I just now finished the Serial podcast

In order to even make the decision to pursue this story with as much zeal and energy as she did, she pretty well had to be convinced -- or at least have more than a smidgeon of a hunch -- that Adnan didn't do it. And then after she's months deep into researching the case, and she has the idea that it could make for a pretty good show, it's not like she's just gonna throw her hands up and say "fock it. He did it." I mean, they had about 10 hours of air time to fill.

And to the extent she never did form the same conclusion that I've come to, I think some of that has to do with the fact that she got too close with her subject. She couldn't get past the fact that she liked Adnan as a person.

Or I could be wrong all around.

quote:

---

I don't think the evidence was sufficient to convict under a standard of reasonable doubt.

---

The biggest red herring of all. It doesn't matter a bit if you or I or anyone else thinks they proved their case. To the only 12 people in the world that matter, they did. Beyond any reasonable doubt.

You know, the 12 people that actually sat there for weeks and weeks and listened to hundreds of hours of evidence and testimony, ADMISSIBLE evidence and testimony UNDER OATH AND PENALTY OF PERJURY mind you, not 10 meticulously edited hours of narrative designed to elicit a very specific outcome filled with half truths, bits and pieces of testimony often completely out of the context of the full examination, and outright off the cuff hypothetical discussion from several people that had no idea that the things they were saying may end up meaning that a decade old solved case may be overturned and retried and THEY MAY THEN HAVE TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH AND PENALTY OF PERJURY about the things they were then speculating about.

If it weren't for the pain Hae's family would have to endure, I would love for this case to be retried so that the flawed nature of this exposé could be exposed for all those that have so little understanding of the legal process that feel like they are somehow enlightened by listening to 10 hours of constructed unchallenged narrative to sell a story.

No, I didn't go to law school or ever set foot in a courtroom or deliberation room, but I did listen to a podcast by another person who never went to law school either so let that good boy go!!!

quote:

---

. And then after she's months deep into researching the case, and she has the idea that it could make for a pretty good show, it's not like she's just gonna throw her hands up and say "fock it. He did it

---

This.

This tale was built from the conclusion backwards. There was never any other outcome that would be presented.

quote:

---

TigerVoodoo

---

Your diatribe is nice and all, but the state's case is MUCH worse than even Serial would have led us to believe. The police and prosecutor were either incompetent, corrupt, or both.

And what exactly do you know about the state's case, other than what Koenig presented to you in her own 10 hour unchallenged diatribe?

Oh you've read "other things"?? Also written by someone that has listened to her diatribe?? Well then, by all means, let the poor kid go.


The fact that despite the unchallenged format she enjoyed, the best she could do to convince her audience of Adnan's "wrongful" conviction is to make them believe not that Adnan didn't do it, but that there simply wasn't enough evidence to convict, is very telling.

Over weeks of trial, with the state's full and unedited case standing against endless attack from an experienced defense attorney through cross examination and presentation of their own witnesses, a jury of 12 independent and unbiased and FULLY INFORMED citizens were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that Adnan was gulity and convicted him of murder.


But Koenig says she isn't convinced and I shouldn't be either!!!

quote:

---

Prosecutor is a thankless job. Thank you for your service.

---

Jesus tap-dancing Christ.

quote:

---

And what exactly do you know about the state's case, other than what Koenig presented to you in her own 10 hour unchallenged diatribe?

---

Well it may be biased from the defense's standpoint, but I've listened to the more than 18 hours of content from the Undisclosed podcast, which goes into much further detail about the legal details of the case.

It presented by lawyers--including a dean of law at the University of South Carolina--so we don't get a better understanding of the legal process.

Again it may be biased, but they present too many verifiable facts to dismiss.

But don't let that stop you from your diatribes.

quote:

---

Your diatribe is nice and all, but the state's case is MUCH worse than even Serial would have led us to believe. The police and prosecutor were either incompetent, corrupt, or both.

---

Well that's not a fair way of putting it either. The cops/detectives investigate the facts and find out what they can find out. They can't wave a magic wand and get a focking picture of Adnan in the car strangling the girl to death. I mean, suppose they could plant evidence illegally, and sometimes they do, but that's not what we're hoping for.

The prosecutors then take that evidence, evaluate whether their case si good enough to bring, and then they do the best they can with the facts they have.

I actually think the prosecutors in that case did a masterful job. And I think the detectives did at least a decent job.

You could maybe argue that the prosecutors shouldn't have brought the case with the evidence they had to work with, but that's a terrible argument. Not every case they bring is airtight. Don't blame them from bringing a case that didn't tie up all loose ends. If you have beef with the outcome, blame the jury or Adnan's downward spiraling defense attorney.

quote:

---

But unless you have rolled up your sleeves and listened to every second of the actual trial testimony they deliberated on, your thoughts on whether the evidence was sufficient or not are just plain worthless

---

Well that's just stupid.

"And unless you were on the sidelines there with Coach Butch Jones then your thoughts on his playcalling the second half against Oklahoma is just plaint worthless".

You see how they're the same thing. Yeah, you should stop with that line of reasoning. It's absurd at best.

quote:

---

It's a simple point. You didn't hear all of the evidence that the jury did.

---

Well the jury was unaware of some of the information (Jay's deal; the fact that the prosecutor's were the ones doing the cell phone testing).

But after 30+ hours of content, even more hours reading about the case, including reading some of the case file, I am confident I know the state's evidence and case pretty well.

But regardless, your point is hollow; juries wrongfully convict innocent people all the time. Their decisions are irrelevant to the TRUTH.

When their decision doesn't seem to support the TRUTH, are we unable to question it? That's a mighty dangerous perspective. If people who weren't on the jury didn't question the decision, the West Memphis 3 and countless other innocent people would have remained in jail or worse