• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Serial Podcast

lionking said:
Doesn't really change anything. If he lied originally, he has elaborated a lie.

I agree with Koenig's summation. Adnan may have killed Hae, but it's not beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

You agree with Koenig knowing that she only presented to you a tiny fraction of what was presented to the jury at trial? Knowing that substantial portions of the narrative she gave you were red herrings or false leads?

I think the first season of Serial is interesting as the story of Sarah Koenig's personal journey through the case. But I don't think it gets us any closer to what really happened than we were before any of us ever heard of this podcast.
 
theprestige said:
You agree with Koenig knowing that she only presented to you a tiny fraction of what was presented to the jury at trial? Knowing that substantial portions of the narrative she gave you were red herrings or false leads?

I think the first season of Serial is interesting as the story of Sarah Koenig's personal journey through the case. But I don't think it gets us any closer to what really happened than we were before any of us ever heard of this podcast.
Click to expand...

I said I agree with her summation. Not every aspect of the podcast. And I still do.
 
lionking said:
I said I agree with her summation. Not every aspect of the podcast. And I still do.
Click to expand...

I understood you to be agreeing with this proposition:

Adnan may have killed Hae, but it's not beyond reasonable doubt.​

And I understood you to be agreeing with that proposition based on the narrative Koenig presented over the course of the podcast, up to and including her summation in the final episode.

Did I understand wrongly?
 
I don't think Syed should have been convicted.

The case as presented in court is:

1. New breakup + new boyfriend = possible motive.
2. Jay Wilds testified to a version of events that matched some of the cell phone data.
3. Muslim customs required subservient women & Hae Lee was assertive.
4. Adnan Syed was dishonest about other things (e.g., his sexual relationship with Hae Lee)

That means the case hangs on #2, b/c the rest is not evidence. I have doubt about Wilds' story because -- having read the transcripts of his interviews with the police, along with his recent statements to reporters from The Intercept -- I don't believe him.

The matching of cell phone data with his story could too easily have been contrived during unrecorded police interviews. There is no likely time for Syed to have committed the murder. Credible witnesses came forward during the podcast who verified that Hae Lee was still alive after the time when the State had her dead. Whatever happened, it wasn't the story that Jay told in court.

And Jay himself changed the story again a couple of weeks ago, with new details that aren't supported by the cell phone data or by the people who told Serial that he told them what happened.

Not weighing in on whether it's possible that Syed killed that girl -- just saying that the evidence that sent him away is too thin by a mile.
 
kwill said:
The case as presented on the radio is:

1. New breakup + new boyfriend = possible motive.
2. Jay Wilds testified to a version of events that matched some of the cell phone data.
3. Muslim customs required subservient women & Hae Lee was assertive.
4. Adnan Syed was dishonest about other things (e.g., his sexual relationship with Hae Lee)

That means the case hangs on #2, b/c the rest is not evidence. I have doubt about Wilds' story because -- having read the transcripts of his interviews with the police, along with his recent statements to reporters from The Intercept -- I don't believe him.
Click to expand...

Fine, but Wilds' testimony has a huge corroborating piece of evidence: he located Hae Lee's car. There is no way to wiggle around that particular point.
 
Asia McClain has filed an affidavit to deny claims the prosecutor has maintained right up until this recent interview

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/jan/20/key-witness-adnan-syed-serial-asia-mcclain

Key witness in Serial case Asia McClain says prosecutor suppressed testimony
McClain says Kevin Urick actively suppressed her testimony in which she describes seeing Adnan Syed in the school library at the time the crime allegedly took place

Nicky Woolf in New York
Wednesday 21 January 2015 07.59 AEST

A key witness and perhaps the only alibi for Adnan Syed, the subject of the hit true-crime podcast Serial, has come forward to claim that the prosecutor in the case suppressed her testimony at a crucial appeal hearing.
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
Fine, but Wilds' testimony has a huge corroborating piece of evidence: he located Hae Lee's car. There is no way to wiggle around that particular point.
Click to expand...

Yep. And how does that evidence implicate anybody besides Jay Wilds? Shouldn't there be something to indicate that his accusation against Syed has validity besides his word?
 
kwill said:
Yep. And how does that evidence implicate anybody besides Jay Wilds? Shouldn't there be something to indicate that his accusation against Syed has validity besides his word?
Click to expand...

Cellphone records, including the call that Jay would not have made, to Adnan's new girlfriend. Plus zero evidence that Jay had any motive.
 
kwill said:
Yep. And how does that evidence implicate anybody besides Jay Wilds? Shouldn't there be something to indicate that his accusation against Syed has validity besides his word?
Click to expand...

No one disputes that Wilds and Syed were together the day the girl went missing, so if you think the evidence implicates Wilds, then it implicates Syed as well.

Do you think Wilds did this crime without Syed, or with someone other than Syed, on a day when he was with Syed and was using Syed's car? I would need to see evidence of that.
 
He's been granted an appeal

http://www.theage.com.au/world/subj...n-syed-is-granted-appeal-20150207-138tfq.html

Adnan Syed, the subject of the popular podcast Serial who was convicted in 2000 for killing his ex-girlfriend when he was a teenager, has been granted an appeal.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals approved Syed's application for an appeal, which claims that his lawyer, Christina Gutierrez, was ineffective. The rare ruling is the first step for Syed to challenge his murder conviction.

"It's the first step in a pretty long process but we're extremely happy," said Syed's attorney, C. Justin Brown.
Click to expand...
 
lionking said:
And the grounds, that his lawyer was ineffectual, seem correct.
Click to expand...

But this is all based on the tenuous notion that Asia McClain's testimony would have swayed the jurors, despite some obvious problems with corroborating McClain's recollections. Suppose Adnan's lawyer did the basic checking needed to show that McClain's recollection of the first snow of the year that day was wrong; was she still ineffectual?
 
Brainster said:
But this is all based on the tenuous notion that Asia McClain's testimony would have swayed the jurors, despite some obvious problems with corroborating McClain's recollections. Suppose Adnan's lawyer did the basic checking needed to show that McClain's recollection of the first snow of the year that day was wrong; was she still ineffectual?
Click to expand...

Well... yes and no. If she offered credible testimony that undermined Wilds' account of the murder, that would influence the jury. I could see a good lawyer getting a lot of mileage out of that.

Wilds' story changed dramatically over time, probably because he was present when the murder took place, which exposes him to a more serious charge. He had to invent a lie about Syed calling him to come pick him up. The authorities must have known this. They protected Wilds because they needed his testimony to convict Syed, whom they believed to be the main culprit.
 
Just been binge-listening this podcast. Not finished the updates yet, but without looking at the commentary on this my conclusion is that Adnan did it. It seems to me that the narrator started out with pretty good reasons for looking into the case but seems to always be trying to find a "reasonable doubt" angle. Each piece of evidence may not be watertight on its own but there seems to be a convergence of incriminating evidence all round. There's very little pointing elsewhere.
 
angrysoba said:
Just been binge-listening this podcast. Not finished the updates yet, but without looking at the commentary on this my conclusion is that Adnan did it. It seems to me that the narrator started out with pretty good reasons for looking into the case but seems to always be trying to find a "reasonable doubt" angle. Each piece of evidence may not be watertight on its own but there seems to be a convergence of incriminating evidence all round. There's very little pointing elsewhere.
Click to expand...

he problem is that Koenig leaves out several important pieces of information, to purposefully create a mystery about Syed's guilt or innocence. There is no reasonable doubt he is guilty. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, I have the police file we obtained via FOIA/MPIA. After you read that, you have no doubt about his guilt.
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
he problem is that Koenig leaves out several important pieces of information, to purposefully create a mystery about Syed's guilt or innocence. There is no reasonable doubt he is guilty. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, I have the police file we obtained via FOIA/MPIA. After you read that, you have no doubt about his guilt.
Click to expand...

Oh, wow! Who is the "we" who obtained the file? Certainly I would be interested. Are you hosting the file somewhere?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom