|
Bulkiest Toaster posted:the fact he made zero attempt to contact Hae after her disappearance Adnan gives a reasonable explanation for this: he was involved with the people who were bombarding her phone with calls and texts and saw no reason to send messages himself. He was hearing first hand that someone was sending a message or trying to call and was there with them during the attempts. bedpan fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Nov 16, 2014 |
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
ninjahedgehog posted:Not really? When he got the call from the police he was with Jay, Cathy, and her boyfriend, none of which (except possibly Jay) knew Hae at all. As I recall Adnan was later around people who were aware of Hae's disappearance and they were all desperately trying to contact Hae. Before that though, that he didn't call immediately after he was informed through the police call is no evidence against him. If it is, then you are reaching for everything he is doing as being suspicious, an easy thing to do though if you look at his actions through the lens of his conviction. Did the police tell Adnan that people had tried to contact her? Did he simply assume as much? Was it an oversight on his part not to call his ex girlfriend? Did he think that if he did call, would she even answer? If he had called what would that prove? You could just as easily twist it around and say, 'here he is trying to look innocent and concerned! He would have to know the police and her family have already tried to call her!" bedpan fucked around with this message at 06:00 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Kangra posted:The fact that a young man who'd been in trouble with the law decided to go to the police on his own, but only after they found the body, is pretty much the key detail of the case. It narrows the suspect list severely. There are only three plausible scenarios I listened to part of season 4 again and at around 11:48 this is brought up. According to the narration, the police go to the video store where Jay works and get him.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
I think Adnan is innocent and is the victim of a miscarriage of justice. It is important to understand that the justice system in the United States is adversarial, not inquisitorial. What this means is that the court is not there to impartially determine the 'facts of the case' and to prosecute those involved; the courts in an adversarial system exist to be host to a certain type of theater or contest. There are three components in adversarial justice: the prosecutor, the defendant, and the judge. It is the job of the prosecutor to prosecute the defendant, not to determine if the defendant is guilty or innocent. The prosecutor takes the case prepared by the prosecutor's investigative team, the police, and presents this in court, presumably to the best of their ability, with the sole goal of returning a guilty verdict. The defendant can represent themselves in court but as the saying goes, 'those who represent themselves have a fool for a client.' Defendants normally engage a champion, a defence attorney, since a good deal of familiarity with the workings of the judicial system are required if you want any defence at all. The judge acts, in theory, to ensure that the exchange between the prosecutor and defendant follow certain rules and protocols. The judge is a referee who tries to prevent illegal play and can be called upon to correct a violation of the rules while the trial is in progress. Entire books have been written on what I've touched upon above but things, more or less, operate as described above. Simply put, the prosecutor prosecutes, the judge adjudicates, and the defendant defends. Guilt or innocence really plays no part. Guilt or innocence matter to the jury, or the judge in a bench case, and the role of the jury is to assign guilt or innocence based upon the quality of the performance they see played out in court. Our justice system is a violent contest between diametrically opposed parties played before a referee and a voting audience, and the voting audience determine who 'wins' and who 'loses.' Ideally, this system is designed to render justice but in pursuit of justice the courts can sometimes return an injustice; mistakes, corruption, laziness, greed, incompetence, ignorance, etc. do happen. In Adnan's case a few of these faults lined up, enough to overwhelm the checks and corrections built into the system, and enough together to send Adnan to prison. The problems for Adnan begin with the discovery of Hae's body, not because of Adnan's true guilt or innocence, but because Hae turning up murdered in a park changes the situation from a missing person to a murder investigation. In any criminal investigation, murder or not, the duty of the police is to deliver to the prosecutor both a suspect and the evidence to convict that suspect, to 'work the case.' Again, the police do not deal with guilt or innocence, the police deal with the suspect and the case against the suspect. Before the anonymous call, before the talk with Jay or Jenn, Adnan, being Hae's ex-boyfriend, is from the start at the top of suspects list. He has a motive right out of the gate and if there is a case at all to make against anyone, the best anyone is Adnan. What of the evidence though? The other two parts of the 'motive, means, opportunity' triad? It is Jenn's second conversation with the police, the meeting of Feb 27th, that completes the case against Adnan. Jenn doesn't give the police eyewitness testimony, her knowledge of the story is second hand, but with her testimony they can have Jay anyway they want. Before moving on to Jay there are a few points to mention concerning Jenn, namely, she, by her own admission, lied to the police. What this means is that the police have Jenn over a barrel and she can either give the police Jay or sit next to Adnan in court; Jenn's story is in miniature Jay's story. The very next day, the 28th, the police pick up Jay and work hard and fast: Jenn puts Jay at the crime scene and gives a version of Jay's story. The first of many problems with how Jay fits into this case begin here and while Adnan is suspect #1, Jay is a decent suspect #2. The police can go back to Jenn and get her to revise her testimony, as they did with Jay, to omit Adnan and put the blame on Jay, the sex pervert who found Hae's body could be brought back in and put Jay at the scene of the crime, Adnan could be squeezed and fill the same role that Jay did for him, and Jay has a record and reputation for crime and violence. 'The Deal With Jay' is quiet clear: help the police make the case against Adnan or become the new Adnan. Without Jay, the police do not have a case. Jay is the eyewitness who can give all the details as to the how and why; the motive, the means, and the opportunity. That Jay is a coerced witness makes me suspicious as to the veracity of his testimony but when we add to that the many times his testimony changed, I can't help but feel that Jay is not a credible witness. Jay couldn't get the story right and had to be coached through, what was it 7 or 8 confessions? Each time his confession grows more suspect and with each interview the investigators contaminate the witness' memory. Jay's confession is now something very different, no longer his story, but the product of a group effort to make the case against Adnan. Now, I am not saying the investigators were corrupt or evil or incompetent, or anything like that, rather they did their job; the investigators made the case, they made the case against Adnan. There is more I can say about the investigative process but I'd like to move on and cover the other factors that worked against Adnan. For the justice system to work, for it to free the innocent and convict the guilty, the defendant must be adequately represented. A poorly represented defendant is a guilty defendant, not because the defendant is actually guilty, but because the defendant's champion, the defense attorney, was inferior to the task of standing up against the prosecutor. The story of Adnan's defense attorney places her among the ranks of the worst of all time: she all but ignored exculpatory evidence, conducted seemingly no additional investigation, and may have intentionally thrown the case with an eye towards making money on retrial or appeal. She was later disbarred and sued for embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. Most importantly though is that she could have and should have cut Jay to pieces on the stand but she did not. Be it incompetence, corruption, laziness, whatever. As to Adnan's group of peers, the twelve people who determine guilt or innocence, there were some problems with them. Three things stand to me from the interviews with the jurors: the idea that 'why would someone say all those things if they hadn't done it' ignores the very existence of false confessions and Jay's relationship with the police; a juror, and possibly the entire jury, not realizing that Jay cut a deal to stay out of prison; and, most significantly to me, the notion that Adnan not taking the stand was somehow a sign of guilt, this was mentioned as being 'huge' (I think was the word) in the jury's deliberations. I really weep over the last one, since it shows an incredible lack of understanding in how the courts operate and in the rights and privileges we have as citizens of the United States. We are protected in the United States Bill of Rights, fifth amendment, from being compelled to be a witness against ourselves. Adnan was fully with his rights to sit at his table and not take the stand and every attorney and legal scholar on the planet would agree with his decision. The jury wanted Adnan to surrender the protections and guarantees given him by fifth amendment, the same amendment that guarantees us due process, and Adnan's refusal to surrender his rights was taken as evidence against him. In summary: Adnan was an easy suspect to build a case against because he was the ex-boyfriend, the primary witness' testimony was extracted under duress and that same testimony was revised heavily by the investigators, the defense council was irredeemably bad, and the jury made up of ignoramuses apparently unaware of the Bill of Rights or the Constitution or as to why things like a jury trial exist at all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Kangra posted:You're ignoring that Jay also said things to his friends that could not be construed as false confessions. What exactly the jurors considered remarkable about his behavior can't be extrapolated from a single statement by one of them. Sure, Jay said things to his friends, and the stories about Hae's death prior to his arrest didn't really match up either, although I'd have to go back and confirm that. Jay had the reputation as a liar or a tale teller if I recall. Also, we get back to the departure from the story told to Jenn, the other guy, and the police the first time to the story that finally went down as the definitive version. I just don't find Jay credible. I don't like the hold the police had on him or his story that features events that drop in and out and rearrange as he is prompted to do so or the witnesses to Adnan's movements that undermine the timeline or Jay's reputation as liar. Is Jay the killer? The killers accomplice? An exhibitionist and gross-out artist that found himself an all to trusting audience? I don't know what to what level Jay is actually involved; it would help if we had complete tapes of the interviews but those were not kept at the time. Kangra posted:There's a lot of stuff piling up that this probably was not an ideal fair trial, and maybe even an egregiously unfair one. Yet there's a strong argument that Adnan committed the crime, which raises an interesting philosophical question about whether he 'deserves' to be exonerated legally. I'm looking for the strong argument against Adnan but I am just not seeing it. What ties Adnan to the crime aside from him being the ex-boyfriend and Jay's testimony? There are also witnesses that at least weaken parts of the state's case. Adnan had witnesses to his movements that make the timeline an impossible or much harder fit and a witness emerged that can cloud Jay's assertions about the calls at Best Buy. Now, that I'm not saying that the case against Adnan is nonexistent, just very weak. Kangra posted:I kind of wonder what would have happened if somehow Jay ended up the one convicted and sent to prison for this. It would all look just about as suspicious (save for the motive, which is far weaker for him). One of the things that struck me from the beginning is that if you remove Adnan from Jay's story you can still easily end up with a murdered Hae. Give Jay anything approaching a motive or say it was a crime of passion and you have the complete confession of the man who killed her. Jay is just about as good a fit for the crime as Adnan and I have no doubt this was brought to his attention during the investigation. I have no doubt that the investigators gave Jay a choice: cooperate and send Adnan away or go away yourself. Fiendly posted:Every detail suggests a crime of passion, so suggesting premeditation takes any convincing motive away from Adnan, and it demands Adnan be an improbably talented and lucky killer on his first attempt, yet Jay insists that's the case, Talented and lucky, but with his talent and luck just falling short of keeping his mouth anything approaching shut or in picking anything approaching a good accomplice. According to the state's case, Adnan the smooth operator told his story entire, means, motive, opportunity, to something less than a close friend. This same friend also was know for a big mouth and getting cuckolded by Adnan. As an aside Jay has a motive separate from self interest in seeing Adnan put in prison: revenge. Adnan was rumored to be screwing Jay's girlfriend. Wasn't this girlfriend described as being everything to Jay? Jay need not have killed Hae, just make up a story out of whole cloth and sell it to a few people that really wanted to believe it was the truth. bedpan fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:When was it suggested Adnan was involved with Jay's girlfriend? I can't remember which episode it was but it was one of the earlier episodes. The instance I remember is that one Adnan's friends said that Adnan and Stephanie would go at it in the Best Buy parking lot. There were questions too in I think the first or second episode about Adnan's closeness to Stephanie. It adds a new dimension to the time Adnan and Jay spent shopping for Stephanie's birthday gift. Adnan the concerned friend or Adnan playing a joke on the guy he cucked? bedpan fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Ave Azaria posted:If Jay killed Hae simply to pin it on Adnan out of revenge... does poo poo like that actually happen, ever? Also, Jay doesn't need to have killed Hae, just to confess that he saw Adnan do it or that Adnan confessed it to him. Simple motive, an eyewitness, and an investigative staff who want to make a case. The 'getting charged as an accomplice' part probably wasn't part of the plan, assuming that any of this is correct. bedpan fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
outlier posted:Obviously Koenig has to summarise and shorten but I'm struck by the retired cops verdict that it was a decent solid case. He didn't mean 'decent solid case' in terms of any relative amount of guilt or innocence or of who really 'did it' and who did not, but that the police 'worked the case' competently. Meaning, the two investigators were able to deliver a good package to the prosecutor. I think 'above average' was the term he used and I'd agree with him; the investigation produced a suspect with a simple, believable motive, and found a compliant eyewitness who would corroborate the entire narrative and then some with testimony in open court. Toaster Beef posted:That's unfortunate, then, because even a story with no new information could very well be fascinating. This one has been. If you want some new information and are willing to stomach a legal document take a look at Adnan's appeal in 2002. The appeal brings up some interesting points about Jay's testimony, namely that Jay was provided at state expense with a lawyer in private practice (unusual), not a public defender that Jay had originally requested; that the private attorney, someone known to the prosecutor, leaned on Jay to take the plea and testify; that Jay was kept from seeing a public defender; and, if I am reading the document correctly, that the prosecutor and the private attorney had lead Jay to believe that he could withdraw his guilty plea at any time after he signed the agreement, which I don't think is allowed to actually occur, and at any rate, this part didn't make its way into Jay's plea deal. bedpan fucked around with this message at 22:16 on Nov 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:why would Jay pin it on Adnan? Because it was going to be Jay or Adnan. Jay could either give the police what they wanted and send Adnan away or go away himself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Read my post. What you quoted is in relation to some random serial killer or whatever killing Hae (which Koenig posited in the latest episode) in which case it wouldn't make any sense for Jay to pin it on Adnan. Serial killer or some other third party or not, Jay pinning the crime on Adnan makes perfect sense if Jay didn't want to go to jail. Jay was in a difficult position and his only out was to give the police the better case: Adnan.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Yeah but why would he do it though? Jay would go on trial for Hae's murder unless he testified against Adnan. Edit: This doesn't mean Jay murdered Hae. The investigators had some very uncomfortable evidence to use against Jay and Jay's only escape was to testify against Adnan. The most solid case that the police could make, the case that would best result in a conviction, would be against Adnan because Adnan has a believable motive baked into his very existence. Jay would be a much weaker case but there is a case to make against Jay. bedpan fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Okay, but in that case it seems super weird that Adnan didn't try to defend his case versus Jay at all. There is no corresponding story there, only "I was at track practice, but I can't prove it". What would be a better defense in your opinion? What should have Adnan done? Aside from firing his lawyer that is. Hakkesshu posted:Maybe this is because of his attorney, but either way you're prescribing a level of planning and sinister intellect to Jay that seems unfit for a teenager in a murder trial and also almost completely unopposed by the actual supposed murderer and the actual evidence in the case. Jay doesn't need to have any planning or sinister intellect. The police had Jay based on Jenn's evidence and he was walked through several narratives until the investigators were satisfied. Hakkesshu posted:Consider the idea that he's basically telling the truth, poorly because he's a teenager, and that Adnan doesn't think he can lie his way past a judge and jury so he doesn't even try and just calls Jay pathetic out of sheer frustration. Why should he be telling the truth and Adnan not be telling the truth? Jay's story changed several times during its telling, how is this story more believable than Adnan's alibi of being at track practice? We also have corroboration of Adnan's timeline through the woman that saw him at the library, and had his defense council not been a crook the other two people mentioned in the letter could have given this additional weight. Jay's story is also undermined by the nonexistent of the Best Buy phone booth that Jay claimed to have used. bedpan fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:All the evidence points to him being the murderer. I don't think he could have done anything, which is probably why he didn't. We really don't have evidence. We have Jay's story. That is pretty much it. Also, as the accused, Adnan doesn't have to do anything. Do you think he should have testified? What would make Adnan more believable or more innocent to you? Hakkesshu posted:Are you implying that Jay's story came about as a result of the investigators using him to form their own narrative? Certainly there's evidence of that, but Jay's story didn't come out of nowhere; even you seem to be coming to the conclusion that they're both involved. No, I have not come to the conclusion that they are both involved. Personally, I think Adnan is innocent and Jay's involvement is murkier. If I had access to the interrogation transcripts and the court testimony I could come to a better conclusion. It is the investigator's job to produce a narrative and since they didn't need to find a motive with Adnan, ex-boyfriend, the strongest narrative would be against him. Hakkesshu posted:If we take that as a fact, why does one party have a very detailed alibi that fits the evidence while the other, more culpable party, has jack poo poo? Doesn't he have more to lose? I'm not saying what Jay is being truthful here, I'm saying only Adnan could have killed Hae. The one party with the detailed alibi that fits the evidence had to revise the alibi several times with the assistance of the evidence and the investigators before he got it 'right.' Adnan didn't have those advantages and his lawyer did not properly follow up with the people who could have corroborated Adnan's alibi. bedpan fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Nov 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Okay, we're getting too far into speculative territory, so I'll just concede for now until we get more info, but I'd still like to know one last thing: Yeah, if there is one thing I am hungering for it is more details. All I've found online so far is a copy of the appeal Adnan filed in 2002. Hakkesshu posted:Why do you think he's innocent? Like I said, based on what we know, who else could possibly have the means and motive to kill Hae? I just don't see any way in which Adnan can come out of this as a completely innocent party. I think Adnan is innocent because I don't find the State's argument to be compelling. The motive I find to be weak and the linchpin of the case, Jay's testimony, is not credible in my eyes. Jay changed his story with each interview and the investigators contaminated Jay by allowing him to see some of the evidence. Jay had the benefit of having the phone records in front of him and the investigators working his story until it fit just so. There is also the Best Buy phone booth that Jay supposedly used and which probably never existed. Jay also had a very good reason for testifying that would cloud a saint's objectivity: personal survival and the desire to stay out of jail. As for who could have killed Hae, that is what worries me about the case. If Adnan is innocent, and I think he is, that means that the real killer is still out there. As for that person's identity, the police suspected Alonso Sellers, the streaker, and Jenn thought that Jay may have been the killer. I don't like the idea of taking a limited set of people and saying, "Well the murderer has just GOT to be in here. Why not take the best fit and call it good?" Adnan may have done it but I can't draw that conclusion based on the evidence. Jay's story is too weak for me. I have reasonable doubts about the case and with those doubts I couldn't put Adnan away for this murder. Hakkesshu posted:Re: Evidence - we have the phone records, which is what caused me to begin this line of thought in the first place. I question the phone records. Firstly, the calls could be totally innocent. The records only point to a murder because Jay says they point to a murder. Without his sayso the records are just the records of a normal day. Secondly, the 2002 appeal gives me some doubts about the cell phone testimony. Take a look at the bottom of page 15, the cell phone expert admits that the tests can't tell you where the calls were made or where the phone was in the cell. Also, a call could 'trigger as many as three different cell sites.' bedpan fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Nov 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
PaganGoatPants posted:Yeah, that's what Jay said. But Jay again changed his story from it being not planned to Adnan planning it for weeks. Jay also claimed to have made a call from a phone box that probably never existed. It also took Jay four attempts, with two investigators helping and the call log laid out on the table, to get his story right. There are other inconsistencies, like the visit to the cliffs and the various locations where Jay claimed to have seen Hae's body. Adnan gets flak for not being able to give a minute-by-minute account of his movements but Jay gets a pass. I don't know how anyone can look at Jay and call him anything approaching a credible witness. Not only is the man unreliable, but he is an interested party too. Edit: To be clear, I agree with you, and Jay saying something happened is no evidence that it happened. bedpan fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
ElGroucho posted:loving Bingo Nothing, aside from Jay's say so, connects Adnan to the crime and Jay had to give the prosecutor Adnan or else Jay would have his deal revoked and probably be the prosecutor's next target. What makes you certain that Adnan killed Hae?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
That felt like an astonishingly weak episode, although I did learn something about SK and confirmed a suspicion that I had from the start: SK accepted the state's case in toto and that, to her, the 12 episodes are intended to examine how a 'nice boy' could have strangled his ex-girlfriend. In an earlier episode, she recounts Adnan's frustration in dealing with questions about the case, namely, the many people who constantly tell him, "you couldn't have done it because you were such a good/nice/decent etc," rather than "you couldn't have done it because of weaknesses in the evidence and the case." Hidden in the first comment is the implicit acceptance that Adnan killed Hae and that the person who is questioning Adnan is looking for that one character flaw or mistake or idiosyncrasy, etc. that would allow them to clear their doubts by finally and permanently undermining Adnan's character; something that would allow you to walk away and say, "Ah ha! This proves Adnan isn't a 'nice boy'! He is a killer after all!" SK appears to be ignorant of the image she is projecting to Adnan and either blind to or unmindful of Adnan's irritation with the attempts to undermine his character with his own words. In a way, this episode has been the most significant to date and is the climax of the entire series. In episode 11 SK finally uncovers the flaw that will allow her to square her acceptance of the case against Adnan with her knowledge of Adnan as a person. Adnan has recognized this too, his 'pushback' is evidence of that; he now understands that for SK, his guilt has been sealed not by any piece of evidence or even character testimony contemporary with the crime, but by admitted thefts dating back to his time in middle school. bedpan fucked around with this message at 15:02 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Maduo posted:^ I hadn't really thought of it that way until this episode but you're absolutely right. All the whodunit stuff and indictments of the justice system are secondary to the story Sarah Koenig has been building here about the nice boy who did the bad thing. It makes a lot of the subjects she focuses on a lot less frustrating in retrospect. Had 'Serial' been a work of fiction from the start, like a serialized, radio-drama detective story, I'd feel different that I do but 'Serial' as a work of nonfiction reporting on a real murder with real people makes me uncomfortable. The entire theme of the season, how a 'good person' can do a 'bad thing,' falls to pieces and ends up looking pretty ugly if the 'good person' didn't actually do the 'bad thing.' Maybe it is wrong or idealist of me but I hold journalists to a certain standard in terms of investigation and fact-checking. If you are releasing what you are describing as an 'unfold[ing] nonfiction story,' I see it as important you are confident in the 'nonfiction' part. There are very real concerns with the evidence presented and how the trial unfolded and also troubling is existence of exculpatory evidence and evidence that a key part of Jay's timeline simply could not have happened. SK mentions these, some of them, but almost in passing and she more or less skates by the problems with the story as presented; she dismisses significant weaknesses of the case against Adnan with a shrug or silence and is unwilling or unable to apply the same scrutiny with which she examines Adnan to the case as a whole. Were I the author behind Serial, I would not have maintained the narrative of 'why the good go bad' after so many uncertainties have been revealed and doubts raised and I think to do so was inappropriate in light of the material. If I were to accuse SK of anything it would be that she worked the evidence to fit the narrative and not the other way around. SK and the police investigators share the same philosophy: to work towards a conclusion already decided upon. The police were making the case against Adnan from day one, Adnan was their suspect and they were willing to extract four separate confessions from Jay and each time overlooking the omissions, errors, and lies unique to the confession at hand and the weight of these taken together. The conclusion had been accepted prior to the investigation and their work was to find the material, regardless of the quality, to support the conclusion. For SK, this entire season has been building to the moment in episode 11 where she confronts Adnan about the theft. She wanted the character flaw or a crime or a mistake that would let her say 'and so he is a murderer' and worked relentlessly towards uncovering something, anything, that would fit her predetermined end. Perversely, more important than a very real murder or a very possible wrongful conviction, is Adnan Seyed's theft of a few thousand dollars. SK spent 11 hours to tell us that a guy stole some money when he was in middle school (and therefore he is a murderer). bedpan fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Dec 11, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Kojiro posted:What's this bullshit about some nearby serial killer having done it? If I recall, there was an honest to god serial killer who targeted Asian women operating in the same area at the time. Also, Hae's regular way to and from school took her right past the killer's (or maybe it was just the suspect killer's) house. Kojiro posted:How the hell would Jay know where Hae's car was if it was some unrelated guy? If you accept some less than morally appropriate police techniques there are at least two ways to this: 1. The car, having been previously found, is shown to Jay and his identification is massaged into Jay's foreknowledge of the car's location. 2. The police, (recall the question asked of someone 'Where would Adnan get rid of a car?') drive Jay around asking him, "Where is the car?" If his answer comes up dry he is asked again. Finally, the car is discovered and sure enough, Jay knew where the car was!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
outlier posted:But as you say, Jay's testimony is the spanner in the works. Why would he be covering for a serial killer he has no connection to? Jay isn't covering for anyone but Jay. The police want a suspect to take to trial and if they can't have Adnan they will settle with Jay. Either Jay covers himself or he goes down for the murder. Also consider that Jay was represented, at the prosecutor's insistence and at state expense, with a lawyer in private practice who was the prosecutor's friend. Both lawyers worked on Jay to take the plea agreement and take the stand against Adnan. Jay was also lead to believe that he could have withdrawn from the plea agreement at any time without penalty, something that the actual text of the agreement contradicts. The plea agreement also contains provisions that should the state discover evidence pointing to duplicity on Jay's part, the agreement would be null and void. That last part is very important because the state already had proof positive, the greatest of which was Jay admitting to the police that he lied in previous confessions, to void the plea agreement. In short, should Jay prove recalcitrant or have a change of heart the state would 'discover' his lies and cancel the deal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Sivart13 posted:I have so much trouble understanding why you'd believe that that I wonder if what you're saying is sarcastic. Two points: on the about page season one of the Serial is described as an attempt to answer, "How can you know a person’s character? How can you tell what they’re capable of?" I suppose I should have paid more attention to this at the start because it is SK's motivation. She is not interested in the case except as a frame mechanism for an investigation into Adnan's character. The story of the theft answers the question that SK has had since the beginning of the podcast and it is lucky for her that people called in with the story otherwise she would have not had anything nearly as compact to base episode 11, the climax, around. Also, go back and listen to the way SK questions Adnan in prior episodes. A constant theme of her questioning is the search for a positive answer to the 'are you sure you are telling us everything,' question. In episode 11, she finally has the 'everything' part and not from Adnan's mouth. His indignation is understandable because he knows that it has nothing to do with Hae's murder and that SK is twisting his arm. Furthermore, SK follows up Adnan's confession with a reference to Jay's testimony (she blithely mentions that 'Jay tells the cops' without either mentioning or understanding that Jay told the cops an awful lot of things and those were, excepting two points, subject to change) where Jay describes Adnan's pride in strangling Hae and his cold-hearted character. With the theft story, SK can finally close the 'depraved heart story' loop. Sivart13 posted:Since there isn't likely to be many more hard facts emerging about what happened in this murder case, a valid avenue to explore is the character of the involved parties. It seems to me that she was just investigating all possible leads into the content of Adnan's character, and I have no idea how you've read all this other stuff into it. SK's exploration into the facts of the case has been lacking and she has more or less ignored or been ignorant of really interesting material that is in the court documents. However, this is understandable considering that SK's motivation is not to explore a questionable conviction or a murder investigation but to answer the questions that have been the premise of the season, "How can you know a person’s character? How can you tell what they’re capable of?" Her person is Adnan and aside from cursory examinations into the character and motives of the other people involved her efforts have been spent in ferreting out the material that would allow her to answer those two questions as they relate to Adnan. bedpan fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Tormented posted:Police documents show that they did not find the car until Jay took them to the row of houses the car was stashed. They have been looking for days, it would be strange to just happen to find the car the day that Jay came and talked to them. Something SK glosses over is what you describe in your last sentence: aside from those two points, nothing else in Jay's testimony can be independently or conclusively verified. Perhaps this would be of less concern had the everything else in Jay's testimony not shifted and changed from interview to interview and from interview to the witness stand, but far from being, 'strong' or 'consistent' as I believe SK describes Jay's story, Jay's testimony has some definite problems and weaknesses.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Eggnogium posted:I really, really disagree with you. What justifies your claim that Adnan's character is the real focus of the series besides a stray piece of copy that could just as well have come from marketing intern as SK or her team. The vast majority of the reporting is about the events that transpired on the day of the murder and during the investigation and trial. So why is that all fluff compared to this episode? Hell I didn't even get the impression that SK is somehow convinced he did it because of the thefts. She even explicitly identifies with his annoyance at the probing. Well, that copy is what Serial is saying about itself and it describes the arc that Serial has followed thus far. SK is telling a story about a person's character with the murder investigation as the backdrop and skeleton. In episode one the whole tale is described as being Shakespearean but set at a high school. Her investigative work is not fluff, it is important but secondary to the descriptions and details of the characters and their motivations. Also during episode one SK mentions that she is convinced either Adnan or Jay is lying but from early on and continuing into episode 11 is that in spite of evidence to the contrary, she does not really doubt Jay in any way. Adnan, Adnan's story, and Adnan's character are treated with attention and suspicion but not so with Jay. Problems with Jay's testimony and his version of the events are discussed but SK never applies those to her investigation or considers what they mean in terms of the case as a whole. In choosing how to tell this story SK decided to go with Adnan being the liar and with Jay telling the truth. The person with the flawed character then is Adnan and determining that flaw is what allows SK to answer the questions and square the mismatch between the murder and the murderer. Again, SK follows Adnan's own confession of a flawed character with Jay's testimony on Adnan's flawed character. As she says, "Could someone who looks like that really strangle his girlfriend?" bedpan fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:I mean it really just shows how the ENTIRE case is based around Jay's testimony. Literally the entire thing. There is no other evidence at all. And in the end, despite SK discussing a number of things that discredit Jay's testimony, she always returns to it and views Jay's testimony as the truth or at least as close to the truth as she can get. She follows up Adnan's theft story in part 11 with Jay's testimony on Adnan's poor character, it is pretty clear who's interpretation of events she in the end accepts. I guess I am frustrated that SK never really makes much of the flaws in the case. Eggnogium posted:I dunno it opens up two possibilities, that she was kidnapped and held somewhere before being killed or willfully disappeared at first but then was killed later. Neither seem particularly likely and there's also the fact that Adnan's cell phone was near the park that night. During the cross examination of the cell phone expert he admitted that cell phones can activate upon three different towers and that registering on a certain tower is no guaranteed or guide to a location in the tower's radius. I've found SK's usage of the court documents to be pretty weak. bedpan fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Shitshow posted:bedpan, you're a trip. If there's one thing every listener agrees on, it's that the state's case has huge holes in it and there is no way Adnan is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is all down to SK's reporting. Again, SK takes continues to take Jay at face value and to accept what he has told to the police and the courts as the truth. He is still treated as a credible witness with an accurate recounting of the day's events. This is what is frustrating to me. bedpan fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:As Jay's evidence is the basis of conviction you have to treat it as a kind of 'legal truth'. True enough. Adnan, guilty or innocent, is going to spend the rest of his life in jail barring a god damned miracle or him lying to the parole board.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Bitchkrieg posted:Between this case, and the current events elsewhere in America, it's terrifying to consider any brush with the law or legal system. I always knew, on some level, how Kafkaesque the entire criminal system was but now have a more complete grasp of how little it requires (and how much depends on sheer, dumb luck) to be locked away. Our legal system is based on the clash of two champions and the defendant can commit no greater error than selecting an unworthy champion. Adnan is in jail today because his attorney was at best appallingly incompetent, medically unfit, and courtroom poison and for no other reason. The police, the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury all acted as they should, this a rather frightening notion considering the outcome, and it is only the defense council that failed in any real sense. Agitating for the rights of the accused is not an easy thing to do though and it is only recently (I think Powell v. Alabama in 1932 for capital and Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963 for other offenses) that the courts have recognized the need for a defense council. For the most part, it is not considered to be contrary to the pursuit of justice to have the accused either face the entire weight of the criminal justice system alone or with miserable council or be the victim of even the most egregious investigative or prosecutorial misconduct. Sivart13 posted:She didn't show up to pick up her cousin or whatever so unless you believe she was kidnapped and held for some time then her being killed on that day is the occam's razor solution. With the state's case hinging on less than a half hour of movements it is a point to consider. bedpan fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Except for when the jury ignored the judge's instructions not to factor in Adnan's lack of testimony into their deliberations Welp, I didn't catch how the judge instructed the jury. I knew they had weighed Adnan's exercise of his constitutional rights against him but I did not know the judge had given instructions to the contrary. Also, there was some bad behavior on part of the prosecutor and some questionable rulings by the judge, but in the grand scheme of things all the parts but defendant's council operated according to plan. It still is pretty sick that the jury wanted Adnan to surrender his rights to a fair trial though. frenchnewwave posted:What motive would Jay have for framing Adnan? An excellent motive: that either he works with the investigators and testifies against Adnan or goes down for the crime himself. bedpan fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Dec 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Kevin Urick makes another appearance! This is the same guy that asked Don to purger himself at the trial, and was mad that Don did not, and engaged in some odd poo poo surrounding Jay's testimony in the trial.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:48 |
|
|
moths posted:The problem with endless retrials is that they invariably present a weaker case for the prosecution. "Endless retrials" don't exist. A court of appeals may kick something back down to a lower court but only if there was an error in procedure or sentencing and even then the lower court can refuse to reopen the case, as might happen. Adnan didn't get a retrial, what he has is permission to file a request to reopen a post-conviction hearing. As for Charles Manson, I think you are bringing up something of a false dilemma. He doesn't just get a do-over or a mulligan because he lost. His case is closed, the matter decided. To reopen it, to get a fresh trial, he would have to go through an appeal process and would need to demonstrate that the original trial was wrong in procedures or practices enough to warrant a retrial. So yeah, Charles Manson has a non-zero chance of acquittal in a new trial, the problem is getting a new trial and that problem is a big one. The order is here if you want to read it. It is only 5 pages and is pretty concise. bedpan fucked around with this message at 16:33 on May 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2015 16:22
|
|