re: The Case Against Adnan Syed - HBO-

quote:

---

Asia McClain has been very consistent with her story. Granted, it could be because she wants her 10 minutes of fame

---

To be fair, her “story” is nothing other than she saw Adnan in the library. She isn’t really a player outside of that one small moment in time. Not hard to stay consistent.

And yes, like you say, she could have other motivations. I won’t comment on her credibility because I haven’t heard anything other than the crafted statements from these productions, but she did testify before judges, which I haven’t read.

quote:

---

Jay and his girlfriend have changed their stories multiple times across 2 different trials and now, in Jay's case, in post trial interviews.

---

Yes, parts of their “stories” have changed over almost two decades. Also not at all unusual when trying to recollect weeks worth of events from 20 years before rather than one simple interaction.

I’m not saying Jay is squeaky clean or he doesn’t have motivation to lie or that he shouldn’t be in jail as well.


But the key events in his story have also remained mostly consistent.

Adnan called him to pick him up. Said he killed Hae. And showed him the body which they then hid. He then led police to her car.

I’m much less interested in the details when that stuff stays the same.

The details of why Jay isn’t in jail is most interesting to me.

I vaguely remember questioning why some of Jay’s statements were NOT brought up on stand by the prosecution. Something about he and Adnan going to a quarry where they talked in more detail about what happened.

That would have seemed relevant to me.

Unless of course they did but the producers of these docs didn’t include it even though it did make it to the jury.

That’s what we don’t know without reading the whole transcript. What is inthe record that the producers aren’t sharing.

quote:

---

I've heard this questioned, but the issue is that Christina Gutierrez never even attempted to contact her to determine if she was credible. I agree that it can be a strategy to not put an alibi witness on the stand if he/she isn't credible, but you have to contact that witness to determine credibility first.

---

Well we don’t know what Gutierrez did or didn’t know or do. We know what Adnan and Asia say, but she isn’t here to explain her actions or inactions, which some might find convenient (admittedly others may feel the opposite ).

quote:

---

And the court of speecial appeals did find that Asia was credible.

---

I haven’t read that opinion. Do you have a link to it?

quote:

---

The fact that we now understand that the cell tower evidence isn't nearly as reliable as it was made out to be in 2000 during the trial. The jury heard experts testify that the cell phone pings were definitive. Now we know that isn't the case. Even that cell tower expert has recanted his testimony.

---

Other than listening to the original podcast I haven’t followed up on the fallout. Can you link where the expert recanted?

I can tell you with certainty cell tower evidence is 100% still considered reliable to triangulate position. If the testimony was that they could tell exactly where he was to a fixed location, that would have been inaccurate, but my recollection from the podcast was that they were showing general areas where he was at certain times. If that’s incorrect, I’m not surprised, as I’ve already admitted the tenuous reliability of memory in witnesses, so I certainly won’t exclude my old arse from that reality either

quote:

---

However, throughout this appeals process spanning 3 courts, 6 judges have said he received ineffective assistance of counsel, while 5 have said he didn't. Those are all of the professionals who have examined all of the evidence

---

A finding of ineffective assistance of counsel is not a guarantee of new trial. The question is whether or not it rose to the level of changing the outcome.

That’s a subjective standard to meet, obviously, but I agree that’s a close call by tallying the votes of the judges.

Of course some judges are known as more or less pro appellee or pro trial court in those situations, just like judges at the trial court level. So without knowing which judges joined or disssented and their reputations I find it only mildly compelling.

We also don’t even know the specific legal issues being argued. Those courts were not making determinations of fact, but of law.

And I’ll concede that while defendants are awarded many protections in the trial phase, appellate courts are just as often an uphill battle as deference is often, though not always, given to lower trial courts.


Regardless, you certainly seem to be well informed on the issue and the system in general, so I wouldn’t consider you to be someone that made judgements strictly based on a few hours of a podcast.

But you have to acknowledge there are those people out there.

I’d also argue the producers of these shows have interest in making Adnan as sympathetic as possible and making whatever flaws may exist in the state’s case seem more serious and fatal than they may necessarily be, and a documentary from the state’s perspective would look completely different, but that’s not necessarily something that needs to be discussed here.