- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I just now finished the Serial podcast
Posted on 9/23/15 at 7:48 am to SystemsGo
Posted on 9/23/15 at 7:48 am to SystemsGo
I think Adnan did it. But I also think the Baltimore Police Department and it's investigators are a shady lot. So was his first lawyer. There are some people in that police department that have to be sweating after the Undisclosed podcast.
0
Posted on 9/23/15 at 7:49 am to buckeye_vol
I haven't had time to listen to Undisclosed, but is it an unedited transcript of the original trial? If not, my point stands.
As for the lawyers presenting on that podcast, would lawyers have anything to gain by being associated with such a cultural phenomenon such as Serial?
It's interesting that these lawyers weren't involved in the original podcast when it wasn't a known avenue to fame in their profession.
If those lawyers did have something to gain from being involved with a highly visible project such as this, would they be more or less likely to be included if their analysis agreed with the producer's narrative?
Were other lawyers interviewed whose opinions were not included in the final product?
These are important questions are they not?
And any lawyer worth their salt can look at a case and present the argument for both sides. It is the basic foundation of legal education. The Socratic method. There is no right answer, just more questions.
Luckily for the Serial producers, most people don't want questions, only answers.
As for the lawyers presenting on that podcast, would lawyers have anything to gain by being associated with such a cultural phenomenon such as Serial?
It's interesting that these lawyers weren't involved in the original podcast when it wasn't a known avenue to fame in their profession.
If those lawyers did have something to gain from being involved with a highly visible project such as this, would they be more or less likely to be included if their analysis agreed with the producer's narrative?
Were other lawyers interviewed whose opinions were not included in the final product?
These are important questions are they not?
And any lawyer worth their salt can look at a case and present the argument for both sides. It is the basic foundation of legal education. The Socratic method. There is no right answer, just more questions.
Luckily for the Serial producers, most people don't want questions, only answers.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 8:04 am to buckeye_vol
Also a former ADA here. Listened to Serial and the entirety of Undisclosed.
After Serial, I was indifferent really. I felt like I didn't have enough information or something was being withheld. Ironically that's why they did the series, they did too. Undisclosed is biased, but they routinely support their positions with case law and examples of police investigation impropriety discovered since the trial.
After Undisclosed, I feel pretty confident now that Adnan will win his Ineffective Counsel appeal, and be granted a new trial (which actually may come through the prosecution withholding of exculpatory evidence and not actually Guiterez's decisions).
If so, the defense should be able to discredit ALL of the cell phone testimony. They will also have evidence to suggest the detectives changed Jay's story to fit cell phone narrative.
In my opinion the evidence the defense has for ineffective assistantance of counsel is the weakest part of his defense. The case law on that is split re: failing to contact witnesses.
After Serial, I was indifferent really. I felt like I didn't have enough information or something was being withheld. Ironically that's why they did the series, they did too. Undisclosed is biased, but they routinely support their positions with case law and examples of police investigation impropriety discovered since the trial.
After Undisclosed, I feel pretty confident now that Adnan will win his Ineffective Counsel appeal, and be granted a new trial (which actually may come through the prosecution withholding of exculpatory evidence and not actually Guiterez's decisions).
If so, the defense should be able to discredit ALL of the cell phone testimony. They will also have evidence to suggest the detectives changed Jay's story to fit cell phone narrative.
In my opinion the evidence the defense has for ineffective assistantance of counsel is the weakest part of his defense. The case law on that is split re: failing to contact witnesses.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 8:05 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
a jury of 12 independent and unbiased
Ha! Good one. There's no such thing as an unbiased jury.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 8:12 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
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.
"Well your honor, we weren't listening the WHOLE time, but we are pretty sure we know the deal."
Judges love hearing that before a verdict is handed down.
quote:
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?
The truth?? So beyond whether there was sufficient evidence, you actually believe Adnan did not kill Hae?
As for truth, what about all of the people who did the things they are charged with, but are found not guilty due to insufficient evidence? Is that the TRUTH, or do we only think in terms of truth when it fits our perspective?
Most people that are exonerated are not done so in a spotlight where societal pressure can lead to undue bias on the decision makers.
It's why jurors are sequestered or ordered to read nothing about the case while they are serving. They are to decide strictly on the ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE PRESENTED.
If any of the judges have heard of Serial or read anything about it, they should be excluded from hearing the case going forward.
That is what irks me about this whole phenomenon. The pressure on the judges deciding the case going forward will be IMMENSE, as so many have already made up their minds based on incomplete information, and will never be convinced otherwise.
The backlash for any judge or juror that would ultimately decide the case against the belief of those Podcasters would be immense, and the threat of that may very well color the final outcome.
That is the most dangerous idea of all imo.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 9:02 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:I don't know if he did it, but I would say it's more likely he didn't do it.
The truth?? So beyond whether there was sufficient evidence, you actually believe Adnan did not kill Hae?
Regardless, what you, I, or anybody--including a jury--thinks is irrelevant to the objective TRUTH. In other words, the jury's decision itself has no relevancy on his true guilt or innocence.
quote:What about them? I would prefer the system to be perfect, but given that perfection is currently impossible, I think it's a bigger travesty when the innocent are convicted than when the guilty are acquitted. But again, in general I prefer the decisions to parallel the truth.
As for truth, what about all of the people who did the things they are charged with, but are found not guilty due to insufficient evidence? Is that the TRUTH, or do we only think in terms of truth when it fits our perspective?
quote:What's your point? I prefer accountability, and the spotlight ensures more accountability.
Most people that are exonerated are not done so in a spotlight where societal pressure can lead to undue bias on the decision makers.
quote:Well some evidence that was admissable should have not been admissable (hence poor counsel).
They are to decide strictly on the ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE PRESENTED
I support the fact that there are procedures in place to determine the admissability of evidence.
Regardless, the facts and the truth are not bound to the ruled if admissability. So if I find out that the detectives have ignored and misrepresented evidence (including ignoring the confession from the actual murderer) on NUMEROUS occasions that have sent innocent people to jail, then while it may not be admissable, that information is relevant to case, as it calls into question the competency of the investigators.
quote:I'm not sure why a judge would be excluded. If that was so, then no judge could ever have handled the OJ Simpson appeal.
If any of the judges have heard of Serial or read anything about it, they should be excluded from hearing the case going forward.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 9:09 am to SystemsGo
quote:
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.
You are comparing an angry football fan criticizing a coach for a play call to a logical thinking person who prefers for judgements in criminal cases to be based on the total body of evidence presented in that case rather than an edited and clearly biased presentation by a skilled story teller.
Now who is being absurd?
Posted on 9/23/15 at 9:42 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:You mean the total body evidence that includes the interviews with people who had heard from Jen about the murder, prior to Hae's body being found? O wait they were never interviewed.
based on the total body of evidence
You mean evidence from the interview notes? O wait notes were often not taken.
You mean evidence from the incoming calls numbers to verify or refute the state's story? O wait the state didn't request those.
You mean evidence from the Hae's computer where she had kept her recent diary? O wait the state lost her computer.
You mean evidence from testing any poossible DNA? O wait Baltimore was known for refusing to test DNA, even when possible.
You mean evidence from a memo from AT&T that explicitly states that incoming calls COULD NOT be used for location purposes? O wait Urick left out that memo and based his case on those records.
You mean like evidence that the engineer performed his tests independently? O wait the prosecutors were either him and would not allow him to take notes, although the prosecutors conveniently took the notes for the locations used in trial.
It seems like the case presented to the jury was lacking a lot of facts, but what do facts matter, right?
This post was edited on 9/23/15 at 9:43 am
Posted on 9/23/15 at 9:46 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
I haven't had time to listen to Undisclosed, but is it an unedited transcript of the original trial? If not, my point stands.
No, no it doesn't.
Well, not unless your point is that you are a full blown retard. Was that your point?
I mean, do you even realize how comprehensively ridiculous what you're saying is?
I had a preliminary hearing two weeks ago and it ran about an hour and a half because there were three codefendants, all with lawyers who had a right to cross examine the state's witnesses. i recorded the hearing, as is customary, and it's about an hour and a half. Would you have more knowledge of the case if you listened to the 90 minutes of audio or if you just read the following sentence. A guy who had spoken to a girl about doing his hair gets a call from the girl to come outside of his apartment, and os he does, but then he sees three dudes that appear to be with the girl and that he thinks are trying to run up on him and so he runs up to his apartment -- where a party is going on -- and tries to get inside but the girl sticks her foot in the door to prevent him from shutting it so he pushes her down on the ground but all the while the three dudes are running up the stairs ansd shortly after he shuts the door he hears shots fired, and then the morning he notices that his friend, who was sleeping in the other room caught one in the face and is dead.
Okay, maybe i could have broken that into three or four sentecnes. But the point remains, and if it isn't crystla focking clear to you how dumb what you're saying is then I think you're beyond helping. Because that ain't lawyer shite. That's common sense shite.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 9:53 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
You are comparing an angry football fan criticizing a coach for a play call to a logical thinking person who prefers for judgements in criminal cases to be based on the total body of evidence presented in that case rather than an edited and clearly biased presentation by a skilled story teller.
Now who is being absurd?
You.
And additionally so because you didn't understand an apt analogy.
I'll give you one more try with it:
Retarded sports poster thinks coach's incorrect playcalling decision can't be questioned by mere fan because coach has more information about the team than mere fan.
Retarded Serilal Podcast poster thinks jury's decision can't be questioned by mere non-juror because jurors heard EVERY SINGLE WORD and not merely a listing of the pertinent evidence.
I hope that helped.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 9:55 am to The Spleen
quote:
Ha! Good one. There's no such thing as an unbiased jury.
Eh, close enough.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 10:08 am to SystemsGo
quote:
But anyway you slice it, his involvement only came at the request of Adnan.
You are saying this only because the entirety of the state's case rested on presenting Jay's story.
If you listen to Undisclosed, you will see that the state's case is nothing but vapor and lies. Jay's testimony? Which of the 15 versions are we to believe? The ones that were OBVIOUSLY coached up by the prosecution?
Cellphone "evidence"? Doesn't exist. Urick lied his arse off.
Brady violations?
The state's timeline? It has been shown to have been virtually entirely made up.
There is literally 0% chance that the timeline and case as presented by the dishonest, malfeasant state prosecutor - and upon which Adnan was convicted - happened. 0%.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 10:10 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
If you listen to Undisclosed, you will see that the state's case is nothing but vapor and lies.
You don't even have to listen to Undisclosed to come to that conclusion. Serial did that for you.
That State's case was BS. That doesn't mean Adnan didn't do it. He may have. He just didn't do it the way the State claimed.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 10:12 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
You mean the total body evidence that includes the interviews with people who had heard from Jen about the murder, prior to Hae's body being found? O wait they were never interviewed.
You mean evidence from the interview notes? O wait notes were often not taken.
You mean evidence from the incoming calls numbers to verify or refute the state's story? O wait the state didn't request those.
You mean evidence from the Hae's computer where she had kept her recent diary? O wait the state lost her computer.
You mean evidence from testing any poossible DNA? O wait Baltimore was known for refusing to test DNA, even when possible.
You mean evidence from a memo from AT&T that explicitly states that incoming calls COULD NOT be used for location purposes? O wait Urick left out that memo and based his case on those records.
You mean like evidence that the engineer performed his tests independently? O wait the prosecutors were either him and would not allow him to take notes, although the prosecutors conveniently took the notes for the locations used in trial.
It seems like the case presented to the jury was lacking a lot of facts, but what do facts matter, right?
In addition to the fact that the detectives are known scumbags who have had several of their convicted defendants since sprung from prison for reasons of malfeasance which mirror this case.
The Baltimore criminal justice system of 1999 was famously over-loaded and sloppy.
I hope Urick is tried and convicted himself. He lied to the media as recently as January when asked in an interview directly about this case. He is LYING about the cellphone "evidence".
Posted on 9/23/15 at 10:28 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
You mean the total body of evidence....
In response to everything you listed, in the interest of brevity, yes, I mean anything and everything, sworn to under oath, that was found to be admissible. That is all the jury had to go on, and all their verdict can be judged upon.
See, talking to and interviewing someone, is completely different than sworn testimony. How many times have any us examined a witness on the stand and what they testify to varies from what they had said in previous statements or interviews? It happens often, whether because they were intentionally being dishonest at one point or the other, or because of a lack of a consistent memory at some point along the road. It isn't always some heinous act of dishonesty.
Bottom line is, I don't put a ton of stock into anything anyone has said on either of these podcasts, over a decade after the fact, with either little idea that what they were saying to some random podcaster would ever be heard by millions of people, or with every knowledge that they could become a pseudo celebrity by getting onto the follow up.
If there are "facts", as you call them, that may call into question the conviction, than his attorney needs to argue his case in the proper fashion before the appellate court.
If there was evidence that was admitted that should not have been, or vice versa, I have all the confidence in the world that the panel of judges reviewing the record will correct the trial court's ruling. If that constitutes reversible error, then those " facts" will then have the chance to be offered under the burden of an oath and under the duress of cross examination, where the reliability of that person can be observed and judged.
Without those conditions in place, anything and everything we've been offered by these entertainment producers is simply water cooler fodder designed to gather attention to pressure those within the system to rule in their favor.
Effective and impressive, but not necessarily representative of any semblance of "truth". As if these producers even know what the objective "truth" is, any more than the prosecutors, defense attorneys, or detectives did.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 10:34 am to SystemsGo
quote:
Well, not unless your point is that you are a full blown retard. Was that your point?
"Your honor, rather than jump through all these hoops and testimony and stuff that will keep us here for hours, can't we just get to the important stuff and break it down to a couple of sentences for you??? Seeing the witness on stand testifying isn't really all that important right?? We all know the deal. And I've got tee time in an hour. ;)"
As much as we all know this to be the reality, surely a seasoned attorney such as yourself wouldn't hesitate to offer up such a "common sense" plea to a judge, would you?
Posted on 9/23/15 at 10:37 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:You mean the detective who--on a previous case--ignored the truthful confession of the murderer, which caused an innocent man to sit in prison for decades? Is that truth?
Effective and impressive, but not necessarily representative of any semblance of "truth". As if these producers even know what the objective "truth" is, any more than the prosecutors, defense attorneys, or detectives did.
Or so you mean Urick intentionally ignoring the memo from AT&T (which is an issue being appealed) about NOT using incoming calls for location data? Is that truth?
You seem to be making an Appeal to Authority argument (a logical fallacy), when the "Authority" was part of a well-known incompetent and corrupt system in Baltimore, made worse by the I descriptions of the indivduals involved in the case.
Since your issue is with Serial, what exactly did they misrepresent (besides maybe a questionable interpretation of Hae's diary, which was nonsensical anyways)?
Posted on 9/23/15 at 10:37 am to SystemsGo
quote:
And additionally so because you didn't understand an apt analogy.
I'll give you one more try with it:
Retarded sports poster thinks coach's incorrect playcalling decision can't be questioned by mere fan because coach has more information about the team than mere fan.
Retarded Serilal Podcast poster thinks jury's decision can't be questioned by mere non-juror because jurors heard EVERY SINGLE WORD and not merely a listing of the pertinent evidence.
I hope that helped.
Again, you're comparing questioning play calling to a jury deciding a verdict in the amount of information they should be privy to. Again. For the second time.
I'm sure your law professors, not to mention the partners at your current firm, would be proud.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 10:40 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:What does the jury have to do with the facts if the case? Their decision is irrelevant in regards to the true guilt and innocence of a defendant, and in this case we know that they were given less than adequate information due to a poor investigation.
Again, you're comparing questioning play calling to a jury deciding a verdict in the amount of information they should be privy to. Again. For the second time.
This post was edited on 9/23/15 at 10:41 am
Posted on 9/23/15 at 10:43 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
You mean the detective who--on a previous case--ignored the truthful confession of the murderer, which caused an innocent man to sit in prison for decades? Is that truth?
Wait, so confessions are iron clad proof???? Well shite, why do prosecuters have to spend so much time fighting to get them admitted?? And so many defense attornies fight to keep them out???
You mean, "confessions" aren't always as simple as they seem???? Someone should alert the Attorney General so this information can be distributed to law schools are courts all over this great land.
This post was edited on 10/5/15 at 4:24 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News