- 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: The Case Against Adnan Syed - HBO-
Posted on 3/11/19 at 5:17 pm to Tiger Voodoo
Posted on 3/11/19 at 5:17 pm to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
He didn’t say he didn’t remember.
He said he specifically changed that “detail” because he didn’t want his grandmother to be brought into it.
He vividly described how he knew exactly where it was.
Of course that can raise issues about his credibility. And as one juror mentioned, his attorney belabored that point so aggressively as to be offputting to at least that one juror.
I don’t understand your trust in Jay. I don’t see what Jay has done or said up to this point to find anything he says credible enough to be considered truth.
I don’t trust Adnan, but I sure as hell don’t trust Jay.
1
Posted on 3/11/19 at 5:53 pm to Lawyered
After the podcast I was 99% sure he did it. Maybe this will change my mind.
1st episode was ok. Nice putting a face to some of the other people and hearing from the mom/dad.
1st episode was ok. Nice putting a face to some of the other people and hearing from the mom/dad.
Posted on 3/11/19 at 6:21 pm to medtiger
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.
This post was edited on 3/11/19 at 7:27 pm
Posted on 3/11/19 at 6:27 pm to ShamelessPel
quote:
I don’t understand your trust in Jay. I don’t see what Jay has done or said up to this point to find anything he says credible enough to be considered truth.
Well he knew where Hae’s car was.
The only way that isn’t persuasive to you is if you believe, as some apparently do, that the detectives found it on their own, then showed him where it was, then staged an interview where he revealed that to them so they could then go and find it for the record.
I’ll go ahead and resist making a leap like that without further information
Does anyone that finds Jay so unbelievable and untrustworthy think he wouldn’t have blown up such a vast conspiracy by now?
Why would he still be protecting the police after all these years?
Also, the cause of death was strangulation. That almost always points to a close personal relationship between victim and perpetrator. It is a crime of passion.
Jay didn’t have the type of relationship or motivation to pursue such an intense course of violence.
This post was edited on 3/11/19 at 7:18 pm
Posted on 3/11/19 at 7:02 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
Nice putting a face to some of the other people and hearing from the mom/dad.
Agreed on that.
I don’t even mean to hate on Serial. I enjoyed the podcast and anything that gets people interested in the systems that make this country function, is a good thing
As long as those listening understand they are receiving a limited amount of information from a source that almost always has at least a bias, if not an outright agenda.
Posted on 3/11/19 at 7:59 pm to MidnightVibe
quote:
I disagree.
Maybe I'm just an angry person. But I think I would always always be making my case, and whether it's anger or just an increase in my speech speed or inflections, it would not be a ho hum passive tone.
You’re an idiot. You’re the reason social media is the way it is
Posted on 3/11/19 at 8:32 pm to medtiger
quote:
He's completely contradicted himself, and blown up the state's timeline in post trial interviews...
You mean he's completely contradicted himself on the timeline? In other words, he didn't get the timing exactly perfect when he was brought in for questioning the first time?
That's your reasonable doubt? That he said he saw Hae in the back of the car dead at Time X once, and then later said that he saw Hae dead in the back of the car at Time X Minus 30 Minutes?
I think the most important point there is that he saw Hae dead in the back of the car. And that he only saw Hae dead in the back of the car because Adnan called him to come over there.
Adnan definitely did it. And corrupt though the Baltimore PD may be, I didn't see anything particularly egregious in this case. The alleged "feeding" of information to Jay is pure speculation.
Posted on 3/11/19 at 8:33 pm to Marciano1
quote:
I believe Adnan did it and Jay had a larger role, but there is this thing called "reasonable doubt" on Adnan's side.
They key word being reasonable.
Posted on 3/11/19 at 8:33 pm to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
parts of their “stories” have changed over almost two decades.
Their stories changed between detective interviews and/or between the mistrial and the 2nd trial. Then again years later.
quote:
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.
But the timing of these events has been so drastically different that time or memory lapses can't explain. You wouldn't forget if you saw the trunk pop with a body in it at Best Buy or in front of a house. And he admitted he lied (to protect his grandmother) in the intercept interview. I just don't believe anything he says.
quote:
I haven’t read that opinion. Do you have a link to it?
LINK
quote:
The Court reasoned that McClain’s testimony would have directly contradicted the State’s theory of the case by placing Syed at the Woodlawn Public Library at the exact time the State theorized that Syed murdered Hae; a critical element the State had to prove to convict Syed. When considering McClain’s testimony in light of all of the other evidence the State presented to the jury, the Court held that, if McClain’s testimony had been presented to the jury, it would have “alter[ed] the entire evidentiary picture.” Id. at 696. The Court, therefore, held that “the jury was deprived of the [opportunity] to hear testimony that [would or] could have supplied [ ] ‘reasonable doubt’” in at least one juror’s mind leading to a different outcome: a hung jury. Avery v. Prelesnik, 548 F.3d 434, 439 (6th Cir. 2008). Under the circumstances of the case sub judice, the Court concluded that there was a reasonable probability that, but for trial counsel’s deficient performance, the result of Syed’s trial would have been different.
quote:
Can you link where the expert recanted?
LINK
quote:
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.
I'd love to see the state's side. I'm not saying Syed is innocent, just that I think there was enough reasonable doubt to not convict. I concede, as any reasonable person would, that I haven't seen all of the evidence. In fact, I haven't heard a single professional argument from someone arguing for a conviction. I'd welcome that.
Posted on 3/11/19 at 8:35 pm to landrywasbeast30
quote:
The only thing linking Adnan to any of this is a drug dealer who was being fed info by cops and who, if his story was actually legit, should have been the main suspect. Even by Jay’s own words, which tie him directly to the crime, nothing he said was really evidence of Adnan being guilty, except Jay saying Adnan did it.
A drug dealer who received a call from Adnan to come to the best buy parking lot either sell him some drugs or dispose of a freshly dead body. One of the two. I forget.
Posted on 3/11/19 at 8:36 pm to MidnightVibe
quote:
You mean he's completely contradicted himself on the timeline? In other words, he didn't get the timing exactly perfect when he was brought in for questioning the first time?
That's your reasonable doubt? That he said he saw Hae in the back of the car dead at Time X once, and then later said that he saw Hae dead in the back of the car at Time X Minus 30 Minutes?
No, he's admitted he lied about seeing the body in the trunk when he met Adnan after the "come get me" call. He changed it to not seeing the body for hours at a completely different location. This isn't "I thought it was 2:30, but it was really 3:00."
Posted on 3/11/19 at 8:40 pm to ShamelessPel
quote:
So this drug dealing weirdo has an attractive girlfriend who the school cool kid is very close to, including stuff like buying presents for her on her birthday, and he doesn't have a motive? This is high school.
1. What was his motive?
2. How would Jay have pulled this off? Where and when exactly was he going to get into Hae's car with just him and her in it a few minutes after she left school?
3. What the hell does him dealing drugs have to do with it?
4. What the hell does him being "a weirdo" have to do with it?
Posted on 3/11/19 at 8:40 pm to medtiger
Now this is some good stuff. Posted to Asia McClain's timeline yesterday.
Posted on 3/11/19 at 8:43 pm to ShamelessPel
quote:
If you were defending Adnan and he provided you letters from someone that he wasn't close to who wanted to help him and provide him not one, but THREE alibis, would you even find it excusable to not talk to said alibi?
If I'm defending him, I'll zealously advocate on his behalf and utilize all exculpatory evidence to that end.
quote:
I don't know how anyone could say definitively that Adnan did it based on what was presented. At the very least, the time frame the state was pushing as the time of death seems shaky at best.
Who else could have done it? Name a single other human being that could have done it.
Posted on 3/11/19 at 8:44 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
I think Jay killed her and Adnan helped. They planned it together.
You don't plan a strangulation, holmes. You don't need help either.
Posted on 3/11/19 at 8:46 pm to medtiger
If Jay and Adnan did it “together” then why has Adnan not once said something to the effect of Jay did it, or Jay helped? You gotta give it to Adnan he’s playing the I don’t know anything about it card til the end even if it means he knows Jay is out there scott free.
Posted on 3/11/19 at 8:47 pm to ShamelessPel
quote:
It's funny you criticize people who listened to the podcast and bring up these points, because they had an actual juror from the trial on to interview her who admitted herself that Adnan not taking the stand to defend himself played a massive role in finding him guilty. She also admitted Jay seemed trustworthy, and that the aggressiveness of Adnan's idiot lawyer actually made Jay sympathetic/honest.
They also deliberated for like two hours after a six week trial. Which is insane. The rule of thumb is an hour of deliberation for every day of trial.
Basically, the jury walked back to the jury room, said "homeboy is guilty af", and walked right back out. It was not a close call.
Posted on 3/11/19 at 8:55 pm to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
The details of why Jay isn’t in jail is most interesting to me.
State v. Jay Wilds -- Plea Agreement
Posted on 3/11/19 at 9:11 pm to medtiger
A 138 page Post Conviction opinion
God bless the clerk that had to put that together
I’m not reading all of that, obviously, but in response to the section you quoted, I’ll raise you this, from the conclusion of the dissent:
This goes back to my acknowledgement that while defendants are granted strong protections at the trial phase, it is a much more uphill battle at the appellate level.
Broad deference is given to the trier of fact, in this case, the jury. He was unanimously convicted by a jury of his peers, and that shouldn’t be easily cast aside by a judge based on subjective questions of law.
The system of a jury of one’s peers is a guiding principle designed to provide protection from the corruption and tyranny so many seem to think is rampant in the criminal justice system.
That is likely ultimately why the high court reversed the appellate court’s decision.
You would be surprised how scattered the memory of even the best witnesses can be, especially when it comes to details involving traumatic events like this.
Honestly I can respect that.
There is the issue of Hae’s car though.
Do you subscribe to the theory that Baltimore County Police detectives found the car themselves then had Jay fake giving them information on the record in order to frame Adnan?
And that Jay is trustworthy enough to maintain that charade all these years?
As for the cell phone expert, that is a quick blurb from a site I’ve never heard of but I’d point out this key piece:
He’s saying he would have needed more information, not necessarily that he “recanted”.
I’ll try to look through the opinion to see if they address that as well, though
You mean other than the State and the jury that convicted him?
The easy answer there is there isn’t money in documentarians proving that the State got a case RIGHT.
There is intrigue and incentive to produce a show that is entertaining and provides alternate resolutions and even possible corruption leading to an innocent man rotting away in prison.
I would imagine there would be much less incentive for producers to spend the time and money to produce something showing that the system worked.
Where is the intrigue to bring in an audience?
God bless the clerk that had to put that together
I’m not reading all of that, obviously, but in response to the section you quoted, I’ll raise you this, from the conclusion of the dissent:
quote:
To be sure, there could be circumstances where the record is sufficient for the defendant to overcome the presumption that counsel acted reasonably, without questioning trial counsel.
This case, however, does not present such circumstances. Syed has pointed to no evidence in the record indicating that trial counsel’s decision not to interview Ms. McClain was based on anything other than reasonable trial strategy, relying instead on his blanket assertion that it is unreasonable in every case for trial counsel to fail to contact a potential alibi witness identified by the defense.12
Although possible reasons for counsel’s decision have been discussed, we do not know if these were the reasons that counsel decided not to contact Ms. McClain.
We do know, based on the record, that trial counsel presented a vigorous defense of Syed in the face of strong evidence of guilt.
What we do not know is why trial counsel did not contact Ms. McClain, whether she decided not to for the reasons proffered by the State, or if there
_________________
12 Syed does attempt to poke holes in the State’s asserted reasons why trial counsel reasonably could have decided not to pursue Ms. McClain’s purported alibi. For example, Syed argues that no witness testified in support of the State’s argument that trial counsel may have believed the McClain alibi was fabricated. The State, however, does not have the burden to show why trial counsel failed to interview Ms. McClain. It is Syed’s burden to overcome the presumption that she did so based on reasonable trial strategy. 22
____________________
were other reasons that led counsel to conclude that it was not necessary to further investigate Ms. McClain’s public library alibi.13 Under these circumstances, Syed has failed to satisfy Strickland’s “high bar,” Harrington, 526 U.S. at 105. He has failed to meet his burden to overcome the presumption that counsel’s failure to contact Ms. McClain was based on reasonable trial strategy, and therefore, he has failed to meet the requirements of the performance prong of the Strickland test. I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court granting Syed a new trial.
This goes back to my acknowledgement that while defendants are granted strong protections at the trial phase, it is a much more uphill battle at the appellate level.
Broad deference is given to the trier of fact, in this case, the jury. He was unanimously convicted by a jury of his peers, and that shouldn’t be easily cast aside by a judge based on subjective questions of law.
The system of a jury of one’s peers is a guiding principle designed to provide protection from the corruption and tyranny so many seem to think is rampant in the criminal justice system.
That is likely ultimately why the high court reversed the appellate court’s decision.
quote:
But the timing of these events has been so drastically different that time or memory lapses can't explain.
You would be surprised how scattered the memory of even the best witnesses can be, especially when it comes to details involving traumatic events like this.
quote:
I just don't believe anything he says.
Honestly I can respect that.
There is the issue of Hae’s car though.
Do you subscribe to the theory that Baltimore County Police detectives found the car themselves then had Jay fake giving them information on the record in order to frame Adnan?
And that Jay is trustworthy enough to maintain that charade all these years?
As for the cell phone expert, that is a quick blurb from a site I’ve never heard of but I’d point out this key piece:
quote:
”If I had been made aware of this disclaimer, it would have affected my testimony. I would not have affirmed the interpretation of a phone’s possible geographical location until I could ascertain the reasons and details for the disclaimer.”
He’s saying he would have needed more information, not necessarily that he “recanted”.
I’ll try to look through the opinion to see if they address that as well, though
quote:
In fact, I haven't heard a single professional argument from someone arguing for a conviction. I'd welcome that.
You mean other than the State and the jury that convicted him?
The easy answer there is there isn’t money in documentarians proving that the State got a case RIGHT.
There is intrigue and incentive to produce a show that is entertaining and provides alternate resolutions and even possible corruption leading to an innocent man rotting away in prison.
I would imagine there would be much less incentive for producers to spend the time and money to produce something showing that the system worked.
Where is the intrigue to bring in an audience?
This post was edited on 3/11/19 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 3/11/19 at 9:25 pm to medtiger
quote:
Now this is some good stuff. Posted to Asia McClain's timeline yesterday.
Wow.
See, this is the kind of stuff I imagine has been going on since the podcast and will only increase now that it’s a TV phenomenon.
Everybody wants their 15 minutes
Page 4 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News