http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us...=top-news&_r=0
pretty big news today. for years his defense team has been fighting for this, and the huge uptick in interest in his case following the serial podcast certainly contributed (it being the most downloaded podcast to date).
i know we have some serial listeners on here, and a number of people interested in legal proceedings as well. a truly interesting case, and perhaps the third trial will finally put this debate to rest.
my thoughts are as follows, for any interested. they are sort of rambly.
the whole thing hinges on jay, both as a matter of fact (his testimony was the state's most valuable evidence) and as a matter of putting the events together in a plausible way. we have to ask ourselves about jay's motives: if he was totally uninvolved, why would he voluntarily come forward implicating himself in a murder? i don't see why he would. for this reason i think he was absolutely involved, though the precise extent is not clear. we know for a fact that he lied to investigators at least a few times, and other times perhaps got the timeline wrong because memory is hard. either way, his unique information (location of hae's car, etc.) suggests that he was involved at least to the extent that he knew specific details about the murder and the aftermath.
a few issues with jay: i believe the police may not have pushed him too hard on the details because they 1) needed him as a witness, and he apparently walked in their door looking to "do the right thing" 2) they may have fed him some information and/or groomed him somewhat to ensure that what he recollected fit with what they were independently discovering or believed to be plausible 3) they gave him a really good deal for his cooperation. if somebody with more knowledge of how these things play out can jump in here that would be great.
now focusing on adnan, there are some important gaps in his story. he has no alibi for the afternoon of the murder, with the exception of the witness asia, who his lawyer did not investigate at the time very closely. this is, evidently, one of their key points that suggests his legal counsel did not adequately represent him at the original trial.
taking things at a high level with adnan, my thought is that for him it comes down to two scenarios: one, he is the unluckiest guy in the world, and is totally uninvolved in the murder. his confusion is genuine. two, he is involved somehow, and in the interest of not perjuring himself, claims either ignorance (as to jay's motivations for implicating him as the murderer) or an inability to recall his events of the day. ignorance is plausible since it would be difficult to remember what you did specifically on a particular day weeks ago. on the other hand, it is also consistent with somebody who is not able to say anything truthful about his activities that day without incriminating himself. for this reason, and owing to his lack of any alibi from either friends (asia notwithstanding - is it not possible that the lawyer did not interview her because she had already been approached by adnan's family? if somebody with more understanding of the legal process could jump in here that would be great) at school or his mosque, i think adnan was definitely involved at some level. indeed, he is the only person in the case that would have had the motive, means, and opportunity to murder her. though i understand this would not by itself be sufficient to prove guilt.
but the jury ultimately believed jay's story, even if elements of the state's case were weak. with new scrutiny on the cellphone records as they were used in the case back in 2000, it will be interesting to see how that pans out for the new trial.
pretty big news today. for years his defense team has been fighting for this, and the huge uptick in interest in his case following the serial podcast certainly contributed (it being the most downloaded podcast to date).
i know we have some serial listeners on here, and a number of people interested in legal proceedings as well. a truly interesting case, and perhaps the third trial will finally put this debate to rest.
my thoughts are as follows, for any interested. they are sort of rambly.
the whole thing hinges on jay, both as a matter of fact (his testimony was the state's most valuable evidence) and as a matter of putting the events together in a plausible way. we have to ask ourselves about jay's motives: if he was totally uninvolved, why would he voluntarily come forward implicating himself in a murder? i don't see why he would. for this reason i think he was absolutely involved, though the precise extent is not clear. we know for a fact that he lied to investigators at least a few times, and other times perhaps got the timeline wrong because memory is hard. either way, his unique information (location of hae's car, etc.) suggests that he was involved at least to the extent that he knew specific details about the murder and the aftermath.
a few issues with jay: i believe the police may not have pushed him too hard on the details because they 1) needed him as a witness, and he apparently walked in their door looking to "do the right thing" 2) they may have fed him some information and/or groomed him somewhat to ensure that what he recollected fit with what they were independently discovering or believed to be plausible 3) they gave him a really good deal for his cooperation. if somebody with more knowledge of how these things play out can jump in here that would be great.
now focusing on adnan, there are some important gaps in his story. he has no alibi for the afternoon of the murder, with the exception of the witness asia, who his lawyer did not investigate at the time very closely. this is, evidently, one of their key points that suggests his legal counsel did not adequately represent him at the original trial.
taking things at a high level with adnan, my thought is that for him it comes down to two scenarios: one, he is the unluckiest guy in the world, and is totally uninvolved in the murder. his confusion is genuine. two, he is involved somehow, and in the interest of not perjuring himself, claims either ignorance (as to jay's motivations for implicating him as the murderer) or an inability to recall his events of the day. ignorance is plausible since it would be difficult to remember what you did specifically on a particular day weeks ago. on the other hand, it is also consistent with somebody who is not able to say anything truthful about his activities that day without incriminating himself. for this reason, and owing to his lack of any alibi from either friends (asia notwithstanding - is it not possible that the lawyer did not interview her because she had already been approached by adnan's family? if somebody with more understanding of the legal process could jump in here that would be great) at school or his mosque, i think adnan was definitely involved at some level. indeed, he is the only person in the case that would have had the motive, means, and opportunity to murder her. though i understand this would not by itself be sufficient to prove guilt.
but the jury ultimately believed jay's story, even if elements of the state's case were weak. with new scrutiny on the cellphone records as they were used in the case back in 2000, it will be interesting to see how that pans out for the new trial.
