- 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 9:42 am to Tiger Voodoo
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
2
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.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News