I guess this will be the case we will be discussing this weekend.

I am guessing as much as people thought Adnan was innocent after listening to Serial, I think people will turn the other way to thinking he was guilty after this airs.

I've forgotten most of the details from Serial but let me state before it airs my simple airtight logic as to why I believe this dude is guilty. It goes like this:

1. I think we can agree that the only person who we know without a doubt knew something about the murder of Hae Min Lee is Jay Wilds, the person who pointed the police towards the body (or was it the car?). Agreed? We know he knows something about the murder since he gave the police key evidence.

2. We also know that he implicated himself and said he helped Adnan deal with the body. We also know that the only person without a doubt knows whether Jay is lying is Adnan Syed. Adnan knows because he is implicated in Jay's story.

3. So if we know that Adnan knows whether Jay is lying or telling the truth and we (including Adnan) know that Jay knows something about the death per point 1, then why wouldn't Adnan point the finger at Jay as the murderer if he knows Jay knows something about the death AND is lying about Adnan having a role in it? Instead he consistently said he didn't know why Jay would make it up.

The only hole in this theory is that maybe Adnan and Jay know some third party who is responsible who has them scared to speak up but I don't think we've heard anything to suggest that.

Anyway, that ninja did it, and folks will see it that way once the doc airs. Until someone makes another better documentary arguing he didn't do it.

That's how it seems to go these days.









**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

explanation.

He didn't get anything close to a fair trial, but Adnan makes more sense as the murderer than Jay ever did.

high-profile documentaries are turning into presentations of prosecutions and lawsuits in the Court Of Public Opinion. People are making their case for someone's guilt via these documentaries, now.

As for Adnan, I only slightly listened to the podcast when it came out and walked away from it feeling like he was guilty, in my gut.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

bit on MJ, so there's something to it, and overall it's probably a good thing.

or documentary.

they still have to go to real court.

and anyone who says differently is not only a fucking ignorant shit, but also isn't aware of history both recent and further in the past where this happens all the time.

thank you.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

With any luck, Robert will be convicted pretty soon.

And I never said anyone went to jail, dumbass. I said people are presenting their cases via documentaries. That was clearly part of dream hampton's mission with the documentary, and it seems to be working.

you aren't and you're not.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

from a podcast.

you have to do better.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and that you are ignorant of a shit as I said you were.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

so I guess we're settled on that one


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

of someone related to a serial rapist? or nah?



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Seek help.

Between the two, there is absolutely reasonable doubt for a not guilty vote.

Serial has some inadequacies that get exposed on Undisclosed, and presents a far more problematic case for the prosecution.

It'll be interesting to see what this new one pulls up.

It seemed all circumstantial. Like yeah, all signs suggest Adnan murdered her. Any other stories don't make sense.

But still, there wasn't proof. Just a good story. If I was on the jury (based on what I heard from Serial, I'd vote not guilty

>But still, there wasn't proof. Just a good story. If I was on
>the jury (based on what I heard from Serial, I'd vote not
>guilty

The prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, and they couldn't do that.

Even though I still think he probably did it.

or was an immature heartbroken teenage boy who made a dumb mistake




I'll let yall decide which is more plausible

Many wrongful convictions are clearly the result of corruption by the police and the courts.

You can any subject at random and create two narrow options with an either/or premise to account for why said subject is the way it is.

sociopaths can sometimes do that


or so ive heard

Your take stands out like the tapping in Jay's police interview.

You were riveted by that moment in undisclosed huh?


Not emotionally attached at all. Just talked these things to death in R/SerialPodcast


He fucking did it. And in true sociopath fashion will continue lying about it to his grave


least Rabia getting paid off all this i guess

But that of the police, and fed to him.

>Not emotionally attached at all. Just talked these things to
>death in R/SerialPodcast

Right. Because you're always this passionate about everything.

>He fucking did it.

If you say so.

Glad we get to finally hear this story from her POV


Shout to HBO

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I'll still watch


But I was genuinely excited for this. As I thought it would be a new perspective (as only HBO can do)



Get your money, Rabia. Off the back of your murderer nephew

and you still think my man is guilty?

I can't help you.

Her ex who worked at the eye glasses place clearly killed her if anyone did.

Undisclosed creates significant, and reasonable, doubt.

I don't think there's sufficient evidence showing he did it and I definitely don't see a reasonable basis to conclude guilt.

I think there may be a lack of distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty".

On that note im goi ng to run back through both podcasts this week

i can't 100 PERCENT say he's innocent but there was more than reasonable doubt to me and in that case you should be found "not guilty."

when he was mentioned in Serial.

the murder (I forget if he knew where her car was or where her body was but do remember he knew something only someone who was aware of the murder would know).


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

It's odd to be so adamant in your position without having heard the best case in his favor.

I've heard serial and plan to watch the HBO series if reviews are good, but I don't know if I need to watch and listen to 3 documentaries all advocating the same position.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Im sure the doc will do just fine.

But if you genuinely wanted the best possible understanding of the issues with the case against him, you'd go to the best available resource.

You're a reader. You know the book is alqays better.

Going Clear, the scientology doc, did a good job, but doesn't approach the depths explored in the book on which it was based.

Chasing Madoff is a solid doc on how Madoff got taken down, but the book written by Harry Markopolos (on which the doc is based) does the job so much better.

So if you're this firy entrenched in your belief in his guilt, but would prefer the Reader's Digest version of the best available case favoring his defense, that paints a rather clear picture of bias on your part.

You want the guy to be guilty more than you want a grasp of the available information in his favor.

I'm lost. I listened to Serial. I plan to watch the doc, and I am saying that I don't really have much interest in hearing another podcast about the same case especially if it's clearly from the point of view as Serial. It might be superior, but I don't care enough to do it all again especially if it doesn't answer my question about Jay.

Da hell you talking about books for?

Am I missing something?





>Im sure the doc will do just fine.
>
>But if you genuinely wanted the best possible understanding of
>the issues with the case against him, you'd go to the best
>available resource.
>
>You're a reader. You know the book is alqays better.
>
>Going Clear, the scientology doc, did a good job, but doesn't
>approach the depths explored in the book on which it was
>based.
>
>Chasing Madoff is a solid doc on how Madoff got taken down,
>but the book written by Harry Markopolos (on which the doc is
>based) does the job so much better.
>
>So if you're this firy entrenched in your belief in his guilt,
>but would prefer the Reader's Digest version of the best
>available case favoring his defense, that paints a rather
>clear picture of bias on your part.
>
>You want the guy to be guilty more than you want a grasp of
>the available information in his favor.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>I'm lost. I listened to Serial. I plan to watch the doc,
>and I am saying that I don't really have much interest in
>hearing another podcast about the same case especially if it's
>clearly from the point of view as Serial.

Yes, you are lost, because Undisclosed, while tackling the same case (initially), is an entirely different point of view and approaches the case in a far more in-depth legal perspective.

Undisclosed largely tackles the inconsistencies and flaws in the prosecution.

But you have a bias, and you've made assumptions about the contents of Undisclosed because you're not interested in exploring just how poor the prosecutions case really was.

>It might be
>superior, but I don't care enough to do it all again
>especially if it doesn't answer my question about Jay.

It's not just superior, it's full of entirely different and additional information. It is a deeper dive in every possible way.

But again, you prefer to believe Serial said a that needed to be said on the subject, and you prefer to continue your firm belief in his guilt, rather than dig into something that challenges your belief.


>Da hell you talking about books for?

>Am I missing something?

Clearly, a whole hell of a lot.

The doc is going to tackle the case again.

Cool.

Undisclosed tackles the case in a very different way than Serial did, and due to the differences and restrictions between the two mediums, undoubtedly presents more detailed information than the doc will.

The crystal clear correlation to the books I mentioned is that the books are a deeper dive into the same subject matter as the corresponding docs. This will be the same with Undisclosed and this doc.

Thia is obvious and you're extremely disingenuous right now.

The fact that you're convinced of his guilt, yet refuse to even take a look at something that digs far deeper than serial and presents a much more compelling case that casts doubt on his guilt makes your bias pretty clear.

Maybe you just lost me on books. We are comparing two podcasts. Leave the books metaphor out of this because it ain't working.

You used a lot of words to say that the undisclosed podcast is more compelling and persuasive than the serial podcast.

I am saying I don't have the energy to listen to another podcast advocating the same thing as the first podcast I listened to IF it doesn't address the very simple point I made in the OP. I wouldn't waste hours listening to a podcast if it doesn't thread that needle.

You are also not making a compelling case for me to listening to the Undisclosed because it has a "far more in-depth legal perspective." It doesn't take me being a lawyer (which I am) to know dude had a shitty trial. I got that from Serial. He may ultimately be freed because he had shitty trials. But that doesn't address the underlying fact of who killed this girl.

And I bet this doc won't do a good job of addressing that question. But I like docs for docs sake. I can enjoy it from a filmmaking level.

You call it a bias. A bias is typically an uninformed position. My position is based on the facts available. If you, Undisclosed or the DOC present some facts that change my mind, I'll change my mind.


What you call me being obtuse is another way to put I don't find what you are saying persuasive.


>>I'm lost. I listened to Serial. I plan to watch the doc,
>>and I am saying that I don't really have much interest in
>>hearing another podcast about the same case especially if
>it's
>>clearly from the point of view as Serial.
>
>Yes, you are lost, because Undisclosed, while tackling the
>same case (initially), is an entirely different point of view
>and approaches the case in a far more in-depth legal
>perspective.
>
>Undisclosed largely tackles the inconsistencies and flaws in
>the prosecution.
>
>But you have a bias, and you've made assumptions about the
>contents of Undisclosed because you're not interested in
>exploring just how poor the prosecutions case really was.
>
>>It might be
>>superior, but I don't care enough to do it all again
>>especially if it doesn't answer my question about Jay.
>
>It's not just superior, it's full of entirely different and
>additional information. It is a deeper dive in every possible
>way.
>
>But again, you prefer to believe Serial said a that needed to
>be said on the subject, and you prefer to continue your firm
>belief in his guilt, rather than dig into something that
>challenges your belief.
>
>
>>Da hell you talking about books for?
>
>>Am I missing something?
>
>Clearly, a whole hell of a lot.
>
>The doc is going to tackle the case again.
>
>Cool.
>
>Undisclosed tackles the case in a very different way than
>Serial did, and due to the differences and restrictions
>between the two mediums, undoubtedly presents more detailed
>information than the doc will.
>
>The crystal clear correlation to the books I mentioned is that
>the books are a deeper dive into the same subject matter as
>the corresponding docs. This will be the same with Undisclosed
>and this doc.
>
>Thia is obvious and you're extremely disingenuous right now.
>
>The fact that you're convinced of his guilt, yet refuse to
>even take a look at something that digs far deeper than serial
>and presents a much more compelling case that casts doubt on
>his guilt makes your bias pretty clear.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>Maybe you just lost me on books. We are comparing two
>podcasts. Leave the books metaphor out of this because it
>ain't working.

Wrong. That was used to make a comparison between the podcast and the docs, not the two podcasts

>You used a lot of words to say that the undisclosed podcast is
>more compelling and persuasive than the serial podcast.

I didn't use much at all on that point. But ok. Even if I did, this a meaningless point. Stay on topic.

>I am saying I don't have the energy to listen to another
>podcast advocating the same thing as the first podcast I
>listened to IF it doesn't address the very simple point I made
>in the OP.

A flawed and entirely irrelevant point, sure.

>You are also not making a compelling case for me to listening
>to the Undisclosed because it has a "far more in-depth legal
>perspective."

I'm not trying to persuade you to listen.

First, that was a direct response to your false assertion that it's from the same perspective as serial.

Second, you have an obvious bias and there isn't much that would change that. I'm pointing out that your refusal to look at additional information that more strongly favors reasonable doubt in his favor further exemplified his bias.

It doesn't take me being a lawyer (which I am)
>to know dude had a shitty trial.

Except I didn't say he had a shitty trial. I said the prosecution case against him was poor. And that's the part that matters.

>I got that from Serial. He
>may ultimately be freed because he had shitty trials.

No, if he is freed, it will be because the evidence against him is insufficient to prove guilt.

>But
>that doesn't address the underlying fact of who killed this
>girl.

It doesn't, but that's not what this case is about. This is about whether or not the evidence proves that this specific person killed her. That's it.

"Who killed her?"

And

"Did this specific person kill her?"

These are two entirely different questions.

>And I bet this doc won't do a good job of addressing that
>question.

Nor should it. Because it's about whether or not he did.

Your lone, burning question is entirely irrelevant. Either the case against him is sufficient, or it's not.

>You call it a bias. A bias is typically an uninformed
>position.

False. A bias is simply an unfair prejudice.

That prejudice may stem from a lack of information, but lack of information is not in itself integral to bias.

So no.

>My position is based on the facts available.

You've proven this to be false. Rather, a lie, because you've admitted that you have no interest in all of the facts available.

Your position is not based on the a available facts, just those you've chosen to observe. It is in fact a lie to say that your position is based on the available facts.

If
>you, Undisclosed or the DOC present some facts that change my
>mind, I'll change my mind.

Except you refuse to listen to Undisclosed.

>What you call me being obtuse is another way to put I don't
>find what you are saying persuasive.

Wrong again. It's a direct response to your comical display of false confusion over the correlation I made between books and docs. That's it.

And he asked a pretty simple question

Whether or not Undisclosed addresses it is another question

What a stupid "correction".

And what motive did Don have to kill her?

motive? lol.

Hardly none ...that I can recall
I personally don’t know nothing about it cept like 2 names
Oddly, I work directly across the street from the school

With that said. I’m watching

Mofos laughed when Jay described himself as the 'criminal element of Woodlawn". Folks that knew him described him as one of those weird dudes that wore big ass black baggy pants and had crazy hairs style. Like he shopped at Spencer or Hot Topic.

One of my FB friends started a thread about the podcast and folks were going in. Most of them were saying he really did that shit. One went as far as saying whne they asked him what happened to her (when she was missing), he just smiled.

the Asia Mclain chic on twitter

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

From the murder at roughly the same time the murder occurred would shift a conclusion from guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, to having reasonable doubt?

You seriously don't see how a witness placing someone somewhere away from the murder is cause to rethink a conviction for said murder?

so doubt already exists. Having someone with no reason to lie say Adnan wasn't where the police or Jay say he was when they say he was SHOULD weigh heavily in such a case.

If you were in his seat, wouldn’t you be jumping on the damn table if you learned that they found your alibi?!

Instead his reaction, or lack of, is so telling.

But it is interesting that he never mentions that he was in the library on his own



Once you get your head out of the Serial bubble it becomes clear how much of the benefit of the doubt they gave to this dude.


Remember when the story was that 'No way' could he get from the school to the parking lot in 25 mins. And then the hosts went and did it lol

The only two gaps in his memory are right after school and right after Kathy’s



Cops called him four hours after hae left school. Which day was it? Oh yeah it was the day the cops called me and I freaked out and accelerated the plan to dispose of her body

they get their way tho? they gon pin this on jay.

least I was caught up in it..



But then when you relisten and the more you dive into the case, you realize how charmed Sarah K was by this dude.. and how it affected the way this case was presented in the podcast

That seems to be a bubbling thought, from what I see.

I kind of agree with them. I guess I didn't understand what the issue was before.

His legal team made the decision to not call Asia Mclain to testify. Her testimony could have helped him or hurt him (they make hundreds of decisions like this). You shouldn't be able to get a do over because you didn't get the outcome you wanted based on decisions you made unless there is serious misconduct.
I'm not a lawyer though, so I'm sure there is more about this I don't understand

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/08/701786153/maryland-court-denies-new-murder-trial-for-serial-convict-adnan-syed


Maryland Court Denies New Murder Trial For 'Serial' Convict Adnan Syed

Maryland's highest court, in a split 4-3 decision, ruled that there will be no new trial for convicted killer Adnan Syed, the man who gained national attention as the subject of the popular Serial podcast.

The ruling reverses a lower appellate court decision and reinstates Syed's 2000 conviction for strangling his former girlfriend, 17-year-old Hae Min Lee, a year earlier. Her body was found buried in a Baltimore park.

The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with Syed's current attorneys who had argued that his original defense counsel provided him with "deficient" representation by failing to contact a potential alibi witness identified as Asia McClain.

Even considering the "deficient performance" by Syed's defense attorney, Cristina Gutierrez, who is now deceased, the court said, it could not have prejudiced Sayed because other evidence pointed to Syed's guilt.

Judge Clayton Greene Jr. wrote the majority decision:

"Given the totality of the evidence the jury heard, we conclude that there is not a significant or substantial possibility that the verdict would have been different had trial counsel presented Ms. McClain as an alibi witness," the majority wrote.

"Ms. McClain would have been an alibi witness who contradicted the defendant's own statements, which were themselves already internally inconsistent; thus Ms. McClain's proffered testimony could have further undermined Mr. Syed's credibility."

Syed's legal defense team is exploring "at least three other avenues of relief," according to the Baltimore Sun.

Lead defense attorney Justin Brown, in a statement, said Syed's team is "devastated" by the Court of Appeals ruling.

"Our criminal justice system is desperately in need of reform. The obstacles to getting a new trial are simply too great.

"There was a credible alibi witness who was with Adnan at the precise time of the murder and now the Court of Appeals has said that witness would not have affected the outcome of the proceeding. We think just the opposite is true. From the perspective of the defendant, there is no stronger evidence than an alibi witness."

In 2016, a lower court vacated Syed's conviction, ordering a new trial. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals upheld the lower court, setting the stage for Friday's ruling.

Syed's case attracted a national following when it was featured in the 12-part podcast Serial in 2014. He is serving a life sentence.

"I would hold that it is reasonable for a defendant’s trial counsel to refrain from contacting a potential alibi witness where trial counsel already knows of the potential alibi witness’s version of events, and it is reasonable for a defendant’s trial counsel to refrain from calling a potential alibi witness where the potential alibi witness’s testimony could prejudice the defendant by contradicting the defendant’s pretrial statements to law enforcement officers, contradicting the defendant’s trial counsel’s reasonable choice of defense strategy, and/or otherwise appearing to be a fabrication."

She cut straight through to the core of the truth of the matter of the alibi letters




and LOL at Asia McClain on twitter. At this point Rabia should just focus on selling that book and keep getting them checks off this




what a shit show all around


hopefully we can finally put this to rest for the sake of Hae's family who wanted none of this

and that quick cut to the house with a confederate flag on it. ... LO(Fucking)L


So it was an alt-Right Confederate Nazi serial killer



Rabia looking right at the camera and lying to us saying that Don was never considered a suspect.. You need more people.




Loved hearing her murderer divulge new information about Hae though. Like the sexual assault stuff from her past. Added a nice chilling touch



To think how hype I was for this shit storm ...

FYI i had the same thoughts after and during the podcast. I'll see how I feel after Ep3


----------

IG @h_n_z

Once I got that the documentary was a Rabia influenced informercial and narrative about Adnan and the "evidence against him," I decided to stop watching. It's the "everybody but Adnan is a suspect" show. I even thought there were low key question marks being cast in the direction of Hae's family.

So. Nah. I don't want to watch Rabia get screen time telling us about herself and her life and her feelings and her advocacy and her journey, all thanks to Hae's death.

Still strange to me: Adnan never really tries to hazard a guess or point his finger toward a suspect, even Jay. Why doesn't he say Jay is the murderer? Why not more confronting energy from Adnan about Jay's supposed lies?

Adnan's "I don't knows" and "I don't remembers" are weird to me. It's like they're possible/plausible theories about why he wouldn't know or why he doesn't remember vs. reasons, evidence, and answers about what information he can't provide. And then there's Rabia or Sarah Koenig to chase down the plausible b.s. he's come up with, and they test it out to see if there's something to it.

There's not.

I think the person who killed Hae has been brought to justice: Adnan.

Wow after Serial I was sure that Jay did it. But after this ep it seems more that not only did he not do it, but most of the details he gave were fed to him by the cops. Seems like they caught him on a drug charge, he threw Adnan under the bus for the murder to get out of it, and they worked together to build the story.

Just like at the end of Serial, I'm not 100% confident that Adnan didnt do it, but he definitely didnt have a fair trial.

what a shit show this whole thing was


They barely covered the QRI team stuff. Instead lets all look at Rabia make tea and talk about her divorce



And throw everyone under the bus who makes your case look weak

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-tosses-conviction-adnan-syed-serial-case-orders-released-rcna48313

https://twitter.com/rabiasquared/status/1571970326971424769

So the truth can very simply be that Cops found the car/body and basically pressured Jay to say anything they wanted him to say to convict Adnan.

I've restarted the podcast Serial with my kids and it really doesn't make a lot of sense that Adnan would kill Hae.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I don't know anything about those people or who would do what, but the only real evidence they ever had was jay's testimony, and we should know by now that cops will push somebody into telling whatever story they've decided makes sense


if (if) it comes back to these other suspects, one of whom is apparently a (now) known serial rapist...not only was her murder a tragedy, but the cops literally assisted in letting the perpetrator go on to commit who knows how many other assaults.

and wasted two decades of this man's life

damn

when I read about the actual location data they were using as evidence I was like...it doesn't work that way


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

announcement is coming soon that they are fairly confident they know who the real killer is.

We've seen prosecutors not challenge defense attorneys motions for new trials or vacating judgements, but for the prosecutors to ask for a conviction to be overturn really makes me think they know something major that will eventually be revealed.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

one who actually threatened to kill Hae Min Lee. HUGE Brady violation (among the MANY the prosecution committed, tho this seems the biggest).

that, plus all the shoddy "evidence" that was used to convict him.

shit, he shoulda been out years ago when it was discovered that the cell phone evidence they used to convict him was completely erroneous.

but, people around Baltimore in charge PRESSED to keep him locked up. only recently did people come in to power who were more sympathetic to his case.

and...probably should have happened a long time ago



it's really the opposite of sudden, it's so late that it makes it seem weird

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Whether or not there’s another suspect is- and should be, legally speaking- irrelevant.

They shouldn’t need another/better suspect to release him, or drop charges against anyone for that matter.

Lack of a better suspect isn’t evidence that he did it- but lack of evidence that he did is all that should factor into his release.

Otherwise, the message being sent is that *someone* has to pay, even if it’s someone whose primary reasons for being a suspect are general statistical probability, and a tingle in the gut of some Ray-Ban clad mustache.

I don't remember the details as clearly, but the Jay element, the cell stuff, and oddities with Adnan's original attorney completely derailed this case for me.

I think one facet of the law that colors people's perceptions in most cases, but cases like this in particular, is that the options are "guilty" or "not guilty", not "guilty" and "innocent".

Finding someone not guilty is not the same as saying that person is innocent, but that there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and I think people tend to default to guilt or innocence, rather than guilty or not guilty.

I never thought this case came anywhere close to proving Adnan's alleged guilt. And while I do remember certain pieces of it felt damning, there was just too much doubt in the details.

like, there's so little evidence

and it's not like dude is some criminal mastermind, he's...a regular ass teenager

who, if you believe the police version, employed his dickhead friend to help hide the body

and pulled that off without really leaving any solid evidence behind?


HOW?

it doesn't add up for me and never did in that kinda simple way

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

This breaks down why this reversal happened:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/20/podcasts/the-daily/adnan-syed-serial-conviction-overturned.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

They played the Serial music during this pod and it took me BACK.

It's the most succinct summary of this case I've ever heard. That includes Rabia.

It's incredibly damning to the entire chain of prosecution here.

Even if they found a smoking gun tomorrow morning and he got an airtight conviction, it wouldn't change anything about the way the handled the first one.

I hope he sues and gets millions.

i mean, he should have been out years ago just off of all the stuff the Serial and Undisclosed pods turned up.

he shoulda never went in. you could speculate his involvement, but there was never enough to convict IMO.

police misconduct got him locked up. prosecutorial misconduct kept him there.

not sure what laws there are for financial recourse in MD, but he should get whatever the max is.

but I can tell you for fucking sure there's no evidence proving he did, that should be enough to convict anyone.

and that's before you get to all the extra stuff

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Or even the “most likely” crowd?

As I said way back when, Rabia’s work on Undisclosed chewed up the case against Adnan enough to show he never should have been convicted.

And barring some new bombshell, he shouldn’t even have a second trial based on what we’ve seen to this point.

I have a hard time seeing anyone still holding onto the idea that he’s guilty with any intellectual honesty.

I can totally admit the case against him was weak and there are alternative suspects who should be further investigated, but haven't really seen anything that clears him or makes clear someone else who did it.

Really looking forward to seeing what is uncovered in the new investigation, but in my mind he is still a leading suspect.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I don’t see that crowd in here.

>I can totally admit the case against him was weak

Cool

>are alternative suspects who should be further investigated,

Those don’t matter relative to the case against him

>but haven't really seen anything that clears him

It’s not about innocence. It’s about guilt.

He’s either guilty or not guilty, not guilty or innocent.

>or makes
>clear someone else who did it.

Not relevant to whether or not there’s even a reasonable case that he did.
There isn’t.
Whether or not they can figure out and prosecute who did, isn’t, nor should be, his problem.

You are very focused on the trial but to me the most important thing is whether he is guilty or innocent.

And if we can't figure out if he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or innocent, he should be let free.

But that's just talking about the trial. The bigger question is who killed Hae Min Lee?

The reason people are all out there celebrating with him is because they believe he is innocent. All those folks are definitely in the "definitely didn't do it" camp.

Personally, if we all knew he definitely did it, then I could give to shits if he specifically didn't get a fair trial. Yeah I would be concerned about a system that didn't give fair trials and want reform, but him personally, fuck em.

The reason we want a thorough unbiased investigation and a fair trial is because we want to do our best to figure out who did it.


Only caring about the trial seems short sighted and missing the forest for the trees. The ultimate goal is finding out who killed that girl (and doing so in a just manner).

I get that Adnan and his supporters may only care about his involvement in this, but as a spectator, my excitement for this outcome is tempered by the fact he is still a prime suspect.

The only resolution of this that would actually make me feel good about this is actually finding the killer.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>The ultimate goal is finding out
>who killed that girl (and doing so in a just manner).

What do you think this was? This IS that.

>I get that Adnan and his supporters may only care about his
>involvement in this, but as a spectator, my excitement for
>this outcome is tempered by the fact he is still a prime
>suspect.
>

Is he still a prime suspect? Only the DA knows.

>The only resolution of this that would actually make me feel
>good about this is actually finding the killer.

What do you think they are trying to do?

so all of this makes sense



www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MDBALTIMORESAO/2022/09/14/file_attachments/2270053/Syed%20-%20Motion%20to%20Vacate%20-%2009-14-2022.pdf

There are two alternative suspects. One we can guess is Mr. S based on them talking about taking 2 polygraphs. Since the podcast never really thought it could be him since he is the one who actually came forward to share where the body is.

But of the two suspects, there is one who has a history of attacking women unprovoked in their cars. Also one threatened Hae. Also one knew the area where the body was found. The problem is we don't know who is who? That is, The motion doesn't talk about suspect A and Suspect B. They use the language "One of the Suspects". If we knew one suspect, threatened Hae, assaulted women in their cars and had a history of sexual violence, AND was similar with the location, then it would seem they would have their guy.

But since we have all this new evidence spread among two guys (one who arguably seems really unlikely to have done it), its hard to assess how much evidence there is against either suspect.

Again, it really sounds like there is going to be a bombshell made public pretty soon but the motion is drafted weird.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

They are rewarded for winning. Rewarded with re-election, promotions, etc.
So they have incentives to shield info that makes winning less likely. Like the info about alternative suspects mention in this motion.

They knew back in 1999 that someone else threatened and had motive to kill the Lee. Their case against Adnan relied heavily on the threat and motive (based on the testimony of Jay).
So disclosing this alternate suspect would be very damaging to their case against Adnan.

What are the consequences of a Brady violation for a prosecutor? And how often a Brady violations pursued? I can't find anything with quick googling.

Why is it weird?

There's a million reasons not to say who the alternate suspects are and what they have on them.

should say WHO the suspects are.

I am wondering why they used the language "One of the Suspects" to interchangeably describe 2 people instead of describing them as "Suspect A" and "Suspect B". You would actually have to read the motion to understand my point.




**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://twitter.com/LauraNirider/status/1579826007284273152

https://twitter.com/KnightWMAR/status/1579841853536751616

hope he gets some money out of this. not sure of the law on that in Maryland.

Only 5 episodes in but let me ask this basic question:

We know all Jay's testimony is untrustworthy and the police definitely told him what to say on the record. That being said, how do we explain away that another witness, Jennifer Pusateri, said that Jay told her that Adnan killed Hae on the very night that it happened (not six weeks later when the body was found)? Was she tampered with too?

The other thing I notice is that Adnan really tries to downplay his relationship with Jay. Wants to describe them as casual acquaintances. That is really hard to square with him letting Jay drive his car and use his cellphone. At the same time Jay's story doesn't make a lot of sense as to why Adnan came to him. Jay really tries hard as well to downplay their relationship. It just doesn't make sense.

I am sure people who have been following this for years have addressed these questions, but its the first things that pop out while listening.


Here is where I am, there is a biiig whole in the story. There is a key piece of information that would explain a lot of going on, and I think its information we don't have and is outside the four corners of the story we have heard today. I think Adnan is hiding something very big and I don't think it's necessarily that he killed Hae, but its something that he doesn't want coming out (and won't necessarily prove his innocents but will explain his strange behavior).


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Sincere question. I just don't get the reluctance to listen to something that addresses a *LOT* of this stuff.

I'm too far removed from either cast to speak the way I did earlier on the subject. But Undisclosed is a much more in depth review of the case.

and the Serial team because apparently they kind of purposely left some things out and did a bit of "both sides-ing" in Serial because they wanted to be somewhat vague so people could "decide for themselves" vs. getting all the info out there...which still kept Adnan looking guilty or potentially guilty vs. how you feel about it once you hear all the shit that Undisclosed exposed.

That being said, i did see Rabia thanked Sarah (as she should cuz regardless of how that went it needed Serial for this to happen) in her statement today.

https://twitter.com/rabiasquared/status/1579871022337372165

It is kind of what I thought it would be. It is deeply in the weeds with the main goal of proving that the case against Adnan was trash because the cops and the prosecutors tampered with Jay and Jay is generally an unreliable witness. Things I all knew going into it.

It's also pretty blatant an advocacy piece and it leads them to make assumptions and draw conclusions that are leaps of faith. If I had a transcript I was annotate and show many examples but one example from the second episode is that they rely heavy on a witness who says that Adnan asked Hae for a ride and Hae said she couldn't do it to argue that Adnan didn't get in the car with Hae. I don't think you can draw that conclusion. I think if the witness is reliable, the only conclusion you can draw from it is Adnan wanted to get in the car with Hae. their are tons of examples like that.

I restarted Serial because I wanted my kids to hear it and it really is just great story telling. What someone just called both side-ism is actually Sarah K trying to be balanced and impartial. And even as she tries to do it, it's pretty clear she sides with Adnan. Undisclosed is a bit tedious, clearly and advocacy piece and itself leaves out info to paint a picture one way. I do believe you can hear 10 hours of a one sided argument and end up with a less clear picture of what actually happened. I didn't want the MJJ HBO documentary because it was clearly going to be an advocacy piece and what I would really want to see is an impartial investigation (there is a good one on luminary). Same with the Ronan Farrow Woody Allen Doc. (BTW, I am not against advocacy docs in general, I dug the R Kelly doc even though it was advocacy because I really think there is a big factual dispute at the heart of it. )

I think the best thing Adnan has going for him is his DNA isn't in the car or on her and their is unidentified on her. At this point, I think its the main thing that would resolve this case.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

most of the damning shit (as far as adnan's innocence) is in the later episodes.

but whatever, think what you want i don't really care.

he's out and he should be. that's really the bottom line.

I think you are showing a very clear bias here, and your reluctance to dig into what is perhaps the best, or at least most notable, evaluation of the case that blows a huge, gaping hole in the prosecution to the point that it shows the prosecution to be corrupt at it's core.

If there's ANY agenda here, it's on the side that put him away for 20+ years- and Rabia put together a seriously damning case to that effect.

So you can say all you want about Rabia siding with Adan, there's one massive caveat.

She's done a ridiculous amount of work evaluating, and presenting the actual evidence. Her bias can be demonstrated to be based on a mountain of evidence- and, no, listening to the first three eps doesn't mean you.

It's easily demonstrated that her "bias" is little more than siding with the *overwhelming* lack of evidence that he did it, along with the *overwhelming* evidence that the system worked against him just to say they put someone away.

As Promo noted, you stopped after what amounts to the intro.

With due respect, you cannot say with ANY intellectual honesty that you think Sarah took a "balanced and impartial" approach without also going through Undisclosed.

IMO, the entire body of evidence in here shows that you simply went with the one that presented the type of case that you were comfortable with, because you already decided he definitely did it.

I, my guy, listened to both cases, and reached the conclusion that there is serious reasonable doubt, not quite to the point of exoneration, but there's so little evidence that he did it that there's no practical difference between "innocent" and "not guilty".

Because, again, Rabia's case illustrates someone who actually viewed the evidence with a critical eye. Sarah took a much more journalistic, and far less investigative, approach, and I don't think there's a good argument to say otherwise.

Your three ep "dive" only reinforces my earlier criticism.

I heard Serial when it first came out, and was in the innocent camp like most other listeners. As time went on, I spent a lot of time over in r/serialpodcast. And its clear there was groupthink from guilters happening in that sub that I got caught up in.

The notion that this many things had to go bad for Adnan in one day was difficult for me personally to buy in to.

But its clear now that is indeed what happened. And it shows this kind of stuff could happen to anyone

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/15/us/syed-conviction-overturned-next


""Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby said Tuesday she instructed her office to dismiss the charges after results of advanced DNA testing of Lee’s shoes, skirt, pantyhose and jacket ruled out Syed.

“The items that we tested had never before been tested,” Mosby said. “We used advanced DNA to determine that it was not Adnan Syed.”"


This was the kind of evidence I was waiting for.

What I would really love to see, is the cops who tampered with witnesses to be held accountable. I would love a deal to be offered to Jay for him to tell exactly what happened IN THE INVESTIGATION without fear of reprisal.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

earlier this week.

WHY do you think they completely dropped the case?

to Serial.

Just read about this clearly game changing new evidence on Saturday.

*shrugs*.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

You'd have already known this was a likely outcome.

But you didn't.

Because you weren't *really* trying to hear an unbiased, critical take on the case.

You were good with the version of the case that pretended to be "fair" and "balanced"- where have we heard that before, by the way? asking for Adnan- because it fed into a conclusion you were already comfortable with.

I'm not even mad at you for it.

People are overwhelmingly prejudicial.
Accused? Guilty.
Arrested? Definitely guilty.
Convicted? ABSOLUTELY, 100% GUILTY NO MATTER WHAT

This DNA exoneration can suck a thousand disease ridden dicks, because there was never any credible evidence that he did it to begin with.

I'm glad it clears him, but I think it's telling that you ignored what I said earlier:

It doesn't matter if they have another suspect.

What matters, is whether or not that they have evidence that the person they're accusing and trying to prosecute, did.

It's not that person's problem that the state can't find another suspect.
It's not that person's problem that the family needs closure.
It's not that person's problem that the cops, the family, the state, need *someone* to go down.

NONE of that does, or should, matter one bit.

Because the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the person they're prosecuting did it.
That burden is not on the defendant to prove someone else did.

Any other version of this is corrupt, full stop.

... as we've just witnessed.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at