[gwnn]

cherdano, on 2015-January-15, 15:13, said:

"Something involving drugs" is one of the likeliest a priori explanations, not a crazy one.
Meanwhile, "Lending your drug dealer your car so he can buy a birthday present, after you have made trips around town together earlier that day" is a not-so-credible statement...

I'm not sure about this (drug-related killing of an innocent bystander vs jealous rage of a 17 year old). Hae did write in her journal that Adnan is possessive, called her the devil (in jest), she told him that he should respect her break up decision because he's not doing so at the moment, and he wrote "I WILL KILL" on this letter. Plus many of the people from the mosque contacted SK saying they thought there's something wrong with Adnan. Yes as against that, Jay once tried to stab his buddy to show him how it feels like. Suffice it to say I would rather not be the best friend of either person, but at least you have to admit that the prosecution motive makes sense (sure, motive is not that important).

About not lending out your car to a drug dealer: Well, but that is one of the few things Adnan actually does remember from the day. I agree it's an unlikely thing to occur, but apparently that's what Adnan would have us believe. Maybe he's just trying to distance himself from Jay but in any case it's almost certainly clear to me that Adnan is lying about what really happened. Again it's either to protect his loved ones or to protect himself or both, but the accused clearly lying cannot be a source for exculpating him, not in court and not in this informal discussion.

[gwnn]

billw55, on 2015-January-15, 15:42, said:

I have not listened to this program, but it sounds interesting. I am curious. Is this presented as containing information that was not given at trial? Essentially, is it new investigation, or just a rehash of what the jury got?

90% a rehash. They also ask some people that talked to the police but weren't invited to the trial and add some information that is interesting (for example on the guy who found her body). The Innocence Project is involved now and they are pushing for a DNA test for some items that were found next to Hae's body because a serial killer who has a similar modus operandi was on the loose at that time. One of the things the show is good at though is Sarah Koenig's presentation of the information, which is much more concise and understandable than Cristina Gutierrez (the defense lawyer). She often comments on how confusing and incoherent CG's arguments were, so the jury probably did not understand the biggest flaws in the case. Some people call SK blatantly biased or driven by an agenda but I disagree. She is clearly very invested in the case and is most of the time on Adnan's side, but she is constantly giving counterarguments to him or to herself. She also seems to treat Jay fairly when she comes to talking about him, so the impression that she's on Adnan's side is probably simply because she spends most of the time speaking about him, and she just has a positive way of presenting people.

[Mbodell]

billw55, on 2015-January-15, 15:42, said:

I have not listened to this program, but it sounds interesting. I am curious. Is this presented as containing information that was not given at trial? Essentially, is it new investigation, or just a rehash of what the jury got?

I'd say it is closer to 50/50. They reinvestigate things that weren't presented at trial and try to hunt down witnesses, facts about the case, technology and much more. They also bring in several outside experts to comment on the case. They are also very even handed in the presentation, making it much more about the facts and circumstances and much less about a single persuasive POV. It is well worth listening to.

[cherdano]

[Long post. Even if you aren't interested in Serial itself, the link to viewfromll2 about serious misconduct by two Baltimore police detectives is worth reading - if you are prepared to learn about another case of truly outrageous police behaviour.]

FWIW, I am now much closer in the "Adnan is almost certainly innocent camp". As a public service, let me list some things I have learned in the last few months that made me more convinced Adnan is innocent (in random order):

- The medical evidence (most of this can be found in many many posts on the evidenceprof blog): Hae must have been lying on her back for many hours before the burial, making a 7pm burial all but impossible, and also making it unlikely that she was lying on her side in her car's trunk for more than a short while. It also seems very unlikely that she was killed in her car.

- Evidence of police wrong-doing: the detectives involved in the crime have been accused of extremely serious, intentional and malicious wrong-doing in other cases (outright lies, Brady violations, witness coercion, intentionally ignoring evidence that runs counter to the theory that would allow them to close the case as fast as possible); Ritz was involved in no less than three convictions that were later overturned, see http://viewfromll2.c...d-macgillivary/ . This means everything coming from the police files (which was essentially the base for the complete "Serial" storytelling) has to be taken with a much bigger grain of salt that we have assumed previously. Say a witness was interviewed, but there are no notes in the police files about the interview: it would have been reasonably to assume that the witness had nothing useful to say; given Ritz' track record, it is equally plausible to think that the witness' testimony would be exonerating for Adnan.

- Cell phone evidence: well, there just isn't much there. Aside from the fact that a burial at 7pm is very unlikely, the infamous L689B tower in all likelihood never provided reception at the burial spot; it also would be likely tower to connect to from many streets in the neighbourhood South of Leakin' Park.

- Alibi: aside from Aisha's testimony seeing Adnan in the Library after 2.30pm, it also seems very likely that Adnan attended track practice that day, from 3.30pm on. That would make it very difficult for him to commit the murder before practice; given Hae didn't show up to pick up her cousin, that pretty much rules him out.

- The Nisha call: Susan Simpson also spotted a call in Adnan's cellphone records (from much later) that matches Nisha's description of the call (where she talked to Adnan and Jay, who said they were at the video store Jay worked at) very well.

[PassedOut]

From the Post: ‘Serial’ creators talk season two and why online forums can be ‘sort of horrible’

Suddenly the water cooler talk and its digital equivalents revolved around Syed’s guilt or innocence. Sides were taken, speculation abounded. And just like that, “Serial” cracked the code of podcast success, spurring the kind of conversation that surrounds “Game of Thrones” or “The Walking Dead.”

[Phil]

Season 2 in full swing.

Anyone listening?

[PassedOut]

Victim’s Family ‘Disappointed’ by Adnan Syed’s Retrial

Quote

Mr. Syed, whose case was chronicled in the first season of the hit podcast “Serial,” was granted a retrial on Thursday by Judge Martin P. Welch of the Baltimore City Circuit Court. It was a major victory for an inmate who has maintained his innocence for almost two decades. He has served 16 years of a life sentence after being convicted in 2000 of first-degree murder and kidnapping.

On Friday, Mr. Syed’s lawyer, C. Justin Brown, said on Twitter that his client had been “informed of the decision.” At a news conference on Thursday, Mr. Brown said of the possibility that Mr. Syed might eventually be freed: “I’m feeling pretty confident right now. This was the biggest hurdle. It’s really hard to get a new trial.”

[Winstonm]

I really don't care about guilt or innocence - the question to me is "Did he deserve a retrial?" If he did, then his legal guilt or legal non-guilt will be found there.

[cherdano]

Wow, blast from the past. By now, I am completely in the "he is innocent" camp, for many reasons.