Can we talk about Adnan some more?

[wambam]

The other one is Truth and Justice. I hate listen to it because Bob Ruff is BEC crackers for me.

I think the ineffective assistance of counsel is more about the fact that Christina did not properly investigate adnan's potential alibi witnesses (Asia and the track coach). It's not really about the cell evidence. The cell evidence is very important but not in regards to ineffective counsel.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Dec 17, 2015 18:49:05 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

I remembered something else. I can't remember if it was in Serial or Undisclosed, but someone was mentioning that if Adnan is innocent, there is so many sucky, unlucky things that happened to him that day and the probability of all of that happening and him not being involved is just too small. I felt like that the whole time.

That was Serial, and I totally agree.

[elleblue]

My issue with the case boils down to this: the evidence was circumstantial at best and relied heavily on Jay's testimony, which changed so many times that it certainly should call into question the veracity of his recollection of events. Is it likely Adnan did kill Hae? Yes. However, the burden is with the State to prove he did do it, not with Adnan to prove he didn't do it. And I don't think the State met that burden with the evidence (Jay's testimony and cell phone "evidence") presented in court. 

[Velvetshady]

Dec 17, 2015 18:53:17 GMT -5 1234FIF! said:

I think he's guilty. Nothing I have heard had made me think he isn't guilty.

And I haven't heard anything that has made me think he might be guilty.*

This is why you get hung juries:)


* I totally get why the second jury might find him guilty with what they were presented with, but I *personally* would have had a strong reasonable doubt. But I also doubt I would have made it on the jury at that time, I knew too many people who had shady dealings with the B'more police/court system at that time.

[lexus]

Dec 17, 2015 18:22:40 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

I am not going to tag people because I know I will forget some.

So I have been listening to Undisclosed. I think I listened to Ep 1-3, Addendum 1, and the Ping episode. I am still not convinced Adnan did not receive effective counsel. In 1999, no one understood cellphone technology. Not the detectives, prosecutors, or the defense. So they were all just winging it there. I do think the detectives adjusted the narrative to make it fit how they thought the cellphone data worked. I really want to know more about Jay and what the detectives told him, but we will never know. I don't think Adnan's conviction will be overturned unless Jay comes out and says that he lied in his testimony and that is not going to happen. I think I am going to try to listen to Undisclosed. What is the other podcast about this that people said listen to?

AT&T sent a fax with a cover letter explaining that the pings on incoming calls should not be relied on for location. When the prosecution finally disclosed the pings it conveniently left off the cover letter. In fact, they didn't even show it to their expert witness. He has said that if he had known that his testimony would have been different.
eTA: If I remember correctly, that's one of several Brady violations.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Dec 17, 2015 19:15:00 GMT -5 lexus said:

Dec 17, 2015 18:22:40 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

I am not going to tag people because I know I will forget some.

So I have been listening to Undisclosed. I think I listened to Ep 1-3, Addendum 1, and the Ping episode. I am still not convinced Adnan did not receive effective counsel. In 1999, no one understood cellphone technology. Not the detectives, prosecutors, or the defense. So they were all just winging it there. I do think the detectives adjusted the narrative to make it fit how they thought the cellphone data worked. I really want to know more about Jay and what the detectives told him, but we will never know. I don't think Adnan's conviction will be overturned unless Jay comes out and says that he lied in his testimony and that is not going to happen. I think I am going to try to listen to Undisclosed. What is the other podcast about this that people said listen to?

AT&T sent a fax with a cover letter explaining that the pings on incoming calls should not be relied on for location. When the prosecution finally disclosed the pings it conveniently left off the cover letter. In fact, they didn't even show it to their expert witness. He has said that if he had known that his testimony would have been different.

That's not that much to overturn an entire conviction. I mean, unless he's saying that his testimony would've been that based on the pings, there's no way he could be done it.

[bowies]

I am re-listening to Serial in anticipation of my dad's feedback. He worked many years with capital murder cases. Note: I have only listened to limited Undisclosed episodes.

I don't think it should have gone to trial. I can't discount Mr. S. I keep going back to him and that liquor bottle that was never tested. I know Jay was involved. I think I know that Jen was involved. I know the cops' timeline is off. I'm still so on the fence about Adnan though.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Dec 17, 2015 19:25:06 GMT -5 mp said:

Dec 17, 2015 19:19:42 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

That's not that much to overturn an entire conviction. I mean, unless he's saying that his testimony would've been that based on the pings, there's no way he could be done it.

What about Asia's testimony? If the state's entire case was that she was killed between 205-236...

And Jay's outright lies, and the non existent payphone that seems to be the key 236 call? 

It seems from multiple accounts that just could not have happened. At the very best, the case that the state had against him had a lot of holes.

Well, as I've said in multiple threads, I think he's guilty bit o don't think he should've been convicted. But no, I don't think even the totality of all of that meets the substantial burden required to overturn a conviction. It's a really, really big burden to overcome.

[lexus]

Dec 17, 2015 19:23:14 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

Dec 17, 2015 19:19:42 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

That's not that much to overturn an entire conviction. I mean, unless he's saying that his testimony would've been that based on the pings, there's no way he could be done it.

Right I understand that evidence, I just don't think that is enough to overturn. I think you would need Jay, the detectives, or someone to come out and say they lied. Because Adnan should have been able to prove that he wasn't there (wherever the pings said he was). I hope he is guilty because I would hate for an innocent person to be in prison for the rest of their lives, but based on what I have heard I don't think they have enough to overturn the conviction.

He's next court appearance will discuss the pings and Asia's testimony. And yes, the state's own expert witness has signed an affidavit that he would not have testified that the incoming call locations were reliable if he had seen the cover sheet from AT&T.

Not the most reliable source but I can't remember what episode they discuss the upcoming trial on. www.thefrisky.com/2015-10-14/adnan-syed-case-states-cellphone-expert-says-new-disclosure-about-cellphone-evidence-might-have-changed-his-testimony/

[elleblue]

Dec 17, 2015 19:23:14 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

Dec 17, 2015 19:19:42 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

That's not that much to overturn an entire conviction. I mean, unless he's saying that his testimony would've been that based on the pings, there's no way he could be done it.

Right I understand that evidence, I just don't think that is enough to overturn. I think you would need Jay, the detectives, or someone to come out and say they lied. Because Adnan should have been able to prove that he wasn't there (wherever the pings said he was). I hope he is guilty because I would hate for an innocent person to be in prison for the rest of their lives, but based on what I have heard I don't think they have enough to overturn the conviction.

I can't disagree with you but for some reason, even though I think it most likely he's at least involved if not guilty, I'm bothered by it. Probably because I think the investigation was complete crap. I don't know if they focused purely on Adnan because they obtained information or evidence that proved his guilt but was gained in a manner that made it inadmissible in court or what. But I think Don should have been considered just as likely a suspect, at least in the beginning and fully investigated and he wasn't. Obviously hindsight probably makes things look different than they did in the midst of everything but as an investigator, you don't come up with a theory of what went down and find facts to support your claim. My father was a police investigator at one point in his career, so I grew up discussing various cases in the news with him. It's probably good he hasn't listened to the podcast because I can guarantee he'd be furious with their methods. lol 

[tacosforlife]

Regardless of whether Adnan is guilty, I think this case highlights some serious issues with our criminal justice system. The number is times that Jay changed his story made him a wholly unreliable witness. And the failure to turn over the cover sheet. We should demand better.

[ttt]

I had H listen to a few Serial episodes and he was utterly baffled by the detectives' failure to hammer Jay on his lies. He couldn't fathom why they wouldn't have confronted him, hard, about them. It was clear as day that he was lying lying lying. But why?? That's a huge piece of the puzzle that they just...let go.

[lyssbobiss, Command, B613]

I think the ineffective assistance of counsel issue really comes down to Gutierrez taking on too many cases, not following up on key alibi testimony, and in general seemingly practicing law when she was too sick to do so (or at least without disclosing that her illness/medication/whatever was causing her to be slurry and unclear and bizarre). My other concern was that I remember reading that as soon as the guilty verdict was handed down, she told Adnan's family she would need $50K for the appeal. That seems like a shady move. And I don't know anything about being a private defense attorney, I don't know anyone who is a private attorney, but my armchair psychology says that this isn't how you address a grieving family right after someone is sentenced. It seemed callous I suppose.

[Cicero]

Dec 17, 2015 19:12:59 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

Dec 17, 2015 19:08:23 GMT -5 elleblue said:

My issue with the case boils down to this: the evidence was circumstantial at best and relied heavily on Jay's testimony, which changed so many times that it certainly should call into question the veracity of his recollection of events. Is it likely Adnan did kill Hae? Yes. However, the burden is with the State to prove he did do it, not with Adnan to prove he didn't do it. And I don't think the State met that burden with the evidence (Jay's testimony and cell phone "evidence") presented in court. 

I agree with this based on the evidence presented in podcasts. I just don't think they will have enough evidence to overturn the conviction.

They have some untested DNA evidence,!which for whatever reason his appeals team has backed off of pushing to have tested. Or at least they were backing off of it early last year.

[mrshandy]

Maybe I'm too optimistic or have been listening to way too much Undisclosed. I personally think the case will get overturned and the state will not be able build a new case. The case was built on two things: Jay's testimony and the cell phone data.

- Jay has lied so many times. They will rip him a new one in court. He even changed his story in the Intercept interview.

- Cell phone data - all of their assumptions have been proven wrong.

So if they're able to get the conviction overturned. I don't really see what case the state has.

I don't think he did it. I feel very strongly about this.

[tacosforlife]

Dec 17, 2015 23:18:05 GMT -5 ttt said:

I had H listen to a few Serial episodes and he was utterly baffled by the detectives' failure to hammer Jay on his lies. He couldn't fathom why they wouldn't have confronted him, hard, about them. It was clear as day that he was lying lying lying. But why?? That's a huge piece of the puzzle that they just...let go.

This is really what gets me. It very much seems that they decided Jay did it and were going to "prove" that no matter what. Given how much Jay's story changed throughout the interviews, I don't understand why they were so willing to hang their hats on his testimony. It also really makes me question that his involvement was as limited as he claims.

Like I said upthread, this really makes me want us to examine our entire criminal justice system. We should not be OK with this being the quality of work that goes into locking someone away for life.

[mrshandy]

Dec 18, 2015 8:46:23 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

Dec 18, 2015 8:36:14 GMT -5 mrshandy said:

Maybe I'm too optimistic or have been listening to way too much Undisclosed. I personally think the case will get overturned and the state will not be able build a new case. The case was built on two things: Jay's testimony and the cell phone data.

- Jay has lied so many times. They will rip him a new one in court. He even changed his story in the Intercept interview.

- Cell phone data - all of their assumptions have been proven wrong.

So if they're able to get the conviction overturned. I don't really see what case the state has.

I don't think he did it. I feel very strongly about this.

But this isn't a retrial; this is a trial to see if the verdict should be overturned. It is not that I don't agree with you all, but the burden of proof in a trial to overturn is different than a retrial. They are not going to just get to do the trial all over again. They are only going to get to focus on the specific things that they feel are in question. So like if there were some DNA evidence or proof that the detectives lied (and knocks and taps in a recording that are just conjecture are not going to cut it), or Jay saying that he changed his testimony due to the detectives feeding him the story. Like if all of this had been presented in the second case after the mistrial, yes. but for this, I just don't know.

This case should have never gone to trial given the evidence they had: Jay's ever-changing story and cell phone pings. But that is not what is in question here (in the overturn trial).

But they're trying to get a new trial, right?

I'm just saying if they're able to overturn the verdict. The State has to build a new case and try again. My point was if they can overturn the verdict. I don't think they have a case to build on. But I'm just an avid listener not a legal expert.

I wonder if their hearing in January doesn't work, they will try again with the multiple Brady violations that they discuss in Undisclosed. They stated a few cases have been overturned by proving the state violated Brady.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Dec 18, 2015 3:16:57 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Dec 17, 2015 19:12:59 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

I agree with this based on the evidence presented in podcasts. I just don't think they will have enough evidence to overturn the conviction.

They have some untested DNA evidence,!which for whatever reason his appeals team has backed off of pushing to have tested. Or at least they were backing off of it early last year.

If they're still backing off on this, that's huge to me too.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Dec 18, 2015 9:07:05 GMT -5 mrshandy said:

Dec 18, 2015 8:46:23 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

But this isn't a retrial; this is a trial to see if the verdict should be overturned. It is not that I don't agree with you all, but the burden of proof in a trial to overturn is different than a retrial. They are not going to just get to do the trial all over again. They are only going to get to focus on the specific things that they feel are in question. So like if there were some DNA evidence or proof that the detectives lied (and knocks and taps in a recording that are just conjecture are not going to cut it), or Jay saying that he changed his testimony due to the detectives feeding him the story. Like if all of this had been presented in the second case after the mistrial, yes. but for this, I just don't know.

This case should have never gone to trial given the evidence they had: Jay's ever-changing story and cell phone pings. But that is not what is in question here (in the overturn trial).

But they're trying to get a new trial, right?

I'm just saying if they're able to overturn the verdict. The State has to build a new case and try again. My point was if they can overturn the verdict. I don't think they have a case to build on. But I'm just an avid listener not a legal expert.

I wonder if their hearing in January doesn't work, they will try again with the multiple Brady violations that they discuss in Undisclosed. They stated a few cases have been overturned by proving the state violated Brady.

Yes, you're too optimistic. Either that or you don't understand how really, crazy hard it is to get a conviction vacated.

[wambam]

@jcp - the track coach is an additional alibi witness for later in the day. So if the prosecution changes their timeline again, that's another option.

[wambam]

Dec 18, 2015 9:53:39 GMT -5 JCP said:

Dec 18, 2015 9:38:20 GMT -5 wambam said:

@jcp - the track coach is an additional alibi witness for later in the day. So if the prosecution changes their timeline again, that's another option.

Ok, thanks! I was hoping you'd chime in bc I see you in all the other threads about it!

I listen to Undisclosed at work so when I get home, I tell my H about the case and what they presented that day and he's like omg I don't care.

It makes me nervous to know that the prosecution was shady and that this should have never gone to trial and makes me wonder how often this happens and no one to really look into the cases this deep.

I'm so glad I have lyssbobiss to discuss podcasts with otherwise my H would be super annoyed with me lol.

[tacosforlife]

Dec 18, 2015 9:53:39 GMT -5 JCP said:

Dec 18, 2015 9:38:20 GMT -5 wambam said:

@jcp - the track coach is an additional alibi witness for later in the day. So if the prosecution changes their timeline again, that's another option.

Ok, thanks! I was hoping you'd chime in bc I see you in all the other threads about it!

I listen to Undisclosed at work so when I get home, I tell my H about the case and what they presented that day and he's like omg I don't care.

It makes me nervous to know that the prosecution was shady and that this should have never gone to trial and makes me wonder how often this happens and no one to really look into the cases this deep.

This is what I'm talking about. Especially when the defendant is someone who is poor and doesn't have the resources Adnan had in terms of legal representation and doesn't have the connections to people willing to re-investigate.

Even the people who are convinced that Adnan is guilty, are they really OK with our justice system working this way?!

[lexus]

Dec 18, 2015 8:46:23 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

Dec 18, 2015 8:36:14 GMT -5 mrshandy said:

Maybe I'm too optimistic or have been listening to way too much Undisclosed. I personally think the case will get overturned and the state will not be able build a new case. The case was built on two things: Jay's testimony and the cell phone data.

- Jay has lied so many times. They will rip him a new one in court. He even changed his story in the Intercept interview.

- Cell phone data - all of their assumptions have been proven wrong.

So if they're able to get the conviction overturned. I don't really see what case the state has.

I don't think he did it. I feel very strongly about this.

But this isn't a retrial; this is a trial to see if the verdict should be overturned. It is not that I don't agree with you all, but the burden of proof in a trial to overturn is different than a retrial. They are not going to just get to do the trial all over again. They are only going to get to focus on the specific things that they feel are in question. So like if there were some DNA evidence or proof that the detectives lied (and knocks and taps in a recording that are just conjecture are not going to cut it), or Jay saying that he changed his testimony due to the detectives feeding him the story. Like if all of this had been presented in the second case after the mistrial, yes. but for this, I just don't know.

This case should have never gone to trial given the evidence they had: Jay's ever-changing story and cell phone pings. But that is not what is in question here (in the overturn trial).

They have at least one other thing up their sleeves. They have talked about it on both Undisclosed and Truth and Justice. Both shows are going to start looking at a different case (not the same one on both shows though) while they wait for the trial. There isn't much It obviously is related to either Asia's testimony or the pings, since that's all they can bring up in this trial.

[jojoandleo]

Okay, so I am a total bleeding heart. There is a reason I avoided criminal law like the fucking plague. I also tend to believe people. My first year as a lawyer I learned a LOT about how often your own client will lie to you about trivial shit. BUT, I STILL always want to believe people. I WANT to believe Adnan when he says he is innocent. If this podcast had been about Jay, I probably would WANT to believe him too. I'm a sucker. Regardless of my wants, I do not think there was enough evidence to convict. HOWEVER, Post Conviction Relief is incredibly difficult to get. INCREDIBLY. However, getting a hearing at all is a big win, so, who knows. I'll still follow the case.

[jojoandleo]

Dec 17, 2015 19:25:06 GMT -5 mp said:

Dec 17, 2015 19:19:42 GMT -5 StrawberryBlondie said:

That's not that much to overturn an entire conviction. I mean, unless he's saying that his testimony would've been that based on the pings, there's no way he could be done it.

What about Asia's testimony? If the state's entire case was that she was killed between 205-236...

And Jay's outright lies, and the non existent payphone that seems to be the key 236 call? 

It seems from multiple accounts that just could not have happened. At the very best, the case that the state had against him had a lot of holes.

Not the issue, but keep listening regarding the pay phone.

And this case was an utter fuck up in my opinion. The jury basically was all, "Why would Jay admit to being a part of it and face jail if what he said wasn't true?" Duuuude, watch some Law and Order!

[downtoearth]

Dec 18, 2015 11:07:59 GMT -5 pennypenny said:

tacosforlife no one should be ok with the justice system working like this. I most definitely am not. I know we are not seeing ALL the evidence by listening to the podcasts, but I think those detectives other cases SHOULD be looked at. I mean they clearly took data that they did not understand and tried to make the narrative fit that. I hope that do have enough evidence to get his conviction VACATED. And that is why I said upthread that I hope Adnan is guilty because I would hate for an innocent person to spend their life in jail. Everyone should be outraged at the conduct of the state in this case.

This is what I got out of the whole first Season - that even when you do get a conviction, that doesn't mean the system is fair and/or perfect.  It's a messy system of investigators, witness accounts, evidence or lack there of, and then a prosecutor who has to take all of that and sell it to a jury.  Also, the first mistrial had polled the jury and they were leaning toward not convicting Adnan, then during his next trial he was convicted, so his lawyer might have gotten sloppy, thought she had it in the bag, or just dropped the ball. 

This is partly why the whole Bergdhal thing isn't exciting for me. I was hoping it would be a case in our justice system, not the military world of tribunals and very different "trials."  But I think people who have been or are in the military will find it more interesting b/c they have to deal with dual justice systems.

[downtoearth]

Dec 18, 2015 11:20:26 GMT -5 JCP said:

Dec 18, 2015 11:16:53 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

That's what I wanted as well. From what I understand is that there is to be a Serial season 3, but it wasn't finished/complete by the time they wanted it to be aired so they threw this together and that season 3 is to be in the spring. I'm hoping it's another "murder mystery" like season 1 and wondering if it will be a relatively small case or a big case that everyone has heard of.

Yeah, I heard that here, but until the next one turns out to be better, I'm stuck with thinking Serial was sort of a one-hit-wonder podcast for me.

[heyjude]

I'm actually more uncomfortable with a justice system that responds to podcasts and popular will than I am by the verdict here. Having not read the transcripts, having not been in the courtroom at the time, I honestly cannot say the "justice system failed" here and I'm honestly surprised that anyone can make that assessment. Actually I'm not surprised at all. I've been reading the jury by podcast discussion on this this case for a year now!

[StrawberryBlondie]

It also bothers me that people who have concluded he's innocent after listening to one or more podcasts are so convinced of it that they won't even entertain the possibility they're wrong and he's actually guilty.

[downtoearth]

Dec 18, 2015 12:05:15 GMT -5 heyjude said:

I'm actually more uncomfortable with a justice system that responds to podcasts and popular will than I am by the verdict here. Having not read the transcripts, having not been in the courtroom at the time, I honestly cannot say the "justice system failed" here and I'm honestly surprised that anyone can make that assessment. Actually I'm not surprised at all. I've been reading the jury by podcast discussion on this this case for a year now!

But we do a lot with investigative journalism. Yes, podcasts are new to the scene with that respect, but I don't have issue with a team of people (led by a lawyer, Rabbia, who has been working on this case since he was convicted and before the podcast) getting a little notice after the journalism revealed some holes in the case.  They still lost some of their requests for hearings in the last year, they haven't "won" anything yet.