re: The Case Against Adnan Syed - HBO-

All of these people that claim there was “clearly” reasonable doubt based on 10 hours of a podcast, only about half of which focused on actually testimony and evidence presented in trial, and articles written also based on that very popular podcast that became a social phenomenon, when there were HUNDREDS of hours of testimony are deluding themselves.


Unless anyone has read through the entire court transcript and erased all the other information they learned from the podcast etc that the jury didn’t have access to, you have no idea if there was reasonable doubt from the perspective of the jury or not. Claiming otherwise is pure fallacy.


The idea that “the cops found Hae's car then brought Jay to it and had him brought back in to tell them where it was on the recordings“ isn’t only “unreasonable”, it is absolutely outlandish.

It requires much more of a leap to believe that multiple law enforcement offficers are basically pure evil and all maintained this conspiracy for decades than it does to believe that a high school kid, that we are told “everybody liked” so often it offends sensibility, who also happened to be into drugs, theft schemes, and dealt often in parts of Baltimore City even the most hardened criminals would think twice before venturing into, was capable of murdering his ex girlfriend in a crime of passion in the heat of the moment.



I know this may come as a shock to people whose main interaction with the criminal justice system is through podcasts like Serial or documentaries like Making a Murderer, but the cases of such blatant conspiracy and framings are the extreme exceptions in what is perhaps the best and most defendant friendly criminal justice system in the history of the planet.

There are exponentially more people that “did it” that walk away due to the protections afforded them by the system than those that didn’t “do it” that are wrongly convicted, especially due to malicious actors within the system purposefully trying to take someone down.


Yes there are cases of bad actors doing bad things and innocents falling victim to them, and yes those instances should be spotlighted and the guilty made examples of and the innocent made as whole as can be achieved.


But the eagerly accepted narrative that all police are out to get you or that the justice system is rigged against you is wrong and pandering to an audience that loves conspiracy theories or criminals themselves seeking excuses for their own predicaments by writers and documentarians that want little more than personal gain or status with no regard for the institutions they drag down to achieve it.

quote:

---

His alibi is his clock in and out times that were edited after the fact.

---

Edited after the fact and I heard on a podcast yesterday I think that it was his mom’s girlfriend or something.

quote:

---

Rabia, who is basically one of these psycho women that fall in love with convicted murderers

---

Stopped reading here. Her brother was his best friend.

quote:

---

Stopped reading here. Her brother was his best friend.

---

So that means she’s not in love with him??

Yeah I’m sure that’s why you stopped reading

Why is that funny?


Unfortunately, jurors either not understanding or disregarding jury instructions like not drawing inferences by a defendant exercising one’s right to not testify happens all time time.


It’s part of a system that must rely on imperfect humans trying to make a perfect system.


But unless that was the ONLY reason she voted guilty, the other evidence was persuasive as well and that may have only solidified her decision because she didn’t get any compelling argument to sway her in the other direction.


But unless the other 11 jurors all gave their vote to convict based on those same considerations as well the imperfect system worked as intended. That’s why it takes a unanimous verdict, which is a protection that is incredibly beneficial to defendants.


That statement by the juror would also have been brought up in the appeals and post conviction process by the way. The judges hearing those arguments would have had much more information than a brief clip we’ve been given, and were not persuaded that it changed the outcome.


And why do you use the term “admitted” to finding Jay credible??

Is it impossible that reasonable jurors could have found him a credible witness? Again, consider that without all of the information you have from the podcasts.


And of course jurors judge defendants based on their attorneys all the time. For both good and for bad. They judge the state’s case by their opinions on the prosecutors just the same.


This is all just human nature and impossible to remove from a system that relies of humans to function.

quote:

---

I like how you link that interview while also ignoring that Jay says that Adnan is guilty.

---

I didn't ignore that he said Adnan is guilty. That's been the only consistent thing about Jay...his insistence that Adnan is guilty. The problem is that his story has changed over and over and over again. He's completely incredulous.

quote:

---

I was asking earlier if they are releasing each part of this series weekly? I listened to the podcast long ago.

---

It appears HBO is releasing it weekly.

LINK

I think I may give season 1 of Serial another listen before bingeing this.

quote:

---

The issue Adnan's defense is arguing is that the jury wasn't given all of the information it needed to reach a proper conclusion because his attorney did a bad job.

---

Of course they are. That’s what defendants do in appeals. That is standard cut and paste language in any post conviction motion.

Not that that doesn’t mean this case may not have a better argument than many others others that claim it with little to no basis.

But a majority of judges on the state’s highest court ruled that whatever ineffective assistance of counsel there was didn’t change the outcome of the case and that the evidence was sufficient to convict.

quote:

---

That new information is available now, and anyone who has followed the case knows about it; so it's impossible to ignore.

---

What “new information” specifically?

The alibi? It is common whenever this comes up for certain people to question the credibility of Jay, his girlfriend, the police, and yet those same people never even consider that the alibi witness may not be credible herself.

Perhaps that is why his defense attorney didn’t call her to testify. Judges in the appeals and post conviction process actually heard her testify and either didn’t find her credible, or found her not persuasive enough to overcome the other evidence in the record.


Yet listeners on a podcast are completely convinced.


Again, we don’t have all the information. Those that did were not persuaded.

But these storysellers, which is undeniably what Koenig and Rabia are paint this as the key piece of evidence to topple the state’s case and vindicate Adnan.


What other “new information” are you referring to?

quote:

---

No one here is making that case

---

I apologize if that seemed directed at anyone in this thread, although there are multiple posts here lamenting how dirty and corrupt the system is.


But that last comment was more a general theme in tone that is palpable in productions like these.

That type of rhetoric is powerful and becoming pervasive in many discussions about our justice system that, again, is undeniably constructed to be as fair as possible in protecting the accused.

quote:

---

The alibi? It is common whenever this comes up for certain people to question the credibility of Jay, his girlfriend, the police, and yet those same people never even consider that the alibi witness may not be credible herself.

---

Asia McClain has been very consistent with her story. Granted, it could be because she wants her 10 minutes of fame. Jay and his girlfriend have changed their stories multiple times across 2 different trials and now, in Jay's case, in post trial interviews.

quote:

---

Perhaps that is why his defense attorney didn’t call her to testify. Judges in the appeals and post conviction process actually heard her testify and either didn’t find her credible, or found her not persuasive enough to overcome the other evidence in the record.

---

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. And the court of speecial appeals did find that Asia was credible. That was the basis of them affirming Judge Welch's ruling overturning the conviction.

quote:

---

What other “new information” are you referring to?

---

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.

quote:

---

But a majority of judges on the state’s highest court ruled that whatever ineffective assistance of counsel there was didn’t change the outcome of the case and that the evidence was sufficient to convict.

---

That's obviously why he isn't getting a new trial. 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. I can find no more "reasonable doubt" than that.