re: "Serial" Podcast Discussion Thread...SPOILERS

quote:

---

Anything specific about that call, after Jay's testimony has been refuted, is wild speculation. The fact that a butt dial was possible and common (as evidenced by butt dialing being a common phrase) means it is just as plausible as any other theory with any specificity.

---

Correct.

This attorney has it all here. It's mind-blowing:

LINK

Prosecutor Kevin Urick speaks on the record

So according to Urick we should disregard the fact nearly every verifiable detail (and some unverifiable ones) has either completely changed or been shown to be impossible because they are only "collateral." Instead because two facts, Adnan showing him Hae's body and then burying the body, have remained consistent, everything else is just collateral. Nevermind that the details and story surrounding these facts have changed, with the most recent change directly refuting his testimony and the timeline Urick says is such strong evidence. Nevermind that the "material" evidence can only be truly known to two people (Adnan and Jay). All that matters is that an unreliable and lying individual with a constantly changing story, has maintained those details, that if changed, would look really bad for Jay (maybe enough that he would be charged with murder).

quote:

---

Let's keep in mind that Urick has at least as much incentive to lie and protect himself as anyone else involved.

---

I doubt he's lying, he's just arguing for the verdict.

quote:

---

reading the comments on here (and elsewhere) tearing apart every minor detail of jay's story, as if that discredits everything

---

I don't think it's only the minor details of Jay's story people are tearing apart. His entire story changed at least 3 times with the only consistencies being Adnan showed him Hae's body in the trunk of the car and him helping bury the body.

I think most reasonable people would understand him not remembering what he was wearing that day or other minor minutiae, but he was inconsistent with a few major aspects such as where he was when Adanan showed him the body, where he and Jenn dumped the shovels, etc.

None of that proves anyone's guilt or innocence, but it does cast doubt on Jay's story, the only story used to convict someone. Adnan very may have killed Hae, but there is enough doubt in the story to question whether the conviction he received was just.

quote:

---

b) naturally when dealing with a criminal element they will try to hide certain details. that, however, does not change the info in paragraph one above.

---

This is my major problem with Urick's stance. What he describes as "material evidence" is the truth we are trying to determine. With no physical evidence of when and where any of these details (when and where she went missing, when and where she was murdered, when she was buried) truly occurred, these facts are difficult to prove or disprove. So when the entire case and narrative revolves around a single individual's testimony, we have to really weigh all information to determine the reliability of that individual and that individual's story. Problem is that it is difficult to see him as a reliable person for a few reasons.

1. Jay is a known criminal drug dealer, and an individual that was known as a liar by his friends (not a dangerous liar, but a liar nonetheless). Lies and deceit are commonplace; they are the nature of his work and possibly a personality trait for him.

We should already view anything he says with more skepticism than an average person. It's disingenuous for Urick to admit that Jay is a liar, than casually ask us to hold back our skepticism.

2. The major details in the story changed (some described above; many more that changed throughout). These may be corroborating facts, but when major corroborating facts have changed drastically, this should call into question the reliability of him and this account.

Urick is correct that a never changing story may indicate lying in deceit and truth is likely to have some inconsistencies; however, he represents this as a false dichotomy. In other words, it's as if are two types of stories; one without inconsistencies and one with inconsistencies. Since a truthful story is more likely t have minor inconsistencies than any story that falls into the inconsistent is more likely to be truthful. I would argue that the relationship between truthfulness of a story and the inconsistencies is somewhat non-linear (U shaped); at the unreliable end we have no inconsistencies and one with a lot of inconsistencies, especially major ones. The more truthful ones are in between with a few minor inconsistencies. Jay's seems to be more on the a lot of inconsistencies, including some major ones.

3. Jay's incentive to lie about the "material facts." Given that Jay led detective to the location of the car (although that has been debated) there are three (story as told by Jay; Adnan and Jay did it; Jay did it by himself or with someone else) maybe four (a stretch, but Jay is covering for the person he is "afraid of"). Either way, there are clearly plausible scenarios for Jay to lie; even then, we know that given his plea agreement, he had incentive to tell the story that the state wanted. So those "material evidence" should have some skepticism given the incentives.

Basically, to believe Jay we have to believe a known liar (admitted by Urick); disregard the inconsistencies in the "corroborating evidence"(especially the major ones); and disregard the incentive for Jay to lie about the "material evidence." That is a lot to account for when this is essentially the entire case against Adnan (who should have the presumption of innocence). Look Jay's story may be truthful; however, Urick expecting us to believe Jay, and maybe even more scary, him completely believing Jay, is disingenuous.

I just finished it as well, thanks TD for the recommendation. My take on it is that I feel like Adnan was involved in the murder, but that Jay played a bigger part than he has admitted to. Still, I'm surprised that Adnan was convicted based on the evidence that was presented.

Also, Christina Gutierrez was annoying as hell.

The fact that a jury convicted him of 1st degree murder (beyond a reasonable doubt) is absurd.