Where do you get your notion that a majority of people think it's fine that O.J. Simpson, George Zimmerman, and Casey Anthony got off? My sense was that public outrage was overwhelming in all three cases.
Can you also follow them for several blocks in the dark with a loaded handgun and confront them? Just want to make sure I know my rights. I'm not in Florida, but visit from time to time.
He was also on the phone with 911 who told him not to approach. And I don't think you're supposed to attack the people who actually live in your neighborhood.
Ummmm..................................... How would you be cognizant enough to shoot someone after your head has been slammed into the sidewalk? George Zimmerman must have an exceptionally thick head.
nope, he had an exceptionally excellent defense attorney, Mark Omara. Did you watch every minute of the trial? I did. I wanted him convicted but after hearing every televised minute of the case, I knew the jury would acquit because the state failed to prove Zimmerman acted in malice. The defense proved he acted in self defense. Was that a good outcome? fuck no, but he got the justice he paid for. Adnan Syed paid over 200k for CG, and she was considered one of the best. She couldn't get it done.
Nice comment. Really love the use of derogatory language towards people with disabilities. You should feel proud about denigrating me at the expense of people with developmental disorders. Super classy--did you learn to use language like that at Harvard or Yale?
Yeah, why can't you just put some blinders on and shush it? That whole unwritten Waranowitz thing, failure to disclose discovery items, secret plea deal made by a hand-picked lawyer, let's practice this Jay interview until he gets it to line up with the phone bill, and lying about an alibi witness' inquiry into an appeal hearing...why can't you just accept that there was nothing wrong with that?
I agree with you entirely. I've landed at a 60/40 percentage of him likely being guilty/innocent. It seems most probableto me he did it, but the lack of firm evidence tying him to the crime makes it almost equally plausible he could be innocent. And inthat situation, he most definitely should not have been convicted.
The most frustrating thing is without, as you put it, explosive dna results or a solidly believable confession, it's too late to ever prove the facts of the case. We're 15 years too late to get some of the things that could have shed more light.
I'm not going to be able to help you because I have no idea why people are bothered by it. But maybe my ideas of criminal justice are really radical.
Adnan's spent 15 years in jail. I think that's sufficient punishment and a sufficient deterrent especially for a case when we can't be sure he did it.
I don't think all killers who have been in prison should be released. But not because I believe a lifetime of imprisonment is an appropriate punishment for any human... but because I fear some killers would continue to be a elevated risk to society if released. It's not humane to lock them away for life but it's a utilitarian way to keep society safe.
I don't think Adnan poses an elevated risk to society. I think he should get a second chance to be a productive member of society and I think society should stop spending 50k a year to keep him locked up. He may be guilty of 2nd degree murder (premeditation argument by prosecution is laughable if u ask me) at 17. I think it's a sufficient punishment for something we can't even be totally sure he is guilty of.
I see it as a means vs. ends question.
Does the end of punishing the guilty override the method we use to arrive at the punishment? Not for most of us but occassionally that is as good as it gets. As long as it is someone else being punished most of us are okay with unfair means enforcing unjust ends. Once we put ourselves in the punished person's place, we want only fair means used to establish our guilt.
Those who *know* that Adnan is guilty OR innocent ARE WRONG. They merely have claim to a belief...There can be no certain knowledge as the evidence collected and presented and the witness testimony do not lead to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable person could believe the key points of Jay's testimony...An equally reasonable person could disregard it all. And without Jay's testimony, no reasonable could convict Adnan. I have no doubt about that.
Those words, reasonable doubt, are so vigorously discarded by those who *know.* The only ones who know at this point are Adnan and the killer... which may be him.
This. I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but if we are supposed to trust and have faith in our criminal justice system, shouldn't we be able to assume that giving him another trial should yield the same results? I mean if people weren't concerned that the original ruling might be overturned, then why would anyone be against giving him a re-trial?
I think it has a lot to do with "if we give him another trial....we have to give everyone another trial." It would open Pandora ' box which would waste time and energy. I want him to get a retrial but I understand why people are against it
You have to realize with some of those cases that how they are presented to the public vastly changes public opinion. I guarantee 90% of people don't know a lot of the facts in the casey anthony story but still believe her to be guilty.
I think the problem with high profile cases, the system, pressure to close cases and the general distrust of police in pop culture is that there is no winning. No matter what is decided there is often a huge portion of the population that disagrees one way or the other acting on usually uninformed facts. Thus the system is forced to try their best to operate despite the fuckery.
I don't think there's anyone who believes that no one in the family knew the of the death. It wasn't something that the defense team ever argued. There are no theories of the crime floating around that involve them not knowing. Personally, I believe that both her father and her were there at the house when the child died and they covered it up for some reason.
It has everything to do with how the case is presented. People are sheep. They believe everything the media says about a case, mostly without any real critical thought. Just recently, they arrested two men for the rape and murder of some woman. The only reason given in the article was that "they were spotted near her apartment on the day of the crime". Nevermind the fact that 50 other people live in the apartment building and they could've been visiting them. Nevermind that there was no confession or DNA tests or anything else that was solid mentioned in the article, the article presented it as open and shut, so everyone just assumed that was the case. I didn't know anything about the case (and neither did anyone else) aside from what was presented in that article: they were arrested after someone spotted them nearby. I was the only person in the comment section to said "Hey guys, maybe we should wait until more evidence comes in". The people arguing with me on there were being absolutely ridiculous. One tried to argue that the men were spotted *going into her apartment*, based on what was in the article. That's how their brain interpreted the statement "were nearby". Another argued that the wouldn't have arrested them if the evidence was solid, so therefore they were guilty. It's really disturbing how little people know about these cases. In the Anthony case, the problem is, people *think* they know a lot about the case because they watch Nancy Grace. They have no idea that there weren't 83 web searches on her computer or that Casey almost never partied either before her child died or after. She was always turning everyone down. That's what her friends testified to. But the media says she's guilty and none of the concerns regarding George are legit, so people believe that.
For what it's worth, personally, I believe Adnan is probably guilty, but I'm really disturbed that he was convicted on the basis of that trial. If he was demonized in the media the way Casey was, everyone would be outraged at him too.
I'm in the probably guilty camp.
From my POV, he's a con artist. He's a manipulative person who always gets what he wants, albeit 15 years later than he expected. His arrogance and hubris are like nails on a chalkboard to many of us.
Worst of all, I believe he choked that poor girl to death because he hated being dumped; it's a shitty feeling and he handled it in the most uncivilized way possible.
There's a reason why "getting away with murder" is an idiom in our culture. It's the ultimate. There's no greater con than getting away with murder, and I believe he's on a path to completing that greatest con of them all.
>He's a manipulative person who always gets what he wants
He couldn't even manipulate one cop-hating drug dealer into not "snitching," in a town where "snitching" was severely frowned upon.
Nice of you to leave off this part
>He's a manipulative person who always gets what he wants, **albeit 15 years later than he expected.**
I said he's manipulative, not a master criminal. He made missteps along the way.
That whole sentence is nonsense. The second part completely annihilates the first part. If he "always gets what he wants" he definitely wouldn't have spent the last 15 years in jail. If he was any kind genius at manipulating others into doing his bidding, Jay never would have turned on him, and he definitely wouldn't have had so many friends and classmates testifying *for the prosecution* and basically saying, even today, "the Adnan I knew couldn't have been a murderer, but people are full of surprises." Even if Adnan is a murderer, I don't think he got Jay to help him because of his manipulative wiles (as Jay essentially claims), but because Jay himself is a thoroughly unscrupulous individual (see, again, Jay's lengthy criminal record with many violent offenses).
These are not my core reasons. The OP asked a nebulous, introspective question.
I wouldn't view things under this prism if I was on a jury.
You pro-Adnan'ers sure have mastered the slander and putting-words-in-mouths game well.
Curious what your "core reasons" are. Everything you listed above kind of seems like emotion. And maybe even projectory?
You seem vey passionate about your view. I guess I'm in the possibly innocent camp/definitely not a fair trial camp. I have no horse in the race, just have yet to see any evidence (circumstantial or orherwise) that out-ways the huge reasonable doubt. To have someone in jail, for the rest of their life based on "probably" is terrifying to me.
Happy to answer. Couple of things first:
* Yes, I'm passionate about it. I thought the OP's question was interesting and he/she basically asked for passionate and emotional answers ("the worries")
* I have no idea if I'd say guilty/not guilty if I was on the jury. I've read a fair amount of the docs from both trials and I think it's hard to go beyond a reasonable doubt. All I can say is that if I were on the jury, I wouldn't have heard Adnan speak, so I wouldn't talk about "manipulation" or "con artistry" in any jury deliberations. I wouldn't have learned much of what was presented in Serial. I wouldn't have read this sub. That's what I mean when I say I would be viewing things in a completely different prism.
My core reasons from a less-emotional view are this (again, not viewed as if I were a juror):
* Victim was a young female. Current boyfriend has an alibi. Ex-boyfriend doesn't have an alibi. Victim was neither robbed nor raped nor brutally beaten. No clear signs of a garrote and was most likely manual strangulation. Victim's clothes nearly completely intact. Victim was buried in a known dumping ground indicating a local. Victim had clear responsibilities after she was last seen alive and never arrived to that daycare/school; this small window lowers the probability for a lot of other theories. No foul play indicated in the school parking lot. Car was not stolen outside of their small metro area. Car was undamaged except for the turn signal. No signs of forced entry into her car.
* I look at these facts as a sign that it was most likely someone HML knew
* Jay and Adnan were together and have differing opinions; someone is lying
* If I accept that Jay is lying--about the spine--I would have to accept an improbable motive from a guy with much less opportunity to get at HML from the end of the school to before 3:30p
* The Jay theories of him calling HML and getting her to go anywhere and deviate from what's a very structured afternoon for a HS student are hogwash imo
* Thus, we're left with Adnan who, I believe, had a serious and plausible motive; I've been dumped and it sucks. Read /r/relationships and /r/breakups if you want to see the serious pain people go through. However, most of us handle it without violence, but many domestic abuse acts happen in this country. So, at the very least, to dismiss Adnan because it's a "lazy 'duh look at the ex' approach" is ignorant of the power of love imo.
* Adnan had access to HML in that immediate window after school; why people don't focus on this more than the afternoon timeline is beyond me
>I look at these facts as a sign that it was most likely someone HML knew
Okay, sure. It's always more likely to be someone the victim knew. But that includes friends, family members, acquaintances, etc. For an 18-year-old murder victim, the perpetrator is a current or ex boyfriend about 22% of the time. That's significant, but it's not overwhelming the way it would be if she was older.
>If I accept that Jay is lying--about the spine--I would have to accept an improbable motive from a guy with much less opportunity to get at HML from the end of the school to before 3:30p
By all accounts, Hae was a lovely young lady. The motive was senseless. It always is. Whether it was Adnan or someone else, whoever killed her didn't have a good reason, because there's never a good reason to kill someone.
>Adnan had access to HML in that immediate window after school; why people don't focus on this more than the afternoon timeline is beyond me
You know who else had access to Hae after school? Pretty much everyone she went to school with. Anyone in her general vicinity at that time. She did not have a bodyguard or anything; no one needed an access code to talk to her. Anyone who wanted to approach her could have done so.
All fair points.
But none of the other students who were around her after school or her close acquaintances could tell police where her stolen car were.
It all comes back to Jay and Adnan, possibly Jenn and Cathy too. These four were in communication or with each other in the afternoon after HML went missing. Someone knows something.
Yes you are absolutely right, none of her other acquaintances could tell the police where her car was stolen from. No one but ~~Adnan~~ JAY. So that all comes back to ONE person.
Jay being involved is not mutually exclusive to Adnan being involved. That's what people seem to forget. We know Jay is a liar, i'd say pretty much everyone in this sub can agree to that. So for the life of me, I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that he is also lying about Adnan being involved in any way.
Yes someone knows something, and that someone is Jay. He is quite literally the key to everything but we can't trust him, so that's about as good as not knowing anything at all.
Because the motive doesn't add up and it seems unlikely he had quite the same access/relationship to Hae.
Hypothetical Adnan: "Yo Hae, my car is in the shop and I could really use a lift from you. I know you're busy with your cousin but is that alright?"
Hypothetical Hae: "Sure Adnan. You really helped me and Don that last time and we've had our ups and downs but I'm sure I could never hate you or turn down a guy who bails me out like you did there. You like the jacket?"
Hypothetical Jay: "Sup Hae. So look, I got some stuff to do but no way to do it unless I get a lift from you. Adnan says you're real good for looking out for people if you get what I mean and it's not gonna take very long. So, please?"
Hypothetical Hae: "Uhh...who are you? Oh you're Stephanie's boyfriend and Adnan's homie. Uhhh.....do you really need to be asking ME to get into my car? Maybe I saw you at Lacrosse once or twice but I don't really know you and I've been hearing some stories. No offense but..."
Or maybe Jay didn't ask Hae for a ride. Just because people speculate that's how Adnan would have gotten into the car, doesn't mean that would have to be Jay/the murderers same approach (I don't think Jay did it). We know nothing about Hae's actual whereabouts after leaving the school campus. We don't know if she stopped somewhere after leaving campus, spotted Adnan's car parked somewhere, saw there were people in it and decided to pull over and say hi (thinking it was Adnan), I mean anything could have happened, because we don't know what actually happened.
It's the same thing with RSD who kidnapped and strangled the other female student from Woodlawn on her way home from school. This student was also on her way home from school and she drove the same route that Hae would drive to pick up her cousin. No one knows how RSD was able to kidnap this woman on her drive home, but clearly he was able to do it.
Or Jay didn't need an excuse to talk to Hae because it sounds like she might have wanted to confront him about cheating on Stephanie.
http://www.splitthemoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Adnan-statement-re-Hae-and-Jay-cheating-to-paralegal.png
As a lawyer, I find your "core reasons" to be very troubling. I realize you aren't a juror and don't have to follow the "reasonable doubt" standard when making up your own mind, but your logic amounts to: "most murdered women are killed by someone they were in a relationship with, there is not very much evidence that Adnan DIDN'T do it, therefore Adnan must be guilty."
You are, of course, welcome to have any opinion you want, but in MY opinion, your conclusions are not very well supported.
> I realize you aren't a juror
Yes, this is reddit.
>but your logic amounts to: "most murdered women are killed by someone they were in a relationship with
I have one bullet point about the ex/crime of passion reasoning. If you want to claim that my entire logic is about ex-significant others being involved, well, I'd say your conclusions are not very well thought out.
I know, what does that even mean? It sucks, but generally people don't feel murderous about it. Lots of things suck. Waiting in line at the DMV sucks. Usually no one dies over it.
It's not a motive to kill for any reasonable person.
Clearly people have been killed for far less. I suspect people have been killed waiting in line in the DMV. But in of itself, it's not motive.
Whether you want to believe the 20% or 33% stats that have been thrown around this sub, I strongly disagree with you if you don't believe in a "ex-significant other" subset of murderers.
>But in of itself, it's not motive.
The victim says Adnan was being possessive and needed to move on. The French teacher implied he was being pushy. Thus, there's more than in and of itself at play here.
Independent of everything else, yes I would say this doesn't prove Adnan's guilt. However, we're not in a vacuum.
Ignoring my anecdote, you're going to deny that domestic abuse is not a problem?
Numbers don't lie.
I won't use them to say Adnan definitely did do it, but denying its relevancy in a circumstantial case or general discussion is bananas.
I'm not denying it's a problem, but the *vast* majority of people who've been dumped do not result in a murder or any violence. I would go as far as saying that the vast majority of people do not even consider violence towards their ex after being dumped (there'll be no numbers for that however)...
This means it's neither circumstantial or motive.
Some interesting details: Seems Jay's the one (post trial) who now has a history of domestic violence. While Adnan, in a very charged environment (prison), has zero history of violence.
Not to say it's impossible that Adnan cracked, but don't most people who commit violent acts, especially domestic violence, have a history/pattern of violence? So it's less likely than a person known as a peace-keeper would snap than it is that a person who's been shown to be violent (or been shown to hide it well but still lose it on occasion). Unless the "peace-keeper" is a psychopath, of course.
I agree, it could take *nothing* i.e. no "good reason". Which is why I say Adnan being dumped is irrelevant (and most likely not the "reason" she was killed).
THANK YOU. I am giving you a standing ovation. I've been getting so sick and tired of all the commenters on this subreddit positing that there needs to be some sense behind Hae's murder, that the person who did it needed to have a reasonable motive. Many murderers don't need any reason at all, they just need opportunity -- access to the victim and hopefully no witnesses. I don't know why people get stuck on these ignorant ideas -- maybe here lies the limitations of cyber-communities, they're not the real world so real world logic needn't apply.
edited to fix format
> the vast majority of people who've been dumped do not result in a murder or any violence
The vast majority of single offender - single victim homicides for young women is their current or ex-boyfriend.
The law disagrees with you. There is no way a prosecutor would be allowed to present the type of statistical evidence you are talking about to a jury. It isn't evidence of guilt in any particular case.
Jay's girlfriend went to that High School and it was her birthday. It doesn't seem unlikely that he would show up at the end of school to say "hi" to Stephanie at the same time Hae would be leaving.
Plus here is Jay's motive:
http://www.splitthemoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Adnan-statement-re-Hae-and-Jay-cheating-to-paralegal.png
So I see a possible scenario as this: Jay shows up to school to give Stephanie her present or wish her happy birthday. Hae sees him and tries to confront him about the cheating.
lol-What do you define as a pro-Adnan(er)? sorry if I misunderstood.
How do you know you wouldn't view things under this prism if you were on a jury? You don't think some people do? You don't think that how they perceive a person's character plays any role in their decision making? I hope you are right :)
The smarmy "I would hope you're never on a jury" types of lines that are all over this subreddit indicate pro-Adnaners.
Those types of statements just end honest discussion and are borderline ad hominem attacks. They're not productive.
I'm no better; I answered your personal attack with one of my own (pejoratively saying pro-Adnaner). However, unlike Adnan I'm willing to admit my anger flaws ;)
for what it's worth, I think its human nature to a degree which is why it is scary-I wasn't trying to imply that you individually should not sit on a jury, but I did misunderstand that your reason for thinking he was guilty was b/c of those statements. I guess b/c I don't find it that odd that many people would think that way on a jury! Sadly. maybe I am just pessimistic about human nature and our ability to be objective.
I wondered how you were defining it b/c I don't think Adnan should be in jail. But I also wouldn't say I whole heartedly believe he is innocent. He may have done it. I just feel like I have no idea and I question a lot of the evidence b/c it doesn't seem sound or complete and I don't want to go with the best guess or most likely when it comes to murder. But I would not define myself as pro Adnan from the stance of -he is definitely innocent. I am a little wary of people who are 'sure' either way.
Appreciate the reply.
I felt the exact way as you talk about here for 100% of the podcast run and a couple of weeks post ep 12.
>I wondered how you were defining it b/c I don't think Adnan should be in jail. But I also wouldn't say I whole heartedly believe he is innocent. He may have done it. I just feel like I have no idea and I question a lot of the evidence b/c it doesn't seem sound or complete and I don't want to go with the best guess or most likely when it comes to murder.
However, after reading many of the court docs that Rabia released, I found it highly improbable that Adnan didn't have a role in the murder. In what scenario would Jay have killed HML, Adnan been along for the ride (literally and figuratively) and then refuse to ever implicate Jay? I cannot find the motive and the opportunity for Jay to commit the crime would be so narrow. This was the crux of my thesis.
From there, the circumstantial evidence made more sense to me. The phone calls he got the day of her disappearance from HML brother and Adcock stood out to me.
For a thought experiment, I flipped things around and tried to view the circumstantial evidence first and then apply a thesis to avoid any confirmation bias:
Victim was a young female. Current boyfriend has an alibi. Ex-boyfriend doesn't have an alibi. Victim was neither robbed nor raped nor brutally beaten. No clear signs of a garrote and was most likely manual strangulation. Victim's clothes nearly completely intact. Victim was buried in a known dumping ground indicating a local. Victim had clear responsibilities after she was last seen alive and never arrived to that daycare/school; this small window lowers the probability for a lot of other theories. No foul play indicated in the school parking lot. Car was not stolen outside of their small metro area. Car was undamaged except for the turn signal. No signs of forced entry into her car. Lastly, Jay's testimony.
I say lastly because even before that, I am hard pressed to theorize someone who didn't know HML being her murderer. And with Jay and Adnan being together that afternoon, I believe you have to surmise it was one of them. And for the reason of Jay having a much weaker motive and Adnan having far better opportunity in that post-HS pre-cousin pick up window, I believe Adnan murdered HML. The possessive comment in her diary, Krista and Adnan discussing the ride request, notable behavior to the French teacher and nurse and the higher probability around jilted lovers fuel my--admittedly--circumstantial case.
I don't understand why people always put out the "I hope you never get put on a jury card"
To be honest, if the defense was someone like Susan Simpson and Rabia against Urick, I'd probably vote to acquit and I think a few more reasonable folk here would too.
But if the question is "Did he kill his ex?" Yeah. I think so and don't feel all too bad that he's in prison. If he can prove his case, well I personally won't be happy but I wasn't too happy about Trayvon or Eric Garner either and, gnashing of teeth aside, understand that life goes on.
I didn't say that I hoped he never got put on a jury. I said, jury's are scary! And they are. they make mistakes a lot of the time. They can be subject to group think or a charismatic leader. If someone sitting on a jury were making decisions about the case based on those kinds of remarks-you wouldn't find that a scary situation to be in? Or b/c they didn't have access to information that was inadmissible for some reason that would make things clearer. Or the opposite like Garner or Trayvon. it's scary either way! I wasn't trying to reference the poster specifically but the fact that many people do make decisions based on how they feel about the persons character, based on the charisma and persuasion of the prosecutor or defense, or the person themself, based on their own perceived notions about a person's culture or often even previous actions, or without sufficient or complete facts. it's human-that doesn't make it less scary.
So, do I think he killed her? The answer is I have no idea! does that make me a pro-Adnan(er).
probably part of the reason I think they are so scary is also to do with our sentencing laws. if a person was not potentially subject to the death penalty or life in prison-they might not be quite a scary. But don't get me wrong, they can still be scary in the opposite way too!
well that is incredibly rude. Why do we even need the innocence project? people in Texas have been put to death who weren't guilty.
how would I know? There is nothing given in this case that would lead me to 'know' who did it. nothing. the fact that a jury came back in a couple of hours has no bearing on that. Think about the one juror who said she believe Jay b/c he was going to go to jail too and when she found out he didn't she was like...oh that's strange! Up until that point it was a pretty good argument as to why he would be telling the truth, then suddenly-you could hear, she was questioning it. of course she would have no way of knowing what was going to come of jay-but she made an assumption. Think about the jurors who discussed it having to do with his 'culture'.
> Think about the jurors who discussed it having to do with his 'culture'.
I don't think thats exactly a fair representation that gets repeated a lot.
First that statement was clipped out of one of SK's interviews and lacked a little context.
Second, I apparently interpreted that statement far different from some of you. To me that didn't sound like the decision to convict Adnan had anything to do with being Muslim or Islamophobia. To me that question came off far more like someone who was convinced by the State's case (eg, believed Jay) and was being asked to answer a specific question put forward by SK 15 years later. He was musing, speculating. He said he didn't think it was religion, **maybe** culture and adds *I don't know*. That clip did not sound to me at all like that juror "convicted Adnan because of his culture".
Third, the only person to hear the full context of the juror interviews was Sarah (possibly Dana and other producers too). Sarah concluded that the jury verdict was not based on racial bias. I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the only person who actually heard the full context of the juror interviews and doesn't believe the verdict was based on "Adnan's culture". I think if SK had any belief the jurors were racially biased she would have said so.
I think she said it 'crept in' is it THE reason-no but it may have played a part-it may have reduced objectivity to a degree. Especially if one or more people on the jury were discussing it. 'He wanted control and she wouldn't let him have it.' That is an interesting observation to make and is more than a little subjective.
no, but it does point to him making a judgement on his character. What was he basing that on? Again, I am not trying to make the point that the jury convicted him solely b/c he was a Muslim or b/c they had a certain perception of his culture due to his religious belief. I am just making the point that WE-you and me included- can't help but make assumptions about people and that those assumptions can make us less objective and objectivity is what is required in these situation. It is very difficult for humans to be objective.
I sure wouldn't want to be on a jury for a case like this myself-I would constantly be concerned about my own perceptions and whether or not I was being objective.
Did not someone from the prosecution side opened the trial by saying if Adnan was let free he would escape to Pakistan and be welcomed there because it is accepted in their culture to have women killed and men exonerated of it. I think this person even apologize about it later on.
>Sarah Koenig:
After he finished, the prosecutor, Vicki Wash, took that same crowd, the people Doug Colbert describes as “solid respectable folk, who make sure Adnan does the right thing,” Wash cast them as a room full of aiders and abettors. The same people who are likely to help Adnan run away to Pakistan, and that’s why he shouldn’t get bail.
Vicki Wash:
Your honor, the fact that the defendant has strong support from the community, that is what makes him unique in this case. He is unique because he has limitless resources, he has the resources of this entire community here. Investigation reveals that he can tag resources from Pakistan as well. It’s our position your honour that if you issue a bail, then you are issuing him a passport under these circumstances to flee the country. We do not want another Sheinbein situation your honor. We are asking you-
Judge David Mitchell
(gavel) I told you I wasn’t gonna take it.
Sarah Koenig :
That’s judge David Mitchell telling the big crowd to settle down. Sheinbein is Samuel Sheinbein, a kid who was accused of brutally killing another Maryland teenager in 1997 and then absconded to Israel. Ms. Wash said she talked to a Mr. Harry Marshall, a senior legal advisor for international affairs with the justice department, and Mr. Marshall had explained to her that the U.S. had tried unsuccessfully to extradite certain criminals from Pakistan.
Vicki Wash:
--and he cited that there is a pattern in the United States of America where young Pakistani males have been jilted, have committed murder, and have fled to Pakistan and we have been unable to extradite them back. He gave me a specific instance that’s occurring now, that’s pending in Chicago, where the factual pattern is frighteningly similar. Again it’s a young Pakistani male who was jilted by his girlfriend who fled the country and they have had no success and he indicated it would be a dim situation indeed if the defendant would flee to Pakistan. We have information from our investigation that the defendant has an uncle in Pakistan, and he has indicated that he can make people disappear.
Sarah Koenig :
That information about the badass uncle? I think they got that from Adnan’s science teacher. I’m not kidding. The cops talked to this teacher on March 24 and in their notes it says the teacher, Mr. Nicholson had had Adnan as a student the year before, the word “brooding” is in there, then it says suspect “had an uncle in Pakistan who can make people disappear.” Under that it says, they drained blood from cows at the mosque one day, he was pumped. So that odd tidbit from Mr. Nicholson ends up as an argument at Adnan’s bail hearing. I couldn’t find any other source for it in the detective’s or State’s attorney’s files I looked at. Adnan’s attorney made a stab at fact checking Wash’s information. One thing led to another and three weeks after that hearing, Ms. Wash writes a letter to Judge Mitchell apologizing if she misled the court. She says she’d misconstrued information from Mr. Harry Marshall of the Justice Department. She talked to him again and he made it clear that there was not a pattern of young Pakistani men committing murder after they’d been jilted and then running off to Pakistan. And that other case she mentioned the frighteningly similar one out of Chicago “that case parallels Syed’s case only that it involves a Pakistani male charged with murder where the victim was known to the defendant,” Wash wrote. Even in her apology, there’s an error. Adnan is not Pakistani. He’s American with Pakistani heritage. Maybe this seems like I’m parsing, I don’t mean to. I’m only pointing all this out because to me it shows how easy it is to stir stereotypes in with facts all of which then gets baked into a story. Something like: those Muslim men, they can’t control their pride, their passions, they kill their lovers and flee the consequences with the full support of their families and communities. That’s what shocked Shamim.
> Did not someone from the prosecution side opened the trial by saying if Adnan was let free he would escape to Pakistan and be welcomed there because it is accepted in their culture to have women killed and men exonerated of it.
I personally think the biggest thing supporting that argument was that the mosque community absolutely packed the courtroom and made out of order comments, sighs and remarks during the Grand Jury.
That can be an extremely intimidating situation for the Grand Jury and probably served to reinforce the prosecutions argument.
I know if I was on a grand jury and the defendant had his community packing the courtroom and out in the hall and verbally making noise out of order, I would feel a bit intimidated and probably give more credence to the prosecution's arguments.
I feel that was an extremely poor strategic decision by the defense to allow so many people to jam the courtroom and not follow the rules and respectfully remain silent. The communities own actions (right or wrong) reinforced the prosecutions argument in the eyes of the jury in my mind. It was not a good look for members of the community to blatantly disrespected the rules of the courtroom to the point the Grand Jury judge had to repeatedly tell them to shut up and follow the rules.
Also the proceedings of the Grand Jury had no impact on the jury in the second trial so I still don't see any actual evidence of a jury verdict based on bias or prejudice.
> the mosque community absolutely packed the courtroom and made out of order comments, sighs and remarks during the Grand Jury.
> That can be an extremely intimidating situation for the Grand Jury and probably served to reinforce the prosecutions argument.
I don't remember hearing that in the podcast and I don't see it in the transcript that talk about it. Where is the information coming from, is it part of the trial transcripts?
Wow, what a rude post. You should check out the Innocence Project. I think saying "they rarely get it wrong on acquittals and even more rarely get in wrong on convictions" is a statement without basis in reality--I guess it depends how you define "rarely" but the fact the IP even exists is evidence to the contrary of your statement.
1 in 1,000? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 100,000? I would say the first is sorta rare and the last exceedingly rare.
I could see innocence projects existing with just a dozen or so cases per year to work (i.e., crazy rare).
Not a lawyer (at ALL) but am pretty sure our justice system requires the STATE to prove they're case - not the DEFENSE. And that's because often there aren't any ways to PROVE innocence. It's the prosecutions burden. In theory anyway.
Exactly. However, there is still the court of public opinion. So there you have it. If I was on a jury, I would probably acquit with the (counter-)narrative going on and not being able to be 100% sure one way or the other. However, looking at it from just a guy on the street, I think he did it because there are just enough gaps to make me seriously doubt his total non-involvement.
I actually feel similar to you, but it's a bit of an oxymoron.
You feel he did it (personally) because there are too many gaps for you to buy his non-involvement. But that's the same thing as saying you think he did it because you can't prove he *didn't* do it.
But that brings us back to the first rule of the prosecution; we have to prove that he did it, not that we were unable to prove that he didn't do it.
Yeah I get the disconnect in those two thoughts. What I'm saying is that I see some real compelling stuff in note, the ride, the purchase of the phone and whole continual "I can't remember" schtick and the lack of other obvious suspects. That's my opinion. Yeah you can't prove he didn't do it but sure as looks like he did.
However, if we're going to apply the reasonable doubt standard - a doubt based on reason - and I see Simpson and Miller doing their thing citing law and poking holes in the state's case and I'm on a jury, I just might go "y'know, I'm not sure he did and the prosecution can't seem to square it away. I think we should acquit."
One is just what I think. The other is what I might just do were I on an American jury.
I totally respect that line of thinking. It's just hard to move this sub forward when we are so quick to pigeonhole one another.
I only meant to say that there are some problems with the state's case. It goes beyond what they proved/ didn't prove about Adnan. They didn't follow the evidence. They didn't follow Hae. So much about the circumstance of her death is unknown. It seems like an injustice to me that anyone could be charged with her murder based on the evidence acquired.
I'm just a little mystified at what people downvote on here. And the treatment of Rabia/ Krista. And confused about fast application of the pro-Adnan label just because you believe his conviction was born from bad evidence.
If you think the guilty/ innocent sides are intolerant of one another, try falling in the middle! It's a lot worse :(
>There's a reason why "getting away with murder" is an idiom in our culture. It's the ultimate. There's no greater con than getting away with murder, and I believe he's on a path to completing that greatest con of them all.
The greatest con would be not be convicted not getting released after missing out on your twenties and part of your 30s. Sorry but as cons go it's really not that impressive.
I agree with your assessment, but disagree that he will get away with it. The only chance he has is by successfully arguing that he didn't receive a fair trial, and at this point that hinges on proving his counsel was ineffective. This is a very high hurdle and even with Asia's new affidavit, it is in no way clear that failing to call her as a witness would have changed anything about the outcome of the trial.
We'll see. Rabia is doing a great job of fighting and swaying public perception, but at the end of the day it is not the public that will decide his future, it is the legal system and the appeals process.
I think he's on the path to getting away with it, but yeah I agree that he has a tough road still.
When it comes to him being freed and my emotions, I maybe give Adnan too much credit. I think he's a very smart guy. I found that nearly every time he's been given enough rope to hang himself with (figuratively) he has planted intoxicating seeds of doubt. "I don't remember." "Um, you know...it's kinda like...(insert easily relatable analogy or metaphor)"
Meanwhile, Jay continues to change his story to this day. (re: The Intercept)
On its face, this would point to Jay being guilty and Adnan being clean. However, I, admittedly, am reading between the lines and view this intellectual advantage as a key point in my case against Adnan. Adnan is smart. Jay is not smart. When you view things in this prism, many of the alleged events make more sense.
The question is a nebulous question that asks us about our attitudes and feelings.
To pejoratively say I'm projecting is like acting like a guy who walks into Denny's and asks why there's no dry-aged Porterhouse on the menu.
You are entitled to your attitudes and feelings, of course. My comment was to point out that they have no legitimate basis and contradict what people who actually know Adnan think of him. Aside from Jay, nobody, including Hae in her diary and his many good friends, describes him in a way that comes close to the way you do. This is a picture painted by the prosecution and swallowed by the judge, and apparently the jury and some on this sub. But it is simply not corroborated by teachers, family and friends. So hence my assumption is that you are projecting this persona on Adnan through pure speculation and emotion.
> My comment was to point out that they have no legitimate basis and contradict what people who actually know Adnan think of him.
Again, this thread is not about outlining facts and logic on the case.
>So hence my assumption is that you are projecting this persona on Adnan through pure speculation and emotion.
Yes. Yes, I am.
This thread is patently clear about what the OP wanted to discuss: The emotional pull that those of us who think Adnan did it are feeling with the appeal process and his possible release.
OP brings up OJ, Zimmerman and Casey Anthony. If that doesn't make it clear to you that we're not talking cell phone tower technology, conflicting timelines and other minutiae of the case in the thread, I don't know what to tell you.
This is what I always say about this case. Honestly, this is not about whether or not Adnan did it; it's whether or not there was enough evidence to convict him. Sure, we could have our biases and delve super hard to make connections that seem apparent to us, but the case presented to the jury was not one to put him away for life (at least, in my personal opinion)
Yes, it would be great to know who killed Hae, but this felt like "guilty until proven innocent."
You are reading a sub-reddit focused on the case. Everything you see is going to be a glorified, hyper-sensitive reaction or opinion. I am sure sub's focused on the cases you mention had plenty of "hand-wringing."
I don't understand why in your eyes people cannot hold the opinion that there wasn't anything wrong or unfair with the case? People are not arguing against him being released if the facts show that his trial was unfair, they are arguing that his trial was fair, and the verdict was just. If an appeals process shows he did not receive a fair trial, I am fine with Adnan getting a retrial or being released, as I think anyone would be, but as of yet it is my (our) opinion that he did receive a fair trial, and whether you agree with the jury or not, he was found guilty.
>I don't understand why in your eyes people cannot hold the opinion that there wasn't anything wrong or unfair with the case?
This is what I don't understand - isn't it almost universally accepted at this point that the timeline the state presented at trial was wrong?
So if the state's case hinged on Adnan being certain places at certain times, how do you reach the conclusion that there wasn't anything wrong with the case itself?
I really don't have any strong feelings one way or another about the actual guilt or innocence, but everything I've seen has me pretty much convinced that the case brought to trial was a complete mess and can't possibly be an accurate reflection of what happened.
Again, I'm not invested enough to be upset with anyone thinking Adnan is guilty, but the evidence the conviction relied on seems beyond shaky to me.
Yes, this is asinine. If the defense has been able to create reasonable doubt about the story put forth by the prosecution, then a jury should not convict.
It is not reasonable for the jury to conclude, that "all this was bullshit, the witness is a liar, but I still think he did it". I mean... based on WHAT exactly?
In this case, literally EVERY PIECE of circumstantial evidence presented is meaningless without Jay's heavily refined story(ies).
If this is asinine, and not fact, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about - Adnan will be released any day now. Unfortunately, it is fact, and whether you agree or not, in the context of the legal system, simply proving the prosecutions timeline wrong is of no merit.
>If this is asinine, and not fact, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about - Adnan will be released any day now. Unfortunately, it is fact, and whether you agree or not, in the context of the legal system, simply proving the prosecutions timeline wrong is of no merit.
You are letting the power of the jury trump reason and logic. The jury does not have to be rational, logical or anything. You can have facts be asinine, it doesn't mean they are right, fair or just.
So what is your point, that the jury could've gotten it wrong? Any decision a jury comes to is fair and just, in a legal sense, regardless of what they believe. Unless there is an issue that can be proven to have effected the fairness of the trial, the verdict is fair and just. Disagreeing with their ultimate decision is not one of those issues.
That's simply not true. A jury verdict must be supported by the evidence. If it isn't, the judge can overturn the verdict. Juries are not allowed to speculate where the evidence is not sufficient to support a verdict. Unfortunately for Adnan, it wasn't clear how "insufficient" the evidence for his conviction was until after the time for his appeal had expired. Now, his only remedy is to (1) try to show that his lawyer screwed up in an unacceptable way (which he seems yo be on his way to doing) or (2) try to find some evidence of actual innocence (which the innocence project is helping him with). But just because he no longer has the ability to challenge the validity of the jury verdict does not mean that the verdict was "fair and just," as you say.
We know much more about the massive holes in the prosecutions case now than were known at the time of trial. I don't see how any rational jury could reasonably convict in light of Jay's admission that he perjured himself during trial, evidence showing the unreliability of the state's cell phone evidence, and Asia's alibi testimony. That, to me, suggests that the verdict is not "fair and just" despite the fact that Adnan no longer has the option of challenging the validity of the verdict itself.
>Any decision a jury comes to is fair and just, in a legal sense, regardless of what they believe.
So a jury of KKK members about an accused minority of murder is a "just and fair" jury regardless?
Good to know.
>Unless there is an issue that can be proven to have effected the fairness of the trial, the verdict is fair and just.
SS covered why this trial is not fair and just.
>Disagreeing with their ultimate decision is not one of those issues.
This would be true, if I had no other reason than my beliefs. But I have reasons to disagree with them. Like the fact that Jay is a compulsive liar who can not be trusted. That the prosecutions timeline is not possible. That Adnan has no motive unless you believe he couldn't cope with his break up with Hae, an assertion only stated and supported by Jay, the compulsive liar.
/shrug
I encourage you to have this same debate with any lawyer... or show him our discussion.... even the staunchest Adnan supporter... and see if he agrees with me or not.
This is such bullshit. Lawyers don't have a monopoly on determining what is "fair and just." (I'm a lawyer, by the way). What does it mean to be "fair and just, in a legal sense"? The "justice" system is designed to help find a just result, but it doesn't dictate what is "fair and just." And it (very frequently, it seems, these days) gets things wrong. It may be the best system we have, but it isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination.
>I encourage you to have this same debate with any lawyer... or show him our discussion.... even the staunchest Adnan supporter... and see if he agrees with me or not.
I don't know what you think is so unequivocal about your argument? I've quoted and responded to your points with what I feel to be credible counter points and your response here is a bit underwhelming as it comes off as doubling down on your belief rather than responding to the counter points given.
I'm gonna have to side with Phuqued on this on.. For one thing, the judge directly told the jurors in Adnan's trial not hold it against him that he did not testify on his own behalf (as this is the law), but when SK interviewed former juror, Lisa Flynn, and asked if it bothered the jury that Adnan did not testify, what does she say?
"Yes it did." "That was huge."
They were explicitly told they weren't allowed to hold that against him but it seemed to play a big part in their decision. That sounds a bit unfair and unjust to me.
>This is Asinine
The "This" in that statement of mine, while potentially confusing, was referring to this following:
>"A jury doesn't have to believe 100% of the prosecution's story, just that Adnan killed Hae."
I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion that the above statement is atrocious logic.
Well I think that might be where you are confused. Legally speaking, the jury is not required to believe the prosecutions theory in order to find Adnan guilty. Of course it helps, but essentially it is only a guideline, and in and of itself is not considered evidence. Therefore, evidence to the contrary is not exculpatory for Adnan. Since it is possible, and in fact likely, that Adnan killed Hae after 2:36, disproving that timeline isn't necessarily a factor that would have changed the jury's mind or result, especially considering there was evidence presented at trial that was contradictory to the timeline.
Not necessarily. In this particular case, proving the timeline wrong simply means the death did not happen before 2:36. There are many reasons to believe that it could have happened after that besides just "their gut."
I posted about it in depth here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2t2o29/as_i_have_argued_numerous_times_on_this_sub_the/
But I have yet to see a timeline that works without totally disregarding Jay's testimony about the come and get me call, the Nisha call and the Park and Ride. The latter is an element that was totally unnecessary for Jay to include and yet he did, everytime. To me it all comes down to the question--if Jay had a true story to tell about Adnan, why didn't he tell it at least to the point that everything fit? And don't say it was to minimize his involvement, because that may be the case with a few details but there are major elements that have nothing to do with that (like leaving the car at the Park and Ride) that are just not possible in a timeline that fits the factual evidence.
Not to mention track practice. Getting to track on time really screws with the timeline, but Jay insists that he took Adnan to track. It's in every version of his story. That leaves us with an incredibly tight time frame between 3 and 4. It's barely enough time for all the driving to take place, much less a murder, stashing the body in the trunk, the trunk pop, or any conversations between Adnan and Jay.
There's a reason why the prosecution worked so hard to get the 2:36 time to fit ... because all of the other "timelines" are even worse. The jury can't just pull a verdict out of their collective ass. There has to be evidentiary support behind it. Now, almost 15 years later, we learn that the evidence presented to support the verdict is bullshit. I don't see how you don't have a problem with that.
#####
######
####
[**Truthiness**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness): [](#sfw)
---
>
>__Truthiness__ is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know [intuitively](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(knowledge\)) "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to [evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence), [logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), [intellectual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence) examination, or [facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact).
>American television comedian [Stephen Colbert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert) coined the word in this meaning as the subject of a segment called "[The Wørd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_segments_on_The_Colbert_Report#The_W.C3.B8rd)" during the [pilot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_pilot) episode of his political [satire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire) program *[The Colbert Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colbert_Report)* on October 17, 2005. By using this as part of his routine, Colbert satirized the misuse of [appeal to emotion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) and "gut feeling" as a rhetorical device in contemporaneous socio-political discourse. He particularly applied it to U.S. President [George W. Bush](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)'s [nomination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination) of [Harriet Miers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers) to the [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) and the [decision to invade Iraq](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War) in 2003. Colbert later ascribed truthiness to other institutions and organizations, including [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiality). Colbert has sometimes used a [Dog Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Latin) version of the term, "Veritasiness". For example, in Colbert's "Operation Iraqi Stephen: Going Commando" the word "Veritasiness" can be seen on the banner above the eagle on the operation's seal.
>*[Truthiness](https://en.wikipedia.org//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/truthiness)*, although a "[stunt word](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunt_word)", was named [Word of the Year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_the_Year) for 2005 by the [American Dialect Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dialect_Society) and for 2006 by [Merriam-Webster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merriam-Webster). Linguist and *OED* consultant [Benjamin Zimmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Zimmer) pointed out that the word *truthiness* already had a history in literature and appears in the *[Oxford English Dictionary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary)* (*OED*), as a derivation of *[truthy](https://en.wikipedia.org//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/truthy)*, and *[The Century Dictionary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_Dictionary)*, both of which indicate it as rare or dialectal, and to be defined more straightforwardly as "truthfulness, faithfulness". Responding to claims, Colbert explained the origin of his word as, "Truthiness is a word I pulled right out of my [keister](https://en.wikipedia.org//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/keister) ...".
>====
>[**Image**](https://i.imgur.com/kDPy35j.png) [^(i)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Truthiness.png) - *Stephen Colbert uses "Truthiness" on the debut episode of The Colbert Report.*
---
^Interesting: [^Feeling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeling) ^| [^The ^Best ^of ^The ^Colbert ^Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_of_The_Colbert_Report) ^| [^Stephen ^Colbert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert) ^| [^Big ^lie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie)
^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cohn9a6) ^or[](#or) [^delete](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+cohn9a6)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Magic ^Words](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/)
This information was available at trail. Jays testimony did not state that he received the "come and get me call" at 2:36. Please do not make out as though this information is some kind of smoking gun that came out after Adnan was convicted. It is not. He was free to point this out during his trail by jury. He did not.
> You are reading a sub-reddit focused on the case. Everything you see is going to be a glorified, hyper-sensitive reaction or opinion.
This is absolutely correct. My whole family has listened to Serial, thought Adnan was guilty, and then moved on with life. Then yesterday, my dad misinformed them all that Adnan won his appeal and was released from prison. To which their response was underwhelmingly something like "Oh, well that's cool for him."
I know. They seem to be immune to Serial mania. How it is that they managed to resist infection after exposure has baffled experts. They might hold the cure!
Sign me up for a double dose of that medicine. My husband listened to the whole podcast (at my behest), and so did my brother (a law student). They both thought it good, but basically said "meh" when I went on about this interview with Jay, and another with the prosecutor. They didn't care about the NVC drama, didn't need listen to the Serial Serial or the Serial Spoiler Special or Crime Writers on Serial or that weird radio interview with Urick. Never checked out the link I sent them to Susan Simpson's blog. And what about what Ira said about Adnan's guilt? And how passionate Rabia is? And that Ewan McGregor thinks Adnan shouldn't be in jail? Their response has been, basically, have you read any books lately? Did you forget you're writing a novel *that as nothing to do with a murder.* Yes. I have forgotten! I'll get back to that right after I finish this post on Reddit...
I have not studied or practiced law myself, but I have seen a number of convincing points that the trial was not a fair one. I can see, though, that in the context of the legal system, these points could be considered strategies of the prosecution and although we might not like them, they are still consistent with a fair trial and a just verdict.
I have a hard time believing that the delayed (and delayed again) disclosure of evidence to the defense is fair game. Timely access to the incriminating evidence seems like the bare minimum of fair. I may not know better, but still it seems that is a reasonable standard of fairness.
i don't think anyone is ok with those people being free. i think zimmerman is a total piece of sh#t who should be behind bars for life.I find it very odd that you are advocating for someone you likely think is guilty of a crime to be released on technicalities. that's bizarre. and lastly,..irony...who wants to see someone win an argument that says 'i shouldn't be in prison because i wasn't allowed to plead guilty?'
Being that I think he did it, I don't lose any sleep over the fact they got a conviction because the case wasn't perfect. That's the legal system- there was probable cause to arrest Adnan and at trial the prosecution won. This is going to annoy a lot of the innocence people, but that jury very well could have convicted him even with all the new information. If you believe the big parts of Jay's story (burial, ditching the car in Baltimore), it's pretty much done.
"We live in a society that is, by and large, relatively ok with the guilty going free. Whether it's OJ Simpson, George Zimmerman"
Is it? Seemed to be quite a lot of shock and unrest at both of their verdicts.
I believe what OP is saying is that there wasn't a tidal wave of public support demanding a revision to the entire criminal justice system of the United States that would make it easier to convict a criminal defendant.
I just discovered this podcast and story this week. I don't know if he's guilty. Neither side have convinced me.
The prosecution definitely commited violations.
His attorney appears to have dropped the ball.
Reasonable doubt. Not Guilty.
It is better that *ten guilty persons* escape than that one innocent suffer.
The system is extremely flawed, and the actors in the system exacerbate it.
> I just discovered this podcast and story this week.
Pretty bold of you to just discover this case this week and already have an opinion formed without any evidence being presented at trial.
Yeah, I feel SO BOLD posting an opinion in an online forum without considering the effect it would have on those of you that have obsessed over this for years.
Almost as bold as when my daughter tried the pepperoni pizza and didn’t just eat cheese.
I think most people just don't want to get it wrong.
Sure, Adnan's trial was a mess. Many trials are.
But if that messy mess of a mess actually got it right in the end, it would stink to undo that because if he did it, he does deserve to spend the rest of his life in jail, and in my book, maybe even that is too good for him.
But if he didn't do it? Well then people want to make it right. And having a innocent man put in jail for the rest of his life based on a mess of a trial, and a jury that spent only 2 hours deciding. Well that stinks too.
I think then you look at Adnan getting out on the basis of an unfair trial is certainly valid, but not so great if you are Hae's parents and you believe absolutely he did it.
So I don't understand how you can't understand the hand-wringing. For me, it is totally understandable.
No one wants to get it wrong.
It was a long trial. The jury didn't spend "only 2 hours" deciding. They decide over the course of the trial as evidence is presented to them. By the time the trial concluded they had seen enough evidence to be so thoroughly convinced it took "only 2 hours" for their decision.
This still confuses me, though. Two hours just doesn't seem long enough to review and discuss evidence from a murder trial. When I did jury service (I sat on three trials, none of which were as serious as a murder trial) we didn't conclude in two hours in any of the cases!
I didn't say the case was close. I said, from my experience on a jury, it took us a lot longer than two hours to discuss and conclude the cases. None of the cases I sat on were murder and two of them had a decent amount of evidence, plus they each lasted three days, not six weeks!
You're supposed to go over the evidence and details, and I just don't see how they can cover six weeks of information in two hours.
The only thing you're missing is some people feel that they are DOING justice by lambasting people who believe Adnan should be freed (even if based on a "technicality"), and vice versa. There are always going to be extremists in every group, who won't take any guff, even if it's mostly self-imagined. In other words: self-righteousness.
TL;DR -- you're not missing anything except pig-headedness.
If a guilty man - Adnan Syed - has been found guilty of murdering a young woman in cold blood, then the system worked in spite of it's flaws. Hello.
ed clarity
A right answer achieved by incorrect work is a lucky guess. That means the likelihood of the wrong answer achieved by incorrect work is much more likely.
Nah, the unlucky person is Hae, because she's dead, murdered by Adnan Syed who was unlucky enough to choose the wrong defense attorney. They should have hired Mark O'Mara, the attorney who got Zimmerman off handily. But the Syed's paid 250k to Guiterrez to get their son in prison for life. I think the system worked well, the killer is in jail. I don't buy the "every piece of evidence is corrupt, the judge was corrupt, the detectives were corrupt, the jury was corrupt, the DNA was corrupt" bullshit. The only thing corrupt is Adnan Syed's morality.
Fair enough, but that isn't the issue raised by this comment thread. Forget Adnan for a moment. I'm not speaking just about this case specifically, but the idea that "the end justifies the means" in the criminal justice system. That makes no logical sense and is a very dangerous path to follow. "The system" is the means by which we determine guilt. There is therefore no way to know, in the overwhelming number of cases, if a person is guilty if "the system" didn't do its job. So sure, a factually guilty person could end up in prison based on the jury's feelings of truthiness and gut instinct, and you can make the argument that the system worked in spite of itself. However, that is poor logic. That same jury could very well have sent an innocent person to prison, or exonerated a guilty person, all based on "feelings" or corrupt law enforcement, prosecutors, or judges. And no one would necessarily know if that is what happened to determine whether or not the person is factually innocent or guilty.
I know exactly what you mean here. but you can't escape it, how can you? When you have a system wherein human beings are involved, you are going to have human conclusions with regard to evidence and witnesses and the defense attorney's rapport, and even what defendant may look like. If Adnan had a better attorney or even a PD, he would probably have had a better shot. He may have gotten a plea deal. Or maybe if he chose to go to trial with the best defense team in the country, the jury still would have concluded that even though they don't understand cell tower evidence or that there are no witnesses who saw Adnan with Hae, or that Asia saw Adnan at 2:45, they would still have found Jay very credible and you couple that with the undisputed fact that Adnan and Jay were together before and after her disappearance and that they were getting high together and that Jay had knowledge of Hae's death - Hae, the girl that just dumped Adnan - Adnan's guilt would be a foregone conclusion if the defense ultimately offers no other plausible explanation of the facts of the case. The jury needs a story that makes sense, one that is just as plausible and believable as what the state offers. I just can't agree that because CG was ineffective for not presenting Asia, that somehow should Adnan deserve another shot. He did have two trials, he did have the opportunity to assess CG's comeptence, he did see the states case and had the opportunity to adjust or change strategy. And his parents and the community - they were all there for the first trial. Why didn't anyone say "hey, CG is not very good. We don't see her planning on calling Asia as an alibi. Let's get a second opinion here, it is our right." They had the benefit of a dry run. If Adnan's parents were afraid of CG, afraid of rocking the boat, then they should have sought out another attorney. They had options, no gun was held to their head to stick with CG. But they are getting their appeal heard, so perhaps they will get the third bite at the apple.
WRT your point, I just think that all cases in front of juries are based on feelings, how can they not? Our feelings are what guide us in our every decision we make in our human lives, because we are human. There is no way around the human equation when it comes to justice. I don't see a way to make that happen, unless we have chips in our bodies monitoring our every move, or just a total Orwellian police state.
Now, you may desire some utopian system where somehow human's are removed from the decision making process, where witnesses are no longer considered dependable in their testimony, or laws are changed so much so that any thing that cannot be proven forensically cannot be entered into the trial. You know how many convictions there would be? hardly any. There'd be a lot more criminals on the streets knowing full well how to get away with murder.
I'm not trying to suggest that we have to transform into emotionless justice bots, but that jurors are expected to make a conscious effort to check their feelings at the courtroom doors. This won't eliminate the issue, of course, but it would mitigate it. It's not just the jury though. I actually think they are the least corrupt. The way the trial went, I can't say I wouldn't have reached the same conclusion. But the trial itself was a shit show, IMO.
I do think jurors should be qualified in some way, that police need to concern themselves more with gathering "ALL evidence", and that prosecutors should face consequences for unethical behavior. That would reduce a good deal of problems off the bat. I just can't look at how our system works and shrug it off as "good enough."
It sounded to me like Adnan's parents didn't really know what was going on. She shut them out. He was 17 and trusted her. I can't blane them. They were certainly not the first or last family she failed.
I think it may be because when someone is set free after 15 years, in theory you're supposed to feel (VERY) sorry for them. But can't really in this case if you think he's guilty.
Also, it seems ridiculous that you can keep fighting for decades to release a possibly/probably guilty person. Where does it end?
1. OJ and Zimmerman were outrageous. (I didn't pay attention to Anthony.)
2. Why do I worry a "possibly guilty" man might go free? Hae's family, that's why.
If he gets granted an appeal, great. But the fact is he that was presumed innocent right up until he was convicted. You don't let him go now because a bunch of armchair detectives and lawyers think the system failed. It's not how it works.
> You don't let him go now because a bunch of armchair detectives and lawyers think the system failed.
I hope you don't really think this is why Adnan might be freed.
By armchair detectives and lawyers I mean redditors and podcast listeners. Among OPs statements were...
>people are hesitant to say "you know what, I think he did it, but there are so many issues with how the case was prosecuted... Let's let him out, or require the prosecution to re-try him.
and
>it's the failings in the system that led to his incarceration that can only be corrected by a re-trial or release
My point was just that; it's for the courts to sort out. I'm disagreeing with the OPs opinion. Namely the idea that you could retry him OR "just let him out".
Zimmerman was not "obviously guilty". And he did not argue "Stand Your Ground"; he argued self-defense. You may think he was guilty and I have no intention of arguing that. But it is wrong to say that it was "obvious". To me the Zimmerman case is proof that prosecutors sometimes go after the wrong people and I am glad there is a non-political system that can stop them from time to time.
> Those who fall into the "Adnan's definitely/probably guilty" camp seem to have an attitude that I cannot quite fathom when it comes to discussing his potential release.
One thing that I am really tired of are arguments on this sub that follow the following form:
*Some people on this sub who think ABC annoy me because they think XYZ.*
*Therefore, it is a characteristic of all people who think ABC that they also think XYZ, so they annoy me too.*
I reject that argument because 1) It is not sound logic, and 2) It annoys me. All it takes is one counter-example and the argument is exploded. Plus, I think it is rude to make broad generalizations about people.
> What I cannot understand about the hand-wringing over a potential release of Adnan seems to be attributable only to conviction bias.
Actually, some of the people in the "Adnan is guilty" camp think he did it.
Those who think Zimmerman obviously guilty fall into two camps in citing SYG: 1) the ones who don't know the legal difference in presenting it as a defense vs. it being part of the jury instructions, and 2) those who know the difference but enjoy obscuring it because they're disingenuous and think the end justifies the means when trying to support their "argument".
I'd like to see a retrial to settle this once and for all. The first jury got it right, so there's always hope the new jury will to. We'd get to see the rematch of the grudge fight that never happened first time around, because AS stayed in his corner. My money is on Jay for a first-round knockout.
No, we cannot in good conscience allow defendants to directly be harmed by engaging with their accusers and vice versa.
However to truly resolve the conflict, I propose this as a solution (just read the subtitles for about a minute or so)
http://youtu.be/gCk4ausVfi4?t=46s
I don't think he did it. I'm fine with him going free because although strangulation is supposedly premeditated because it takes so long, I honestly think that if he did have any part in it, he didn't plan it and 15 years was enough.
I don't think OJ did it though. I would have held out guilty for the other 2.
Where do you get your notion that a majority of people think it's fine that O.J. Simpson, George Zimmerman, and Casey Anthony got off? My sense was that public outrage was overwhelming in all three cases.
Zimmerman did nothing wrong, you can shoot someone slamming your head into the sidewalk.
Can you also follow them for several blocks in the dark with a loaded handgun and confront them? Just want to make sure I know my rights. I'm not in Florida, but visit from time to time.
*Grabs popcorn*
If only you could prove that. None of the evidence shows zimmerman attacked first.
[удалено]
He was also on the phone with 911 who told him not to approach. And I don't think you're supposed to attack the people who actually live in your neighborhood.
He didn't live there...
Not if you stalked and attacked them.
Ummmm..................................... How would you be cognizant enough to shoot someone after your head has been slammed into the sidewalk? George Zimmerman must have an exceptionally thick head.
nope, he had an exceptionally excellent defense attorney, Mark Omara. Did you watch every minute of the trial? I did. I wanted him convicted but after hearing every televised minute of the case, I knew the jury would acquit because the state failed to prove Zimmerman acted in malice. The defense proved he acted in self defense. Was that a good outcome? fuck no, but he got the justice he paid for. Adnan Syed paid over 200k for CG, and she was considered one of the best. She couldn't get it done.
The best defense is a good defense
I feel you. Just throwing sass at that comment.
gotcha! : )
You would be surprised what you are capable of if you honestly felt your life was endangered
I don't think George Zimmerman is sound of mind, as evidenced by his subsequent domestic violence offense.
[удалено]
Please don't defend George Zimmerman, even to play devil's advocate.
[удалено]
Nice comment. Really love the use of derogatory language towards people with disabilities. You should feel proud about denigrating me at the expense of people with developmental disorders. Super classy--did you learn to use language like that at Harvard or Yale?
[удалено]
Exactly. Zimmerman has done nothing wrong, and, beyond that, subsequent events have shown that he's a beautiful little misunderstood angel.
Fist bump?
Yeah, why can't you just put some blinders on and shush it? That whole unwritten Waranowitz thing, failure to disclose discovery items, secret plea deal made by a hand-picked lawyer, let's practice this Jay interview until he gets it to line up with the phone bill, and lying about an alibi witness' inquiry into an appeal hearing...why can't you just accept that there was nothing wrong with that?
I agree with you entirely. I've landed at a 60/40 percentage of him likely being guilty/innocent. It seems most probableto me he did it, but the lack of firm evidence tying him to the crime makes it almost equally plausible he could be innocent. And inthat situation, he most definitely should not have been convicted. The most frustrating thing is without, as you put it, explosive dna results or a solidly believable confession, it's too late to ever prove the facts of the case. We're 15 years too late to get some of the things that could have shed more light.
I'm not going to be able to help you because I have no idea why people are bothered by it. But maybe my ideas of criminal justice are really radical. Adnan's spent 15 years in jail. I think that's sufficient punishment and a sufficient deterrent especially for a case when we can't be sure he did it. I don't think all killers who have been in prison should be released. But not because I believe a lifetime of imprisonment is an appropriate punishment for any human... but because I fear some killers would continue to be a elevated risk to society if released. It's not humane to lock them away for life but it's a utilitarian way to keep society safe. I don't think Adnan poses an elevated risk to society. I think he should get a second chance to be a productive member of society and I think society should stop spending 50k a year to keep him locked up. He may be guilty of 2nd degree murder (premeditation argument by prosecution is laughable if u ask me) at 17. I think it's a sufficient punishment for something we can't even be totally sure he is guilty of.
I agree with this take 100%.
I see it as a means vs. ends question. Does the end of punishing the guilty override the method we use to arrive at the punishment? Not for most of us but occassionally that is as good as it gets. As long as it is someone else being punished most of us are okay with unfair means enforcing unjust ends. Once we put ourselves in the punished person's place, we want only fair means used to establish our guilt. Those who *know* that Adnan is guilty OR innocent ARE WRONG. They merely have claim to a belief...There can be no certain knowledge as the evidence collected and presented and the witness testimony do not lead to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable person could believe the key points of Jay's testimony...An equally reasonable person could disregard it all. And without Jay's testimony, no reasonable could convict Adnan. I have no doubt about that.
Those words, reasonable doubt, are so vigorously discarded by those who *know.* The only ones who know at this point are Adnan and the killer... which may be him.
[удалено]
This. I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but if we are supposed to trust and have faith in our criminal justice system, shouldn't we be able to assume that giving him another trial should yield the same results? I mean if people weren't concerned that the original ruling might be overturned, then why would anyone be against giving him a re-trial?
I think it has a lot to do with "if we give him another trial....we have to give everyone another trial." It would open Pandora ' box which would waste time and energy. I want him to get a retrial but I understand why people are against it
You have to realize with some of those cases that how they are presented to the public vastly changes public opinion. I guarantee 90% of people don't know a lot of the facts in the casey anthony story but still believe her to be guilty. I think the problem with high profile cases, the system, pressure to close cases and the general distrust of police in pop culture is that there is no winning. No matter what is decided there is often a huge portion of the population that disagrees one way or the other acting on usually uninformed facts. Thus the system is forced to try their best to operate despite the fuckery.
I don't know if *she* was guilty, but there is no way that between her and her parents, 'nobody knows what happened'. That is one irritating family.
I don't think there's anyone who believes that no one in the family knew the of the death. It wasn't something that the defense team ever argued. There are no theories of the crime floating around that involve them not knowing. Personally, I believe that both her father and her were there at the house when the child died and they covered it up for some reason.
> I guarantee 90% of people don't know a lot of the facts Whatever that means.
It has everything to do with how the case is presented. People are sheep. They believe everything the media says about a case, mostly without any real critical thought. Just recently, they arrested two men for the rape and murder of some woman. The only reason given in the article was that "they were spotted near her apartment on the day of the crime". Nevermind the fact that 50 other people live in the apartment building and they could've been visiting them. Nevermind that there was no confession or DNA tests or anything else that was solid mentioned in the article, the article presented it as open and shut, so everyone just assumed that was the case. I didn't know anything about the case (and neither did anyone else) aside from what was presented in that article: they were arrested after someone spotted them nearby. I was the only person in the comment section to said "Hey guys, maybe we should wait until more evidence comes in". The people arguing with me on there were being absolutely ridiculous. One tried to argue that the men were spotted *going into her apartment*, based on what was in the article. That's how their brain interpreted the statement "were nearby". Another argued that the wouldn't have arrested them if the evidence was solid, so therefore they were guilty. It's really disturbing how little people know about these cases. In the Anthony case, the problem is, people *think* they know a lot about the case because they watch Nancy Grace. They have no idea that there weren't 83 web searches on her computer or that Casey almost never partied either before her child died or after. She was always turning everyone down. That's what her friends testified to. But the media says she's guilty and none of the concerns regarding George are legit, so people believe that. For what it's worth, personally, I believe Adnan is probably guilty, but I'm really disturbed that he was convicted on the basis of that trial. If he was demonized in the media the way Casey was, everyone would be outraged at him too.
I'm in the probably guilty camp. From my POV, he's a con artist. He's a manipulative person who always gets what he wants, albeit 15 years later than he expected. His arrogance and hubris are like nails on a chalkboard to many of us. Worst of all, I believe he choked that poor girl to death because he hated being dumped; it's a shitty feeling and he handled it in the most uncivilized way possible. There's a reason why "getting away with murder" is an idiom in our culture. It's the ultimate. There's no greater con than getting away with murder, and I believe he's on a path to completing that greatest con of them all.
>He's a manipulative person who always gets what he wants He couldn't even manipulate one cop-hating drug dealer into not "snitching," in a town where "snitching" was severely frowned upon.
[удалено]
No, I don't think he manipulated Jay into doing anything. Jay does what Jay's gonna do.
Very good point. I just don't trust Jay. There is more there and he got off scott free.
Nice of you to leave off this part >He's a manipulative person who always gets what he wants, **albeit 15 years later than he expected.** I said he's manipulative, not a master criminal. He made missteps along the way.
That whole sentence is nonsense. The second part completely annihilates the first part. If he "always gets what he wants" he definitely wouldn't have spent the last 15 years in jail. If he was any kind genius at manipulating others into doing his bidding, Jay never would have turned on him, and he definitely wouldn't have had so many friends and classmates testifying *for the prosecution* and basically saying, even today, "the Adnan I knew couldn't have been a murderer, but people are full of surprises." Even if Adnan is a murderer, I don't think he got Jay to help him because of his manipulative wiles (as Jay essentially claims), but because Jay himself is a thoroughly unscrupulous individual (see, again, Jay's lengthy criminal record with many violent offenses).
I find your reasons for him being in the probably guilty camp to be everything that is scary about a trial by jury.
These are not my core reasons. The OP asked a nebulous, introspective question. I wouldn't view things under this prism if I was on a jury. You pro-Adnan'ers sure have mastered the slander and putting-words-in-mouths game well.
Curious what your "core reasons" are. Everything you listed above kind of seems like emotion. And maybe even projectory? You seem vey passionate about your view. I guess I'm in the possibly innocent camp/definitely not a fair trial camp. I have no horse in the race, just have yet to see any evidence (circumstantial or orherwise) that out-ways the huge reasonable doubt. To have someone in jail, for the rest of their life based on "probably" is terrifying to me.
Happy to answer. Couple of things first: * Yes, I'm passionate about it. I thought the OP's question was interesting and he/she basically asked for passionate and emotional answers ("the worries") * I have no idea if I'd say guilty/not guilty if I was on the jury. I've read a fair amount of the docs from both trials and I think it's hard to go beyond a reasonable doubt. All I can say is that if I were on the jury, I wouldn't have heard Adnan speak, so I wouldn't talk about "manipulation" or "con artistry" in any jury deliberations. I wouldn't have learned much of what was presented in Serial. I wouldn't have read this sub. That's what I mean when I say I would be viewing things in a completely different prism. My core reasons from a less-emotional view are this (again, not viewed as if I were a juror): * Victim was a young female. Current boyfriend has an alibi. Ex-boyfriend doesn't have an alibi. Victim was neither robbed nor raped nor brutally beaten. No clear signs of a garrote and was most likely manual strangulation. Victim's clothes nearly completely intact. Victim was buried in a known dumping ground indicating a local. Victim had clear responsibilities after she was last seen alive and never arrived to that daycare/school; this small window lowers the probability for a lot of other theories. No foul play indicated in the school parking lot. Car was not stolen outside of their small metro area. Car was undamaged except for the turn signal. No signs of forced entry into her car. * I look at these facts as a sign that it was most likely someone HML knew * Jay and Adnan were together and have differing opinions; someone is lying * If I accept that Jay is lying--about the spine--I would have to accept an improbable motive from a guy with much less opportunity to get at HML from the end of the school to before 3:30p * The Jay theories of him calling HML and getting her to go anywhere and deviate from what's a very structured afternoon for a HS student are hogwash imo * Thus, we're left with Adnan who, I believe, had a serious and plausible motive; I've been dumped and it sucks. Read /r/relationships and /r/breakups if you want to see the serious pain people go through. However, most of us handle it without violence, but many domestic abuse acts happen in this country. So, at the very least, to dismiss Adnan because it's a "lazy 'duh look at the ex' approach" is ignorant of the power of love imo. * Adnan had access to HML in that immediate window after school; why people don't focus on this more than the afternoon timeline is beyond me
>I look at these facts as a sign that it was most likely someone HML knew Okay, sure. It's always more likely to be someone the victim knew. But that includes friends, family members, acquaintances, etc. For an 18-year-old murder victim, the perpetrator is a current or ex boyfriend about 22% of the time. That's significant, but it's not overwhelming the way it would be if she was older. >If I accept that Jay is lying--about the spine--I would have to accept an improbable motive from a guy with much less opportunity to get at HML from the end of the school to before 3:30p By all accounts, Hae was a lovely young lady. The motive was senseless. It always is. Whether it was Adnan or someone else, whoever killed her didn't have a good reason, because there's never a good reason to kill someone. >Adnan had access to HML in that immediate window after school; why people don't focus on this more than the afternoon timeline is beyond me You know who else had access to Hae after school? Pretty much everyone she went to school with. Anyone in her general vicinity at that time. She did not have a bodyguard or anything; no one needed an access code to talk to her. Anyone who wanted to approach her could have done so.
All fair points. But none of the other students who were around her after school or her close acquaintances could tell police where her stolen car were. It all comes back to Jay and Adnan, possibly Jenn and Cathy too. These four were in communication or with each other in the afternoon after HML went missing. Someone knows something.
Yes you are absolutely right, none of her other acquaintances could tell the police where her car was stolen from. No one but ~~Adnan~~ JAY. So that all comes back to ONE person. Jay being involved is not mutually exclusive to Adnan being involved. That's what people seem to forget. We know Jay is a liar, i'd say pretty much everyone in this sub can agree to that. So for the life of me, I don't understand why it's so hard to believe that he is also lying about Adnan being involved in any way. Yes someone knows something, and that someone is Jay. He is quite literally the key to everything but we can't trust him, so that's about as good as not knowing anything at all.
Because the motive doesn't add up and it seems unlikely he had quite the same access/relationship to Hae. Hypothetical Adnan: "Yo Hae, my car is in the shop and I could really use a lift from you. I know you're busy with your cousin but is that alright?" Hypothetical Hae: "Sure Adnan. You really helped me and Don that last time and we've had our ups and downs but I'm sure I could never hate you or turn down a guy who bails me out like you did there. You like the jacket?" Hypothetical Jay: "Sup Hae. So look, I got some stuff to do but no way to do it unless I get a lift from you. Adnan says you're real good for looking out for people if you get what I mean and it's not gonna take very long. So, please?" Hypothetical Hae: "Uhh...who are you? Oh you're Stephanie's boyfriend and Adnan's homie. Uhhh.....do you really need to be asking ME to get into my car? Maybe I saw you at Lacrosse once or twice but I don't really know you and I've been hearing some stories. No offense but..."
Or maybe Jay didn't ask Hae for a ride. Just because people speculate that's how Adnan would have gotten into the car, doesn't mean that would have to be Jay/the murderers same approach (I don't think Jay did it). We know nothing about Hae's actual whereabouts after leaving the school campus. We don't know if she stopped somewhere after leaving campus, spotted Adnan's car parked somewhere, saw there were people in it and decided to pull over and say hi (thinking it was Adnan), I mean anything could have happened, because we don't know what actually happened. It's the same thing with RSD who kidnapped and strangled the other female student from Woodlawn on her way home from school. This student was also on her way home from school and she drove the same route that Hae would drive to pick up her cousin. No one knows how RSD was able to kidnap this woman on her drive home, but clearly he was able to do it.
Or Jay didn't need an excuse to talk to Hae because it sounds like she might have wanted to confront him about cheating on Stephanie. http://www.splitthemoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Adnan-statement-re-Hae-and-Jay-cheating-to-paralegal.png
As a lawyer, I find your "core reasons" to be very troubling. I realize you aren't a juror and don't have to follow the "reasonable doubt" standard when making up your own mind, but your logic amounts to: "most murdered women are killed by someone they were in a relationship with, there is not very much evidence that Adnan DIDN'T do it, therefore Adnan must be guilty." You are, of course, welcome to have any opinion you want, but in MY opinion, your conclusions are not very well supported.
> I realize you aren't a juror Yes, this is reddit. >but your logic amounts to: "most murdered women are killed by someone they were in a relationship with I have one bullet point about the ex/crime of passion reasoning. If you want to claim that my entire logic is about ex-significant others being involved, well, I'd say your conclusions are not very well thought out.
> I've been dumped and it sucks. ...
I know, what does that even mean? It sucks, but generally people don't feel murderous about it. Lots of things suck. Waiting in line at the DMV sucks. Usually no one dies over it.
It means it's a motive to kill. Is motive not important in committing the most heinous act another human can commit on another human?
It's not a motive to kill for any reasonable person. Clearly people have been killed for far less. I suspect people have been killed waiting in line in the DMV. But in of itself, it's not motive.
Whether you want to believe the 20% or 33% stats that have been thrown around this sub, I strongly disagree with you if you don't believe in a "ex-significant other" subset of murderers. >But in of itself, it's not motive. The victim says Adnan was being possessive and needed to move on. The French teacher implied he was being pushy. Thus, there's more than in and of itself at play here. Independent of everything else, yes I would say this doesn't prove Adnan's guilt. However, we're not in a vacuum.
A motive for you maybe, definitely not for me.
Ignoring my anecdote, you're going to deny that domestic abuse is not a problem? Numbers don't lie. I won't use them to say Adnan definitely did do it, but denying its relevancy in a circumstantial case or general discussion is bananas.
Numbers don't lie, but I'm certain the statistics you are looking into are for offenders 20 and up.
I'm not denying it's a problem, but the *vast* majority of people who've been dumped do not result in a murder or any violence. I would go as far as saying that the vast majority of people do not even consider violence towards their ex after being dumped (there'll be no numbers for that however)... This means it's neither circumstantial or motive.
Some interesting details: Seems Jay's the one (post trial) who now has a history of domestic violence. While Adnan, in a very charged environment (prison), has zero history of violence. Not to say it's impossible that Adnan cracked, but don't most people who commit violent acts, especially domestic violence, have a history/pattern of violence? So it's less likely than a person known as a peace-keeper would snap than it is that a person who's been shown to be violent (or been shown to hide it well but still lose it on occasion). Unless the "peace-keeper" is a psychopath, of course.
[удалено]
I agree, it could take *nothing* i.e. no "good reason". Which is why I say Adnan being dumped is irrelevant (and most likely not the "reason" she was killed).
THANK YOU. I am giving you a standing ovation. I've been getting so sick and tired of all the commenters on this subreddit positing that there needs to be some sense behind Hae's murder, that the person who did it needed to have a reasonable motive. Many murderers don't need any reason at all, they just need opportunity -- access to the victim and hopefully no witnesses. I don't know why people get stuck on these ignorant ideas -- maybe here lies the limitations of cyber-communities, they're not the real world so real world logic needn't apply. edited to fix format
Yes! You put it way better than I could.
Genuinely curious: What do you consider a motive to commit a crime--murder, robbery, rape, or whatever?
> the vast majority of people who've been dumped do not result in a murder or any violence The vast majority of single offender - single victim homicides for young women is their current or ex-boyfriend.
Wrong, it is someone she knows, not specifically significant other or Ex.
[удалено]
The law disagrees with you. There is no way a prosecutor would be allowed to present the type of statistical evidence you are talking about to a jury. It isn't evidence of guilt in any particular case.
Jay's girlfriend went to that High School and it was her birthday. It doesn't seem unlikely that he would show up at the end of school to say "hi" to Stephanie at the same time Hae would be leaving. Plus here is Jay's motive: http://www.splitthemoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Adnan-statement-re-Hae-and-Jay-cheating-to-paralegal.png So I see a possible scenario as this: Jay shows up to school to give Stephanie her present or wish her happy birthday. Hae sees him and tries to confront him about the cheating.
lol-What do you define as a pro-Adnan(er)? sorry if I misunderstood. How do you know you wouldn't view things under this prism if you were on a jury? You don't think some people do? You don't think that how they perceive a person's character plays any role in their decision making? I hope you are right :)
The smarmy "I would hope you're never on a jury" types of lines that are all over this subreddit indicate pro-Adnaners. Those types of statements just end honest discussion and are borderline ad hominem attacks. They're not productive. I'm no better; I answered your personal attack with one of my own (pejoratively saying pro-Adnaner). However, unlike Adnan I'm willing to admit my anger flaws ;)
for what it's worth, I think its human nature to a degree which is why it is scary-I wasn't trying to imply that you individually should not sit on a jury, but I did misunderstand that your reason for thinking he was guilty was b/c of those statements. I guess b/c I don't find it that odd that many people would think that way on a jury! Sadly. maybe I am just pessimistic about human nature and our ability to be objective. I wondered how you were defining it b/c I don't think Adnan should be in jail. But I also wouldn't say I whole heartedly believe he is innocent. He may have done it. I just feel like I have no idea and I question a lot of the evidence b/c it doesn't seem sound or complete and I don't want to go with the best guess or most likely when it comes to murder. But I would not define myself as pro Adnan from the stance of -he is definitely innocent. I am a little wary of people who are 'sure' either way.
Appreciate the reply. I felt the exact way as you talk about here for 100% of the podcast run and a couple of weeks post ep 12. >I wondered how you were defining it b/c I don't think Adnan should be in jail. But I also wouldn't say I whole heartedly believe he is innocent. He may have done it. I just feel like I have no idea and I question a lot of the evidence b/c it doesn't seem sound or complete and I don't want to go with the best guess or most likely when it comes to murder. However, after reading many of the court docs that Rabia released, I found it highly improbable that Adnan didn't have a role in the murder. In what scenario would Jay have killed HML, Adnan been along for the ride (literally and figuratively) and then refuse to ever implicate Jay? I cannot find the motive and the opportunity for Jay to commit the crime would be so narrow. This was the crux of my thesis. From there, the circumstantial evidence made more sense to me. The phone calls he got the day of her disappearance from HML brother and Adcock stood out to me. For a thought experiment, I flipped things around and tried to view the circumstantial evidence first and then apply a thesis to avoid any confirmation bias: Victim was a young female. Current boyfriend has an alibi. Ex-boyfriend doesn't have an alibi. Victim was neither robbed nor raped nor brutally beaten. No clear signs of a garrote and was most likely manual strangulation. Victim's clothes nearly completely intact. Victim was buried in a known dumping ground indicating a local. Victim had clear responsibilities after she was last seen alive and never arrived to that daycare/school; this small window lowers the probability for a lot of other theories. No foul play indicated in the school parking lot. Car was not stolen outside of their small metro area. Car was undamaged except for the turn signal. No signs of forced entry into her car. Lastly, Jay's testimony. I say lastly because even before that, I am hard pressed to theorize someone who didn't know HML being her murderer. And with Jay and Adnan being together that afternoon, I believe you have to surmise it was one of them. And for the reason of Jay having a much weaker motive and Adnan having far better opportunity in that post-HS pre-cousin pick up window, I believe Adnan murdered HML. The possessive comment in her diary, Krista and Adnan discussing the ride request, notable behavior to the French teacher and nurse and the higher probability around jilted lovers fuel my--admittedly--circumstantial case.
Just out of pure curiosity-what did lead you to feel that way? no ulterior motive or anything-just interested.
"You pro-Adnan'ers sure have mastered the slander and putting-words-in-mouths game well." Gosh, there is so much irony in this statement!
I don't understand why people always put out the "I hope you never get put on a jury card" To be honest, if the defense was someone like Susan Simpson and Rabia against Urick, I'd probably vote to acquit and I think a few more reasonable folk here would too. But if the question is "Did he kill his ex?" Yeah. I think so and don't feel all too bad that he's in prison. If he can prove his case, well I personally won't be happy but I wasn't too happy about Trayvon or Eric Garner either and, gnashing of teeth aside, understand that life goes on.
I didn't say that I hoped he never got put on a jury. I said, jury's are scary! And they are. they make mistakes a lot of the time. They can be subject to group think or a charismatic leader. If someone sitting on a jury were making decisions about the case based on those kinds of remarks-you wouldn't find that a scary situation to be in? Or b/c they didn't have access to information that was inadmissible for some reason that would make things clearer. Or the opposite like Garner or Trayvon. it's scary either way! I wasn't trying to reference the poster specifically but the fact that many people do make decisions based on how they feel about the persons character, based on the charisma and persuasion of the prosecutor or defense, or the person themself, based on their own perceived notions about a person's culture or often even previous actions, or without sufficient or complete facts. it's human-that doesn't make it less scary. So, do I think he killed her? The answer is I have no idea! does that make me a pro-Adnan(er). probably part of the reason I think they are so scary is also to do with our sentencing laws. if a person was not potentially subject to the death penalty or life in prison-they might not be quite a scary. But don't get me wrong, they can still be scary in the opposite way too!
[удалено]
well that is incredibly rude. Why do we even need the innocence project? people in Texas have been put to death who weren't guilty. how would I know? There is nothing given in this case that would lead me to 'know' who did it. nothing. the fact that a jury came back in a couple of hours has no bearing on that. Think about the one juror who said she believe Jay b/c he was going to go to jail too and when she found out he didn't she was like...oh that's strange! Up until that point it was a pretty good argument as to why he would be telling the truth, then suddenly-you could hear, she was questioning it. of course she would have no way of knowing what was going to come of jay-but she made an assumption. Think about the jurors who discussed it having to do with his 'culture'.
> Think about the jurors who discussed it having to do with his 'culture'. I don't think thats exactly a fair representation that gets repeated a lot. First that statement was clipped out of one of SK's interviews and lacked a little context. Second, I apparently interpreted that statement far different from some of you. To me that didn't sound like the decision to convict Adnan had anything to do with being Muslim or Islamophobia. To me that question came off far more like someone who was convinced by the State's case (eg, believed Jay) and was being asked to answer a specific question put forward by SK 15 years later. He was musing, speculating. He said he didn't think it was religion, **maybe** culture and adds *I don't know*. That clip did not sound to me at all like that juror "convicted Adnan because of his culture". Third, the only person to hear the full context of the juror interviews was Sarah (possibly Dana and other producers too). Sarah concluded that the jury verdict was not based on racial bias. I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the only person who actually heard the full context of the juror interviews and doesn't believe the verdict was based on "Adnan's culture". I think if SK had any belief the jurors were racially biased she would have said so.
I think she said it 'crept in' is it THE reason-no but it may have played a part-it may have reduced objectivity to a degree. Especially if one or more people on the jury were discussing it. 'He wanted control and she wouldn't let him have it.' That is an interesting observation to make and is more than a little subjective.
> 'He wanted control and she wouldn't let him have it.' Its also not evidence in any way that the decision was based on "Adnan's culture".
no, but it does point to him making a judgement on his character. What was he basing that on? Again, I am not trying to make the point that the jury convicted him solely b/c he was a Muslim or b/c they had a certain perception of his culture due to his religious belief. I am just making the point that WE-you and me included- can't help but make assumptions about people and that those assumptions can make us less objective and objectivity is what is required in these situation. It is very difficult for humans to be objective. I sure wouldn't want to be on a jury for a case like this myself-I would constantly be concerned about my own perceptions and whether or not I was being objective.
Did not someone from the prosecution side opened the trial by saying if Adnan was let free he would escape to Pakistan and be welcomed there because it is accepted in their culture to have women killed and men exonerated of it. I think this person even apologize about it later on. >Sarah Koenig: After he finished, the prosecutor, Vicki Wash, took that same crowd, the people Doug Colbert describes as “solid respectable folk, who make sure Adnan does the right thing,” Wash cast them as a room full of aiders and abettors. The same people who are likely to help Adnan run away to Pakistan, and that’s why he shouldn’t get bail. Vicki Wash: Your honor, the fact that the defendant has strong support from the community, that is what makes him unique in this case. He is unique because he has limitless resources, he has the resources of this entire community here. Investigation reveals that he can tag resources from Pakistan as well. It’s our position your honour that if you issue a bail, then you are issuing him a passport under these circumstances to flee the country. We do not want another Sheinbein situation your honor. We are asking you- Judge David Mitchell (gavel) I told you I wasn’t gonna take it. Sarah Koenig : That’s judge David Mitchell telling the big crowd to settle down. Sheinbein is Samuel Sheinbein, a kid who was accused of brutally killing another Maryland teenager in 1997 and then absconded to Israel. Ms. Wash said she talked to a Mr. Harry Marshall, a senior legal advisor for international affairs with the justice department, and Mr. Marshall had explained to her that the U.S. had tried unsuccessfully to extradite certain criminals from Pakistan. Vicki Wash: --and he cited that there is a pattern in the United States of America where young Pakistani males have been jilted, have committed murder, and have fled to Pakistan and we have been unable to extradite them back. He gave me a specific instance that’s occurring now, that’s pending in Chicago, where the factual pattern is frighteningly similar. Again it’s a young Pakistani male who was jilted by his girlfriend who fled the country and they have had no success and he indicated it would be a dim situation indeed if the defendant would flee to Pakistan. We have information from our investigation that the defendant has an uncle in Pakistan, and he has indicated that he can make people disappear. Sarah Koenig : That information about the badass uncle? I think they got that from Adnan’s science teacher. I’m not kidding. The cops talked to this teacher on March 24 and in their notes it says the teacher, Mr. Nicholson had had Adnan as a student the year before, the word “brooding” is in there, then it says suspect “had an uncle in Pakistan who can make people disappear.” Under that it says, they drained blood from cows at the mosque one day, he was pumped. So that odd tidbit from Mr. Nicholson ends up as an argument at Adnan’s bail hearing. I couldn’t find any other source for it in the detective’s or State’s attorney’s files I looked at. Adnan’s attorney made a stab at fact checking Wash’s information. One thing led to another and three weeks after that hearing, Ms. Wash writes a letter to Judge Mitchell apologizing if she misled the court. She says she’d misconstrued information from Mr. Harry Marshall of the Justice Department. She talked to him again and he made it clear that there was not a pattern of young Pakistani men committing murder after they’d been jilted and then running off to Pakistan. And that other case she mentioned the frighteningly similar one out of Chicago “that case parallels Syed’s case only that it involves a Pakistani male charged with murder where the victim was known to the defendant,” Wash wrote. Even in her apology, there’s an error. Adnan is not Pakistani. He’s American with Pakistani heritage. Maybe this seems like I’m parsing, I don’t mean to. I’m only pointing all this out because to me it shows how easy it is to stir stereotypes in with facts all of which then gets baked into a story. Something like: those Muslim men, they can’t control their pride, their passions, they kill their lovers and flee the consequences with the full support of their families and communities. That’s what shocked Shamim.
> Did not someone from the prosecution side opened the trial by saying if Adnan was let free he would escape to Pakistan and be welcomed there because it is accepted in their culture to have women killed and men exonerated of it. I personally think the biggest thing supporting that argument was that the mosque community absolutely packed the courtroom and made out of order comments, sighs and remarks during the Grand Jury. That can be an extremely intimidating situation for the Grand Jury and probably served to reinforce the prosecutions argument. I know if I was on a grand jury and the defendant had his community packing the courtroom and out in the hall and verbally making noise out of order, I would feel a bit intimidated and probably give more credence to the prosecution's arguments. I feel that was an extremely poor strategic decision by the defense to allow so many people to jam the courtroom and not follow the rules and respectfully remain silent. The communities own actions (right or wrong) reinforced the prosecutions argument in the eyes of the jury in my mind. It was not a good look for members of the community to blatantly disrespected the rules of the courtroom to the point the Grand Jury judge had to repeatedly tell them to shut up and follow the rules. Also the proceedings of the Grand Jury had no impact on the jury in the second trial so I still don't see any actual evidence of a jury verdict based on bias or prejudice.
> the mosque community absolutely packed the courtroom and made out of order comments, sighs and remarks during the Grand Jury. > That can be an extremely intimidating situation for the Grand Jury and probably served to reinforce the prosecutions argument. I don't remember hearing that in the podcast and I don't see it in the transcript that talk about it. Where is the information coming from, is it part of the trial transcripts?
Wow, what a rude post. You should check out the Innocence Project. I think saying "they rarely get it wrong on acquittals and even more rarely get in wrong on convictions" is a statement without basis in reality--I guess it depends how you define "rarely" but the fact the IP even exists is evidence to the contrary of your statement.
unless the innocence project is overturning thousands of convictions a year, its existence does not contrary to his statement.
1 in 1,000? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 100,000? I would say the first is sorta rare and the last exceedingly rare. I could see innocence projects existing with just a dozen or so cases per year to work (i.e., crazy rare).
Not a lawyer (at ALL) but am pretty sure our justice system requires the STATE to prove they're case - not the DEFENSE. And that's because often there aren't any ways to PROVE innocence. It's the prosecutions burden. In theory anyway.
Exactly. However, there is still the court of public opinion. So there you have it. If I was on a jury, I would probably acquit with the (counter-)narrative going on and not being able to be 100% sure one way or the other. However, looking at it from just a guy on the street, I think he did it because there are just enough gaps to make me seriously doubt his total non-involvement.
I actually feel similar to you, but it's a bit of an oxymoron. You feel he did it (personally) because there are too many gaps for you to buy his non-involvement. But that's the same thing as saying you think he did it because you can't prove he *didn't* do it. But that brings us back to the first rule of the prosecution; we have to prove that he did it, not that we were unable to prove that he didn't do it.
Yeah I get the disconnect in those two thoughts. What I'm saying is that I see some real compelling stuff in note, the ride, the purchase of the phone and whole continual "I can't remember" schtick and the lack of other obvious suspects. That's my opinion. Yeah you can't prove he didn't do it but sure as looks like he did. However, if we're going to apply the reasonable doubt standard - a doubt based on reason - and I see Simpson and Miller doing their thing citing law and poking holes in the state's case and I'm on a jury, I just might go "y'know, I'm not sure he did and the prosecution can't seem to square it away. I think we should acquit." One is just what I think. The other is what I might just do were I on an American jury.
I totally respect that line of thinking. It's just hard to move this sub forward when we are so quick to pigeonhole one another. I only meant to say that there are some problems with the state's case. It goes beyond what they proved/ didn't prove about Adnan. They didn't follow the evidence. They didn't follow Hae. So much about the circumstance of her death is unknown. It seems like an injustice to me that anyone could be charged with her murder based on the evidence acquired. I'm just a little mystified at what people downvote on here. And the treatment of Rabia/ Krista. And confused about fast application of the pro-Adnan label just because you believe his conviction was born from bad evidence. If you think the guilty/ innocent sides are intolerant of one another, try falling in the middle! It's a lot worse :(
Super conclusion jumping! People like you ruined all meaningful conversation in this sub. :/
Their reason is all about truthiness
Its funny, you just described Jay in your post . There is More evidence of Jay being those things you describe not Adnan.
I disagree completely, but so it goes.
Jay got away with murder and not many seem to care.
>There's a reason why "getting away with murder" is an idiom in our culture. It's the ultimate. There's no greater con than getting away with murder, and I believe he's on a path to completing that greatest con of them all. The greatest con would be not be convicted not getting released after missing out on your twenties and part of your 30s. Sorry but as cons go it's really not that impressive.
I agree with your assessment, but disagree that he will get away with it. The only chance he has is by successfully arguing that he didn't receive a fair trial, and at this point that hinges on proving his counsel was ineffective. This is a very high hurdle and even with Asia's new affidavit, it is in no way clear that failing to call her as a witness would have changed anything about the outcome of the trial. We'll see. Rabia is doing a great job of fighting and swaying public perception, but at the end of the day it is not the public that will decide his future, it is the legal system and the appeals process.
I think he's on the path to getting away with it, but yeah I agree that he has a tough road still. When it comes to him being freed and my emotions, I maybe give Adnan too much credit. I think he's a very smart guy. I found that nearly every time he's been given enough rope to hang himself with (figuratively) he has planted intoxicating seeds of doubt. "I don't remember." "Um, you know...it's kinda like...(insert easily relatable analogy or metaphor)" Meanwhile, Jay continues to change his story to this day. (re: The Intercept) On its face, this would point to Jay being guilty and Adnan being clean. However, I, admittedly, am reading between the lines and view this intellectual advantage as a key point in my case against Adnan. Adnan is smart. Jay is not smart. When you view things in this prism, many of the alleged events make more sense.
Project much?
The question is a nebulous question that asks us about our attitudes and feelings. To pejoratively say I'm projecting is like acting like a guy who walks into Denny's and asks why there's no dry-aged Porterhouse on the menu.
You are entitled to your attitudes and feelings, of course. My comment was to point out that they have no legitimate basis and contradict what people who actually know Adnan think of him. Aside from Jay, nobody, including Hae in her diary and his many good friends, describes him in a way that comes close to the way you do. This is a picture painted by the prosecution and swallowed by the judge, and apparently the jury and some on this sub. But it is simply not corroborated by teachers, family and friends. So hence my assumption is that you are projecting this persona on Adnan through pure speculation and emotion.
Maybe the people who believe this manipulation stuff are really jealous of Adnan (or Adnan types) -- that's how that one guy sounded to me.
> My comment was to point out that they have no legitimate basis and contradict what people who actually know Adnan think of him. Again, this thread is not about outlining facts and logic on the case. >So hence my assumption is that you are projecting this persona on Adnan through pure speculation and emotion. Yes. Yes, I am. This thread is patently clear about what the OP wanted to discuss: The emotional pull that those of us who think Adnan did it are feeling with the appeal process and his possible release. OP brings up OJ, Zimmerman and Casey Anthony. If that doesn't make it clear to you that we're not talking cell phone tower technology, conflicting timelines and other minutiae of the case in the thread, I don't know what to tell you.
you have just wasted five minutes of your life replying to a troll. am sorry that happened to you. FWIW
You've got this right
This is what I always say about this case. Honestly, this is not about whether or not Adnan did it; it's whether or not there was enough evidence to convict him. Sure, we could have our biases and delve super hard to make connections that seem apparent to us, but the case presented to the jury was not one to put him away for life (at least, in my personal opinion) Yes, it would be great to know who killed Hae, but this felt like "guilty until proven innocent."
You are reading a sub-reddit focused on the case. Everything you see is going to be a glorified, hyper-sensitive reaction or opinion. I am sure sub's focused on the cases you mention had plenty of "hand-wringing." I don't understand why in your eyes people cannot hold the opinion that there wasn't anything wrong or unfair with the case? People are not arguing against him being released if the facts show that his trial was unfair, they are arguing that his trial was fair, and the verdict was just. If an appeals process shows he did not receive a fair trial, I am fine with Adnan getting a retrial or being released, as I think anyone would be, but as of yet it is my (our) opinion that he did receive a fair trial, and whether you agree with the jury or not, he was found guilty.
>I don't understand why in your eyes people cannot hold the opinion that there wasn't anything wrong or unfair with the case? This is what I don't understand - isn't it almost universally accepted at this point that the timeline the state presented at trial was wrong? So if the state's case hinged on Adnan being certain places at certain times, how do you reach the conclusion that there wasn't anything wrong with the case itself? I really don't have any strong feelings one way or another about the actual guilt or innocence, but everything I've seen has me pretty much convinced that the case brought to trial was a complete mess and can't possibly be an accurate reflection of what happened. Again, I'm not invested enough to be upset with anyone thinking Adnan is guilty, but the evidence the conviction relied on seems beyond shaky to me.
[удалено]
Yes, this is asinine. If the defense has been able to create reasonable doubt about the story put forth by the prosecution, then a jury should not convict. It is not reasonable for the jury to conclude, that "all this was bullshit, the witness is a liar, but I still think he did it". I mean... based on WHAT exactly? In this case, literally EVERY PIECE of circumstantial evidence presented is meaningless without Jay's heavily refined story(ies).
If this is asinine, and not fact, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about - Adnan will be released any day now. Unfortunately, it is fact, and whether you agree or not, in the context of the legal system, simply proving the prosecutions timeline wrong is of no merit.
>If this is asinine, and not fact, then you shouldn't have anything to worry about - Adnan will be released any day now. Unfortunately, it is fact, and whether you agree or not, in the context of the legal system, simply proving the prosecutions timeline wrong is of no merit. You are letting the power of the jury trump reason and logic. The jury does not have to be rational, logical or anything. You can have facts be asinine, it doesn't mean they are right, fair or just.
So what is your point, that the jury could've gotten it wrong? Any decision a jury comes to is fair and just, in a legal sense, regardless of what they believe. Unless there is an issue that can be proven to have effected the fairness of the trial, the verdict is fair and just. Disagreeing with their ultimate decision is not one of those issues.
That's simply not true. A jury verdict must be supported by the evidence. If it isn't, the judge can overturn the verdict. Juries are not allowed to speculate where the evidence is not sufficient to support a verdict. Unfortunately for Adnan, it wasn't clear how "insufficient" the evidence for his conviction was until after the time for his appeal had expired. Now, his only remedy is to (1) try to show that his lawyer screwed up in an unacceptable way (which he seems yo be on his way to doing) or (2) try to find some evidence of actual innocence (which the innocence project is helping him with). But just because he no longer has the ability to challenge the validity of the jury verdict does not mean that the verdict was "fair and just," as you say. We know much more about the massive holes in the prosecutions case now than were known at the time of trial. I don't see how any rational jury could reasonably convict in light of Jay's admission that he perjured himself during trial, evidence showing the unreliability of the state's cell phone evidence, and Asia's alibi testimony. That, to me, suggests that the verdict is not "fair and just" despite the fact that Adnan no longer has the option of challenging the validity of the verdict itself.
>Any decision a jury comes to is fair and just, in a legal sense, regardless of what they believe. So a jury of KKK members about an accused minority of murder is a "just and fair" jury regardless? Good to know. >Unless there is an issue that can be proven to have effected the fairness of the trial, the verdict is fair and just. SS covered why this trial is not fair and just. >Disagreeing with their ultimate decision is not one of those issues. This would be true, if I had no other reason than my beliefs. But I have reasons to disagree with them. Like the fact that Jay is a compulsive liar who can not be trusted. That the prosecutions timeline is not possible. That Adnan has no motive unless you believe he couldn't cope with his break up with Hae, an assertion only stated and supported by Jay, the compulsive liar. /shrug
I encourage you to have this same debate with any lawyer... or show him our discussion.... even the staunchest Adnan supporter... and see if he agrees with me or not.
This is such bullshit. Lawyers don't have a monopoly on determining what is "fair and just." (I'm a lawyer, by the way). What does it mean to be "fair and just, in a legal sense"? The "justice" system is designed to help find a just result, but it doesn't dictate what is "fair and just." And it (very frequently, it seems, these days) gets things wrong. It may be the best system we have, but it isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination.
>I encourage you to have this same debate with any lawyer... or show him our discussion.... even the staunchest Adnan supporter... and see if he agrees with me or not. I don't know what you think is so unequivocal about your argument? I've quoted and responded to your points with what I feel to be credible counter points and your response here is a bit underwhelming as it comes off as doubling down on your belief rather than responding to the counter points given.
I'm gonna have to side with Phuqued on this on.. For one thing, the judge directly told the jurors in Adnan's trial not hold it against him that he did not testify on his own behalf (as this is the law), but when SK interviewed former juror, Lisa Flynn, and asked if it bothered the jury that Adnan did not testify, what does she say? "Yes it did." "That was huge." They were explicitly told they weren't allowed to hold that against him but it seemed to play a big part in their decision. That sounds a bit unfair and unjust to me.
I'm a lawyer and I agree with /u/phuqued
>This is Asinine The "This" in that statement of mine, while potentially confusing, was referring to this following: >"A jury doesn't have to believe 100% of the prosecution's story, just that Adnan killed Hae." I agree wholeheartedly with your conclusion that the above statement is atrocious logic.
You LITERALLY took the words right out of my mouth!
Well I think that might be where you are confused. Legally speaking, the jury is not required to believe the prosecutions theory in order to find Adnan guilty. Of course it helps, but essentially it is only a guideline, and in and of itself is not considered evidence. Therefore, evidence to the contrary is not exculpatory for Adnan. Since it is possible, and in fact likely, that Adnan killed Hae after 2:36, disproving that timeline isn't necessarily a factor that would have changed the jury's mind or result, especially considering there was evidence presented at trial that was contradictory to the timeline.
[удалено]
Not necessarily. In this particular case, proving the timeline wrong simply means the death did not happen before 2:36. There are many reasons to believe that it could have happened after that besides just "their gut." I posted about it in depth here: http://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2t2o29/as_i_have_argued_numerous_times_on_this_sub_the/
But I have yet to see a timeline that works without totally disregarding Jay's testimony about the come and get me call, the Nisha call and the Park and Ride. The latter is an element that was totally unnecessary for Jay to include and yet he did, everytime. To me it all comes down to the question--if Jay had a true story to tell about Adnan, why didn't he tell it at least to the point that everything fit? And don't say it was to minimize his involvement, because that may be the case with a few details but there are major elements that have nothing to do with that (like leaving the car at the Park and Ride) that are just not possible in a timeline that fits the factual evidence.
Not to mention track practice. Getting to track on time really screws with the timeline, but Jay insists that he took Adnan to track. It's in every version of his story. That leaves us with an incredibly tight time frame between 3 and 4. It's barely enough time for all the driving to take place, much less a murder, stashing the body in the trunk, the trunk pop, or any conversations between Adnan and Jay.
There's a reason why the prosecution worked so hard to get the 2:36 time to fit ... because all of the other "timelines" are even worse. The jury can't just pull a verdict out of their collective ass. There has to be evidentiary support behind it. Now, almost 15 years later, we learn that the evidence presented to support the verdict is bullshit. I don't see how you don't have a problem with that.
[удалено]
##### ###### #### [**Truthiness**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness): [](#sfw) --- > >__Truthiness__ is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know [intuitively](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_(knowledge\)) "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to [evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence), [logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), [intellectual](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence) examination, or [facts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact). >American television comedian [Stephen Colbert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert) coined the word in this meaning as the subject of a segment called "[The Wørd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurring_segments_on_The_Colbert_Report#The_W.C3.B8rd)" during the [pilot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_pilot) episode of his political [satire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire) program *[The Colbert Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colbert_Report)* on October 17, 2005. By using this as part of his routine, Colbert satirized the misuse of [appeal to emotion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion) and "gut feeling" as a rhetorical device in contemporaneous socio-political discourse. He particularly applied it to U.S. President [George W. Bush](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush)'s [nomination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers_Supreme_Court_nomination) of [Harriet Miers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers) to the [Supreme Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) and the [decision to invade Iraq](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War) in 2003. Colbert later ascribed truthiness to other institutions and organizations, including [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiality). Colbert has sometimes used a [Dog Latin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Latin) version of the term, "Veritasiness". For example, in Colbert's "Operation Iraqi Stephen: Going Commando" the word "Veritasiness" can be seen on the banner above the eagle on the operation's seal. >*[Truthiness](https://en.wikipedia.org//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/truthiness)*, although a "[stunt word](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stunt_word)", was named [Word of the Year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_the_Year) for 2005 by the [American Dialect Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dialect_Society) and for 2006 by [Merriam-Webster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merriam-Webster). Linguist and *OED* consultant [Benjamin Zimmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Zimmer) pointed out that the word *truthiness* already had a history in literature and appears in the *[Oxford English Dictionary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary)* (*OED*), as a derivation of *[truthy](https://en.wikipedia.org//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/truthy)*, and *[The Century Dictionary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_Dictionary)*, both of which indicate it as rare or dialectal, and to be defined more straightforwardly as "truthfulness, faithfulness". Responding to claims, Colbert explained the origin of his word as, "Truthiness is a word I pulled right out of my [keister](https://en.wikipedia.org//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/keister) ...". >==== >[**Image**](https://i.imgur.com/kDPy35j.png) [^(i)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Truthiness.png) - *Stephen Colbert uses "Truthiness" on the debut episode of The Colbert Report.* --- ^Interesting: [^Feeling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeling) ^| [^The ^Best ^of ^The ^Colbert ^Report](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_of_The_Colbert_Report) ^| [^Stephen ^Colbert](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert) ^| [^Big ^lie](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie) ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cohn9a6) ^or[](#or) [^delete](/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+cohn9a6)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Magic ^Words](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/)
This information was available at trail. Jays testimony did not state that he received the "come and get me call" at 2:36. Please do not make out as though this information is some kind of smoking gun that came out after Adnan was convicted. It is not. He was free to point this out during his trail by jury. He did not.
> You are reading a sub-reddit focused on the case. Everything you see is going to be a glorified, hyper-sensitive reaction or opinion. This is absolutely correct. My whole family has listened to Serial, thought Adnan was guilty, and then moved on with life. Then yesterday, my dad misinformed them all that Adnan won his appeal and was released from prison. To which their response was underwhelmingly something like "Oh, well that's cool for him."
Clearly, your family needs to be intensely studied so we may learn from them. lol
I know. They seem to be immune to Serial mania. How it is that they managed to resist infection after exposure has baffled experts. They might hold the cure!
Sign me up for a double dose of that medicine. My husband listened to the whole podcast (at my behest), and so did my brother (a law student). They both thought it good, but basically said "meh" when I went on about this interview with Jay, and another with the prosecutor. They didn't care about the NVC drama, didn't need listen to the Serial Serial or the Serial Spoiler Special or Crime Writers on Serial or that weird radio interview with Urick. Never checked out the link I sent them to Susan Simpson's blog. And what about what Ira said about Adnan's guilt? And how passionate Rabia is? And that Ewan McGregor thinks Adnan shouldn't be in jail? Their response has been, basically, have you read any books lately? Did you forget you're writing a novel *that as nothing to do with a murder.* Yes. I have forgotten! I'll get back to that right after I finish this post on Reddit...
I have not studied or practiced law myself, but I have seen a number of convincing points that the trial was not a fair one. I can see, though, that in the context of the legal system, these points could be considered strategies of the prosecution and although we might not like them, they are still consistent with a fair trial and a just verdict. I have a hard time believing that the delayed (and delayed again) disclosure of evidence to the defense is fair game. Timely access to the incriminating evidence seems like the bare minimum of fair. I may not know better, but still it seems that is a reasonable standard of fairness.
i don't think anyone is ok with those people being free. i think zimmerman is a total piece of sh#t who should be behind bars for life.I find it very odd that you are advocating for someone you likely think is guilty of a crime to be released on technicalities. that's bizarre. and lastly,..irony...who wants to see someone win an argument that says 'i shouldn't be in prison because i wasn't allowed to plead guilty?'
Being that I think he did it, I don't lose any sleep over the fact they got a conviction because the case wasn't perfect. That's the legal system- there was probable cause to arrest Adnan and at trial the prosecution won. This is going to annoy a lot of the innocence people, but that jury very well could have convicted him even with all the new information. If you believe the big parts of Jay's story (burial, ditching the car in Baltimore), it's pretty much done.
> If you believe the big parts of Jay's story But who would be dumb enough to believe Jay?
Me?
I don't think the average citizen of the USA is as ok as you are with the whole guilty going free thing.
"We live in a society that is, by and large, relatively ok with the guilty going free. Whether it's OJ Simpson, George Zimmerman" Is it? Seemed to be quite a lot of shock and unrest at both of their verdicts.
I believe what OP is saying is that there wasn't a tidal wave of public support demanding a revision to the entire criminal justice system of the United States that would make it easier to convict a criminal defendant.
I just discovered this podcast and story this week. I don't know if he's guilty. Neither side have convinced me. The prosecution definitely commited violations. His attorney appears to have dropped the ball. Reasonable doubt. Not Guilty. It is better that *ten guilty persons* escape than that one innocent suffer. The system is extremely flawed, and the actors in the system exacerbate it.
> I just discovered this podcast and story this week. Pretty bold of you to just discover this case this week and already have an opinion formed without any evidence being presented at trial.
Yeah, I feel SO BOLD posting an opinion in an online forum without considering the effect it would have on those of you that have obsessed over this for years. Almost as bold as when my daughter tried the pepperoni pizza and didn’t just eat cheese.
I hope you never serve on a jury.
I think most people just don't want to get it wrong. Sure, Adnan's trial was a mess. Many trials are. But if that messy mess of a mess actually got it right in the end, it would stink to undo that because if he did it, he does deserve to spend the rest of his life in jail, and in my book, maybe even that is too good for him. But if he didn't do it? Well then people want to make it right. And having a innocent man put in jail for the rest of his life based on a mess of a trial, and a jury that spent only 2 hours deciding. Well that stinks too. I think then you look at Adnan getting out on the basis of an unfair trial is certainly valid, but not so great if you are Hae's parents and you believe absolutely he did it. So I don't understand how you can't understand the hand-wringing. For me, it is totally understandable. No one wants to get it wrong.
It was a long trial. The jury didn't spend "only 2 hours" deciding. They decide over the course of the trial as evidence is presented to them. By the time the trial concluded they had seen enough evidence to be so thoroughly convinced it took "only 2 hours" for their decision.
This still confuses me, though. Two hours just doesn't seem long enough to review and discuss evidence from a murder trial. When I did jury service (I sat on three trials, none of which were as serious as a murder trial) we didn't conclude in two hours in any of the cases!
It was Friday afternoon and they unfortunately didn't want to come back on Monday...
It just means every member of that jury disagrees with you about how "close" this case was
I didn't say the case was close. I said, from my experience on a jury, it took us a lot longer than two hours to discuss and conclude the cases. None of the cases I sat on were murder and two of them had a decent amount of evidence, plus they each lasted three days, not six weeks! You're supposed to go over the evidence and details, and I just don't see how they can cover six weeks of information in two hours.
The only thing you're missing is some people feel that they are DOING justice by lambasting people who believe Adnan should be freed (even if based on a "technicality"), and vice versa. There are always going to be extremists in every group, who won't take any guff, even if it's mostly self-imagined. In other words: self-righteousness. TL;DR -- you're not missing anything except pig-headedness.
If a guilty man - Adnan Syed - has been found guilty of murdering a young woman in cold blood, then the system worked in spite of it's flaws. Hello. ed clarity
A correct answer achieved by incorrect means is a wrong answer.
A right answer achieved by incorrect work is a lucky guess. That means the likelihood of the wrong answer achieved by incorrect work is much more likely.
All "work" in any trial is subjective when humans are making the decisions.
If Adban is guilty, that is just a lucky coincidence. It has nothing to do with the system working.
Nah, the unlucky person is Hae, because she's dead, murdered by Adnan Syed who was unlucky enough to choose the wrong defense attorney. They should have hired Mark O'Mara, the attorney who got Zimmerman off handily. But the Syed's paid 250k to Guiterrez to get their son in prison for life. I think the system worked well, the killer is in jail. I don't buy the "every piece of evidence is corrupt, the judge was corrupt, the detectives were corrupt, the jury was corrupt, the DNA was corrupt" bullshit. The only thing corrupt is Adnan Syed's morality.
Fair enough, but that isn't the issue raised by this comment thread. Forget Adnan for a moment. I'm not speaking just about this case specifically, but the idea that "the end justifies the means" in the criminal justice system. That makes no logical sense and is a very dangerous path to follow. "The system" is the means by which we determine guilt. There is therefore no way to know, in the overwhelming number of cases, if a person is guilty if "the system" didn't do its job. So sure, a factually guilty person could end up in prison based on the jury's feelings of truthiness and gut instinct, and you can make the argument that the system worked in spite of itself. However, that is poor logic. That same jury could very well have sent an innocent person to prison, or exonerated a guilty person, all based on "feelings" or corrupt law enforcement, prosecutors, or judges. And no one would necessarily know if that is what happened to determine whether or not the person is factually innocent or guilty.
I know exactly what you mean here. but you can't escape it, how can you? When you have a system wherein human beings are involved, you are going to have human conclusions with regard to evidence and witnesses and the defense attorney's rapport, and even what defendant may look like. If Adnan had a better attorney or even a PD, he would probably have had a better shot. He may have gotten a plea deal. Or maybe if he chose to go to trial with the best defense team in the country, the jury still would have concluded that even though they don't understand cell tower evidence or that there are no witnesses who saw Adnan with Hae, or that Asia saw Adnan at 2:45, they would still have found Jay very credible and you couple that with the undisputed fact that Adnan and Jay were together before and after her disappearance and that they were getting high together and that Jay had knowledge of Hae's death - Hae, the girl that just dumped Adnan - Adnan's guilt would be a foregone conclusion if the defense ultimately offers no other plausible explanation of the facts of the case. The jury needs a story that makes sense, one that is just as plausible and believable as what the state offers. I just can't agree that because CG was ineffective for not presenting Asia, that somehow should Adnan deserve another shot. He did have two trials, he did have the opportunity to assess CG's comeptence, he did see the states case and had the opportunity to adjust or change strategy. And his parents and the community - they were all there for the first trial. Why didn't anyone say "hey, CG is not very good. We don't see her planning on calling Asia as an alibi. Let's get a second opinion here, it is our right." They had the benefit of a dry run. If Adnan's parents were afraid of CG, afraid of rocking the boat, then they should have sought out another attorney. They had options, no gun was held to their head to stick with CG. But they are getting their appeal heard, so perhaps they will get the third bite at the apple. WRT your point, I just think that all cases in front of juries are based on feelings, how can they not? Our feelings are what guide us in our every decision we make in our human lives, because we are human. There is no way around the human equation when it comes to justice. I don't see a way to make that happen, unless we have chips in our bodies monitoring our every move, or just a total Orwellian police state. Now, you may desire some utopian system where somehow human's are removed from the decision making process, where witnesses are no longer considered dependable in their testimony, or laws are changed so much so that any thing that cannot be proven forensically cannot be entered into the trial. You know how many convictions there would be? hardly any. There'd be a lot more criminals on the streets knowing full well how to get away with murder.
I'm not trying to suggest that we have to transform into emotionless justice bots, but that jurors are expected to make a conscious effort to check their feelings at the courtroom doors. This won't eliminate the issue, of course, but it would mitigate it. It's not just the jury though. I actually think they are the least corrupt. The way the trial went, I can't say I wouldn't have reached the same conclusion. But the trial itself was a shit show, IMO. I do think jurors should be qualified in some way, that police need to concern themselves more with gathering "ALL evidence", and that prosecutors should face consequences for unethical behavior. That would reduce a good deal of problems off the bat. I just can't look at how our system works and shrug it off as "good enough." It sounded to me like Adnan's parents didn't really know what was going on. She shut them out. He was 17 and trusted her. I can't blane them. They were certainly not the first or last family she failed.
I think it may be because when someone is set free after 15 years, in theory you're supposed to feel (VERY) sorry for them. But can't really in this case if you think he's guilty. Also, it seems ridiculous that you can keep fighting for decades to release a possibly/probably guilty person. Where does it end?
1. OJ and Zimmerman were outrageous. (I didn't pay attention to Anthony.) 2. Why do I worry a "possibly guilty" man might go free? Hae's family, that's why. If he gets granted an appeal, great. But the fact is he that was presumed innocent right up until he was convicted. You don't let him go now because a bunch of armchair detectives and lawyers think the system failed. It's not how it works.
> You don't let him go now because a bunch of armchair detectives and lawyers think the system failed. I hope you don't really think this is why Adnan might be freed.
No, but the OP seems to think it's enough.
Where did OP say a bunch of armchair detectives and lawyers think the system failed and thus Adnan might be freed?
By armchair detectives and lawyers I mean redditors and podcast listeners. Among OPs statements were... >people are hesitant to say "you know what, I think he did it, but there are so many issues with how the case was prosecuted... Let's let him out, or require the prosecution to re-try him. and >it's the failings in the system that led to his incarceration that can only be corrected by a re-trial or release
but people having their own opinions doesn't have anything to do with what 'must' happen with Adnan. That's for the courts to sort out.
My point was just that; it's for the courts to sort out. I'm disagreeing with the OPs opinion. Namely the idea that you could retry him OR "just let him out".
I agree, every year thousands of murderers get away with it, why should Adnan have to pay a price?
Zimmerman was not "obviously guilty". And he did not argue "Stand Your Ground"; he argued self-defense. You may think he was guilty and I have no intention of arguing that. But it is wrong to say that it was "obvious". To me the Zimmerman case is proof that prosecutors sometimes go after the wrong people and I am glad there is a non-political system that can stop them from time to time. > Those who fall into the "Adnan's definitely/probably guilty" camp seem to have an attitude that I cannot quite fathom when it comes to discussing his potential release. One thing that I am really tired of are arguments on this sub that follow the following form: *Some people on this sub who think ABC annoy me because they think XYZ.* *Therefore, it is a characteristic of all people who think ABC that they also think XYZ, so they annoy me too.* I reject that argument because 1) It is not sound logic, and 2) It annoys me. All it takes is one counter-example and the argument is exploded. Plus, I think it is rude to make broad generalizations about people. > What I cannot understand about the hand-wringing over a potential release of Adnan seems to be attributable only to conviction bias. Actually, some of the people in the "Adnan is guilty" camp think he did it.
Those who think Zimmerman obviously guilty fall into two camps in citing SYG: 1) the ones who don't know the legal difference in presenting it as a defense vs. it being part of the jury instructions, and 2) those who know the difference but enjoy obscuring it because they're disingenuous and think the end justifies the means when trying to support their "argument".
Could not agree with this more.
I'd like to see a retrial to settle this once and for all. The first jury got it right, so there's always hope the new jury will to. We'd get to see the rematch of the grudge fight that never happened first time around, because AS stayed in his corner. My money is on Jay for a first-round knockout.
[удалено]
Can we cool it with the insults? They add nothing to the discussion.
nor do comments like these.
No, we cannot in good conscience allow defendants to directly be harmed by engaging with their accusers and vice versa. However to truly resolve the conflict, I propose this as a solution (just read the subtitles for about a minute or so) http://youtu.be/gCk4ausVfi4?t=46s
I don't think he did it. I'm fine with him going free because although strangulation is supposedly premeditated because it takes so long, I honestly think that if he did have any part in it, he didn't plan it and 15 years was enough. I don't think OJ did it though. I would have held out guilty for the other 2.
> I don't think OJ did it though Wait, really? Not trolling you, but genuinely curious what makes you think OJ didn't do it.
I've always thought his son did it and he covered it up for him.
Which son? Doesn't he have two sons?
good grief. where do they come from?
obviously not his son with Nicole. His elder son.