Darnit. This makes sense also. So maybe Jen won't talk b/c she is the accessory to murder and Jay is the murderer. But why would Jay kill Hae?
I don't know. But it's true, if you look at the timelines. In both interviews and the 2nd trial, Jay puts himself at Jenn's house when the Nisha call is made.
This also matches the cell tower records. The call to Nisha pinged the cell tower near Jen's house.
But, if Adnan is completely innocent, I have a hard time believing he wouldn't put up more of a fight or argument to Jay's accusations. I think Adnan and Jay were both involved. Jay got the police first, but Adnan won't implicate Jay more without admitting his involvement. And he doesn't want to do that and have his family/community think of him as a killer.
I mean you can't just end a podcast on a legal theory and then NOT EVEN EXPLAIN WHAT THAT THEORY MEANS.
But everyone is just going to bob their heads up and down and go "yup reasonable doubt; can't convict."
Head desk.
Appealing on insufficiency of evidence is notoriously difficult. But you can open the door if you appeal in other ways.
I'm assuming Sarah Koenig knows her audience well enough to know that if anyone is questioning reasonable doubt, they can easily look it up. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
She carefully dotted her i's and crossed her t's everywhere else. There was no reason to fail to discuss what "beyond a reasonable doubt" actually means unless she herself failed to recognize that this is a nuanced legal topic itself.
I brought this up in the ML thread -- but a Reddit AMA with Saad Chaudry seems to indicate that Hae, friends with Stephanie (Jay's girlfriend), knew Jay was being unfaithful and was considering confronting Jay about it.
Earlier in another podcast, SK plays recording of Christina Gutierrez cross-examining Jay about STEPPPPPP-PPPPPING OUUUUUUT (remember? lol). And I wonder, was she originally going to try to pin the crime on Jay because of his infidelities? And why didn't she continue with it, if so? Why leave the jury hanging without an alternate story?
i think that Hae was going to confront Jay about him cheating on Stephanie. I think that Jay killed Hae. I think that Jay called Adnan to help get rid of the body and together they did.
I think evidence of this would have probably been in her diary.
I mean you can't just end a podcast on a legal theory and then NOT EVEN EXPLAIN WHAT THAT THEORY MEANS.
But everyone is just going to bob their heads up and down and go "yup reasonable doubt; can't convict."
Head desk.
Is this what you're getting at?
Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In in re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on "a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."
I think you're right that Sarah didn't say that "reasonable doubt" means that it's worse to put an innocent man in jail than let a guilty man free, but I also think something must have gone really procedurally wrong in that second trial for the jury to only take 2 hours to deliberate and find Adnan guilty. I think a lot of that falls on the lawyer for Adnan and that she did drop the ball. I have been reading lawyer's takes on the podcast and it's interesting that they are pretty split about if Adnan should have been found guilty also.
I mean you can't just end a podcast on a legal theory and then NOT EVEN EXPLAIN WHAT THAT THEORY MEANS.
But everyone is just going to bob their heads up and down and go "yup reasonable doubt; can't convict."
Head desk.
Is this what you're getting at?
Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In in re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on "a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."
I think you're right that Sarah didn't say that "reasonable doubt" means that it's worse to put an innocent man in jail than let a guilty man free, but I also think something must have gone really procedurally wrong in that second trial for the jury to only take 2 hours to deliberate and find Adnan guilty. I think a lot of that falls on the lawyer for Adnan and that she did drop the ball. I have been reading lawyer's takes on the podcast and it's interesting that they are pretty split about if Adnan should have been found guilty also.
There's more to reasonable doubt than this wiki quote. And I don't think there is one single standard definition of what beyond a reasonable doubt actually means. But juries are instructed in what it means at the start of each criminal trial based on state rules. I wish Sarah had started the podcast with the instructions that Adnan's jury was told, in MA, in 1999. Because we are being told that the jury got it wrong. That she can't say he's innocent but that she couldn't find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But what does that mean?
I think evidence of this would have probably been in her diary.
if she didnt plan to confront him dont you think he could have been paranoid about it and thought she was going to? that would have been motive for him.
or he was jealous that adnan was talking to stephanie and wanted to hurt him by killing hae.
or i think there really was just some kind of accident and she ended up dead and they covered their tracks as best as they thought. they were high. maybe one of them just had sex with her. whatever it was, neither of them want to say now and ruin her image. it could have been just a run of the mill accident.
Are you implying a threesome gone way way wrong scenario?! Lol! That's hilarious and very interesting!!!!
Post by sugarglider on Dec 18, 2014 16:39:19 GMT -5
I think Jay is covering for a drug lord* and framing Adnan because it was convenient for him to do so.
*E.g., Hae happened upon a drug deal--either by approaching Jay to confront him about cheating on Stephanie or by going up to Adnan's car, thinking it'd be Adnan but discovering Jay with his supplier instead--and is killed by the supplier.
I think Jay is covering for a drug lord* and framing Adnan because it was convenient for him to do so.
*E.g., Hae happened upon a drug deal--either by approaching Jay to confront him about cheating on Stephanie or by going up to Adnan's car, thinking it'd be Adnan but discovering Jay with his supplier instead--and is killed by the supplier.
Interesting but how on earth do you ensure Adnan has no alibi? A simple alibi would have ended the case against Adnan.
I think Jay is covering for a drug lord* and framing Adnan because it was convenient for him to do so.
*E.g., Hae happened upon a drug deal--either by approaching Jay to confront him about cheating on Stephanie or by going up to Adnan's car, thinking it'd be Adnan but discovering Jay with his supplier instead--and is killed by the supplier.
A "drug lord" who sells small amounts of weed to high school kids and would kill over that seems a little tough to swallow. Maybe I'm just thinking about my own pot dealers/Drug Lords from when I was 17-20, but yeah, they aren't "drug lords" so much.
And re: reasonable doubt, I remember @starlily having good information on that standard in other discussions but I know she has said she's not following the podcast yet.
heyjude was spot on in saying that the narrator could've easily looked up the appropriate jury instruction for reasonable doubt. It's part of the trial transcript. The fact that she didn't lessens her credibility IMO. How can strangers decide whether the jury got it wrong if listeners didn't even get one of the most basic, yet important, instructions given to the jurors?
ETA: Here is CA's instruction regarding reasonable doubt. The 3rd paragraph is the crux. Jurors are given numerous other instructions on how to weigh the evidence and the elements of the crime. Both parties meet and confer with the judge regarding the instructions given on any particular case before they are given to the jury.
And re: reasonable doubt, I remember @starlily having good information on that standard in other discussions but I know she has said she's not following the podcast yet.
heyjude was spot on in saying that the narrator could've easily looked up the appropriate jury instruction for reasonable doubt. It's part of the trial transcript. The fact that she didn't lessens her credibility IMO. How can strangers decide whether the jury got it wrong if listeners didn't even get one of the most basic, yet important, instructions given to the jurors?
ETA: Here is CA's instruction regarding reasonable doubt. The 3rd paragraph is the crux. Jurors are given numerous other instructions on how to weigh the evidence and the elements of the crime. Both parties meet and confer with the judge regarding the instructions given on any particular case before they are given to the jury.
Serial was presented from the viewpoint of the defense. It desperately lacked the prosecutorial angle. More prosecutors, of which I'm not, need to be part of this dialogue. I soooooooo wish you would listen and jump into this discussion more!!!
The other thing that bugs is that Sarah declared that he should be acquitted because of reasonable doubt based on what she discovered and presented to us. So, based on the rules of evidence and rules of criminal procedure AS CREATED BY A PODCAST, the American criminal justice failed Adnan. Mmmmhmm. Criminal trials have extensive requirements on what is admissible and what isn't, how things are presented, how they can't be presented, etc but she threw that all out the window because....he had nice eyes, or something.
heyjude was spot on in saying that the narrator could've easily looked up the appropriate jury instruction for reasonable doubt. It's part of the trial transcript. The fact that she didn't lessens her credibility IMO. How can strangers decide whether the jury got it wrong if listeners didn't even get one of the most basic, yet important, instructions given to the jurors?
ETA: Here is CA's instruction regarding reasonable doubt. The 3rd paragraph is the crux. Jurors are given numerous other instructions on how to weigh the evidence and the elements of the crime. Both parties meet and confer with the judge regarding the instructions given on any particular case before they are given to the jury.
Serial was presented from the viewpoint of the defense. It desperately lacked the prosecutorial angle. More prosecutors, of which I'm not, need to be part of this dialogue. I soooooooo wish you would listen and jump into this discussion more!!!
You know, if I were in the office I probably would've listened already. But since I'm still on leave, I just don't feel like getting my hackles raised on things loosely related to work.
Serial was presented from the viewpoint of the defense. It desperately lacked the prosecutorial angle. More prosecutors, of which I'm not, need to be part of this dialogue. I soooooooo wish you would listen and jump into this discussion more!!!
You know, if I were in the office I probably would've listened already. But since I'm still on leave, I just don't feel like getting my hackles raised on things loosely related to work.
heyjude was spot on in saying that the narrator could've easily looked up the appropriate jury instruction for reasonable doubt. It's part of the trial transcript. The fact that she didn't lessens her credibility IMO. How can strangers decide whether the jury got it wrong if listeners didn't even get one of the most basic, yet important, instructions given to the jurors?
ETA: Here is CA's instruction regarding reasonable doubt. The 3rd paragraph is the crux. Jurors are given numerous other instructions on how to weigh the evidence and the elements of the crime. Both parties meet and confer with the judge regarding the instructions given on any particular case before they are given to the jury.
Serial was presented from the viewpoint of the defense. It desperately lacked the prosecutorial angle. More prosecutors, of which I'm not, need to be part of this dialogue. I soooooooo wish you would listen and jump into this discussion more!!!
How is that Sarah's fault though? She asked to speak with the prosecutor, and he wasn't really willing to talk. Of course it is from the defense angle because her main source is the defendant.
Serial was presented from the viewpoint of the defense. It desperately lacked the prosecutorial angle. More prosecutors, of which I'm not, need to be part of this dialogue. I soooooooo wish you would listen and jump into this discussion more!!!
How is that Sarah's fault though? She asked to speak with the prosecutor, and he wasn't really willing to talk. Of course it is from the defense angle because her main source is the defendant.
Framing it as Sarah's fault or not her fault is not really the point. The point is the show was presented overly pro defense which if you are trying to come to a guilty or innocent conclusion isn't really fair. She couldn't get THE prosecutor but she could have gotten A prosecutor.
Re: the two minute butt dial: I've gotten butt dials at least that long from both H and my mom, so plausible to me. My personal theory: that serial killer did it, Jay saw Hae's car at the park and ride, concocted the story to implicate Adnan because he believed Adnan was after Stephanie, and can't back down from it now.
Post by picksthemusic on Dec 18, 2014 19:24:24 GMT -5
I think it has something to do with Stephanie, too. Why wasn't she pursued more for questioning? Where was she? Did I miss something as to why her angle wasn't explored more?
I'm on the side that Jay definitely had something to do with it (perhaps that he was jealous of Jay's relationship with Stephanie, I mean Adnan was telling him to get a gift for her, possibly making Jay look bad). I think Jenn's story is sketchy at best, and with all the lying that Jay did (and admitted to), I'm just not convinced that Adnan did it. However, Adnan isn't stupid. He knows exactly what he's doing (and I can't decide if that makes him innocent or guilty).
I will be super curious to know what the DNA test results are.
I brought this up in the ML thread -- but a Reddit AMA with Saad Chaudry seems to indicate that Hae, friends with Stephanie (Jay's girlfriend), knew Jay was being unfaithful and was considering confronting Jay about it.
Earlier in another podcast, SK plays recording of Christina Gutierrez cross-examining Jay about STEPPPPPP-PPPPPING OUUUUUUT (remember? lol). And I wonder, was she originally going to try to pin the crime on Jay because of his infidelities? And why didn't she continue with it, if so? Why leave the jury hanging without an alternate story?
i think that Hae was going to confront Jay about him cheating on Stephanie. I think that Jay killed Hae. I think that Jay called Adnan to help get rid of the body and together they did.
This one doesn't work for me, because what reason would Adnan have to help? He loved Hae. He probably would have either killed Jay himself for killing her or called the police.
What about Jenn doing it and Jay covering for her by implicating Adnan?
Re: the two minute butt dial: I've gotten butt dials at least that long from both H and my mom, so plausible to me. My personal theory: that serial killer did it, Jay saw Hae's car at the park and ride, concocted the story to implicate Adnan because he believed Adnan was after Stephanie, and can't back down from it now.
But they didn't find Hae's car at the park and ride. They moved it after burying her body.
I mean they never moved it at all, he was going by and spotted it there, and already knew what it looked like. Then when things got bad he used it to implicate Adnan because he had that one piece of solid evidence that he was telling the truth: he knew where the car was.
And the quote from Reddit I think seals the butt dial question. The timing of the call to Nisha was when Jay and Jenn both said that they were at Jenn's, without Adnan, so it had to have been a butt dial if they're telling the truth about him not being there.
Then again, I'm stuck on the "but what about Jay?!" thoughts. I keep coming back the idea that Jay was involved, but also lied so much, he could come out and admit more and make it honest, but he also won't do that if he helped kill or plot to kill Hae b/c then I'm sure his reduced sentence is over, right? So I think he has more of a hand in it. Jay seems less credible as the podcast has progressed and we've learned he has changed is story with the timeline and where he was and all this stuff. Especially when he's talking to the cops on this episode - when Jay can't remember if he was "threatened" by Adnan 1 or 2 days ago and can't remember where they were when he threatened him?! That's a lie. If he was scared and was threatened, he would remember if they were outside his house or in the car and that it was 1 or 2 days ago.
would double jeopardy attach to Jay? so if he came out and admitted more facts about his involvement could he be tried as an accessory or accomplice? StrawberryBlondie (who I think does crim law....?)
I definitely think Jay was more involved than he is telling. It just doesn't really add up otherwise.
I think Jay is covering for a drug lord* and framing Adnan because it was convenient for him to do so.
*E.g., Hae happened upon a drug deal--either by approaching Jay to confront him about cheating on Stephanie or by going up to Adnan's car, thinking it'd be Adnan but discovering Jay with his supplier instead--and is killed by the supplier.
Interesting but how on earth do you ensure Adnan has no alibi? A simple alibi would have ended the case against Adnan.
Well, you don't really. He lucked out and/or maybe hoped he could be Adnan's alibi. He framed Adnan because of the other elements already pointing that direction (he had his car, his phone, and his ex was the victim). Then make some cases, maybe even intentionally call Adnan's new girl. Get Adnan to be seen with you later, etc. Then use the info from the police to craft a story that fits otherwise. But if something hadn't fit, I think he would have laid low.
And downtoearth , obviously Jay was at the bottom of any drug scheme. He was a small time dealer. But the vast majority (I think 80%?) of illegal weed sold in the US (particularly in 1999, before it was legal in so many states), came from cartels. And I don't mean to say that he was actually meeting the drug lord, but that he was meeting with someone in that organization, who killed Hae. And if he were to reveal who actually killed her, the cops would want him to turn on the top guy (or at least give them what he did know). That's why he would be frightened of a white van but not too frightened to hang out with Adnan still.
I don't know. We know Jay was involved, we know he was a drug dealer, I believe Jay was legitimately scared, but I don't believe he was scared of Adnan. And violence is not uncommon in the illegal drug trade.
I'll be curious to see if the Innocence project comes up with anything.
Interesting but how on earth do you ensure Adnan has no alibi? A simple alibi would have ended the case against Adnan.
Well, you don't really. He lucked out and/or maybe hoped he could be Adnan's alibi. He framed Adnan because of the other elements already pointing that direction (he had his car, his phone, and his ex was the victim). Then make some cases, maybe even intentionally call Adnan's new girl. Get Adnan to be seen with you later, etc. Then use the info from the police to craft a story that fits otherwise. But if something hadn't fit, I think he would have laid low.
And downtoearth , obviously Jay was at the bottom of any drug scheme. He was a small time dealer. But the vast majority (I think 80%?) of illegal weed sold in the US (particularly in 1999, before it was legal in so many states), came from cartels. And I don't mean to say that he was actually meeting the drug lord, but that he was meeting with someone in that organization, who killed Hae. And if he were to reveal who actually killed her, the cops would want him to turn on the top guy (or at least give them what he did know). That's why he would be frightened of a white van but not too frightened to hang out with Adnan still.
I don't know. We know Jay was involved, we know he was a drug dealer, I believe Jay was legitimately scared, but I don't believe he was scared of Adnan. And violence is not uncommon in the illegal drug trade.
I'll be curious to see if the Innocence project comes up with anything.
Since I know several people who got busted for selling weed (and some people involved with meth) in high school or right after, I don't buy this at all. It's not that simple that your small-potatoes dealer knows the king-pin dealer who would have so much pull that you'd be super scared and accidentally get involved in a murder of someone who showed up while you were talking with your dealer above you.
Then again, I also have no clue why Adnan or Jay would actually kill Hae, so I guess this motive is as plausible as the Jen/Jay jealousy motive or the Adnan snapped motive. There is really no good motive in this and so it's really hard for me to reconcile who killed Hae b/c her dying for any of these reasons seems so, so sad.
Re: the two minute butt dial: I've gotten butt dials at least that long from both H and my mom, so plausible to me. My personal theory: that serial killer did it, Jay saw Hae's car at the park and ride, concocted the story to implicate Adnan because he believed Adnan was after Stephanie, and can't back down from it now.
No way. Jay pled guilty to a felony, and while he didn't go to prison, he very easily could have. You don't do that unless you are directly involved and the plea deal is better than your other options.
Post by whiskeytails on Dec 21, 2014 17:50:31 GMT -5
I feel like Jen is far more involved than was even considered.
Also, it would be nearly impossible to dig a hole in the ground in Wisconsin in January. Is Baltimore that different? Especially when an ice storm is coming?