Adnan Syed - Serial / Undisclosed

Ampulla of Vater said:
It was used to corroborate Jay's evidence plus that of the other witnesses and evidence.
Click to expand...

You mean the testimony that changed half a dozen time to fit the prosecution's narrative?

Anyway, it's all moot, the court now gets to decide whether the evidence was admissible as a motion has been filed to reopen proceedings on the basis that incoming calls cannot be used to determine location.

http://cjbrownlawcom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Supp.-to-Mot.-to-Reopen-FINAL.pdf
 
Let us say for the sake of argument that Adnan Syed is guilty. I am not very positive about his innocence.

The problem is that the case is, at best, extremely ambiguous. A jury is not suppose to convict if there is reasonable doubt. I see doubt everywhere on this case.
 
Desert Fox said:
Let us say for the sake of argument that Adnan Syed is guilty. I am not very positive about his innocence.

The problem is that the case is, at best, extremely ambiguous. A jury is not suppose to convict if there is reasonable doubt. I see doubt everywhere on this case.
Click to expand...

The first jury were going to acquit before Gutierrez turned it into a mistrial. No one could understand why Adnan, and not Jay, were in the dock.
 
bit_pattern said:
The first jury were going to acquit before Gutierrez turned it into a mistrial. No one could understand why Adnan, and not Jay, were in the dock.
Click to expand...

The trouble is that I see her as the poster child for ineffective assistance at trial. She did not hire experts she promised. Unless the experts which Undisclosed brought forward lied (ignoring the hosts here), a second opinion on the forensics side and a cell phone expert would have shattered the case.
 
kwill said:
that had a cover sheet stating explicitly that incoming calls were NOT reliable for location of the phone that was receiving them.

The state relied on them anyway. The defense was asleep at the switch.

The calls that supposedly place the phone in Leakin Park were both incoming, which means there is no reliable cell phone evidence to be corroborated by Jay Wilds or any other person.
Click to expand...

Here is the post about why you can rely on the incoming calls I was trying to find. I did not write this, but it lays it all out perfectly.


I'm just going to list out the incoming calls from the logs and show why the question of "reliability" is moot.

January 12th
•
Call #10, outgoing to Jay, 9:18pm, L651C

•
Call #9, incoming, 9:21pm, L651C

•
Call #8, incoming, 9:24pm, L651C

•
Call #7, outgoing to Yaser Home, 9:26pm, L651C


This is an 8 minute period with two outgoing calls bookending to incoming calls. They all hit the same antenna, L651C. I think it's safe to say the incoming antenna is correct.

January 13th
•
Call #30, outgoing to Jenn home, 12:41pm, L652A

•
Call #29, incoming, 12:43pm, L652A


Again, we have an outgoing call within 2 minutes of an incoming call, both using the same antenna. I think it's safe to say the incoming antenna is correct.
•Call #28, incoming, 2:36pm, L651B

Jenn and Jay (and likely Mark) all testify to Jay having the phone at Jenn's House during this time. L651B is the antenna for Jenn's House. This data matches testimony and is very likely correct.
•
Call #27, incoming, 3:15pm, L651C

•
Call #26, outgoing to Jenn home, 3:21pm, L651C


Again, we have an incoming and outgoing call in close proximity. The phone was previously at Jenn's home for Call #28. It is likely not there for Call #26 to Jenn's home. This data matches the testimony from Trial #1 of Jay heading out to the direction of the Best Buy 45 minutes after receiving the 2:36pm call. This data matches testimony and is very likely correct.
•
Call #21, incoming, 4:27pm, L654C

•
Call #20, incoming, 4:58pm, L654C


Indeterminate, I don't remember anything off hand to use to independently corroborate or refute these calls.
•
Call #16, incoming, 6:07pm, L655A

•
Call #15, incoming, 6:09pm, L608C

•
Call #14, incoming, 6:24pm, L608C


L608C is the antenna facing Cathy's House. Calls 14 and 15 are the calls we know Adnan received while at the house. Call 16 is interesting. L655A is along the driving path to Cathy's House from the North. Either this call was made in route to the house or it could be a case where the logs recording last known good instead of the antenna that actually handled the call. Call 16 is indeterminate to corroborate or refute. Calls 14 and 15 match the testimony and are very likely correct.
•
Call #13, outgoing to Yaser Cell, 6:59pm, L651A

•
Call #12, outgoing to Jenn Pager, 7:00pm, L651A

•
Call #11, incoming, 7:09pm, L689B

•
Call #10, incoming, 7:16pm, L689B


The "Leakin Park" calls. Calls 12 and 13 are outgoing calls through L651A which covers Security Blvd, Woodlawn HS, etc. So at 7pm the phone is near the park. Sometime after 7pm the phone has to register with L689B for that antenna to appear in the logs. AND it could not register with any other antenna until after the second call at 7:16pm. This is beyond unlikely. If the 33 second call didn't actually go through L689B, I cannot come up with a scenario where the 7:16pm call would also log L689B. And in any scenario, the phone needs to register with L689B at least once after 7pm for it to appear in the logs.

Moreover, the Leakin Park calls are followed up with two outgoing calls 45 minutes later.
•
Call #9, outgoing to Jenn pager, 8:04pm, L653A

•
Call #10, outgoing to Jenn pager, 8:05pm, L653C


L653A covers to the southeast of Leakin Park. L653C covers along highway 40 on the way back to Woodlawn. This very much matches up with the testimony of ditching the car on Edmondson Ave. and then driving back to drop Jay off at the mall. So very likely, the phone went through the park between 7pm-8pm traveling from West to East, emerged on the East side of the park some time around 8pm and was heading West back to Woodlawn at 8:05pm.

Conclusion

I don't see any errant data for the incoming calls. I see many that are independently supported with outgoing calls and testimony. There's simply no "reliability" issues with the data.
Click to expand...
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
Here is the post about why you can rely on the incoming calls I was trying to find. I did not write this, but it lays it all out perfectly.
Click to expand...

When the piece you've quoted from was written, the information from the AT&T cover sheet stating specifically, emphatically, and clearly that incoming calls were not reliable for locating the phone had not been widely publicized.

In particular, this:

Sometime after 7pm the phone has to register with L689B for that antenna to appear in the logs. AND it could not register with any other antenna until after the second call at 7:16pm. This is beyond unlikely. If the 33 second call didn't actually go through L689B, I cannot come up with a scenario where the 7:16pm call would also log L689B. And in any scenario, the phone needs to register with L689B at least once after 7pm for it to appear in the logs.
Click to expand...

makes no sense. The incoming calls are the ones your source is referring to. Both of the calls that ping that tower are incoming. One is at 7:09 and the other at 7:16. According to AT&T -- the people who owned and operated the towers that serviced the phone -- there is nothing to be learned from the data.

The reason is that an incoming call can be routed through the tower that's in range of the sending phone, and it could be a tower that's completely out of range of the receiving phone. You can't tell from this data where Syed's phone was at 7:09 or at 7:16. Period, full stop.
 
Last edited:
Desert Fox said:
It appears as if independent medical examiners were willing to state for the record that they though it was definitive enough that Hae was not buried at around 7 pm based on the lividity. Reading the actual autopsy report, it uses the term "prominent lividity."

...
Click to expand...

Lividity evidence is debunked thoroughly. Hae was buried with her face and chest flat downward. Hips and knees twisted to her right side. The frontal lividity the Undisclosed crew has been harping on only proves she was buried exactly as she was found, face down.

Additionally, the independent medical examiners you reference didn't even have all the photos of the burial site or the autopsy. It is a catastrophe for the cheerleading team.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
Lividity evidence is debunked thoroughly. Hae was buried with her face and chest flat downward. Hips and knees twisted to her right side. The frontal lividity the Undisclosed crew has been harping on only proves she was buried exactly as she was found, face down.

Additionally, the independent medical examiners you reference didn't even have all the photos of the burial site or the autopsy. It is a catastrophe for the cheerleading team.
Click to expand...

You need to watch "The Docket" where they talk about the crime scene and the condition of the body. I believe it was the latest one.

Through the assistance of MSNBC, the people at Undisclosed were able to get high resolution pictures were the condition of the body and the burial is not consistent with either being in the trunk of Hae's car or being buried as you describe.
 
I suspect that Ampulla of Vater got what he posted previously from Reddit.

The poster claims to be an ex trial attorney have a secret source where he/she optioned pictures of the body.

The newest Serial Dynasty addresses this remark. Bob has pictures of the body, mainly so that he could pass them to Jim Clemente (surprise, surprise, he was also involved in the Amanda Knox case) so that Jim could do a profile of the perpetrator. Bob is also going to ask Jim Clemente to back him on on the description so I don't think he is lying.

According to Bob, the poster on Reddit appears to have been completely dishonest about the position of the body and the body was not in a position where the chest was downwards. I laid on the ground as he described the body and there is no way to twist my body towards the ground.

If this person is an ex trial attorney though, I think I can give a name to him. . . . Kevin Urick.

Ann B also claims to have looked at the pictures and is either being dishonest about seeing them or is lying about what the pictures showed.

Edit: Should add that while Bob now things that Adnan is innocent, he was not always of that position.
 
Last edited:
Ampulla of Vater said:
Lividity evidence is debunked thoroughly.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. A qualified medical examiner looked at the authenticated crime scene photos in high-resolution color, along with the testimony at trial from the ME and the autopsy report. She has said without equivocation that the body was kept face down for 8-12 hours at least before it was placed in the position in which it was found. When I hear that any medical expert who has similarly examined the available authenticated evidence has a different conclusion, I'll entertain doubt.


Additionally, the independent medical examiners you reference didn't even have all the photos of the burial site or the autopsy.
Click to expand...

They had all the authenticated photos -- meaning, all the photos that were introduced at trial and verified by a witness as being an accurate representation of what was visible at the burial site. If there were other photos, isn't it logical that they must show the same scene? If there were other photos, isn't it also logical that they weren't as clear as the ones introduced at trial?

Why do you take the word of an anonymous internet dude over that of the State's witness, the State's ME, the State's autopsy report, and a qualified independent ME who has gone on the record about what the photos show? This is a serious question . . . I really want to know why you trust that reddit guy so much.

It is a catastrophe for the cheerleading team.
Click to expand...

Well, no. It's really not anything of the kind. It's more a demonstration that for some reason I don't pretend to understand, there's an unreasonable investment on the part of a few people who choose to remain anonymous that Syed stay in prison. The "cheerleading team" is bemused by this behavior, I'd guess.

I myself can't help comparing it to the Amanda Knox guilter stuff . . . there was a similar level of venom and rejoicing there over what turned out every single time to be ridiculous overstatement and unwarranted conclusions. It was a catastrophe for her cheerleaders, remember, when Raffaele's attorney suggested that there was no evidence against him last summer. It was the beginning of the end! He was going to turn on her at last!

All nonsense.
 
Rabia has something extremely interesting to suggest
NOTE: I spoke at a law school a few weeks ago and one of the faculty members, who has run the school’s criminal law clinic for 40 years, was adamant with me about his theory that her body could not have been in the woods for that many weeks without animal activity. He insisted that a place like Leakin Park, which has its own wildlife like foxes, but also urban pests like rats and mice, will immediately begin to gnaw at certain parts of a body. Eyes, nose, ears, digits to begin with, they go within days in the outdoors. He said insects growth is unavoidable in that many weeks, and he refused to believe she had been there that long. According to him, because her body showed absolutely no signs of animal activity, she could not have been there more than a couple of days.
http://www.splitthemoon.com/hae-and-k-speak/#more-923
 
This was a little off, based on the real photos. Do you see how she is now starting to incorporate the notion that Hae was partially face-down, when before she stuck to the theory Hae was placed on her right side? Slowly she is changing her story. I wonder why that is?
 
kwill said:
Why do you take the word of an anonymous internet dude over that of the State's witness, the State's ME, the State's autopsy report, and a qualified independent ME who has gone on the record about what the photos show? This is a serious question . . . I really want to know why you trust that reddit guy so much.
Click to expand...

Because I have the photos. I was part of the 3 people who obtained the police file. Of course now it has been spread all over reddit (not my doing) but we had the file which shows her upper torso buried face down.
 
Last edited:
Being that Bob Ruff describes the body almost exactly the same way with regards to position as Susan Simpson, why is he willing to lie about the position of the body?
 
So we are talking about pictures that were never presented at trial. . . .You have no idea where they came from or their provision?
 
They are in the police file. The police photographer took them the day they exhumed the body. They are official police photos. No, they were not used at trial, but then again, livor was not an issue at trial. Dr. Korrell testified there was frontal lividity, which would be consistent with the way she was found buried. Subsequently, 15 years later, lividity inconsistency was manufactured as an argument for Syed's innocence, stating the body was found on its right side so it should not have had frontal livor.
 
Might I ask what experts have looked at these pictures and can you get one on the record to state that Dr. Hlavity is incorrect?
 
Looks like the Cell Phone data is pretty much deep sixed. . . .
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...adnan-syed-case-affidavit-20151013-story.html

Abraham Waranowitz, a former AT&T engineer, said in a sworn affidavit that he was handed only one page of cellphone information before taking the stand in 2000 to explain how Syed's cellphone was linked to where the victim's body was found. He said he did not know of a disclaimer on a different page that might have cast doubt on the reliability of the data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom