As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
[Serial] podcast. A case study in how our justice system sucks.
CommunistCow
Abstract MetalThingyRegistered User regular
Abstract MetalThingyRegistered User regular
Serial podcast is a true story by Sarah Koenig and the creators of This American Life. Each week they tell a different part about of the investigation in a murder that occurred in Baltimore in 1999.
If anyone cares about "spoilers", then go listen to the podcast and stop reading this post. Much of the discussion I've seen on the internet pertains to the guilt or innocent of Adnan Syad, the man who was convicted of this crime, and Jay who claims to have been an accomplice. While we could talk about these aspects of the story, I think this case provides a more interesting example of problems with our justice system. I will give a little background for those who don't want to listen to all the podcasts, but to really understand the issues here I really suggest you just listen to it.
Adnan Syed was accused and convicted of murdering Hae Lee on Jan 13, 1999. The problem, in my mind, is the state's case has no physical evidence tying him to the crime. They have circumstantial evidence from an acquaintance named Jay who seems to have every reason to lie. Instead of taking Jay's version of events with a grain of salt the detectives appear to ignore inconsistencies in his story in an effort to build a case against Adnan. Jay's story changes multiple times but is partially corroborated by cell phone records. I say partially because about half of the places Jay says he went with Adnan during this crime do not match up with cell tower records. The detectives fail to test items found around the body that had cellular material, they did part of a rape test but not all of what would normally be done, they failed to follow up with witnesses that Jay says he talks to about the murder, etc.
From the outside it seems that the detectives latched on to a narrative that supported their suspicions and brushed aside many things that went against it. James Trainum an ex-detective when asked to look at this case by the Serial producers thought that this investigation was above average in its quality. He also points out how detectives instead of looking for the truth often try and build the best case that they can. This means that they often have confirmation bias and don't check all possible leads. Deirdre Enright the Director of Investigation at the Innocence Project Clinic and many of her employees looking at this case said they thought the prosecution's case was extremely slim. In the trial the jurors were instructed to not take any negative meaning from Adnan not taking the witness stand, but one juror who talked to Sarah Koenig admitted that Adnan's decision to not take the stand weighted heavily in her decision. In my reading up on this case I have read many defense lawyers state that it is common to not have the defendant take the stand because a cross examination can be damaging, but it is also known that jurors often see a defendant not taking the stand as a negative. How do you deal with that aspect of the judicial process?
So how does a case that looks so very slim on evidence, only has one witness with an ever changing story that doesn't match facts appear "above average" by an experienced detective? Why do law enforcement officers ignore inconvenient statements and leads in pursuit of building a case? Are the problems shown in this case really common in the way law enforcement handles other cases?
If anyone cares about "spoilers", then go listen to the podcast and stop reading this post. Much of the discussion I've seen on the internet pertains to the guilt or innocent of Adnan Syad, the man who was convicted of this crime, and Jay who claims to have been an accomplice. While we could talk about these aspects of the story, I think this case provides a more interesting example of problems with our justice system. I will give a little background for those who don't want to listen to all the podcasts, but to really understand the issues here I really suggest you just listen to it.
Adnan Syed was accused and convicted of murdering Hae Lee on Jan 13, 1999. The problem, in my mind, is the state's case has no physical evidence tying him to the crime. They have circumstantial evidence from an acquaintance named Jay who seems to have every reason to lie. Instead of taking Jay's version of events with a grain of salt the detectives appear to ignore inconsistencies in his story in an effort to build a case against Adnan. Jay's story changes multiple times but is partially corroborated by cell phone records. I say partially because about half of the places Jay says he went with Adnan during this crime do not match up with cell tower records. The detectives fail to test items found around the body that had cellular material, they did part of a rape test but not all of what would normally be done, they failed to follow up with witnesses that Jay says he talks to about the murder, etc.
From the outside it seems that the detectives latched on to a narrative that supported their suspicions and brushed aside many things that went against it. James Trainum an ex-detective when asked to look at this case by the Serial producers thought that this investigation was above average in its quality. He also points out how detectives instead of looking for the truth often try and build the best case that they can. This means that they often have confirmation bias and don't check all possible leads. Deirdre Enright the Director of Investigation at the Innocence Project Clinic and many of her employees looking at this case said they thought the prosecution's case was extremely slim. In the trial the jurors were instructed to not take any negative meaning from Adnan not taking the witness stand, but one juror who talked to Sarah Koenig admitted that Adnan's decision to not take the stand weighted heavily in her decision. In my reading up on this case I have read many defense lawyers state that it is common to not have the defendant take the stand because a cross examination can be damaging, but it is also known that jurors often see a defendant not taking the stand as a negative. How do you deal with that aspect of the judicial process?
So how does a case that looks so very slim on evidence, only has one witness with an ever changing story that doesn't match facts appear "above average" by an experienced detective? Why do law enforcement officers ignore inconvenient statements and leads in pursuit of building a case? Are the problems shown in this case really common in the way law enforcement handles other cases?
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
CommunistCow on
0
Posts
I think what makes the case is what one of the detectives was talking about-- the whole idea of constructing a case around the clues and how sometimes that's how the evidence shakes out, is what details make a consistent narrative.
Jay's story is weird in that it contradicts a lot of the other evidence completely, but isn't completely WRONG, either. Some of his factual evidence comes across as suspiciously timed or impossible to corroborate.
@BEAST! and @VanityPants and I were just talking about this yesterday, actually!
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
From what I've seen and read we know Jay is involved somehow since he knows where Hae's car was. Who ever had Adnan's cell phone was also probably involved since it pinged the tower near Leakin park. Both Jay and Adnan admit that Jay was loaned the car and the phone for part of the day. Something like less than half of the 14 cell tower pings match Jay's narrative. I don't understand why the police didn't find a good reason for those lies or inconsistencies. Jay admitted he lied during part of his interviews in later interviews and at the trial but doesn't give a reason for it much less a good reason.
Other things that don't add up for me or concern me:
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I'm not sure I agree with Rabia's assertion that Christina Gutierrez threw the case on purpose, but she certainly makes the point that she was ineffective and missed quite a few opportunities. Her bedside manner is abysmal and it sounds like she was doing the things she was disbarred for in Adnan's case as well. She asked for money for specific uses and then never used the money for those things. She did this exact same thing to the Whitmans and other subsequent clients and was disbarred for these same actions.
Edit: And if anyone has more time on their hands than they know what to do with, then check out these two posts by another lawyer who has been looking at this case. They give insight into why jay's testimony is not credible from a legal standpoint.
http://viewfromll2.com/2014/11/26/serial-why-jays-testimony-is-not-credible-evidence-of-adnans-guilt/
http://viewfromll2.com/2014/12/02/serial-more-details-about-jays-transcripts-than-you-could-possibly-need/
Also, messed up as it might sound, I almost want Adnan to be guilty. To consider an innocent guy is in prison with evidence this flimsy is very uncomfortable.
I think Hae's family has declined to be interviewed for the podcast.
SK covers this in episode 9 IIRC. She spent quite a bit of time trying to contact them but I think they moved back to Korea(?) and don't want to be interviewed.
Huh. Through ten episodes I was leaning towards "Adnan did it." This article changed my mind.
Which brings us to Serial. This American Life is good. It's a good radio show and a good podcast. But Serial takes it a step further by, well, serializing it. Which you couldn't do with a radio show these days. People aren't going to make sure they're in their cars or gather round ye olde radio for a serialized radio show, but they'll make damn sure to download the next episode of a well produced and reported serialized podcast. The prevailing wisdom was probably that people wouldn't sit through 15 hours (or however long S1 is going to be) on one story, but if it's well produced (and how well produced Serial is can be a different post because we all could go on and on about that) they will. Just like if it's well produced people will listen to a guy talk for 10 hours about the eastern front in WWII. Not only will they sit through it, but they'll eat it up.
Honestly I find the short taped conversations we have heard thus far of Jay and Adnan to be a bad method of judging guilt or innocence. I read in one article that juries often think they can easily tell if someone is lying on the stand but that perception is often wrong. So I try and focus on more tangible things like the transcripts of Jay's interrogations where the detectives appear to be asking very leading questions. I know that could also be construed as a subjective thing but IMO Susan Simpson makes a good case for why that is troubling.
NNID: Hakkekage
This is just another one of those things that makes me scared to death to ever cross paths with our criminal justice system. I have nearly zero faith in it. Or rather, while I know that we get it right more often than not, I don't trust it with my life which is exactly what is happening if you are ever accused of a crime you did not commit. As it stands it's very clear that, in general, police have little to no interest in actually solving a crime accurately...they want to clear the case. That means finding a suspect, making the evidence fit the narrative and vice versa, and handing it to a prosecutor. That prosecutor also has no interest in the truth, because in our adversarial justice system his only job is to win. It's the defense's job to ensure that, if innocent, the accused is not convicted. Just as a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, a prosecutor is more than happy to convince a jury to convict one, and even to put that ham sandwich on death row and let the state end that ham sandwich once and for all.
Also that, as much as we claim to uphold a presumption of innocence, it appears that many (not all, but many) juries are more than happy to convict on the flimsiest of evidence, and that it truly is the job of the accused to prove their innocence, to at least something approaching a preponderance of evidence. And many rules we hold as cornerstones of our trial process (such as the right to remain silent, meaning it cannot be held against you that you fail to testify) are explicitly and admittedly ignored outright by juries. In any fair system that pretended the rules matter, an admission by a juror after the fact that the failure to testify was considered damaging would be immediate grounds for vacating the conviction.
Then, assuming for a moment a prosecutor decides you are his ham sandwich and a jury is too apathetic to care about burden of proof, now that burden actually does shift and no matter what evidence arises, it is at best your job to prove your innocence (once a jury renders a guilty verdict the burden, if I recall, actually shifts to the convicted). At worst it won't matter what evidence you can produce, as our courts actually seem more than happy to execute a factually innocent person provided they had a legally valid trial (and we have a Supreme Court "justice" who has explicitly defended this).
Basically our justice system is a joke, from what I can tell as of episode three Adnan's guilt was never actually proven, but I'll be surprised if that ever matters. We're pretty comfortable with the idea that something like one in twenty to one in fifty of our prisoners are innocent. The idea that we have the population of a small town wrongfully imprisoned as I type this is something we're actually pretty cool with. It's horrifying.
To be clear, I was referring to those currently actually housed in a correctional facility. I'm pretty sure the number you're using is those currently under correctional supervision (to include probation/parole/etc.). That would about triple the number.
Though the more I listen, the more I feel like Adnan -probably- did it. I don't even know why, just that I guess I'm doing what the prosecutor (IIRC) asked, and not losing the forest for the trees. The broad strokes all still look very bad for him. And inconsistencies cut both ways.
But probable is not beyond reasonable doubt.
I think that's what I'm taking away from this so far. Blackstone's ratio is something just about any dope can quote (or at least paraphrase loosely, whether they can name it or not). But in reality, when faced with the murder of a sweet young girl? It gets flipped. We'd much rather throw a few innocent men in prison than let a hundred murderers go free.
The problem, too, is that the more serious the crime the more we want to see it solved...but also the more important it is not to wrongly convict, due to length of sentence. I think juries favor the former over the latter, which is precisely the opposite of what our system is supposed to expect of them.
As a Serial listener, obviously I've been primed from episode one to think Adnan might be innocent. And despite that, I'm still coming around to "well mayyybe he did it." That's bad for him.
But a jury is, whether we admit it or not, primed to presume guilt. Why would you be arrested, and charged, and sitting in a courtroom if you did nothing wrong? 90% of guys are convicted, what are the odds you're the innocent one? So in a case like this, where even a listener primed to be skeptical can find themselves thinking he did it, of course a jury will find any doubts unreasonable.
But they are reasonable. And the Serial listener is coming from the right place, and the juror from the wrong one, assuming that we believe in the presumption of innocence.
It's hard to say that I'd rather see Hae's murder go unsolved, and her family denied closure, but I'd definitely prefer that to the substantial risk in this case that we've put an innocent person away for life.
So this episode didn't really shock me with any new information that upended my assumptions going into it. I mean, woopdeedoo--he stole from the Mosque's collection till. At 13 years old, the moral implications of that aren't really profound. They're kids and they like money because it lets them do fun stuff. As if I'm not guilty of the same thing. I don't think it reveals any latent criminality that could rise to the level of murder. Petty theft is kind of Normal Kids With Responsibilities Handling Money With Little Oversight du jour. If that's the most damning dirt on Adnan's character that can be brought up, color me unimpressed.
The stories about Jay's crazy antics as a kid are way more damning if anyone chose to use them as evidence of bad character. Not sayin' Jay did it, though--I'm in with the "Jay is deeply involved, probably not the killer" crowd.
NNID: Hakkekage
Would you mind expanding on this a little bit. I know you say you don’t really know why but I would love to hear your thought process on this.
Personally I feel like the broad strokes of the prosecution’s case could be applied to Jay as easily as they could be applied to Adnan. The parts of Jay’s story that don’t change are Adnan was mad at Hae for breaking up with him and killed her, he showed Jay her body in the trunk of a car somewhere, and then they buried her body in Leakin park. I can make a narrative that is just as broad for Jay. Hae confronted Jay for cheating on Stephanie, Jay killed her and then dumped her body in Leakin park. Neither story can be corroborated by the independent evidence available. Is there something I’m missing from the prosecution’s case that is more compelling for you?
Nope, you hit it, and I agree. When I say "probably" I mean that and no more. And maybe not even over 50%, just a plurality. I absolutely agree that it looks equally bad for Jay, and I only put his being the murderer as slightly less likely. And with either as murderer you still have the possibility of the other being more involved or less. The only certainty I have is that Jay was involved, either during or after, because of his knowledge. Which makes it ironic that the one guy who was almost certainly involved got away with no time.
I just agree with the one detective, that minor details not matching up don't actually exonerate Adnan. It could be Jays poor memory and him reworking the story to fit the police timeline. It could be him lying to minimize his role. Or it could be him lying to frame Adnan. But only the last expnerates Adnan, and I'm not sure it's the most likely.
Jay lying doesn't make Adnan innocent.
Mainly I buy the proposed motive for Adnan over any of the hypothetical (but entirely plausible) motives for Jay. But only marginally. I'm ignoring third options for the doer, though possible, because I think that's less likely as well. Once you eliminate "random act of violence by stranger" as an option, and assume Jays involvement, Jay or Adnan as murderer is most likely.
Anyway you slice it, though, I don't know how you get past reasonable doubt. Given what the prosecution presented, I just can't see it. Seems the jury was victim to the same verification bias as the detectives. And of course the admission that failure to testify was a "huge" factor renders the whole trial a sham.
Difference is that, that said, I'd not put a guy away for life on that. Or on that plus the testimony of a completely unreliable witness. I'd rather a murderer go free than take that risk.
Horrifying part is that if you accept for a moment the potential of Jay as the doer (for whatever motive) then the verificaction bias of the cops seems to have led them to carefully coach Jay to make sure the case, timeline, etc came together....against Adnan. Basically the cops were actively, if unwittingly, complicit in Jay's framing of Adnan. They made it downright easy.
And Jay walks. Felony conviction, sure, but no time.
Edit: the biggest concern I have is the untaped interview portions. Because of that, we have no idea how much of Jays statement was original, and how much was influenced by facts from the police. As noted in the podcast, this is a horrible practice that has since been eliminated.
I agree that Jay's lying doesn't mean that Adnan is automatically innocent. What I would like to understand is why did Jay lie and/or change his story repeatedly? I haven't seen a good explanation for that other than maybe he was more involved in the actual murder and he is trying to reduce his involvement. That, in my mind, is the only plausible reason for his ever changing story. The other reasons he gave were he was scared of Adnan, Adnan knew he was a drug dealer, and Adnan threatened Stephanie. I don't see how any of those things gives a good reason for changing the story about Patapsco State Park, when Adnan planned the murder, where Adnan killed Hae, where the trunk pop happens, and where the shovels were dumped.
Honestly, I'm leaning towards Adnan didn't do it but without great conviction in that stance. At the very least there is a TON of reasonable doubt that I think should have prevented Adnan from being convicted.
As for the Jay interviews, even in the taped portions you can see the detectives leading him.
You really can't ignore the possibility of the police tampering with his statements. It was pointed out that even in the recorded portion, in several places the detectives prompt him to change portions of his statement to match their theory and timeline. To get his story straight. It's the same reason we separate suspects, to prevent them from doing this. But he police actually step into the role of co-conspirator, and help Jay mold his statement.
Who knows how much MORE of this in the hours and hours of interview that occurred prior to taping.
It's almost certainly a combination of Jay minimizing his role, and trying to make his statement match what the cops want. Because that "cooperation" is what earned him a walk. And Jay just seems like a liar anyway, but again none of this makes Adnan innocent. Just scads of reasonable doubt.
If you throw out the timeline, there's no exculpatory evidence at all, really. Which, of course, would matter if the prosecution hadn't relied on that timeline for conviction, and if any burden was placed on the defense to prove innocence. The main problem, to me, was the jury. This rolls back into my normal rants against high stakes plea bargaining, because we simply cannot trust juries to be impartial or respect the law...so overcharging and high stakes plea bargaining ("take this plea for probation or face thirty years") forces people to plead out, even if innocent.
Adnan could easily be innocent, and the state didn't prove otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. But the jurors didn't like that he didn't testify, so now he's doing life.
I believe the Grisham book I mentioned earlier dealt with a case in which the confession that was admitted against s guy contained not one bit of information synthesized by the accused...basically every detail was fed to him by the police. I may be thinking of another case. But yeah this has been an issue for ages.
I think my biggest hangup is that adnan is a very smart guy, and a smart guy doesn't kill someone and then invite a sketchball to come help get rid of the body
It sucks that this is a real thing that really happened and is still kind of playing out in real time... it's surreal that we're sitting here trying to piece together a real case and not something invented for a tv show.
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
There were one or two spots where it worked. Mostly though I was just thinking shut up shut up shut up. So terrible.
but, I feel like, A: she really didn't rep the home team as well as she could've, and B: I think she let a lot of things slip in this trial that shouldn't have been let, and I think it made all the difference (and C: holy hell does she sound absolutely miserable and she repeats herself a lot and ugh)
I also don't know how on earth she couldn't absolutely torpedo Jay's credibility as a witness when the prosecution set up his legal counsel
I mean
seriously
what in the shit
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
She tried. Judge didn't care, jury didn't care.
Smart 18 year old. I think he probably did it but it scares me that you can get convicted on such sketchy evidence. I suspect the notion of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is pretty much bullshit to keep the nervous good natured non-evildoers at peace. Or maybe he just had a shitty lawyer.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
And accounted for his alibi with... track practice? A thing that doesn't take attendance. And he doesn't make a scene or make sure anyone notices him. He allegedly tells Jay that he plans on that being his alibi. You wouldn't plan something a little more iron clad? That bothers me a lot, as do his other fuckups assuming he did do it, like the phone call to Adnan's friend at a time when he's in the library.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Yeah, it definitely felt superfluous up until that point, but the letter really put Adnan's experience doing the show into perspective. It was very poignant. Perhaps the most powerful moment of the show thus far. Also it addressed the whole "Adnan is guilty because if he was innocent he'd be tearing into Jay." crowd, so that was nice too. Can't wait to see how SK chooses to wrap things up.
I had no problem with that episode but I'm not looking at this as a podcast where SK lays out new evidence each week about the trial. Instead she is giving insight into the judicial system and the thought processes of those involved. It was interesting to see how once someone becomes a murder suspect people will go back into their past and take stupid teenage bullshit and use it as grounds for smearing their character. So Adnan stole some money from the mosque with a few other kids. That was a bad thing, but I'm not sure that gives us any new amazing insight into whether or not Adnan was capable of murder.
It was also really interesting to hear from that expert who basically said there are no hard and fast rules for who can be a killer. That was pretty much saying much of the arm chair character analysis people have been doing is kind of useless.
Tid bits like this were intriguing to me: and
Did you guys not find that sort of stuff informative?