in court that she told him that exact thing, not that she'd been vague or maybe said this thing that he took to mean that thing. She said she was coerced.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:Please bear in mind he testified in court that she told him that exact thing, not that she'd been vague or maybe said this thing that he took to mean that thing. She said she was coerced. She was. Which is why Adnans attorney didnt have her testify.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Is it still considered "lying in court" if the prosecutor believed the incorrect statement was, in fact, correct? That is, the prosecutor legitimately thought Asia had been coerced? Serial brought up some questionable and scummy things done by the cops and the prosecutors, but unless there is some more evidence I have a hard time believing that it's more likely the prosecutor deliberately lied about the Asia thing, versus it being an honest mistake. seriously unhinged? take it easy on the insults, man. that wasn't what i meant either; it was just a bit of hyperbole concerning my impression that whatshisname seems to be able to casually accuse people of corruption with very little actual knowledge of a situation; it wasn't some methodological statement. all i meant is that if you're going to accuse someone of corruption you need more to go on that what we have. that asia mclean filed an affidavit that contradicts the prosecutors testimony isn't evidence that what she's saying is the truth, first of all; she might have initially wanted to testify, adnan's family found out and harrassed her about it, tried to get her to say additional things she didn't want to say, she got intimidated, started to doubt whether she was remembering correctly, and just pulled out of the whole thing, but now she's changed her mind and is more confident that she remembered correctly. and even if she is telling the truth, the prosecutor might have gotten the wrong impression some other way (like you said). and anyway, it doesn't matter what the prosecutor thought of asia's testimony. it wasn't up to him to decide whether asia testified or not; that was up to adnan's defence, and she never called asia to the stand, and nobody knows for sure why. maybe she forgot or overlooked her testimony (she was sick, etc., losing her marbles to some degree), or maybe she believed asia's testimony was not credible for some reason and decided not to include it. Orkin Mang fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Feb 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:that asia mclean filed an affidavit that contradicts the prosecutors testimony isn't evidence that what she's saying is the truth I didn't say it was, merely that it reinforces the idea that 'she was coerced' is not a fact.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 14:45
|
|