For 90% of the most recent episode, I felt that it was an entirely unnecessary episode. I can see how it was necessary for Sarah Koenig, but it felt like she was scraping the bottom of the barrel to make the full 12 episodes. However, Adnan getting pissed off at her and the letter he wrote, those recontextualised the whole thing and made it quite powerful IMO. It's still one of the weaker episodes, but thematically it was relevant and surprisingly poignant.
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:
Charles Ewing: People can go into what’s called a dissociative state where they’re really psychologically not where they are physically. Probably half of the people I’ve evaluated who have killed other human beings have some degree of amnesia for what they’ve done. Sarah Koenig: Did you say half? Half the people? Charles Ewing:About half. Yeah. And it’s not total amnesia usually, although I’ve seen some people who have a complete amnesia for killing. But it can be partly, “I don’t really recall the details, I don’t recall doing this.” Sarah Koenig:Because literally, like the memory isn’t in their brain anymore, or it never was in their brain? Charles Ewing:Yeah, I don’t think we know the mechanism by which this kind of denial or amnesia or combination works, but in the cases that I’ve been involved in where people have had some kind of amnesia, or partial amnesia, or denial, it doesn’t last forever. It’s very difficult to maintain that kind of facade. What I find is that over time people do recover traces of what happened and they know what happened. But I’ve also seen people who have genuinely snapped and who committed a homicide and then they realize what they’ve done and the immediate reaction for most people is, “oh my God, look what I’ve done,” and “what am I going to do about? I’ve got to figure out someway to cover this up.”
and
Charles Ewing:--and the fact is, most psychopaths aren’t killers and most killers aren’t psychopaths. There’s a very limited overlap between those two spheres.
Did you guys not find that sort of stuff informative?
Short on time right now, but yes that is exactly why I have loved this series.
And the bolded is, to me, what I was getting at earlier about why I don't see it as a whodunit. You're not going to figure out if Adnan did it, or if not who did, and none of that really matters. The question is whether the state proved Adnan did it, not whether he did it. Because even if Adnan is guilty, the state basically caught and convicted him by chance. Decent chance, very decent...I mean you're pretty likely to win the spin if you bet on "boyfriend/husband/ex." But chance nonetheless. You're gonna get it wrong pretty regularly on that bet.
That's cold comfort when I think about if/how I'd be able to defend myself if (dark as the thought may be) my ex-wife turned up murdered. She's in another state now, so not an issue, but if she still lived down the street? And wound up violently killed? I'm pretty sure I'd be on a short list of about three suspects. And I'm not sure I could defend myself much better than Adnan, as far as proving my innocence.
oh yeah, I think the human interest of this story is really what keeps me in it-- but at the same time it's hard not to get sucked up in the case file bits as earnestly as if it were something like the wire. I keep saying this, but it's tough!
So, last episode down. Interesting about the phone record, and the fact that a long enough ring-through will eventually trigger a bill. Which just peels one more fact away from the case against Adnan, which was already slim (especially since Neesha's recollection of the call has Jay at the video store).
Also interesting about random serial killer who targets Asian girls, though not sure I buy it (both too convenient, and the rest of his MO doesn't fit).
I am curious, though, and maybe somebody remembers...how do we know Jay knew where the car was? Did he actually lead the police to it? Or did he verify where it was, after they'd already found it? As it stands, the only reason I think it has to be Adnan, Jay, or somebody who knows them is because Jay knew where the car was. But was even that piece of testimony clearly produced by Jay? Or could it theoretically be one more piece that the police gave him in the unrecorded interview?
Because unless Jay clearly and unambiguously led the police to the car, which they had not previously located, I'd say there is literally no case against Adnan at all. Even Jay may not be involved at that point, if the police gave him that information (intentionally or unintentionally), it could be a case of pinning the blame on Adnan because he was afraid for himself.
So, last episode down. Interesting about the phone record, and the fact that a long enough ring-through will eventually trigger a bill. Which just peels one more fact away from the case against Adnan, which was already slim (especially since Neesha's recollection of the call has Jay at the video store).
Also interesting about random serial killer who targets Asian girls, though not sure I buy it (both too convenient, and the rest of his MO doesn't fit).
I am curious, though, and maybe somebody remembers...how do we know Jay knew where the car was? Did he actually lead the police to it? Or did he verify where it was, after they'd already found it? As it stands, the only reason I think it has to be Adnan, Jay, or somebody who knows them is because Jay knew where the car was. But was even that piece of testimony clearly produced by Jay? Or could it theoretically be one more piece that the police gave him in the unrecorded interview?
Because unless Jay clearly and unambiguously led the police to the car, which they had not previously located, I'd say there is literally no case against Adnan at all. Even Jay may not be involved at that point, if the police gave him that information (intentionally or unintentionally), it could be a case of pinning the blame on Adnan because he was afraid for himself.
The random serial killer part seemed to me like an excuse to meet the legal requirements to get the DNA tested. That is why the Innocence Project person said "Big picture, Sarah, big picture."
Yes, Jay lead the police to the car as well as described what she was wearing and how the body was buried. So Jay, without a doubt, was involved somehow. So the real question the entire time seemed to be "Did Adnan do it and get Jay to help or did Jay do it and pin it on Adnan." There are some theories out there where Jay buried the body with some other third party but I find those rather far fetched.
__________
I thought the last episode wrapped up the series nicely. It added some ambiguity because of the Josh story about Jay being scared, but my only problem with the whole thing was - who the hell tells a coworker they have known for less than a month that they were involved in a murder? It might be mental gymnastics, but I thought it might be possible that Jay was doing the scared thing and telling people about the murder as an act. If Jay murdered Hae alone he knew he had Adnan's car and cell phone so he seemed like the only one he could convince the police was the suspect.
Also the bit Dana brought up about how unlucky Adnan is was completely missing the selection bias of the story they chose. Of course you aren't going to research a case for a year and do 12 episodes on a case when it has clear evidence. There certainly are people who have been exonerated who were also incredibly "unlucky."
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
So, last episode down. Interesting about the phone record, and the fact that a long enough ring-through will eventually trigger a bill. Which just peels one more fact away from the case against Adnan, which was already slim (especially since Neesha's recollection of the call has Jay at the video store).
Also interesting about random serial killer who targets Asian girls, though not sure I buy it (both too convenient, and the rest of his MO doesn't fit).
I am curious, though, and maybe somebody remembers...how do we know Jay knew where the car was? Did he actually lead the police to it? Or did he verify where it was, after they'd already found it? As it stands, the only reason I think it has to be Adnan, Jay, or somebody who knows them is because Jay knew where the car was. But was even that piece of testimony clearly produced by Jay? Or could it theoretically be one more piece that the police gave him in the unrecorded interview?
Because unless Jay clearly and unambiguously led the police to the car, which they had not previously located, I'd say there is literally no case against Adnan at all. Even Jay may not be involved at that point, if the police gave him that information (intentionally or unintentionally), it could be a case of pinning the blame on Adnan because he was afraid for himself.
The random serial killer part seemed to me like an excuse to meet the legal requirements to get the DNA tested. That is why the Innocence Project person said "Big picture, Sarah, big picture."
Yes, Jay lead the police to the car as well as described what she was wearing and how the body was buried. So Jay, without a doubt, was involved somehow. So the real question the entire time seemed to be "Did Adnan do it and get Jay to help or did Jay do it and pin it on Adnan." There are some theories out there where Jay buried the body with some other third party but I find those rather far fetched.
Ah. Well if Jay legitimately and unambiguously produced the car then yeah the random killer thing is just a pretext. But whatever, good luck with that I guess. Thing is, though, there's no DNA evidence that will exonerate Adnan at that point. You can implicate somebody else, but if it's Jay or anybody else then that's all you've accomplished. Adnan really seems to have no way to "prove" his innocence, which is why the presumption thereof is so fucking important.
I want to shoot his jury.
I thought the last episode wrapped up the series nicely. It added some ambiguity because of the Josh story about Jay being scared, but my only problem with the whole thing was - who the hell tells a coworker they have known for less than a month that they were involved in a murder? It might be mental gymnastics, but I thought it might be possible that Jay was doing the scared thing and telling people about the murder as an act. If Jay murdered Hae alone he knew he had Adnan's car and cell phone so he seemed like the only one he could convince the police was the suspect.
Also the bit Dana brought up about how unlucky Adnan is was completely missing the selection bias of the story they chose. Of course you aren't going to research a case for a year and do 12 episodes on a case when it has clear evidence. There certainly are people who have been exonerated who were also incredibly "unlucky."
Right. If you assume for a moment active malice on Jay's part to implicate Adnan (all of which could be after an unplanned murder) half that stuff can still fall into place...at which point it's not "bad luck," it's design. Either way, none of that "luck" seems so far-fetched as to be beyond the realm of possibility. And like I've said before, none of this is about whether Adnan is innocent, not really. At least it shouldn't be. It's about whether his trial was remotely fair. And I think that question has been unambiguously answered.
And I find it shady that Jay's coworker remembered that clearly what Jay was scared of, especially when he starts inserting Adnan's name despite saying Jay never said it. Jay was dealing drugs. There are lots of things Jay could have been scared of. *shrug*
...And like I've said before, none of this is about whether Adnan is innocent, not really. At least it shouldn't be. It's about whether his trial was remotely fair. And I think that question has been unambiguously answered.
I was very glad that Sarah Koenig brought this up and clearly stated she thought Adnan shouldn't have been convicted because of the reasonable doubt involved in this case.
Man, I just started listening to this podcast last week (I'm up to episode 10) and it's so good. The hook, the story telling, the research, the music. Season 2 can't come fast enough.
I was reading elsewhere (reddit) and someone mentioned that there is a definite possibility the cops had already found the car and coached Jay into "showing" them where it was. There is just way too much off the record interview time with that lying asshole.
I was reading elsewhere (reddit) and someone mentioned that there is a definite possibility the cops had already found the car and coached Jay into "showing" them where it was. There is just way too much off the record interview time with that lying asshole.
That seems a little too conspiracy theory-ish for me. I think the cops did a horrible job in this case. I guess having Jay find the car lends credibility to Jay's story, but that would require a lot of shitty corruption for them to manufacture Jay's story as well as the car find just so they could put Adnan away.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
The stuff about Jay possibly having given Adnan's phone to a third party and having another different phone was completely riveting to me.
It really had me feeling like Adnan had nothing to do with this murder and it was really Jay and (possibly) someone else.
It's insane to me that they had that much physical evidence against Jay (Shovel, gloves, at least) plus his own testimony that he knew about the murder and helped bury the body AND LIED TO THE POLICE ABOUT IT but no he is above suspicion for anything beyond exactly what he admitted to and, in some cases, lied about.
I just don't understand. I'm sure they could have gotten a jury to convict on the "he was afraid Hae was going to tell Stephanie Jay was cheating on her" or something.
The stuff about Jay possibly having given Adnan's phone to a third party and having another different phone was completely riveting to me.
It really had me feeling like Adnan had nothing to do with this murder and it was really Jay and (possibly) someone else.
It's insane to me that they had that much physical evidence against Jay (Shovel, gloves, at least) plus his own testimony that he knew about the murder and helped bury the body AND LIED TO THE POLICE ABOUT IT but no he is above suspicion for anything beyond exactly what he admitted to and, in some cases, lied about.
I just don't understand. I'm sure they could have gotten a jury to convict on the "he was afraid Hae was going to tell Stephanie Jay was cheating on her" or something.
They had their suspect (Adnan). Jay was able to hand them that suspect. That's all there is to it.
The police operate almost 100% on verification bias.
I don't think either Adnan or Jay did it. I think one or both of them knows who did it, and is lying to protect them for whatever reason. It's a bit of a conspiracy theory, but the evidence is inconsistent with either of them having done it.
Edit: I do agree with the above comments though; the original investigation seems poorly executed, and there should never have been a conviction in this case.
I don't think either Adnan or Jay did it. I think one or both of them knows who did it, and is lying to protect them for whatever reason. It's a bit of a conspiracy theory, but the evidence is inconsistent with either of them having done it.
Edit: I do agree with the above comments though; the original investigation seems poorly executed, and there should never have been a conviction in this case.
This is where I feel I end up. It feels like the real motive and suspect are not mentioned in this. Jay's motive is too cloudy, and his story too mixed to believe he's not more involved than what he admitted to.
I don't think either Adnan or Jay did it. I think one or both of them knows who did it, and is lying to protect them for whatever reason. It's a bit of a conspiracy theory, but the evidence is inconsistent with either of them having done it.
Edit: I do agree with the above comments though; the original investigation seems poorly executed, and there should never have been a conviction in this case.
This is where I feel I end up. It feels like the real motive and suspect are not mentioned in this. Jay's motive is too cloudy, and his story too mixed to believe he's not more involved than what he admitted to.
Yeah, the more into the series I got, it started shifting from Law & Order episode to Coen Brothers Movie. I think none of us will ever know the full story, and that nobody's even theorized it.
I don't think either Adnan or Jay did it. I think one or both of them knows who did it, and is lying to protect them for whatever reason. It's a bit of a conspiracy theory, but the evidence is inconsistent with either of them having done it.
Edit: I do agree with the above comments though; the original investigation seems poorly executed, and there should never have been a conviction in this case.
This is where I feel I end up. It feels like the real motive and suspect are not mentioned in this. Jay's motive is too cloudy, and his story too mixed to believe he's not more involved than what he admitted to.
Yeah, the more into the series I got, it started shifting from Law & Order episode to Coen Brothers Movie. I think none of us will ever know the full story, and that nobody's even theorized it.
In my opinion I think the basic possibilities of the case have been theorized. Since Jay knew where the car was that leaves us with:
Adnan did it and got Jay to help.
Jay did it and pinned it on Adnan. Possibly because Hae confronted him about cheating on Stephanie
Jay and some third party did it. The theory is it could have been someone he knew from drug dealing. (not very likely IMO)
Jay didn't actually know where the car was and the police somehow convinced him to say he knew where it was to lend him credibility so they could get Adnan (not very likely IMO)
Adnan took a polygraph it was brought up by Rabia during her AMA and the guess is since she brought it up it might be favorable for Adnan.
Jay and Jenn had criminal charges after the case. Jay's involved some domestic violence.
Adnan had Nisha's phone number programmed to the 2 button on the phone (1 was reserved for voice mail) and on that particular model it only took 1.7 seconds of pressing a button before it would dial. There was no software lock for the buttons and a key guard was sold for this model because it was apparently a common problem.
Hae was supposedly not raped but her bra and skirt were pushed up when the body was found. According to the innocence project some of the samples taken were not tested for DNA at all. Cite.
Jay said he drove by the area where the car was dumped to check on it up to 4 days before his first interview with police. Cite Page 23.
Jay claimed he had interacted with Adnan roughly 12 times over the 6 weeks between Hae's disappearance and his first interview;
Jay was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest something around 2-4 weeks after Hae's disappearance. (looking for a link for this)
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
The stuff about Jay possibly having given Adnan's phone to a third party and having another different phone was completely riveting to me.
It really had me feeling like Adnan had nothing to do with this murder and it was really Jay and (possibly) someone else.
It's insane to me that they had that much physical evidence against Jay (Shovel, gloves, at least) plus his own testimony that he knew about the murder and helped bury the body AND LIED TO THE POLICE ABOUT IT but no he is above suspicion for anything beyond exactly what he admitted to and, in some cases, lied about.
I just don't understand. I'm sure they could have gotten a jury to convict on the "he was afraid Hae was going to tell Stephanie Jay was cheating on her" or something.
Yeah this is the part that really bugged me. Like someone else said, the police had confirmation bias most likely...but I'm just shocked that Adnan was convicted.
Also, learning more about his defense attorney makes me really sad...just how one person's fuck ups can condemn a person to prison.
Yeah this is the part that really bugged me. Like someone else said, the police had confirmation bias most likely...but I'm just shocked that Adnan was convicted.
Also, learning more about his defense attorney makes me really sad...just how one person's fuck ups can condemn a person to prison.
While I'm not sure she was particularly effective, I'm not sure how much difference it would have made. I don't place it all on her. When the jury admits to disregarding the law and the judge's instructions, I'm not sure how much even the best lawyer can do. Though I suppose maybe you get lucky and get a lawyer that can reasonably predict just how the jury will disregard the law, and work with that. But at that point we're no longer describing any real system of justice, but rather something akin to a buggy online game that hopefully you can find the right exploit to put up the W in.
If a jury is expecting you to prove your innocence, odds are you're fucked. Period.
And far too many juries do.
Again, this is why we see such high plea rates. Sure, a large part of that is that most of these folks are, you know, guilty. I'm not naive. But in a fair number of those cases, there really isn't evidence beyond reasonable doubt and theoretically the factually guilty person should be able to successfully defend against the charge. And in some unknown number of cases (not sure if stats are really kept, or how you would) you have innocent people plead out because the stakes are just far too high to trust a jury to uphold the law.
Adnan, guilty or innocent, realizes this now. Had he admitted guilt (guilty or no), and plead out, he'd be home today. More likely he'll die in prison. And I doubt anybody on that jury is losing a night of sleep over it.
The vital question for listeners now is whether the evidence discovered in the course of reporting the podcast – including some new evidence not known to the defense lawyer at trial – will get Adnan a new trial at which he could be well-represented and armed with evidence that could help him contest the prosecution’s case.
The answer is that current law is very much against him.
Once a trial is over and the jury has found a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it is very difficult to secure that person a new trial unless there were serious legal mistakes at the original trial. New evidence that casts doubt on the reliability of the conviction is viewed with skepticism – especially when the case has been unsuccessfully appealed and challenged in other post-conviction proceedings, as Syed’s was.
For example, there are even judges on the US supreme court, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, who seem unwilling to reverse even death penalty convictions even in the case of clear evidence of innocence. In the 2009 case of Troy Davis, Justice Scalia wrote:
"This court has never held that the constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable"
-Scalia
...
The standard for granting a new trial varies from state to state, but is fairly daunting in Maryland – where the defendant has the burden of proving both that he could not have discovered the new evidence with due diligence at the time of trial, and that the evidence is likely to result in an acquittal in a new trial. So, unless more and better evidence of actual innocence can be found, I doubt that Syed will get a new trial based on the current challenge
This got me thinking. Should we lower the burden of proof in the post conviction appeals to allow for new evidence that would create reasonable doubt instead of this stricter standard that it would definitely prove innocence. Would a change like that inundate the appeals courts with people trying to reopen cases? It seems interesting that they do not allow evidence that was available at the time of the original court case but was not used for some strategic reason or oversight on the part of the defense attorney. For example in this case the defense had no idea when the prosecution was going to say Adnan had killed Hae. Based on most of the interviews with Jay it sounded like the "Come pick me up at Best buy" happened around 3:30 or so. So they would have prepared for that scenario. However in the actual court room arguments the prosecution argued that the murder occurred around 2:30 which was the only call that matched up with the cell records. The Asia alibi would have covered this time frame but without prior knowledge of the prosecution's case the defense was trying to find an alibi for the wrong time frame. So in this case the Asia alibi was known to the defense but they considered inconsequential. So with the Maryland rules it sound like that would not constitute new exculpatory evidence.
Also how much time did they have between pretrial discovery where the prosecution shares information and the actual trial?
Interrogatories, requests for production, motions for physical and mental examination, and written deposition questions must be made at a sufficiently early time to assure that they are answered before the expiration of the discovery deadline set by the Court.
What is considered a sufficiently early time? I've googled but I can't seem to find what is considered sufficiently early or what the average time is.
Edit: I started thinking how likely is it that different sets of 12 jurors come to the same conclusion given the same court case. From some quick googling the answer is somewhere between "they would probably come to the same conclusion but the research / statistics behind this conlusion is kind of shaky" to "we really don't know more research needs to be done"
This paper goes over this topic but covers a little bit about criminal juries and more about civil juries. Most of the research has been done with mock trials and usually involves university students as jurors which is not really a representative sample of the population. http://www.lawcourts.org/subpages/reviews/overland1009.htm
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Just finished listening through this. Man. Just...man. The thing that made me the most angry, outside of just the general fuckery of a conviction on a sole witness who can't keep his story straight and a timeline that wouldn't have stood the most cursory attack by a defense attorney who had made that her focus instead of making the character of the witness of her focus, was that the jury was specifically instructed to NOT hold it against Adnan that he didn't testify (a completely reasonable thing to avoid if you give it two seconds of thought), and they went on to absolutely use that fact in their deliberations to form an opinion of his guilt. I was driving at that point. There was serious steering wheel pounding and shouting.
On the positive side, I really appreciated the set-up for the podcast--the ability to take the investigative journey with Koenig was really affective. I'm very excited for season 2.
My guess is season 2 is not going to be a murder mystery which I think will disappoint a lot of people. It will just be like a really long This American Life episode.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
My guess is season 2 is not going to be a murder mystery which I think will disappoint a lot of people. It will just be like a really long This American Life episode.
Yeah, it's obvious they didn't expect this one to blow up like it did, and I doubt the intent was ever for this to be a murder mystery show.
If we're talking about dream S2 topics though, I'd love love love a 12 parter on the 2008 financial crisis.
Just finished this podcast tonight. Better late then never, everything been discussed, blah blah blah. Also, kind of annoyed at how it ended even if I kinda understand why they can't really legally or ethically entertain a different slightly more judgemental ending.
But seriously, the one thing I took away from this podcast more then anything is that it's like an 8.5 hour in-depth testimonial on the terrifying arbitrarity of even the basic idea of how our criminal justice systems function.
Anyway, I feel like the show really suffered in many ways because I assume they can't speculate or accuse other people of the murder directly. That's got to be against journalistic ethics at the least and I assume also the law (not clear on libel/defamation law). That's the only explanation I can come up with for why they don't spend basically any time looking at the obvious theory that Jay did it. Everyone notices this and even the Innocence Project people point out how important that kind of stuff is for securing an overturn of a conviction, but no peep in the podcast.
But yeah, I think we all see it as the obvious alternative. Everything that makes Jay their star witness makes him the most obvious suspect as well. Except he lacks a motive and that's what the detectives are really after. That's what they build their biases and the case around. Dead girl => Boyfriend or Ex because that's the obvious motive.
What seems obvious to me by the end is what Sarah brings up in last episode: that both Jay and Adnan seem to be lying about something. It really seems to me like something weird is going on that day. The only other thing I can pin down is that Jay is involved somehow.
Another point I noticed in one of the early episodes is the story of how the police come to locate Jay. The impression you really get from the story is Jay panicking and feeding his friend(s) a story about what happened to cover his ass. It really all feels after-the-fact.
I thought the last episode wrapped up the series nicely. It added some ambiguity because of the Josh story about Jay being scared, but my only problem with the whole thing was - who the hell tells a coworker they have known for less than a month that they were involved in a murder? It might be mental gymnastics, but I thought it might be possible that Jay was doing the scared thing and telling people about the murder as an act. If Jay murdered Hae alone he knew he had Adnan's car and cell phone so he seemed like the only one he could convince the police was the suspect.
Also the bit Dana brought up about how unlucky Adnan is was completely missing the selection bias of the story they chose. Of course you aren't going to research a case for a year and do 12 episodes on a case when it has clear evidence. There certainly are people who have been exonerated who were also incredibly "unlucky."
Right. If you assume for a moment active malice on Jay's part to implicate Adnan (all of which could be after an unplanned murder) half that stuff can still fall into place...at which point it's not "bad luck," it's design. Either way, none of that "luck" seems so far-fetched as to be beyond the realm of possibility. And like I've said before, none of this is about whether Adnan is innocent, not really. At least it shouldn't be. It's about whether his trial was remotely fair. And I think that question has been unambiguously answered.
But that's clearly what it is about. The podcast established reasonable doubt within a few episodes. Sarah even states as much (at least, in her opinion). It's clearly about alot more then that, both when she started looking in to this, when she got obsessed and by the time she finished the podcast.
I get the impression this is not about Adnan's trial except tangentially. The summation of the series, for all that it's a bit of a letdown imo, seems fairly clear that what this is really about is the fact that for all their effort, for all their searching and pushing and pulling, they ultimately have no idea what the fuck happened. Not even a really plausible theory. And she isn't talking about something that will hold up in court or something that will exonerate Adnan or whatever, but simply something that would fulfil the fundamental need everyone had by the end of the first episode: a story that explains the murder of Hae Min Lee that isn't just pure speculation. And that's the one thing, for all her obsession and frustration, that seems out of reach. And that's why she became so obsessed with the case and part of why I think many listeners did too.
The podcast begins with the idea that ultimately this case comes down to either Adnan or Jay is lying. And the only change by the end is that they both seem like they might be lying. Nothing about the damn thing makes sense.
Anyway, I feel like the show really suffered in many ways because I assume they can't speculate or accuse other people of the murder directly. That's got to be against journalistic ethics at the least and I assume also the law (not clear on libel/defamation law). That's the only explanation I can come up with for why they don't spend basically any time looking at the obvious theory that Jay did it. Everyone notices this and even the Innocence Project people point out how important that kind of stuff is for securing an overturn of a conviction, but no peep in the podcast.
But yeah, I think we all see it as the obvious alternative. Everything that makes Jay their star witness makes him the most obvious suspect as well. Except he lacks a motive and that's what the detectives are really after. That's what they build their biases and the case around. Dead girl => Boyfriend or Ex because that's the obvious motive.
What seems obvious to me by the end is what Sarah brings up in last episode: that both Jay and Adnan seem to be lying about something. It really seems to me like something weird is going on that day. The only other thing I can pin down is that Jay is involved somehow.
Another point I noticed in one of the early episodes is the story of how the police come to locate Jay. The impression you really get from the story is Jay panicking and feeding his friend(s) a story about what happened to cover his ass. It really all feels after-the-fact.
@shryke
So you are annoyed that they had to adhere to journalistic ethics? Like you said they did a pretty good job of laying out all the facts without coming out and making wild speculations about how Jay murdered her and setting up Adnan. The audience can easily take those facts and come to the obvious conclusion that Jay is another possible suspect. Also, in one of my earlier posts there is a possible motive from the court documents for Jay to kill Hae. It isn't a great motive but IMO it is about as good as Adnan's possible motive.
If you want speculation how Jay could have done it you can easily find it all over the internet and especially on the subreddit /r/serialpodcast. If you haven't read The Intercept interviews Jay and his family are already getting harassed by some internet crazies. If the Serial team made some speculations about him being the murderer it could have sent even more crazies his way.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Anyway, I feel like the show really suffered in many ways because I assume they can't speculate or accuse other people of the murder directly. That's got to be against journalistic ethics at the least and I assume also the law (not clear on libel/defamation law). That's the only explanation I can come up with for why they don't spend basically any time looking at the obvious theory that Jay did it. Everyone notices this and even the Innocence Project people point out how important that kind of stuff is for securing an overturn of a conviction, but no peep in the podcast.
But yeah, I think we all see it as the obvious alternative. Everything that makes Jay their star witness makes him the most obvious suspect as well. Except he lacks a motive and that's what the detectives are really after. That's what they build their biases and the case around. Dead girl => Boyfriend or Ex because that's the obvious motive.
What seems obvious to me by the end is what Sarah brings up in last episode: that both Jay and Adnan seem to be lying about something. It really seems to me like something weird is going on that day. The only other thing I can pin down is that Jay is involved somehow.
Another point I noticed in one of the early episodes is the story of how the police come to locate Jay. The impression you really get from the story is Jay panicking and feeding his friend(s) a story about what happened to cover his ass. It really all feels after-the-fact.
@shryke
So you are annoyed that they had to adhere to journalistic ethics? Like you said they did a pretty good job of laying out all the facts without coming out and making wild speculations about how Jay murdered her and setting up Adnan. The audience can easily take those facts and come to the obvious conclusion that Jay is another possible suspect. Also, in one of my earlier posts there is a possible motive from the court documents for Jay to kill Hae. It isn't a great motive but IMO it is about as good as Adnan's possible motive.
If you want speculation how Jay could have done it you can easily find it all over the internet and especially on the subreddit /r/serialpodcast. If you haven't read The Intercept interviews Jay and his family are already getting harassed by some internet crazies. If the Serial team made some speculations about him being the murderer it could have sent even more crazies his way.
I'm not annoyed they had to adhere to journalistic ethics and never said anything of the sort. I did say the show suffered for it though and it does. And your whole post points out exactly why. Look at all the discussion about it. Look at the evidence you post that's not in the podcast. There's simply a huge section of this story they won't go anywhere near and you can feel it's absence in the show.
I'm not annoyed they had to adhere to journalistic ethics and never said anything of the sort. I did say the show suffered for it though and it does. And your whole post points out exactly why. Look at all the discussion about it. Look at the evidence you post that's not in the podcast. There's simply a huge section of this story they won't go anywhere near and you can feel it's absence in the show.
Sorry, I read this line as "I kinda understand why they had to adhere to journalistic ethics but I'm still annoyed at them."
Just finished this podcast tonight. Better late then never, everything been discussed, blah blah blah. Also, kind of annoyed at how it ended even if I kinda understand why they can't really legally or ethically entertain a different slightly more judgemental ending.
But seriously, the one thing I took away from this podcast more then anything is that it's like an 8.5 hour in-depth testimonial on the terrifying arbitrarity of even the basic idea of how our criminal justice systems function.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I'm not annoyed they had to adhere to journalistic ethics and never said anything of the sort. I did say the show suffered for it though and it does. And your whole post points out exactly why. Look at all the discussion about it. Look at the evidence you post that's not in the podcast. There's simply a huge section of this story they won't go anywhere near and you can feel it's absence in the show.
Sorry, I read this line as "I kinda understand why they had to adhere to journalistic ethics but I'm still annoyed at them."
Just finished this podcast tonight. Better late then never, everything been discussed, blah blah blah. Also, kind of annoyed at how it ended even if I kinda understand why they can't really legally or ethically entertain a different slightly more judgemental ending.
But seriously, the one thing I took away from this podcast more then anything is that it's like an 8.5 hour in-depth testimonial on the terrifying arbitrarity of even the basic idea of how our criminal justice systems function.
The problem with the ending is how inconclusive it is. And I don't mean "they don't solve the case" but more "there's no real wrap up". When it ended both me and the wife were like "That's it?". There was no real feeling we were building to an ending.
A big part of this is because they can't actually propose what they think is the more likely scenarios then the states case or the like. So they are left able only to really say "Well, Adnan probably didn't do it, but we can't be certain".
Which is kind of an ending (the lack of ability to ever find certainty here kinda qualifies in a Zodiac way), but it feels undercooked and unsatisfying.
Do you have a suggestion on how they should of ended it while still adhering to journalistic ethics?
Personally, I was fine with the end of the podcast but I'm curious what you think could have been done better.
A build-up to the ending. A better summation of the facts and their take on it. Really, a better summation. If you can't tie the whole case up you can at least tie up the facts and the unknowns and all that. (though you have to be careful here). You are ending a 12-part story, you need a definitive conclusion to your story/reporting/etc.
"The reason is that once you understood the cell phone records, in conjunction with Jay’s testimony, it became a very strong case. ... The problem was that the cell phone records corroborated so much of Jay’s testimony. He said, ‘We were in this place,’ and it checked out with the cell phone records. And he said that in the police interviews prior to obtaining the cell phone evidence. A lot of what he said was corroborated by the cell phone evidence, including that the two of them were at Leakin Park.
MacGillivary interviewed Wilds a second time on March 15, 1 999, with Appellant's cell phone records, and noticed that Wilds' statement did not match up to the records. Once confronted with the cell phone records, Wilds "remembered things a lot better." (2/17/00-158)
There were a lot of inconsistencies throughout Jay’s prior statements. Almost all of them involve what we would call collateral facts.
A material fact is something directly related to the question of guilt or innocence. A material fact would have been, ‘I was with Adnan,’ and then you’ve got the cellphone corroborating that material fact. A collateral fact would be, We were at Joe’s Sub Shop,’ but then you find out actually they were at the auto repair store. That’s a collateral fact. It’s not necessarily material to the question of guilt or innocence. So, many of the material facts were corroborated through the cellphone records including being in Leakin Park.
...
[literally the answer to the next question]
The problem was that the cellphone records corroborated so much of Jay’s testimony. He said, ‘We were in this place,’ and it checked out with the cellphone records.
So who cares if the collateral facts were wrong? Next question. The collateral facts were totally consistent!
We did not spend any real time trying to verify any of the statements Jay made about where he was during the day with the cellphone records because we never considered that time period relevant.
Is it just me or does that sound like sloppy work?
We also learned that Christina Guiterrez had 80 people at the mosque who were willing to say Adnan was there when his cell phone pinged Leakin Park. So either as a community they were going to lie to protect Adnan or Adnan was actually there and only his cell phone was in Leakin Park. I find it interesting that the prosecutor pretty much assumes that if Adnan's phone is somewhere then Adnan must also be there. Even though he is known to lend out his phone and had done so earlier in the day.
To me this really seems like the prosecutor had blinders on and completely ignored anything that they deemed irrelevant or didn't think helped their case.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
We also learned that Christina Guiterrez had 80 people at the mosque who were willing to say Adnan was there when his cell phone pinged Leakin Park. So either as a community they were going to lie to protect Adnan or Adnan was actually there and only his cell phone was in Leakin Park. I find it interesting that the prosecutor pretty much assumes that if Adnan's phone is somewhere then Adnan must also be there. Even though he is known to lend out his phone and had done so earlier in the day.
To me this really seems like the prosecutor had blinders on and completely ignored anything that they deemed irrelevant or didn't think helped their case.
This is pretty common among prosecutors. And detectives. Verification bias is just how they roll. Evidence that can be used to prove guilt is trustworthy, evidence that is exculpatory is not. And you build the case and get the conviction, "factual" guilt or innocence is irrelevant. If the accused is innocent, it's his attorney's job to prove that (whether this is legally the case or not).
Anything short of irrefutable, unmistakable proof of innocence seems to be completely ignored in most prosecutions. If you can convict the guy you convict the guy. The system is treated as entirely adversarial, with no role on the prosecutor's part to determine truth, merely to build a case and win.
It reminds me of the video most of us are familiar with about never talking to police, where they also cover this. It's why talking to police other than through counsel will never help you, ever. Because police* and prosecutors* are never interested in innocence, and any time they interface with somebody it's with the purpose of securing a conviction. Even if that conviction comes from a jury who disregards the law, they give zero shits. Win's a win.
* - In general, obviously exceptions to every rule.
As the podcast revealed, McClain wrote two letters back in 1999 swearing that she had been in the library with Syed at the exact time the state claimed that Syed was strangling Lee. Syed turned McClain’s letters over to his lawyer, Cristina Gutierrez, who apparently never followed up on the thread. Gutierrez’s oversight was grounds for an appeal alleging incompetent defense; the appeal was defeated in 2010 when prosecutor Kevin Urick testified that he had spoken to McClain—and that she had admitted to fabricating the alibi under pressure from Syed’s family. McClain herself never appeared in court.
Now, the 33-year-old woman has written a new affidavit claiming that she did not recant her story to Urick as the appeals process ramped up, that she was with Syed in the library on the afternoon of the crime, and that Syed’s loved ones did not influence her original decision to come forward. Perhaps most damning, McClain suggests that Urick essentially talked her out of participating in the appeals process by implying that the state’s evidence against Syed was far more robust than it was.
From the affidavit:
I never told Urick that I recanted my story or affidavit about January 13, 1999. In addition, I did not write the March 1999 letters or the affidavit because of pressure from Syed’s family. I did not write them to please Syed’s family or to get them off my back. What actually happened is that I wrote the affidavit because I wanted to provide the truth about what I remembered. My only goal has always been to provide the truth about what I remembered.
McClain informed The Blaze that when Syed’s defense team reached out to her in 2010, she assumed that the case against him was strong, and that she was being contacted “as a Hail Mary.” Confused, she called up Urick to ask what was going on. According to McClain, Urick discouraged her from testifying and powerfully implied that Syed was guilty. At no point, she says, did she tell the prosecutor that she wanted to withdraw her earlier accounts of what happened on Jan. 13, or assert that Syed’s family had leaned on her to dream up an alibi.
This is serious, and needs to be investigated. And if he did do this, Urick needs to be disbarred at the very least.
After all, why wouldn't a court that took his claim of her recanting at face value take his new claim that she's lying at face value?
Welcome to the American criminal justice system.
Because this time, she's willing to take the stand for the defense. There's also the fact her statement is in an affidavit, which is a bit more serious than just a statement.
After all, why wouldn't a court that took his claim of her recanting at face value take his new claim that she's lying at face value?
Welcome to the American criminal justice system.
Because this time, she's willing to take the stand for the defense. There's also the fact her statement is in an affidavit, which is a bit more serious than just a statement.
I'm not sure if this would matter but they could get Don to write an affidavit about how Urick yelled at him for his testimony in the trial. IE he was pissed Don didn't lie about Adnan. I doubt that would really do much good but at least it would be another data point to show how Urick went about his business.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
As the podcast revealed, McClain wrote two letters back in 1999 swearing that she had been in the library with Syed at the exact time the state claimed that Syed was strangling Lee. Syed turned McClain’s letters over to his lawyer, Cristina Gutierrez, who apparently never followed up on the thread. Gutierrez’s oversight was grounds for an appeal alleging incompetent defense; the appeal was defeated in 2010 when prosecutor Kevin Urick testified that he had spoken to McClain—and that she had admitted to fabricating the alibi under pressure from Syed’s family. McClain herself never appeared in court.
Now, the 33-year-old woman has written a new affidavit claiming that she did not recant her story to Urick as the appeals process ramped up, that she was with Syed in the library on the afternoon of the crime, and that Syed’s loved ones did not influence her original decision to come forward. Perhaps most damning, McClain suggests that Urick essentially talked her out of participating in the appeals process by implying that the state’s evidence against Syed was far more robust than it was.
From the affidavit:
I never told Urick that I recanted my story or affidavit about January 13, 1999. In addition, I did not write the March 1999 letters or the affidavit because of pressure from Syed’s family. I did not write them to please Syed’s family or to get them off my back. What actually happened is that I wrote the affidavit because I wanted to provide the truth about what I remembered. My only goal has always been to provide the truth about what I remembered.
McClain informed The Blaze that when Syed’s defense team reached out to her in 2010, she assumed that the case against him was strong, and that she was being contacted “as a Hail Mary.” Confused, she called up Urick to ask what was going on. According to McClain, Urick discouraged her from testifying and powerfully implied that Syed was guilty. At no point, she says, did she tell the prosecutor that she wanted to withdraw her earlier accounts of what happened on Jan. 13, or assert that Syed’s family had leaned on her to dream up an alibi.
This is serious, and needs to be investigated. And if he did do this, Urick needs to be disbarred at the very least.
Currently going through The Wire, and this about matches up with the perverse incentives on display there in the Baltimore PD. Depressing.
Posts
Short on time right now, but yes that is exactly why I have loved this series.
And the bolded is, to me, what I was getting at earlier about why I don't see it as a whodunit. You're not going to figure out if Adnan did it, or if not who did, and none of that really matters. The question is whether the state proved Adnan did it, not whether he did it. Because even if Adnan is guilty, the state basically caught and convicted him by chance. Decent chance, very decent...I mean you're pretty likely to win the spin if you bet on "boyfriend/husband/ex." But chance nonetheless. You're gonna get it wrong pretty regularly on that bet.
That's cold comfort when I think about if/how I'd be able to defend myself if (dark as the thought may be) my ex-wife turned up murdered. She's in another state now, so not an issue, but if she still lived down the street? And wound up violently killed? I'm pretty sure I'd be on a short list of about three suspects. And I'm not sure I could defend myself much better than Adnan, as far as proving my innocence.
Uncanny Magazine!
The Mad Writers Union
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6ab2d45a77/the-last-episode-of-serial
Also interesting about random serial killer who targets Asian girls, though not sure I buy it (both too convenient, and the rest of his MO doesn't fit).
I am curious, though, and maybe somebody remembers...how do we know Jay knew where the car was? Did he actually lead the police to it? Or did he verify where it was, after they'd already found it? As it stands, the only reason I think it has to be Adnan, Jay, or somebody who knows them is because Jay knew where the car was. But was even that piece of testimony clearly produced by Jay? Or could it theoretically be one more piece that the police gave him in the unrecorded interview?
Because unless Jay clearly and unambiguously led the police to the car, which they had not previously located, I'd say there is literally no case against Adnan at all. Even Jay may not be involved at that point, if the police gave him that information (intentionally or unintentionally), it could be a case of pinning the blame on Adnan because he was afraid for himself.
Haha, "Sorry this isn't Jay, I'm borrowing his phone today." Perfect.
The random serial killer part seemed to me like an excuse to meet the legal requirements to get the DNA tested. That is why the Innocence Project person said "Big picture, Sarah, big picture."
Yes, Jay lead the police to the car as well as described what she was wearing and how the body was buried. So Jay, without a doubt, was involved somehow. So the real question the entire time seemed to be "Did Adnan do it and get Jay to help or did Jay do it and pin it on Adnan." There are some theories out there where Jay buried the body with some other third party but I find those rather far fetched.
__________
I thought the last episode wrapped up the series nicely. It added some ambiguity because of the Josh story about Jay being scared, but my only problem with the whole thing was - who the hell tells a coworker they have known for less than a month that they were involved in a murder? It might be mental gymnastics, but I thought it might be possible that Jay was doing the scared thing and telling people about the murder as an act. If Jay murdered Hae alone he knew he had Adnan's car and cell phone so he seemed like the only one he could convince the police was the suspect.
Also the bit Dana brought up about how unlucky Adnan is was completely missing the selection bias of the story they chose. Of course you aren't going to research a case for a year and do 12 episodes on a case when it has clear evidence. There certainly are people who have been exonerated who were also incredibly "unlucky."
Ah. Well if Jay legitimately and unambiguously produced the car then yeah the random killer thing is just a pretext. But whatever, good luck with that I guess. Thing is, though, there's no DNA evidence that will exonerate Adnan at that point. You can implicate somebody else, but if it's Jay or anybody else then that's all you've accomplished. Adnan really seems to have no way to "prove" his innocence, which is why the presumption thereof is so fucking important.
I want to shoot his jury.
Right. If you assume for a moment active malice on Jay's part to implicate Adnan (all of which could be after an unplanned murder) half that stuff can still fall into place...at which point it's not "bad luck," it's design. Either way, none of that "luck" seems so far-fetched as to be beyond the realm of possibility. And like I've said before, none of this is about whether Adnan is innocent, not really. At least it shouldn't be. It's about whether his trial was remotely fair. And I think that question has been unambiguously answered.
And I find it shady that Jay's coworker remembered that clearly what Jay was scared of, especially when he starts inserting Adnan's name despite saying Jay never said it. Jay was dealing drugs. There are lots of things Jay could have been scared of. *shrug*
I was very glad that Sarah Koenig brought this up and clearly stated she thought Adnan shouldn't have been convicted because of the reasonable doubt involved in this case.
This is a really good article about some of the problems with the justice system that could have been brought up by Serial. It is rather frightening IMO.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/17/serial-missed-its-chance-to-show-how-unfair-the-criminal-justice-system-really-is/
PSN: jrrl_absent
That seems a little too conspiracy theory-ish for me. I think the cops did a horrible job in this case. I guess having Jay find the car lends credibility to Jay's story, but that would require a lot of shitty corruption for them to manufacture Jay's story as well as the car find just so they could put Adnan away.
It really had me feeling like Adnan had nothing to do with this murder and it was really Jay and (possibly) someone else.
It's insane to me that they had that much physical evidence against Jay (Shovel, gloves, at least) plus his own testimony that he knew about the murder and helped bury the body AND LIED TO THE POLICE ABOUT IT but no he is above suspicion for anything beyond exactly what he admitted to and, in some cases, lied about.
I just don't understand. I'm sure they could have gotten a jury to convict on the "he was afraid Hae was going to tell Stephanie Jay was cheating on her" or something.
They had their suspect (Adnan). Jay was able to hand them that suspect. That's all there is to it.
The police operate almost 100% on verification bias.
Edit: I do agree with the above comments though; the original investigation seems poorly executed, and there should never have been a conviction in this case.
This is where I feel I end up. It feels like the real motive and suspect are not mentioned in this. Jay's motive is too cloudy, and his story too mixed to believe he's not more involved than what he admitted to.
Yeah, the more into the series I got, it started shifting from Law & Order episode to Coen Brothers Movie. I think none of us will ever know the full story, and that nobody's even theorized it.
In my opinion I think the basic possibilities of the case have been theorized. Since Jay knew where the car was that leaves us with:
________
Some other things I learned from reddit about the case that weren't in the podcast: http://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2pw5dv/serial_reddit_since_the_start_of_the_series_what/
Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3 out tomorrow.
Yeah this is the part that really bugged me. Like someone else said, the police had confirmation bias most likely...but I'm just shocked that Adnan was convicted.
Also, learning more about his defense attorney makes me really sad...just how one person's fuck ups can condemn a person to prison.
While I'm not sure she was particularly effective, I'm not sure how much difference it would have made. I don't place it all on her. When the jury admits to disregarding the law and the judge's instructions, I'm not sure how much even the best lawyer can do. Though I suppose maybe you get lucky and get a lawyer that can reasonably predict just how the jury will disregard the law, and work with that. But at that point we're no longer describing any real system of justice, but rather something akin to a buggy online game that hopefully you can find the right exploit to put up the W in.
If a jury is expecting you to prove your innocence, odds are you're fucked. Period.
And far too many juries do.
Again, this is why we see such high plea rates. Sure, a large part of that is that most of these folks are, you know, guilty. I'm not naive. But in a fair number of those cases, there really isn't evidence beyond reasonable doubt and theoretically the factually guilty person should be able to successfully defend against the charge. And in some unknown number of cases (not sure if stats are really kept, or how you would) you have innocent people plead out because the stakes are just far too high to trust a jury to uphold the law.
Adnan, guilty or innocent, realizes this now. Had he admitted guilt (guilty or no), and plead out, he'd be home today. More likely he'll die in prison. And I doubt anybody on that jury is losing a night of sleep over it.
by Alan Dershowitz professor emeritus at Harvard University Law School
Here are the important parts of the article
This got me thinking. Should we lower the burden of proof in the post conviction appeals to allow for new evidence that would create reasonable doubt instead of this stricter standard that it would definitely prove innocence. Would a change like that inundate the appeals courts with people trying to reopen cases? It seems interesting that they do not allow evidence that was available at the time of the original court case but was not used for some strategic reason or oversight on the part of the defense attorney. For example in this case the defense had no idea when the prosecution was going to say Adnan had killed Hae. Based on most of the interviews with Jay it sounded like the "Come pick me up at Best buy" happened around 3:30 or so. So they would have prepared for that scenario. However in the actual court room arguments the prosecution argued that the murder occurred around 2:30 which was the only call that matched up with the cell records. The Asia alibi would have covered this time frame but without prior knowledge of the prosecution's case the defense was trying to find an alibi for the wrong time frame. So in this case the Asia alibi was known to the defense but they considered inconsequential. So with the Maryland rules it sound like that would not constitute new exculpatory evidence.
Also how much time did they have between pretrial discovery where the prosecution shares information and the actual trial?
What is considered a sufficiently early time? I've googled but I can't seem to find what is considered sufficiently early or what the average time is.
Edit: I started thinking how likely is it that different sets of 12 jurors come to the same conclusion given the same court case. From some quick googling the answer is somewhere between "they would probably come to the same conclusion but the research / statistics behind this conlusion is kind of shaky" to "we really don't know more research needs to be done"
This paper goes over this topic but covers a little bit about criminal juries and more about civil juries. Most of the research has been done with mock trials and usually involves university students as jurors which is not really a representative sample of the population.
http://www.lawcourts.org/subpages/reviews/overland1009.htm
On the positive side, I really appreciated the set-up for the podcast--the ability to take the investigative journey with Koenig was really affective. I'm very excited for season 2.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Yeah, it's obvious they didn't expect this one to blow up like it did, and I doubt the intent was ever for this to be a murder mystery show.
If we're talking about dream S2 topics though, I'd love love love a 12 parter on the 2008 financial crisis.
But seriously, the one thing I took away from this podcast more then anything is that it's like an 8.5 hour in-depth testimonial on the terrifying arbitrarity of even the basic idea of how our criminal justice systems function.
But yeah, I think we all see it as the obvious alternative. Everything that makes Jay their star witness makes him the most obvious suspect as well. Except he lacks a motive and that's what the detectives are really after. That's what they build their biases and the case around. Dead girl => Boyfriend or Ex because that's the obvious motive.
What seems obvious to me by the end is what Sarah brings up in last episode: that both Jay and Adnan seem to be lying about something. It really seems to me like something weird is going on that day. The only other thing I can pin down is that Jay is involved somehow.
Another point I noticed in one of the early episodes is the story of how the police come to locate Jay. The impression you really get from the story is Jay panicking and feeding his friend(s) a story about what happened to cover his ass. It really all feels after-the-fact.
But that's clearly what it is about. The podcast established reasonable doubt within a few episodes. Sarah even states as much (at least, in her opinion). It's clearly about alot more then that, both when she started looking in to this, when she got obsessed and by the time she finished the podcast.
I get the impression this is not about Adnan's trial except tangentially. The summation of the series, for all that it's a bit of a letdown imo, seems fairly clear that what this is really about is the fact that for all their effort, for all their searching and pushing and pulling, they ultimately have no idea what the fuck happened. Not even a really plausible theory. And she isn't talking about something that will hold up in court or something that will exonerate Adnan or whatever, but simply something that would fulfil the fundamental need everyone had by the end of the first episode: a story that explains the murder of Hae Min Lee that isn't just pure speculation. And that's the one thing, for all her obsession and frustration, that seems out of reach. And that's why she became so obsessed with the case and part of why I think many listeners did too.
The podcast begins with the idea that ultimately this case comes down to either Adnan or Jay is lying. And the only change by the end is that they both seem like they might be lying. Nothing about the damn thing makes sense.
@shryke
So you are annoyed that they had to adhere to journalistic ethics? Like you said they did a pretty good job of laying out all the facts without coming out and making wild speculations about how Jay murdered her and setting up Adnan. The audience can easily take those facts and come to the obvious conclusion that Jay is another possible suspect. Also, in one of my earlier posts there is a possible motive from the court documents for Jay to kill Hae. It isn't a great motive but IMO it is about as good as Adnan's possible motive.
If you want speculation how Jay could have done it you can easily find it all over the internet and especially on the subreddit /r/serialpodcast. If you haven't read The Intercept interviews Jay and his family are already getting harassed by some internet crazies. If the Serial team made some speculations about him being the murderer it could have sent even more crazies his way.
I'm not annoyed they had to adhere to journalistic ethics and never said anything of the sort. I did say the show suffered for it though and it does. And your whole post points out exactly why. Look at all the discussion about it. Look at the evidence you post that's not in the podcast. There's simply a huge section of this story they won't go anywhere near and you can feel it's absence in the show.
Sorry, I read this line as "I kinda understand why they had to adhere to journalistic ethics but I'm still annoyed at them."
The problem with the ending is how inconclusive it is. And I don't mean "they don't solve the case" but more "there's no real wrap up". When it ended both me and the wife were like "That's it?". There was no real feeling we were building to an ending.
A big part of this is because they can't actually propose what they think is the more likely scenarios then the states case or the like. So they are left able only to really say "Well, Adnan probably didn't do it, but we can't be certain".
Which is kind of an ending (the lack of ability to ever find certainty here kinda qualifies in a Zodiac way), but it feels undercooked and unsatisfying.
Personally, I was fine with the end of the podcast but I'm curious what you think could have been done better.
A build-up to the ending. A better summation of the facts and their take on it. Really, a better summation. If you can't tie the whole case up you can at least tie up the facts and the unknowns and all that. (though you have to be careful here). You are ending a 12-part story, you need a definitive conclusion to your story/reporting/etc.
Some interesting tid bits:
So who cares if the collateral facts were wrong? Next question. The collateral facts were totally consistent!
Is it just me or does that sound like sloppy work?
We also learned that Christina Guiterrez had 80 people at the mosque who were willing to say Adnan was there when his cell phone pinged Leakin Park. So either as a community they were going to lie to protect Adnan or Adnan was actually there and only his cell phone was in Leakin Park. I find it interesting that the prosecutor pretty much assumes that if Adnan's phone is somewhere then Adnan must also be there. Even though he is known to lend out his phone and had done so earlier in the day.
To me this really seems like the prosecutor had blinders on and completely ignored anything that they deemed irrelevant or didn't think helped their case.
This is pretty common among prosecutors. And detectives. Verification bias is just how they roll. Evidence that can be used to prove guilt is trustworthy, evidence that is exculpatory is not. And you build the case and get the conviction, "factual" guilt or innocence is irrelevant. If the accused is innocent, it's his attorney's job to prove that (whether this is legally the case or not).
Anything short of irrefutable, unmistakable proof of innocence seems to be completely ignored in most prosecutions. If you can convict the guy you convict the guy. The system is treated as entirely adversarial, with no role on the prosecutor's part to determine truth, merely to build a case and win.
It reminds me of the video most of us are familiar with about never talking to police, where they also cover this. It's why talking to police other than through counsel will never help you, ever. Because police* and prosecutors* are never interested in innocence, and any time they interface with somebody it's with the purpose of securing a conviction. Even if that conviction comes from a jury who disregards the law, they give zero shits. Win's a win.
* - In general, obviously exceptions to every rule.
This is serious, and needs to be investigated. And if he did do this, Urick needs to be disbarred at the very least.
After all, why wouldn't a court that took his claim of her recanting at face value take his new claim that she's lying at face value?
Welcome to the American criminal justice system.
Because this time, she's willing to take the stand for the defense. There's also the fact her statement is in an affidavit, which is a bit more serious than just a statement.
I'm not sure if this would matter but they could get Don to write an affidavit about how Urick yelled at him for his testimony in the trial. IE he was pissed Don didn't lie about Adnan. I doubt that would really do much good but at least it would be another data point to show how Urick went about his business.
Currently going through The Wire, and this about matches up with the perverse incentives on display there in the Baltimore PD. Depressing.