Serial: Season 01 Discussion - This American Life meets True Detective

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm with you brother. And this story makes it even more clear. It's like when people say it had to be Adnan because who else would it be? Look at this story for the perfect example. Now it makes total sense why The Innocence Project brought up the Serial Killer angle.

Again, thanks for posting that story. I'm going to be sharing it tonmorow, and I'll be thinking of my own family as well. You know, I have to say I've had those arguments like Michael had with his wife before she was murdered-and this perspective makes you realize how petty all that is and how lucky we have it and sometimes not know. That poor man...

I've looked up the writer of that piece and she has a whole slew of Criminal Justice work I want to read now. Her talent is making the story have a personal narrative.

That fight over the bandana, man. God damn is that infuriating.

It was mind blowing that they had to fight so hard to get the bandana tested. What's the point in blocking that if there's even a minuscule chance that the state/police made a mistake? And the transcript of the conversation with the 3 year old who witnessed his mothers murder....utterly chilling, it was about 1am when I read that and I felt like ice was running in my veins. Combine that with the use of the victims credit card days later and you have total wilful deceit on behalf of the prosecutors. If I was Michael Morton I would be bringing every legal recourse possible to bear on those responsible but he seems to be totally zen about it now. I guess 25 years is a long time to come to terms with the situation.

I can't even imagine what it must feel like to have your life stolen from you in this way. Even worse, I'm sure there are innocent people on death row right now. A sickening thought.
 
I've looked up the writer of that piece and she has a whole slew of Criminal Justice work I want to read now. Her talent is making the story have a personal narrative.

That fight over the bandana, man. God damn is that infuriating.
Pamela Colloff is one of the best writers in the world, regardless of field, regardless of medium.
Make sure you check out her The Outsiders piece-
http://www.texasmonthly.com/content/outsiders

Edit: really, if you enjoyed serial you should very much check her stuff, I know you have to read an all, but it got everything that was great about Serial and none of its problems.
Though it will show that having "answers" is not always as satisfying as you'd think
 
excellent. :D
Has anyone here heard much about this case?

http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-one

I sat up far too late last night reading through it. This guy basically lived my ultimate nightmare.

Wow this shit is just harrowing beyond belief.
The US justice system is just whack.
I'm sure we have miscarriages of justice all the time too, but the system in the US just seems to feed on it. The way sherifs and DA's need to be elected and are thusly encouraged to find the perp beyond reasonable doubt is just disgusting.
 
This seems like a version of the old argument of the benevolent dictator. If you have a proven leader who is well versed on important issues and willing and able to do the right thing, it seems it would be a system that would work much more efficiently than rule by masses or in this case a jury. The problem is dictators, or judges in this case, are not always benevolent and the current jury system in the US was developed during a time when judges and officials were very corrupt.

Whether you think its worth it to take a risk on a dictator or official who may or may not be benevolent, or to put power in the hands of the uneducated masses, is up to you I suppose.

A great example is all the anti terrorist acts. Yes, lets stop the terrorsists...then all of a sudden, you have every citizen with their phone being monitored. You never want to give the government more control because they will

1. Abuse it
2. Never relinquish it back
 
excellent. :D


Wow this shit is just harrowing beyond belief.
The US justice system is just whack.
I'm sure we have miscarriages of justice all the time too, but the system in the US just seems to feed on it. The way sherifs and DA's need to be elected and are thusly encouraged to find the perp beyond reasonable doubt is just disgusting.

It's crazy to think that these Big Fish in a Small Pond basically dug their heels in and ensured this innocent man went to prison because they couldn't be bothered to do any real investigation. That article is all I can think about today.
 
The cops feeding Jay the location of the car is less absurd than Jay somehow knowing Ronald. There's a whole hour before the cops began recording. I could easily see them saying "hey, we know Adnan did it, we have his DNA in Hae's car, we just need you to testify and we'll make sure you get a good lawyer"

Hae's car was in a parking lot near her body. Chances are the cops would have found the car first. Remember, there were hours and hours of "pre-interview" before any recording devices were turned on. The police could have planted a seed in Jay's mind, they could have talked about Leakin Park at length, and about the car, and then if Jay goes "maybe her car's at Leakin Park" they hit on that and say "how do you know that?" Then all of a sudden Jay "knew all along."

I don't know how accurate this map is, but if it's right, I could have led you to her car.

AA9Z2fZ.png
 
My biggest two takeaways from Serial are: How the hell could a jury convict? And Aidy Bryant's impression of Christina Gutierrez is the best thing that I've heard in 2014.
 
My biggest two takeaways from Serial are: How the hell could a jury convict? And Aidy Bryant's impression of Christina Gutierrez is the best thing that I've heard in 2014.

There are people in this very thread who said that based on the evidence they would have. Convicted him too. My question is : what evidence? No one seems to be able to follow up on that.
 
My biggest two takeaways from Serial are: How the hell could a jury convict?
I served once on a jury for a carjacking case where the evidence was sketchy and inconclusive. While all the jurors were pretty convinced that no carjacking occurred, a lot of the jurors wanted to just find him guilty of something to "get him off the streets." If it weren't for one other juror and me holding firm and ultimately causing a mistrial, the defendant would have been charged with assault and/or brandishing a firearm.

The craziest thing, though, was that it didn't start that way. Initially, we were pretty evenly split between what we thought happened, and it wasn't the lawyers, but the other jurors, who convinced everyone to lean one way. As the last two holdouts, the other juror and I ate the brunt of their verbal assaults in the end, too.
 
My biggest two takeaways from Serial are: How the hell could a jury convict? And Aidy Bryant's impression of Christina Gutierrez is the best thing that I've heard in 2014.

The jury convicted based on the evidence presented at trial, with arguments from both a defense and prosecution side. The evidence that could be submitted was based on judicial review and the restrictions of the legal system. Witness testimony was based on memories of events that were months old.

You are basing your judgment on a different set of arguments, with the evidence you were presented selected and filtered by a single person without a clear agenda and no judicial oversight. Some of this evidence (such as testimony from people who had listened to the podcast before talking to her) would undoubtedly be considered inadmissible in court. Witness testimony was based on memories of events that were 15 years old.

Perhaps this explains why the jury might come to a different conclusion than you did.
 
My biggest two takeaways from Serial are: How the hell could a jury convict? And Aidy Bryant's impression of Christina Gutierrez is the best thing that I've heard in 2014.

The jury rather risk convicting someone who might be innocent than let the crime go unpunished.

Also when your lawyer already sounds like a sketch comedy version of a lawyer, it's going to hurt your case.
 
There are people in this very thread who said that based on the evidence they would have. Convicted him too. My question is : what evidence? No one seems to be able to follow up on that.

I wouldn't consider what we heard on the podcast to be a totality of the evidence, in either direction.
 
Has anyone here heard much about this case?

http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-one

I sat up far too late last night reading through it. This guy basically lived my ultimate nightmare.

First time reading this. It's a great read but a tragic story.

This quote by one of the judges says a lot on what's wrong with America: “We do not have a perfect system of justice, but we have the best system of justice in the world,”

How can you fix a system when you say it's the best system of justice in the world after releasing a guy for being wrongfully convicted?

Based on what I heard through all the episodes in Serial, it'd be hard for me to convict Adnan of murder regardless of whether I think he did it or not. There doesn't seem to be enough physical evidence to say he killed her. His lawyer did him no favors, it was hard for me to listen to her speak. Can't imagine what hours of that would do to the jury.
 
I wouldn't consider what we heard on the podcast to be a totality of the evidence, in either direction.

Then that's even more unusual. These are listeners of the podcast saying that the evidence mentioned on the podcast makes them certain of his guilt. Again-what evidence?
 
The jury convicted based on the evidence presented at trial, with arguments from both a defense and prosecution side. The evidence that could be submitted was based on judicial review and the restrictions of the legal system. Witness testimony was based on memories of events that were months old.

You are basing your judgment on a different set of arguments, with the evidence you were presented selected and filtered by a single person without a clear agenda and no judicial oversight. Some of this evidence (such as testimony from people who had listened to the podcast before talking to her) would undoubtedly be considered inadmissible in court. Witness testimony was based on memories of events that were 15 years old.

Perhaps this explains why the jury might come to a different conclusion than you did.

Please point me to this physical evidence of the murder that would convince me without reasonable doubt to convict.

I'm not sure if Adnan killed Hae. I'm absolutely sure that I could not convict based on Jay's testimony alone and some potentially circumstantial cell tower evidence. Their entire case rests on Jay, and his timeline ultimately falls apart under basic scrutiny, which even DID YOU NOTTTTTT?! gets at in her cross. But again, please point me to this physical evidence that I'm not seeing. Because I can't imagine convicting someone for first degree murder on one man's testimony alone.
 
That Texas case is so sad... and worse yet, while I don't think it's true, I did a little followup and the guy who actually killed the wife -- his sister, at least, claims that he's innocent.

I rarely re-listen to podcasts, but today I had nothing else to listen to because TAL was a re-run and P1P made the foolish decision to edit their show and release on Monday nights (boo, P1P)

I tell you, listening to this episode again, I was almost ready to go down that Reddit-y rabbit hole and say I could buy the theory that police sort of made this happen through intense pressure.

I snapped back to reality, but I think if you don't believe Jenn is telling even some of the truth that idea all of a sudden becomes a lot more compelling.
 
That Texas case is so sad... and worse yet, while I don't think it's true, I did a little followup and the guy who actually killed the wife -- his sister, at least, claims that he's innocent.

I rarely re-listen to podcasts, but today I had nothing else to listen to because TAL was a re-run and P1P made the foolish decision to edit their show and release on Monday nights (boo, P1P)

I tell you, listening to this episode again, I was almost ready to go down that Reddit-y rabbit hole and say I could buy the theory that police sort of made this happen through intense pressure.

I snapped back to reality, but I think if you don't believe Jenn is telling even some of the truth that idea all of a sudden becomes a lot more compelling.

Reddit brought up a good point. If Jay had Adnan's car...and Adnan had Hae's car...why did Adnan need a ride from Best Buy?
 
Please point me to this physical evidence of the murder that would convince me without reasonable doubt to convict.

It's... complicated.

The most generous I can be is saying that jury was horrible. I believe it was episode 7 or 8 where they interview 6 of the jurors, and none of them knew what the hell they were talking about for the most part. The first woman was under the assumption that Jay had volunteered the information to the cops and was going to jail (he served no jail time), and several of them flat out said Adnan not testifying did more to convince them of his guilt than it did to help, which is not how the United States Justice System works. People are by default Innocent until proven Guilty, but a few of them admited they needed him to convince them of his innocence, which is bullshit.

On top of all of this Lisa Gutierrez was a horrible lawyer for the case from what I can tell. Not letting Adnan on the stand was probably a smart move since his lack of memory would probably sit poorly with the jury, but the way she handled cross examining Jay was horrible. One of the jurors pointed out he seemed like a nice respectible kid (and even the author points out he's handsome and polite through everything) as well as very reliable. Now imagine you have that image of someone, and you're watching some expensive loud mouthed lawyer essentially scream at him. On top of that she just dragged on to try and drive her point home but all that really does is annoy a jury--which 1 or 2 of them pointed out most of the time they had forgotten what she was even arguing by the time she stopped. She was not a good lawyer for the case, and from what is revealed in the later episodes sounds pretty crooked across the board.

So, we have a jury that's assuming guilt, watching a quiet kid brood on one side of the room while this nice upstanding kid is on the stand apologizing for what happened and explaining how he helped bury the body of this girl, while an obnoxious attorny is screaming at him. The only evidence you have is this nice kids testimony, and some "proof" that the kid in questions cell phone was in the area where her body was found. I maintain that if he had a better lawyer he would have gotten off, but unfortunately that wasn't the case. I'd love to see the outcome of The Innocence Projects investigation.

Reddit brought up a good point. If Jay had Adnan's car...and Adnan had Hae's car...why did Adnan need a ride from Best Buy?

Because Jay was the "Criminal Element" apparently (I found it hard not to laugh at how seemingly delusional Jay was during his interview with the cops).
 
How do you feel about a monarchy, then?

This seems like a version of the old argument of the benevolent dictator. If you have a proven leader who is well versed on important issues and willing and able to do the right thing, it seems it would be a system that would work much more efficiently than rule by masses or in this case a jury. The problem is dictators, or judges in this case, are not always benevolent and the current jury system in the US was developed during a time when judges and officials were very corrupt.

Whether you think its worth it to take a risk on a dictator or official who may or may not be benevolent, or to put power in the hands of the uneducated masses, is up to you I suppose.

I understand where you guys are coming from, but I don't think that's quite a fair comparison.
The main difference in this regard, is that you can still take their (judges') work and review them and correct/punish/etc them accordingly. This role can be taken up by the public or more direct public representatives. If done in a transparent way, it can erase much of the biases.
Not all of the biases, obviously, but I think you'll be more likely to find random biases with the general public (and they bring along their associated cons as well) which they will not even attempt to control.

All in all, it'd be best if it could all be done by a computer. One day...
 
I understand where you guys are coming from, but I don't think that's quite a fair comparison.
The main difference in this regard, is that you can still take their (judges') work and review them and correct/punish/etc them accordingly. This role can be taken up by the public or more direct public representatives. If done in a transparent way, it can erase much of the biases.
Not all of the biases, obviously, but I think you'll be more likely to find random biases with the general public (and they bring along their associated cons as well) which they will not even attempt to control.

All in all, it'd be best if it could all be done by a computer. One day...
This cat trying to toss us in the matrix.
 
Sarah Koenig lost credibility with me when her conclusion was that Adnan should be acquitted. What?

She was obviously charmed by this guy. How can you POSSIBLY explain how Jay knew exactly where Hae's car was if Adnan wasn't involved? Everyone and their mother saw Adnan with Jay all day long, phone records corroborate that Adnan was with Jay throughout the day, Jay himself gives all the facts about what happen and when the cops ask Jay where Hae's car is, he knows exactly where it is and tells them right away.

Given all that, how could you possibly think Adnan isn't involved? The conversation with Jay's coworker in the last episode was pretty powerful to me. I think it is pretty obvious Jay was scared for his life, scared specifically of what Adnan would do to him and his girl.

The serial killer angle being chased by that dumb lawyer in Chicago makes no sense. If a serial killer did it, why did Jay know where the car was? That would imply that Jay knew the serial killer and was in cahoots with him. What chance is there of that being true, honestly?

No matter what angle you try to look at this to make Adnan innocent, you just can't get past how Jay knew where Hae's car was. It was either Jay or Adnan who killed her. Don't try to tell me someone else was involved. That is ludicrous. And Jay had no motive to do it. I also find it impossible to believe that Jay killed Hae by himself the same day he was hanging out with Adnan all afternoon and night.

The jury took less than 2 hours to find him guilty. The cops are absolutely 100% sure he did it. And Jay sounded very believable to me.
 
Sarah Koenig lost credibility with me when her conclusion was that Adnan should be acquitted. What?

She was obviously charmed by this guy. How can you POSSIBLY explain how Jay knew exactly where Hae's car was if Adnan wasn't involved? Everyone and their mother saw Adnan with Jay all day long, phone records corroborate that Adnan was with Jay throughout the day, Jay himself gives all the facts about what happen and when the cops ask Jay where Hae's car is, he knows exactly where it is and tells them right away.

Given all that, how could you possibly think Adnan isn't involved? The conversation with Jay's coworker in the last episode was pretty powerful to me. I think it is pretty obvious Jay was scared for his life, scared specifically of what Adnan would do to him and his girl.

The serial killer angle being chased by that dumb lawyer in Chicago makes no sense. If a serial killer did it, why did Jay know where the car was? That would imply that Jay knew the serial killer and was in cahoots with him. What chance is there of that being true, honestly?

No matter what angle you try to look at this to make Adnan innocent, you just can't get past how Jay knew where Hae's car was.

The jury took less than 2 hours to find him guilty. The cops are absolutely 100% sure he did it. And Jay sounded very believable to me.

For somebody to be guilty the proof needs to be "beyond reasonable doubt." Sure it's very likely that Adnan did it, it could even be 99.9% likely, but inconsistencies in Jay's story alone create "reasonable doubt"
 
For somebody to be guilty the proof needs to be "beyond reasonable doubt." Sure it's very likely that Adnan did it, it could even be 99.9% likely, but inconsistencies in Jay's story alone create "reasonable doubt"

There are inconsistencies in every murder case, though, and the inconsistencies in Jay's are pretty easy to explain when you consider how scared the kid was and how he was likely trying to make sure he wouldn't say anything that would put himself in jail. It is very likely that is the reason why he changed small parts and timing of the story, to protect his own ass. Remember, he was trying to say he didn't help bury Hae at first to the cops.

And the theory that the cops planted the location of the car to Jay before the interview makes no sense. The cops didn't know where her car was. That theory would mean they did find the car but didn't bother to go pick it up to look for evidence until they could tell Jay that it was his idea first. That they allowed the car to sit in the woods, giving it more time to be contaminated by passers by. That makes no sense. At that point it was still very early in the case and the cops would immediately retrieve the car and scrub it for evidence when they found it. They wouldn't hold off on investigating it so they could let Jay "find" it for them. That's ludicrous.
 
Sarah Koenig lost credibility with me when her conclusion was that Adnan should be acquitted. What?

She was obviously charmed by this guy. How can you POSSIBLY explain how Jay knew exactly where Hae's car was if Adnan wasn't involved? Everyone and their mother saw Adnan with Jay all day long, phone records corroborate that Adnan was with Jay throughout the day, Jay himself gives all the facts about what happen and when the cops ask Jay where Hae's car is, he knows exactly where it is and tells them right away.

Given all that, how could you possibly think Adnan isn't involved? The conversation with Jay's coworker in the last episode was pretty powerful to me. I think it is pretty obvious Jay was scared for his life, scared specifically of what Adnan would do to him and his girl.

The serial killer angle being chased by that dumb lawyer in Chicago makes no sense. If a serial killer did it, why did Jay know where the car was? That would imply that Jay knew the serial killer and was in cahoots with him. What chance is there of that being true, honestly?

No matter what angle you try to look at this to make Adnan innocent, you just can't get past how Jay knew where Hae's car was. It was either Jay or Adnan who killed her. Don't try to tell me someone else was involved. That is ludicrous. And Jay had no motive to do it. I also find it impossible to believe that Jay killed Hae by himself the same day he was hanging out with Adnan all afternoon and night.

The jury took less than 2 hours to find him guilty. The cops are absolutely 100% sure he did it. And Jay sounded very believable to me.
You missed the point of the serial killer theory. It was used to get DNA tested. Koenig even tells her how about of a long shot it is, and that's why she responds "big picture".
 
You missed the point of the serial killer theory. It was used to get DNA tested. Koenig even tells her how about of a long shot it is, and that's why she responds "big picture".

No, I didn't miss it, but it is a dumb angle. Why would Jay know where Hae's car was if some randoms serial killer did it? Why would Jay and Adnan be exactly where Jay said they were burying Hae's body, as coborrorated by cell pings, if some randoms serial killer did it? Why would Jay 100% make up everything he said (which he would be if some random serial killer did it)? What would Jay's motive for that be?

It is an absurd idea IMO. I think the lawyer in the innocence project is just hoping for some random link when there is a crazy amount of evidence saying that Jay and Adnan had to be involved, that it couldn't be some random serial killer unless Jay and Adnan were there with the serial killer helping to all three kill Hae. Yeah, not likely.

And why would Jay have been scared for his life, scared specifically about Adnan as his coworker said in the last podcast? The guy sounded 100% believable to me and the story sounded very authentic. Jay was scared for his life, very scared, and specifically scared of Adnan. Why would he be like that if some random serial killer is the one who killed Hae?

The only person with a real motive in all this is, surprise, the ex-boyfriend, the guy everything is pointing to having done this.
 
No, I didn't miss it, but it is a dumb angle. Why would Jay know where Hae's car was if some randoms serial killer did it? Why would Jay and Adnan be exactly where Jay said they were burying Hae's body, as coborrorated by cell pings, if some randoms serial killer did it? Why would Jay 100% make up everything he said (which he would be if some random serial killer did it)? What would Jay's motive for that be?

It is an absurd idea IMO. I think the lawyer in the innocence project is just hoping for some random link when there is a crazy amount of evidence that Jay and Adnan had to be involved.
That's what I'm saying. The lawyer doesn't really believe in the serial killer theory herself. She just has to go along with it to get the dna tested. It'll lead to more evidence no matter what the conclusion of the case is.
 
That's what I'm saying. The lawyer doesn't really believe in the serial killer theory herself. She just has to go along with it to get the dna tested. It'll lead to more evidence no matter what the conclusion of the case is.

Oh, I see what you are saying, and I did miss that. When I heard the lawyer on the podcast, though, she sounded to me as if she really did think a serial killer could have done it.

But legally, you are right. It is a good way to get them to actually get a DNA test done. If it is a means to an end, it is a good strategy.

I did love the podcast overall, though I wish they had picked a case with a better argument for the innocence of the convicted. I get the feeling the podcast producers would have to admit to themselves that by the end of the podcast, the evidence was just mounting for adnan's guilt, not exoneration, no matter what Sarah said her conclusion was. I am not sure she actually believes he should be acquitted. It wouldn't be good for the podcast to say otherwise IMO.

I am sure the case they choose for year 2 will have much better evidence for innocence than this one did.
 
How do you feel about a monarchy, then?

This seems like a version of the old argument of the benevolent dictator. If you have a proven leader who is well versed on important issues and willing and able to do the right thing, it seems it would be a system that would work much more efficiently than rule by masses or in this case a jury. The problem is dictators, or judges in this case, are not always benevolent and the current jury system in the US was developed during a time when judges and officials were very corrupt.

Whether you think its worth it to take a risk on a dictator or official who may or may not be benevolent, or to put power in the hands of the uneducated masses, is up to you I suppose.

Not all western democracies use juries, you know. And some of them definitely have better justice outcomes (if you measure that by lack of recidivism) than the US.
 
Oh, I see what you are saying, and I did miss that. When I heard the lawyer on the podcast, though, she sounded to me as if she really did think a serial killer could have done it.

But legally, you are right. It is a good way to get them to actually get a DNA test done. If it is a means to an end, it is a good strategy.

I did love the podcast overall, though I wish they had picked a case with a better argument for the innocence of the convicted. I get the feeling the podcast producers would have to admit to themselves that by the end of the podcast, the evidence was just mounting for adnan's guilt, not exoneration, no matter what Sarah said her conclusion was. I am not sure she actually believes he should be acquitted. It wouldn't be good for the podcast to say otherwise IMO.

I am sure the case they choose for year 2 will have much better evidence for innocence than this one did.

I've listened to the whole series twice. I must have missed all the clearly damning evidence because the only solid thing linking Adnan is the testimony of someone who who given a pro bono lawyer and a great deal (only probation for helping bury a body AND not telling the police until after the body was found).

Let me know which episode has the clear, physical evidence, or at least a consistent story on what happened that day, so I can listen to it again.


I doubt they will do another murder, since there's no great way to control the ending.
 
I've listened to the whole series twice. I must have missed all the clearly damning evidence because the only solid thing linking Adnan is the testimony of someone who who given a pro bono lawyer and a great deal (only probation for helping bury a body AND not telling the police until after the body was found).

Let me know which episode has the clear, physical evidence, or at least a consistent story on what happened that day, so I can listen to it again.


I doubt they will do another murder, since there's no great way to control the ending.

Exactly. Again, everyone keeps mentioning the "evidence" but there is none. Can someone please tell us what evidence you're referring to?

In as far as the serial killer angle-read that article posted on the last page about the case in Texas. There are a lot of similarities to this case - when the police and prosecution want you as your suspect, you're pretty much fucked.
 
Has anyone here heard much about this case?

http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/innocent-man-part-one

I sat up far too late last night reading through it. This guy basically lived my ultimate nightmare.

This is absolutely surreal. Thanks for posting. There are some pretty interesting similarities between the cases. The "thank god this wasn't a capital crime" thing gave me chills because who even knows how many of those capital crimes were false guilty verdicts.

Pretty disheartening to read in some follow-up stuff I looked for that Anderson was sentenced to 10 days in jail for evidence tampering but only served 5 days for good behavior. At least new laws on evidence access were passed in Texas as a result.

Still a fantastic read for those who found Sayed's case interesting.
 
This is absolutely surreal. Thanks for posting. There are some pretty interesting similarities between the cases. The "thank god this wasn't a capital crime" thing gave me chills because who even knows how many of those capital crimes were false guilty verdicts.

Pretty disheartening to read in some follow-up stuff I looked for that Anderson was sentenced to 10 days in jail for evidence tampering but only served 5 days for good behavior. At least new laws on evidence access were passed in Texas as a result.

Still a fantastic read for those who found Sayed's case interesting.

I'd say it's almost required reading, In fact. It gives you a better idea of the justice system in America.
 
Sarah Koenig lost credibility with me when her conclusion was that Adnan should be acquitted. What?

She was obviously charmed by this guy. How can you POSSIBLY explain how Jay knew exactly where Hae's car was if Adnan wasn't involved? Everyone and their mother saw Adnan with Jay all day long, phone records corroborate that Adnan was with Jay throughout the day, Jay himself gives all the facts about what happen and when the cops ask Jay where Hae's car is, he knows exactly where it is and tells them right away.

Adnan lends Jay his car and tells him to buy his gf a birthday gift. Jay gets ultra jealous that Adnan cares more about his girl than he does, so he drives off and kills Hae.

After that, he spends the whole day and evening driving around with Adnan, and he makes sure to drive past his intended burial spot together. Later that night, he leaves Hae in the park and hides her car nearby.

Can you prove that didn't happen? Because otherwise, by your standards, Jay should serve a life sentence for murder too.
 
I'm hoping we get a special Serial episode or two that follows up on the case.
Given TAL's track record, it's a given that they will follow up at some point. Problem is, the legal system moves very slowly, so it may be a long time before we get any substantive news. I haven't listened to that UVA podcast yet, so maybe things are moving faster -- I hope so.
 
Adnan lends Jay his car and tells him to buy his gf a birthday gift. Jay gets ultra jealous that Adnan cares more about his girl than he does, so he drives off and kills Hae.

After that, he spends the whole day and evening driving around with Adnan, and he makes sure to drive past his intended burial spot together. Later that night, he leaves Hae in the park and hides her car nearby.

Why and how would Jay get Hae alone? The two have almost no relationship, as far as I can remember.

It seems unlikely that a 17/18-year-old in 1999 would really have the foresight to drive past all the relevant crime spots with a borrowed cell phone so that cell tower records would reflect his movements. Most people even in 2014 wouldn't have given it that much thought.
 
She was obviously charmed by this guy. How can you POSSIBLY explain how Jay knew exactly where Hae's car was if Adnan wasn't involved? Everyone and their mother saw Adnan with Jay all day long, phone records corroborate that Adnan was with Jay throughout the day, Jay himself gives all the facts about what happen and when the cops ask Jay where Hae's car is, he knows exactly where it is and tells them right away.

Given all that, how could you possibly think Adnan isn't involved?

Jay was either involved or knows who did it. Jay knowing where Hae's car was doesn't prove Adnan was involved in any way, it proves Jay was involved if anything. Also, Jay doesn't give them all of the facts, he gives them a few differrent rough outlines of how the day went down. Some of the bullet points are the same, but things change quite a bit, and between every other person he talked to the stories vary even more. We have Jenn, his co-worker (was it Carl?), Cathy, and Jay's 3 different stories that all have a lot of differences. They have very similar bullet points (basically Adnan gives Jay car, Jay drives around, Jay picks up Adnan and sees body, they drive around and get high, they go park car and bury body, Adnan takes off) but even a lot of those are changed in subtle ways here and there.

Lets look at Jay's claim; that Adnan lured Hae to a Best Buy parking lot, in broad daylight after schools had let out, then strangled her in her own car--despite the fact that she was more physically fit than him--then popped the trunk, dragged her body around and tossed her in the trunk, before walking inside of the Best Buy casually to call Jay and come pick him up. That alone might be the most ridiculous stretch imaginable. Nevermind the fact that Jay fabricated the Phone Booth in the Best Buy parking lot, and only mentioned Best Buy to the police. He also claimed Adnan took a call--that doesn't show up in the call log--and spoke in a "foreign tongue" to someone, despite the fact that Adnan exclusively spoke English. It seems like Jay told at least 1 lie for every truth.

The conversation with Jay's coworker in the last episode was pretty powerful to me. I think it is pretty obvious Jay was scared for his life, scared specifically of what Adnan would do to him and his girl.

I'm a firm believer that Jay was borderline delusional. He was described as a very off the wall person (offering to stab his friend because "he'd never been stabbed") and all his talk about being the "Criminal Element" and the fact that he mentions dozens of times various ways of destroying and concealing evidence--wiping down fingerprints, forming alibis, "dna under fingernails", West Side Hitman, all sorts of weird things that he did and claims Adnan talked about.

The jury took less than 2 hours to find him guilty. The cops are absolutely 100% sure he did it. And Jay sounded very believable to me.

That Jury was a bunch of idiots. The interviews they did with the jurors were troubling to say the least. They interviewed 6 of the 12 jurors, and I remember one of them flat out saying she held it against Adnan for not testifying (which the Judge explicitly says they can't do) and 2-3 others who say they were displeased by that fact. On top of that, one of them recalls at least 1 juror explaining to the rest of them how Muslims treat their women poorly like they are property which shows clear racial\religious bias. Add to all of that the fact that some of them were under the impression that Jay was going to serve time anyway (he didn't) and it looks like the jury was just... bad.

There is plenty of reasonable doubt, and the state honestly failed to prove innocent without reasonable doubt. They tested nothing at the crime scene, nothing on Hae's body, and in fact the few things that they did test rarely matched up with Adnan (some hairs found on her, the map book) and in some cases were easily explainable (the book had other fingerprints on it but they focused on a partial palm print of Adnans).
 
I did love the podcast overall, though I wish they had picked a case with a better argument for the innocence of the convicted. I get the feeling the podcast producers would have to admit to themselves that by the end of the podcast, the evidence was just mounting for adnan's guilt, not exoneration, no matter what Sarah said her conclusion was. I am not sure she actually believes he should be acquitted. It wouldn't be good for the podcast to say otherwise IMO.

I am sure the case they choose for year 2 will have much better evidence for innocence than this one did.

They've already said for season 2, it won't be a murder. It will be long-form investigative journalism, but they're looking for possible stories still.

I think it was really fortuitous that they got a case that is so ambiguous. There isn't a lot of solid evidence for or against Adnan, and most people I talk to have a hard time leaning very hard one way or another.

Compared to something like Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills about the West Memphis three, having an ambiguous case meant I was able to follow Serial pretty dispassionately. I don't see celebrities climbing out of the woodwork demanding that Adnan be freed. He could have done it! It would be hard listening to tapes and interviews and evidence for 12 episodes if by week three it was obvious Adnan was guilty or innocent.


To add to your post, Adnan seems like the obvious perpetrator if you take everything that Jay says as the truth.

I'm not convinced the Best Buy was the murder scene. It was day, it's public. No one saw anything?

And Adnan recruits Jay in the pre-meditated murder? I can see that Adnan might have done it in a fit of rage or something, but he tells Jay before hand, then gets him to help bury the body, and Jay goes along with it because Adnan threatens he'll kill someone close to Jay if he doesn't?

Everything Jay says seems like bullshit.
 
True Detective, huh?

Anyway, the more I listen to this the more full of shit Jay sounds. He's withholding information, but so is Adnan.
 
Oh, I see what you are saying, and I did miss that. When I heard the lawyer on the podcast, though, she sounded to me as if she really did think a serial killer could have done it.

But legally, you are right. It is a good way to get them to actually get a DNA test done. If it is a means to an end, it is a good strategy.

I did love the podcast overall, though I wish they had picked a case with a better argument for the innocence of the convicted. I get the feeling the podcast producers would have to admit to themselves that by the end of the podcast, the evidence was just mounting for adnan's guilt, not exoneration, no matter what Sarah said her conclusion was. I am not sure she actually believes he should be acquitted. It wouldn't be good for the podcast to say otherwise IMO.

I am sure the case they choose for year 2 will have much better evidence for innocence than this one did.

There is no physical evidence linking Adnan to the crime, and the crux of the state's case is the testimony of a single witness who changed his story more than once! There's no reason he should've been convicted, this is worlds away from beyond a reasonable doubt.

What mounting evidence? Aside from Jay, there are just a couple scraps of very specious circumstantial evidence that maybe framed in a certain way points to Adnan, but certainly isn't enough to sentence a teenager to life in prison.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom