- 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 10:45 am to Tiger Voodoo
Posted on 9/23/15 at 10:45 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
Wait, so confessions are iron clad proof???? Well shite, why did I spend so much times as a prosecutor fighting to get them admitted?? And so many years after as a defense attorney fighting 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.
When presented with the fact that the detective got it wrong, do you think he fought vigorously to have his grave error reversed?
0
Posted on 9/23/15 at 10:52 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
What does the jury have to do with the facts if the case?
You mean, other than being the judge of those facts???
quote:
Their decision is irrelevant in regards to the true guilt and innocence of a defendan
"True" guilt or innocence. One is guilty or innocentbased upon the rules evidence and the law. Whether someone "did it" or not, is an entirely different thing all together.
As for that, I have very little doubt that those who "did it" but are found not guilty FAAAAAAAR outweigh those that "didn't do it" that are found guilty.
That is something that very few attorneys I have met would disagree with, and given that no system is perfect, is a sign that our system at least has the right idea.
You'll note, I've never said one way or the other whether I think Adnan "did it" or not or whether I felt the state's case was sufficient or not.
My gripe is with people that have only a piece of the whole picture, mostly presented from one clearly biased and skilled story teller, condemning the whole process based on that presentation.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 10:53 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:What?
Wait, so confessions are iron clad proof???? Well shite, why did I spend so much times as a prosecutor fighting to get them admitted?? And so many years after as a defense attorney fighting to keep them out???
In this case:
1. Person A was convicted.
2. Person B, who was a suspect, later confessed to the detective.
3. The detective chose to dismiss the confession himself because he didn't think it had any information that the true perpetrator would know.
4. Decades later, DNA exonerated Person A and confirmed that Person B did it.
5. It was later found that Person B's confession actually included information only the true perpetrator would be privvy to.
So the detective's (one of the primary detectives on Adnan's case) erroneous and dishonest decision to dismiss the confession resulted in an innocent man spending decades in jail.
So the detective suppressed the truth; why should we put faith in his competency as a detective?
Posted on 9/23/15 at 10:56 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
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.
Link with case names?? Thanks. Not saying that isn't true, just would like to know all of the ,"facts". TIA
Posted on 9/23/15 at 11:00 am to Tiger Voodoo
Posted on 9/23/15 at 11:02 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
mostly presented from one clearly biased and skilled story teller,
I don't really agree on this. After listening to Undisclosed, I found myself disappointed with Koenig for clearly being "overly objective" and leaving out lots of pro-Adnan facts. For instance, when she did the drive to try to recreate the state's timeline, it seemed obvious that it was still impossible, yet she presented it to Adnan as if it weren't.
She didn't even share the basic fact that Adnan did not "lend his cellphone to Jay".
Posted on 9/23/15 at 11:02 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:But we know what their decision was, we're debating whether their decision was consistent with the TRUTH.
You mean, other than being the judge of those facts???
quote:Besides not presenting any evidence to support your belief, what does the guilty being acquitted have to do with this case?
As for that, I have very little doubt that those who "did it" but are found not guilty FAAAAAAAR outweigh those that "didn't do it" that are found guilty.
quote:But you're doing the same and dismissing the journalist, and worse yet, ignoring the facts you do have.
My gripe is with people that have only a piece of the whole picture, mostly presented from one clearly biased and skilled story teller, condemning the whole process based on that presentation
And if Koenig is a "storyteller" what is Urick? We have plenty of evidence that one of them has knowingly lied, and it's not Koenig. Yet, you put your faith in the liar's storytelling.
That says a lot about your own bias.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 11:03 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
3. The detective chose to dismiss the confession himself because he didn't think it had any information that the true perpetrator would know
quote:
So the detective suppressed the truth
These two things are not the same.
Detectives can choose to disregard a "confession" for any number of reasons. I have been on both sides of cases where multiple people "confessed" to the same crime.
When you say "confession", what do you mean? Written? Verbal? Did he say " I did X on X date at X location ", or did someone ask him a question and he said " Yeah I guess"
These are important details when judging the weight to be placed on a "confession"
Posted on 9/23/15 at 11:04 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
And if Koenig is a "storyteller" what is Urick? We have plenty of evidence that one of them has knowingly lied, and it's not Koenig. Yet, you put your faith in the liar's storytelling.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 11:10 am to Big Scrub TX
Definitely don't have time to read that now, but will, and look forward to it. Thanks for the link.
Is this pretty much the stuff that Undisclosed covers?
Is this pretty much the stuff that Undisclosed covers?
Posted on 9/23/15 at 11:13 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:I don't know, but there was evidence of the confession and the specifics of the confession.
you say "confession", what do you mean? Written? Verbal? Did he say " I did X on X date at X location ", or did someone ask him a question and he said " Yeah I guess"
But the point is that a prior suspect (important) confesses to a murder, and the detective chose to dismiss it, rather than pursue it. It was later proven the confession was accurate.
The detective surpress the truth, yet you would have us put faith in such a morally bankrupt person.
And you wonder why people don't trust the system.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 11:15 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
And if Koenig is a "storyteller" what is Urick? We have plenty of evidence that one of them has knowingly lied, and it's not Koenig. Yet, you put your faith in the liar's storytelling.
That says a lot about your own bias.
How am I biased? I haven't said what I believe one way or the other. All I have defended is the jurors' unanimous verdict based on the evidence that was presented to them.
I am simply pointing out the dangers of putting complete faith in a podcast that had a clear end game in mind and constructed a narrative to fit that conclusion.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 11:16 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
I don't know,
Posted on 9/23/15 at 11:26 am to Tiger Voodoo
quote:The same could be said for putting faith in the prosecutor, especially when that prosecutor is shown to be dishonest.
I am simply pointing out the dangers of putting complete faith in a podcast that had a clear end game in mind and constructed a narrative to fit that conclusion.
Posted on 9/23/15 at 11:35 am to buckeye_vol
Of course, the check on that which the system accounts for is the defense attorney that is paid to dissect the state's case, and present her own.
The podcast has no such built in check.
Now, I understand there is a claim that the defense attorney was not competent in her defense of Adnan. That will be decided by the appellate court. I predict, for the first time in this thread, that ineffective assistance of counsel will NOT be found. I actually think she was a bulldog in her cross examination, no matter how insufferable her voice was
, and suspect there were reasons for not putting certain witnesses on the stand that we don't know about from Serial. It is a strategic decision that she would have made after judging the witnesses and their credibility and reliability in her own professional expertise.
Whatever issues arise later in her career, she was a respected and feared defender in her day.
It would be an easy out for the panel, though, if they just want it off their plate without the backlash of the Serial drones. The attorney is dead, so they wouldn't even have to offend or hang a fellow member of the Bar out to dry to do so.
It will be interesting to watch this all play out, for sure.
The podcast has no such built in check.
Now, I understand there is a claim that the defense attorney was not competent in her defense of Adnan. That will be decided by the appellate court. I predict, for the first time in this thread, that ineffective assistance of counsel will NOT be found. I actually think she was a bulldog in her cross examination, no matter how insufferable her voice was
, and suspect there were reasons for not putting certain witnesses on the stand that we don't know about from Serial. It is a strategic decision that she would have made after judging the witnesses and their credibility and reliability in her own professional expertise. Whatever issues arise later in her career, she was a respected and feared defender in her day.
It would be an easy out for the panel, though, if they just want it off their plate without the backlash of the Serial drones. The attorney is dead, so they wouldn't even have to offend or hang a fellow member of the Bar out to dry to do so.
It will be interesting to watch this all play out, for sure.
This post was edited on 9/23/15 at 11:39 am
Posted on 9/23/15 at 12:06 pm to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
Is this pretty much the stuff that Undisclosed covers?
Yeah, she's one of the Undisclosed podcasters.
However, if you read her posts, you will have to be impressed with her thoroughness. I suggest looking at her series about the cellphone data.
Posted on 10/23/15 at 1:41 pm to Big Scrub TX
Has anyone listened to the "Bilal" episode that dropped this week?
It would appear that Adnan's alibi witness was bribed by the cops to leave the country prior to the trial. Seriously, WTF.
It would appear that Adnan's alibi witness was bribed by the cops to leave the country prior to the trial. Seriously, WTF.
Posted on 10/23/15 at 8:37 pm to Big Scrub TX
I found those podcast boring. I listened to several trying to understand the popularity and never did quite understand the appeal.
The entire story could have been told in an hour without leaving out any significant details I believe.
The entire story could have been told in an hour without leaving out any significant details I believe.
Posted on 10/23/15 at 8:58 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Has anyone listened to the "Bilal" episode that dropped this week?
Didn't see it as part of the Serial episodes list. Where could I find this?
Posted on 10/23/15 at 9:08 pm to I B Freeman
quote:Considering Serial wasn't even able to touch on all the details, an hour would not have been sufficient.
The entire story could have been told in an hour without leaving out any significant details I believe
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News