Adnan Syed - Serial / Undisclosed

[kwill]

Well, look. What no one disputes is that Wilds had Syed's car and phone for much of the day and was using both, Wilds and Syed were together for at least part of the day, and Syed's phone connected with a tower near where the body was found, on the evening the girl went missing.

So what do you think happened?

Did Wilds kill this girl himself or with a different accomplice, and Syed just happened to wander in and out of the frame without any involvement? If so why did Wilds kill her?

Or do you think someone else killed her and Wilds just made up a story from the whole cloth, and he happened to have spotted the car by coincidence?

I think that we don't have enough information to know what happened, but I'm sure that the story as told to the jury could not have been true. There was no premeditation and plan made in an 18-second phone call the night before the murder. There was no burial at 7 pm. (Because of livor mortis evidence) There was no wiping down of the shovels used to dig the grave at 8 pm. (Because the burial could not have happened by 8 pm) There was no tossing of Wilds' clothes and boots the next day. (Because on the 14th of January the whole city of Baltimore was shut down due to an ice storm that began at 4 am that day)

The stories the State's witnesses (Wilds and Pusateri) told to the police were self-contradictory and contradicted one another. They also contradicted the facts. We don't know anything about the murder or about the burial, except that both happened.

One possibility about what might have happened in the investigation is that when the police first got the phone records for the cell phone they saw Jay Wilds' phone number on them. They certainly knew that number because it was used by others in his family, many of whom had done time for meth and/or gun-related activities.

The police were trying to use the cell towers like a GPS. They believed early not just that Syed (as a former boyfriend) was a suspect but that he was very likely guilty . . . because his phone pinged a tower close to the burial site twice on the night the victim went missing.

So (hypothetically) they go to Wilds and tell him they know Syed killed Lee and that they think he was involved, too. If Wilds is both innocent and ignorant, what should he do?

He can bet on option 1, which is that they really have nothing and can't pin it on him. In that case, he asks for a lawyer or refuses to talk.

Or he can bet on option 2, which is that they're right that his geeky pot buddy really did kill his girlfriend, and the cops really will let Jay go if he tells them enough to make a case.

In my rational world, the obvious choice is option 1. Innocent people are never railroaded by cops, right? If I haven't done anything wrong, I can't be charged, much less convicted, right? Wrong, and Wilds -- as a black kid from Baltimore -- certainly knew that the cops could in fact mess with you pretty much at will.

So, he goes for option 2. And then he and the cops, over a series of many untaped conversations, land on a story that will sell to a jury. You can read his taped conversations and hear for yourself that he really never seems to be operating from his own memory. He just manufactures details on the spot without any concern for how much they contradict the evidence.

Wilds told the cops he helped to bury a body, destroyed evidence, and failed to report a homicide he knew was being planned . . . and they sent him home to sleep in his own bed.

So what about the car? Wilds knew the victim. He sat next to her in biology the year before. He knew her car, because she was friends with his girlfriend at the time, and because he'd seen her and Syed together in it.

He testified in court that he'd seen her car in the course of his normal routine between the time of the murder and the day he told the cops where it was. So, yes. It's possible that he knew where it was without being involved in anything.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I think that we don't have enough information to know what happened, but I'm sure that the story as told to the jury could not have been true. There was no premeditation and plan made in an 18-second phone call the night before the murder. There was no burial at 7 pm. (Because of livor mortis evidence) There was no wiping down of the shovels used to dig the grave at 8 pm. (Because the burial could not have happened by 8 pm) There was no tossing of Wilds' clothes and boots the next day. (Because on the 14th of January the whole city of Baltimore was shut down due to an ice storm that began at 4 am that day)

The stories the State's witnesses (Wilds and Pusateri) told to the police were self-contradictory and contradicted one another. They also contradicted the facts. We don't know anything about the murder or about the burial, except that both happened.

One possibility about what might have happened in the investigation is that when the police first got the phone records for the cell phone they saw Jay Wilds' phone number on them. They certainly knew that number because it was used by others in his family, many of whom had done time for meth and/or gun-related activities.

The police were trying to use the cell towers like a GPS. They believed early not just that Syed (as a former boyfriend) was a suspect but that he was very likely guilty . . . because his phone pinged a tower close to the burial site twice on the night the victim went missing.

So (hypothetically) they go to Wilds and tell him they know Syed killed Lee and that they think he was involved, too. If Wilds is both innocent and ignorant, what should he do?

He can bet on option 1, which is that they really have nothing and can't pin it on him. In that case, he asks for a lawyer or refuses to talk.

Or he can bet on option 2, which is that they're right that his geeky pot buddy really did kill his girlfriend, and the cops really will let Jay go if he tells them enough to make a case.

In my rational world, the obvious choice is option 1. Innocent people are never railroaded by cops, right? If I haven't done anything wrong, I can't be charged, much less convicted, right? Wrong, and Wilds -- as a black kid from Baltimore -- certainly knew that the cops could in fact mess with you pretty much at will.

So, he goes for option 2. And then he and the cops, over a series of many untaped conversations, land on a story that will sell to a jury. You can read his taped conversations and hear for yourself that he really never seems to be operating from his own memory. He just manufactures details on the spot without any concern for how much they contradict the evidence.

Wilds told the cops he helped to bury a body, destroyed evidence, and failed to report a homicide he knew was being planned . . . and they sent him home to sleep in his own bed.

So what about the car? Wilds knew the victim. He sat next to her in biology the year before. He knew her car, because she was friends with his girlfriend at the time, and because he'd seen her and Syed together in it.

He testified in court that he'd seen her car in the course of his normal routine between the time of the murder and the day he told the cops where it was. So, yes. It's possible that he knew where it was without being involved in anything.

I would need to see the details of livor mortis evidence that "proves" the body could not have been buried at 7 pm. My understanding is that a pathologist can tell if a body was moved more than a couple of hours after death, but can't say it was at least "X" hours.

Is your thesis that the cops talked to Wilds before they talked to Pusateri? Why would she concoct hearsay to corroborate Wilds?

I can see that the evidence in this case is thin, and it could be picked apart by a good legal team. It's the same with Scott Peterson, and I feel the same way about Syed as I do about Peterson. It's conceivable either of them could be innocent, the victims of unfortunate circumstances. For someone to convince me there is a strong affirmative case for innocence, however, I would need a plausible theory of what really happened, backed by evidence.

 

[Desert Fox]

I would need to see the details of livor mortis evidence that "proves" the body could not have been buried at 7 pm. My understanding is that a pathologist can tell if a body was moved more than a couple of hours after death, but can't say it was at least "X" hours.

Is your thesis that the cops talked to Wilds before they talked to Pusateri? Why would she concoct hearsay to corroborate Wilds?

I can see that the evidence in this case is thin, and it could be picked apart by a good legal team. It's the same with Scott Peterson, and I feel the same way about Syed as I do about Peterson. It's conceivable either of them could be innocent, the victims of unfortunate circumstances. For someone to convince me there is a strong affirmative case for innocence, however, I would need a plausible theory of what really happened, backed by evidence.

Kind of in the area, maybe, is very different than being on a boat fishing and the victim washes up from around the area where you were fishing. I am more comfortable with Scott Peterson than with Syed.

You do agree that she was killed very soon after school because she just disappeared? My issue is that it is incredibly difficult to have done the murder in the time frame that he appears to have had. If there was a bit more time, I would feel more comfortable with him being guilty.

 

[kwill]

I would need to see the details of livor mortis evidence that "proves" the body could not have been buried at 7 pm. My understanding is that a pathologist can tell if a body was moved more than a couple of hours after death, but can't say it was at least "X" hours.

Is your thesis that the cops talked to Wilds before they talked to Pusateri? Why would she concoct hearsay to corroborate Wilds?

I can see that the evidence in this case is thin, and it could be picked apart by a good legal team. It's the same with Scott Peterson, and I feel the same way about Syed as I do about Peterson. It's conceivable either of them could be innocent, the victims of unfortunate circumstances. For someone to convince me there is a strong affirmative case for innocence, however, I would need a plausible theory of what really happened, backed by evidence.

A qualified ME, going on nothing but the autopsy photos:

To me, the lividity looks fully frontal and fairly symmetrical with regards to areas of pressure. These B&W photos are not ideal by any means.

1. Anterior lividity means her body was in a fully anterior position for at least 8-12 hours in a temperate location (neither too hot nor too cold), so neither claim seems plausible. If she was stored in a hotter environment the time could be less. She was fully face down for a length of time and then placed in the grave.

source

Her body was was on its side when found. The lividity evidence -- at least according to this ME -- means that she couldn't have been placed in the grave in that position until 11 pm, assuming she was killed shortly after she left school that day. For what it's worth, Jay Wilds himself told an interviewer last December that the burial was closer to midnight.

That means the cell tower pings at 7 pm can't be associated with the burial. They might be associated with scoping out a site . . . but that's not the story told to the jury. Why was Wilds lying to the court about the burial time? To corroborate the cell phone records the State was using to show that Syed must have been present at the burial.

Wilds did have contact with the Baltimore police before they talked to his friend Jennifer Pusateri. That's not a thesis, it's corroborated by his boss (Sis) at the time.

PD Davis was then advised that one of the days, either the 20, 21 or 22, Jay missed work when he responded to the Baltimore City Police Headquarters for an interview. Jay was questioned several times by the police at which time Sis asked Jay if they were questioning him in reference to the girl found in the Park. Jay advised that that was correct

source

Jennifer Pusateri wasn't interviewed until the 26th of February.

I think it's the case that the evidence isn't just thin, it's nonexistent. The cops thought they had the right guy. They were willing to let their main witness make up story after story, as long as he kept repeating that the suspect they liked was the killer. That's what he did.

I would suggest that if there were a true story about the burial in which Syed is present, Wilds could have told it. Instead he gave a number of different versions, some of which make no sense.

 

[Desert Fox]

There is almost a pattern towards how people confess when they are guilty or involved. If they are are involved but trying to get themselves out, the events will at least tend to follow what actually happened.

If they fully confess and they are actually, the story lines tend to match what the evidence points to. They don't tend to create something that just does not seem to work.

It is really strange especially how they are suppose to have two cars yet the story Jay tells seems to involve only one car.

 

[kwill]

It is really strange especially how they are suppose to have two cars yet the story Jay tells seems to involve only one car.

Yes. He describes conversations he and Syed are supposedly having while they drive around in two cars. The detectives remind him that at this point they're not together, & he apologizes and moves on.

I can't think of a reason for Wilds to invent details about the burial scene if he really did witness it. The fact that he tells multiple fanciful stories is one of the main reasons I don't think he was present.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Kind of in the area, maybe, is very different than being on a boat fishing and the victim washes up from around the area where you were fishing. I am more comfortable with Scott Peterson than with Syed.

You do agree that she was killed very soon after school because she just disappeared? My issue is that it is incredibly difficult to have done the murder in the time frame that he appears to have had. If there was a bit more time, I would feel more comfortable with him being guilty.

Why did he need more time? It only takes a few minutes to strangle someone. Witnesses heard him ask Hae for a ride after school and then she turns up dead. His cell phone pings from the burial site, his stories change, he has no credible alibi and he never, ever calls her again after she goes missing, even though her body isn't discovered for a month. If you don't like the 2:36pm call being the come-and-get-me call, it could have been the 3:15 call. Either way, he is the only one with motive and means and no other scenario matches the known evidence.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

A qualified ME, going on nothing but the autopsy photos:

source

Her body was was on its side when found. The lividity evidence -- at least according to this ME -- means that she couldn't have been placed in the grave in that position until 11 pm, assuming she was killed shortly after she left school that day.

No, just no. We cannot go on an ME who is going off nothing but the "not ideal" black and white autopsy photos. Moreover, do we have a photo of her position in the grave? No, I didn't think so. Rabia has pics. Why do you suppose she hasn't produced any? Probably the same reason she hasn't produced any of the missing trial transcript pages: none of it supports her golden boy being innocent.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

There is almost a pattern towards how people confess when they are guilty or involved.

Oh, yes, and that's the thing... Jay Wilds fits it to a tee. He tells the shifting, self-serving, half bogus tale of someone who was very much involved, and knows exactly what happened, but wants to minimize his role.

Have you followed murder cases where multiple kids are in it to some degree? Look at the case of Elizabeth Haysom and Jens Söring. Each of them tells a completely different story, and both have changed their stories many times. Each seeks to blame the other while minimizing their own role. Hence no one is sure about the details of what happened.

BUT there is no doubt one or the other of them physically murdered her parents, and they planned it together. Police found correspondence in which they discussed the plot explicitly, before they did it.

 

[Desert Fox]

Why did he need more time? It only takes a few minutes to strangle someone. Witnesses heard him ask Hae for a ride after school and then she turns up dead. His cell phone pings from the burial site, his stories change, he has no credible alibi and he never, ever calls her again after she goes missing, even though her body isn't discovered for a month. If you don't like the 2:36pm call being the come-and-get-me call, it could have been the 3:15 call. Either way, he is the only one with motive and means and no other scenario matches the known evidence.

My mind is running in a few different directions on how to answer you.

I would start by arguing that I am not as sure about this case as I am with many other cases. As a skeptic, I am never sure about anything but I would the best I can in each case.

I do not consider anything definitive enough to say his is guilty, or innocent for that matter. As such a case, I operate as he is "not guilty."

The thing is that he has to get out of the school parking lot, strangle her, and get back to track before he is noticed being missing. He has to do this without acting strange while there.

In order to make a judgement call about the cell phone, one really needs to know what his normal patterns are. In addition, this was the days of early cell phones where there was nowhere near the amount of towers or the ability to locate people.

 

[Desert Fox]

Oh, yes, and that's the thing... Jay Wilds fits it to a tee. He tells the shifting, self-serving, half bogus tale of someone who was very much involved, and knows exactly what happened, but wants to minimize his role.

Have you followed murder cases where multiple kids are in it to some degree? Look at the case of Elizabeth Haysom and Jens Söring. Each of them tells a completely different story, and both have changed their stories many times. Each seeks to blame the other while minimizing their own role. Hence no one is sure about the details of what happened.

BUT there is no doubt one or the other of them physically murdered her parents, and they planned it together. Police found correspondence in which they discussed the plot explicitly, before they did it.

I know a about the case but I am not certain exactly what you are referring to? I at first thought the Amanda Knox case was something like the Diane Zamora case but found it was something quite different.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

My mind is running in a few different directions on how to answer you.

I would start by arguing that I am not as sure about this case as I am with many other cases. As a skeptic, I am never sure about anything but I would the best I can in each case.

I do not consider anything definitive enough to say his is guilty, or innocent for that matter. As such a case, I operate as he is "not guilty."

The thing is that he has to get out of the school parking lot, strangle her, and get back to track before he is noticed being missing. He has to do this without acting strange while there.

In order to make a judgement call about the cell phone, one really needs to know what his normal patterns are. In addition, this was the days of early cell phones where there was nowhere near the amount of towers or the ability to locate people.

Except no one testified that he was absolutely at track, let alone when he got there. Coach Russell testified that track attendance is not recorded.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

I know a about the case but I am not certain exactly what you are referring to? I at first thought the Amanda Knox case was something like the Diane Zamora case but found it was something quite different.

I believe Charlie is referring to Jay Wilds being such a lying liar. Jay was the state's main witness and he testified to having been shown the body (the trunk-pop) and helping to bury Hae and to get rid of her car. Jay's story is ever-changing and he is a horrible witness. He knew enough about the crime though, that he could not have been not involved. Many people say he was the sole perpetrator, however he really didn't have motive and lots of other evidence corroborates the main parts of his story.

Charlie's stance is Jay lied over and over to minimize his role in the crime, which is undoubtedly true.

 

[Desert Fox]

I believe Charlie is referring to Jay Wilds being such a lying liar. Jay was the state's main witness and he testified to having been shown the body (the trunk-pop) and helping to bury Hae and to get rid of her car. Jay's story is ever-changing and he is a horrible witness. He knew enough about the crime though, that he could not have been not involved. Many people say he was the sole perpetrator, however he really didn't have motive and lots of other evidence corroborates the main parts of his story.

Charlie's stance is Jay lied over and over to minimize his role in the crime, which is undoubtedly true.

No, I am referring to the case of Elizabeth Haysom and Jens Söring.
By the way, there are some who consider Jens Söring to be innocent including an ex attorney general.

 

[kwill]

Except no one testified that he was absolutely at track, let alone when he got there. Coach Russell testified that track attendance is not recorded.

It was Coach Sye. And he told the detectives about 3 weeks after Syed was arrested that he remembered talking with Syed about fasting in Ramadan during a day in January when it was warm enough for the team to run outdoors. See last few pages of this document.

There were only a couple of days during Ramadan that were above 40; one was on the 12th, when the team had a meet, and the other was on the day the victim went missing.

It's possible, of course, that the coach was thinking of another day, or another student, or that Syed managed to kill the victim and then sneak into track late and have this conversation.

Not an ironclad alibi for 3:30-5:30, then. But this is an adult with no connection to the case, and his memory of the conversation is supported by both the weather and the season of Ramadan.

 

[kwill]

No, just no. We cannot go on an ME who is going off nothing but the "not ideal" black and white autopsy photos. Moreover, do we have a photo of her position in the grave? No, I didn't think so. Rabia has pics. Why do you suppose she hasn't produced any? Probably the same reason she hasn't produced any of the missing trial transcript pages: none of it supports her golden boy being innocent.

Goodness, are you connected to this case?

For the uninitiated, Rabia is Rabia Chaudry, a family friend of the Syeds who happens to be an attorney and who gave the case files she'd been carting around for years to Sarah Koenig, who created the Serial podcast.

I don't believe anyone has photos taken at the gravesite, but I'd be interested to find out why you think Chaudry does. I read that the defense was allowed to look at them in preparation for the trial, but was never given copies.

It makes no sense to me that Chaudry or anyone else would be hiding transcript pages because they look bad for the defense . . . surely a tactic that dumb would backfire? The record is incomplete as it was given to her, but there is video of the trial, so eventually the truth would come out.

I think when a respected ME goes on the record based on autopsy photos, you have to give some credit to what conclusions she's drawn. I'd also point out that the State's chief witness told a journalist that the burial was closer to midnight . . . which aligns with the ME's conclusions.

He could be lying, of course. But he said it months before anybody talked about the lividity evidence.

 

[kwill]

Oh, yes, and that's the thing... Jay Wilds fits it to a tee. He tells the shifting, self-serving, half bogus tale of someone who was very much involved, and knows exactly what happened, but wants to minimize his role.

Have you followed murder cases where multiple kids are in it to some degree? Look at the case of Elizabeth Haysom and Jens Söring. Each of them tells a completely different story, and both have changed their stories many times. Each seeks to blame the other while minimizing their own role. Hence no one is sure about the details of what happened.

BUT there is no doubt one or the other of them physically murdered her parents, and they planned it together. Police found correspondence in which they discussed the plot explicitly, before they did it.

This case isn't like that, though. Wilds has of course told a shifting, bogus story about what happened. Syed has told no story, except that he let Wilds use his car that day (as he -- and other students -- had on other days), and that as far as he could recall, it was a routine day.

The only thing that has changed about his story has to do with whether or not he asked the victim for a ride. One friend (still his friend to this day and convinced of his complete innocence, by the way) overheard him ask for a ride. She says it was just before class started that day. She says the victim said, "Sure."

Others say that they heard the victim tell him later in the afternoon that she couldn't do it after all, which he accepted.

He says he didn't ask for a ride.

That's the extent of the shifting story for Syed. Compare to Wilds, who spent many hours over a couple of months with the police and changed detail after detail after detail -- not in reaction to anything Syed was saying, but -- at least some of the time -- in reaction to things the police were telling him.

 

[Aepervius]

however he really didn't have motive and lots of other evidence corroborates the main parts of his story.

You realize that some crime happens really without external apparent motive ? Most sexual crime for example. I can remember a guy that age strangulating a girl that age in my home city, because he tried to fondle/have sex with her, but she did not want to and started to scream then he wanted her to shut up, and strangulated her killing her.

No apparent motive. Because the real motive was only due to a crime of opportunity.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

This case isn't like that, though. Wilds has of course told a shifting, bogus story about what happened. Syed has told no story, except that he let Wilds use his car that day (as he -- and other students -- had on other days), and that as far as he could recall, it was a routine day.

The only thing that has changed about his story has to do with whether or not he asked the victim for a ride. One friend (still his friend to this day and convinced of his complete innocence, by the way) overheard him ask for a ride. She says it was just before class started that day. She says the victim said, "Sure."

Others say that they heard the victim tell him later in the afternoon that she couldn't do it after all, which he accepted.

He says he didn't ask for a ride.

That's the extent of the shifting story for Syed. Compare to Wilds, who spent many hours over a couple of months with the police and changed detail after detail after detail -- not in reaction to anything Syed was saying, but -- at least some of the time -- in reaction to things the police were telling him.

Syed has consistently asserted his innocence and has not wavered from his story. That doesn't tell us much, one way or the other. My point is that the circumstances and nature of Wilds's statements are wholly consistent with someone who was involved with the murder. Once police had the hearsay statement, Wilds felt he was in a situation where he could no longer plausibly deny his involvement. He told a partially true story in which he sought to minimize his role, but it was rife with falsehoods that he can't keep straight and has revised over time.

Then he corroborated his statement by taking police to the car. Is it possible he spotted and recognized the car earlier, by coincidence? I can't say it is impossible. I think it is unlikely. The authorities had been looking for this vehicle, and the public knew it was missing. It would be quite a coincidence indeed if Wilds just happened to be the one guy who noticed it, and knew whose car it was, and didn't say anything to anyone, until he gave his account of the murder to the police.

You are doing an excellent job of picking apart the evidence and showing that it is weak and inconclusive. You have not, however, given me a good reason to think Syed is more than likely innocent.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Goodness, are you connected to this case?

I guess my emotional side shows, huh? I am not connected, but I am from the area. I started the WHS Scholarship Fund in Memory of Hae. My emotional investment is because of my time spent on another site where there is an innocent camp and a guilty camp. I started out in the innocent camp, then I moved to the probably-guilty-but-not-a-fair-trial camp, then I moved to the guilty and Adnan's mouthpiece has-lied-all-over-the-place camp.

For the uninitiated, Rabia is Rabia Chaudry, a family friend of the Syeds who happens to be an attorney and who gave the case files she'd been carting around for years to Sarah Koenig, who created the Serial podcast.

I don't believe anyone has photos taken at the gravesite, but I'd be interested to find out why you think Chaudry does. I read that the defense was allowed to look at them in preparation for the trial, but was never given copies.

It makes no sense to me that Chaudry or anyone else would be hiding transcript pages because they look bad for the defense . . . surely a tactic that dumb would backfire? The record is incomplete as it was given to her, but there is video of the trial, so eventually the truth would come out.

I think when a respected ME goes on the record based on autopsy photos, you have to give some credit to what conclusions she's drawn. I'd also point out that the State's chief witness told a journalist that the burial was closer to midnight . . . which aligns with the ME's conclusions.

He could be lying, of course. But he said it months before anybody talked about the lividity evidence.

She is hiding transcripts. She agreed to release bits of transcripts for every $10,000 raised for Adnan's defense fund. Then she became angry on the other website, accused someone who had non-flattering details about Adnan of being a sexual predator and essentially blew a gasket and deleted her account. Eventually someone else, through FOIA, obtained several days of full transcripts.

I have to be somewhere now, but I will post some information about the case here - some factual information, as opposed to emotional information.