I guess I'm just responding to those that are annoyed that a podcast is supposedly causing MD to look at this case again. I would expect those same people to believe that a podcast or thousands of followers will cause a judge to treat this case any differently than they did the first time. It's just ironic to me that they would have faith in the justice system when he was convicted but not when there is a hearing to overturn his conviction.
I can't speak for others, but it's not so much that I worry a judge would hear the podcast and be biased, what I think about is that Asia McClain seemed to change from indifferent to a key witness from when the podcast was recorded to post-podcast. It's not wrong, it's just strange and likely related to the podcast. If I remember correctly, in the original podcast Asia was reserved and said, "Yeah, I remember Adnan there and my boyfriend and his friend picked me up and my boyfriend was jealous and it snowed (even though the snow date is off). I sent a letter to him and talked to his parents. I just thought it wasn't important b/c they didn't call me and that he must be guilty." Now she is 50% as to why the judge granted a new hearing that Adnan has not been able to get in the past.
ETA: Basically I'm saying that the podcast DID change the course of the case b/c Asia was found and realized how important it was for her to tell the court that she say Adnan that day.
Well sure, she didn't know before that she was important to the story. And you are 100% correct that she knows her importance because of Serial. But I don't think she's changed her story because of the podcast.
I can't speak for others, but it's not so much that I worry a judge would hear the podcast and be biased, what I think about is that Asia McClain seemed to change from indifferent to a key witness from when the podcast was recorded to post-podcast. It's not wrong, it's just strange and likely related to the podcast. If I remember correctly, in the original podcast Asia was reserved and said, "Yeah, I remember Adnan there and my boyfriend and his friend picked me up and my boyfriend was jealous and it snowed (even though the snow date is off). I sent a letter to him and talked to his parents. I just thought it wasn't important b/c they didn't call me and that he must be guilty." Now she is 50% as to why the judge granted a new hearing that Adnan has not been able to get in the past.
ETA: Basically I'm saying that the podcast DID change the course of the case b/c Asia was found and realized how important it was for her to tell the court that she say Adnan that day.
But it didn't. She's sticking to her original story. She was confident then of what happened but never got her chance to tell it because of the defense attorney.
We'll have to agree to disagree, b/c as I see it, it totally changed the course of the story. Adnan mentioned off-handly that Asia saw him, Sarah of the podcast realized it wasn't followed up and Adnan had believed the lawyer must have done the right thing. Then Sarah found Asia and talked with her and that talk (along with the podcast interest) made Asia realize that her as an alibi was never examined. So the finding of Asia and Sarah talking with her did change the case. Asia is valuable to a hearing and to reopening the full case, which she didn't know or thought she wasn't before the podcast. Asia didn't change her story, but she did change her wanting to be involved.
I do have a problem with people assuming that because they have listened to Serial and Undisclosed, they KNOW that the verdict should be vacated and that Adnan should be tried again - and of course, he will be found not guilty because there is no way on God's green earth he did it.
I also have a problem with the implication that if you think the verdict will probably stand or if you think the trial was probably fine and Adnan should have been convicted, you're just dumb. Which is implied MANY times in these threads (maybe not this one but definitely throughout the Serial threads.)
Is anyone saying the bolded here? I think many people have said that it is their opinion that the verdict should be vacated, but I think everyone who has said "I think Adnan is guilty" has also said "but I could be wrong"
And I definitely don't think anyone here is dumb for thinking the trial was fine. And I apologized if I have implied that.
We'll have to agree to disagree, b/c as I see it, it totally changed the course of the story. Adnan mentioned off-handly that Asia saw him, Sarah of the podcast realized it wasn't followed up and Adnan had believed the lawyer must have done the right thing. Then Sarah found Asia and talked with her and that talk (along with the podcast interest) made Asia realize that her as an alibi was never examined. So the finding of Asia and Sarah talking with her did change the case. Asia is valuable to a hearing and to reopening the full case, which she didn't know or thought she wasn't before the podcast. Asia didn't change her story, but she did change her wanting to be involved.
Well, didn't somebody contact her and she changed her story? And they were going to court and everything and she refused to come or something? Am I mistaking that for someone else? It's a year old now so I can't pull all these details back out.
Yes, sort of how I remember it. I'd need to listen again to confirm.
Based on a 1999 letter from Asia to Adnan, Rabia contacted Asia. Asia wrote an affidavit in 2000 for Rabia that said she saw Adnan. Then I think Rabia contacted a private investigator or something after that to get Asia to testify at a hearing and somehow I remember a husband or boyfriend answered and said, "Don't contact us again, that dude is guilty and that lawyer made her sign it." But I don't know if Rabia ever heard from Asia since 2000 until Sarah talked with her. And it was then that Asia realized that her alibi was never followed up and not just that it wasn't useful. It sounded like she had thought the parents and lawyer knew about seeing Adnan, but that it must have not been important to the case
Can you talk more about this? I don't remember this part. Are you saying she said an affidavit saying she didn't see him?
This was on the podcast, and it has stuck in my head whenever someone brings up Asia as the end all be all of smoking gun gotchas! as her story changed and changed back, too.
I vaguely remember this so people who have listened more recently correct me if I mess it up but sometime ago she wrote a letter to him mentioning that she had said something back then about the library. There was supposed to be a hearing to see if his case should be re-examined? based on this new information but when it came to it she signed an affidavit saying she hadn't seem him and didn't show up for the hearing. Later she says her boyfriend at the time (maybe now husband?) wouldn't let her go because he didn't want her to get involved.
Yes, I just said this. But the affidavit said she did see him, but when contacted to actually testify her then husband/boyfriend made her bow out. I don't think there is an affidavit that she didn't see Adnan, just that she refused to testify, so the hearing couldn't happen without the witness.
Can someone explain to me what exactly a Brady violation is? Undisclosed talks a lot about multiple violations and I can't quite comprehend what it is, what it means, and what specific violations are apparent in this case.
From what I understand (and I am NOT a lawyer), the prosecution must disclose information that could be exculpatory. When they don't, that's a Brady violation.
My understanding of Asia's affidavit is that the detective lied under oath when he said she disasvowed it. She had no idea the detective said that at trial until the podcast.
My understanding of Asia's affidavit is that the detective lied under oath when he said she disasvowed it. She had no idea the detective said that at trial until the podcast.
Oh yeah, that is in there also. See, this is why some shady stuff happens during investigations and hearings that maybe needs to come to light.
Can someone explain to me what exactly a Brady violation is? Undisclosed talks a lot about multiple violations and I can't quite comprehend what it is, what it means, and what specific violations are apparent in this case.
From what I understand (and I am NOT a lawyer), the prosecution must disclose information that could be exculpatory. When they don't, that's a Brady violation.
Yep. There's a US Supreme Court case (Brady) that held that the prosecution must turn over such evidence.
What keeps tripping me up is that I don't believe Adnan either.
You don't believe Adnan because he most probably did it, probably with Jay's help.
I was just saying this to tacosforlife but as soon as Serial said that Adnan had no idea where Leakin Park was I thought "lying liar who lies." I keep getting stuck on that because it is such bullshit that it enrages me.
I'm not at all familiar with Baltimore, but I always kind of assumed that was about as believable as someone from here saying "I have no idea where Minnehaha Park even is!"
We'll have to agree to disagree, b/c as I see it, it totally changed the course of the story. Adnan mentioned off-handly that Asia saw him, Sarah of the podcast realized it wasn't followed up and Adnan had believed the lawyer must have done the right thing. Then Sarah found Asia and talked with her and that talk (along with the podcast interest) made Asia realize that her as an alibi was never examined. So the finding of Asia and Sarah talking with her did change the case. Asia is valuable to a hearing and to reopening the full case, which she didn't know or thought she wasn't before the podcast. Asia didn't change her story, but she did change her wanting to be involved.
Well, didn't somebody contact her and she changed her story? And they were going to court and everything and she refused to come or something? Am I mistaking that for someone else? It's a year old now so I can't pull all these details back out.
I think that's right. She said that they had a PI come to her house and it freaked her out since she assumed Adnan was guilty (because he got convicted) and she didn't want a murderer stalking her.
You don't believe Adnan because he most probably did it, probably with Jay's help.
I was just saying this to tacosforlife but as soon as Serial said that Adnan had no idea where Leakin Park was I thought "lying liar who lies." I keep getting stuck on that because it is such bullshit that it enrages me.
That's what I think happened, too, and if that is the case, I wish he would admit it and let that girl's family have some peace. But if it's not, hopefully her real killer will be discovered. I don't feel like there is anyone speaking for Hae in all of this.
Well, I don't feel that it's appropriate to speak on behalf of the dead.
However, I do think that *some* people who think Adnan is not guilty really do want to conviction vacated so that her killer can be found and brought to justice. Alternatively, I think some people who think Adnan IS guilty don't want him to go free because that isn't justice for Hae either.
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.
I actually have no earthly idea whether he is or isn't. I think nobody is telling the truth and nobody CAN give an accurate timeline because these kids were all a bunch of stoners and had no idea what was happening for long stretches of time on any given day. I'm just more angry with the way the investigation went down, the total shittiness from the prosecution and the defense, and all of the obvious racism and complete willful ignorance of Muslims in general and this family specifically. And I guess what upsets me when someone flat out says "yes, he's guilty, no doubt," it seems to gloss over all of the things that were wrong about the investigation/trial. I guess I want him to be innocent because then it feels like there's more at stake in terms of just doing criminal justice better.
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
Well, I don't feel that it's appropriate to speak on behalf of the dead.
However, I do think that *some* people who think Adnan is not guilty really do want to conviction vacated so that her killer can be found and brought to justice. Alternatively, I think some people who think Adnan IS guilty don't want him to go free because that isn't justice for Hae either.
Wait, what? Isn't the whole point of a murder trial to try and get justice for the person who was killed?
"Speaking for Hae" I interpreted as "saying what Hae could if she were alive" which I don't feel is appropriate.
But I think that's separate from wanting justice for her.
We'll have to agree to disagree, b/c as I see it, it totally changed the course of the story. Adnan mentioned off-handly that Asia saw him, Sarah of the podcast realized it wasn't followed up and Adnan had believed the lawyer must have done the right thing. Then Sarah found Asia and talked with her and that talk (along with the podcast interest) made Asia realize that her as an alibi was never examined. So the finding of Asia and Sarah talking with her did change the case. Asia is valuable to a hearing and to reopening the full case, which she didn't know or thought she wasn't before the podcast. Asia didn't change her story, but she did change her wanting to be involved.
Asia said in the original letters that she saw him. She asked why the lawyer didn't follow up. She didn't even seem like she wanted to be involved at all, but she was willing to tell what she knew to be true then and now.
I suppose I don't understand why this is a problem. If I knew I saw someone at 2:45, tried to tell the lawyer but no one followed up with me and I finally got a chance to tell what I knew I would do it. So long as she doesn't add additional details, just testifies to the time she saw him.
It's not like she didn't write down what she knew back in 1999. It's not like she came out if the wood work after hearing the podcast.
I really want to understand what problem you see here. Do you think she is making it up? Do you think she lied in the 1999 letters?
I didn't say Asia changed her story. She did not change her story she changed her involvement and the course of the case. Without the podcast and popular opinion she would never have been brought into the limelight again to be part of the case again. Robbia had dismissed her due to the earlier hearing where the officer or Asia didn't want to talk about seeing Ada Robbia had dismissed her due to the earlier hearing where the officer or Asia didn't want to talk about seeing Adnan.
Without the podcast and Asia's involvement again, Adnan would've never gotten a new hearing.
however I do think that some of the podcast information in her earlier affidavits may be used against her if in when she does testify. Mostly because of the weather discrepancy issue that Sarah brought up in the podcast already.
What keeps tripping me up is that I don't believe Adnan either.
You don't believe Adnan because he most probably did it, probably with Jay's help.
I was just saying this to tacosforlife but as soon as Serial said that Adnan had no idea where Leakin Park was I thought "lying liar who lies." I keep getting stuck on that because it is such bullshit that it enrages me.
Petapsco (sp?) State Park trips me up too. It figures in somehow.
"Speaking for Hae" I interpreted as "saying what Hae could if she were alive" which I don't feel is appropriate.
But I think that's separate from wanting justice for her.
Oh, so you interpreted it literally, which is not how I meant it and, frankly I'm not sure why you would think I would be saying someone should be trying to figure out what Hae wants as that makes no sense.
In any case, no one is saying "we should be trying to get justice for Hae" in any of these discussions/podcasts/books. It's all about Adnan. Hae is dead, though.
Okay. I'm sorry I misinterpreted.
I think lots of people are saying "we should get justice for Hae." That's why I'm so into this case. I want justice for a young girl who may not have gotten it.
My issues with the podcast are not that people are talking about this case. That's a stretch and making these stretches is one of the reasons I think talking about this case (lol) is tedious. I do have a problem with people taking what they hear on a podcast as more credible than what was given to a jury during a trial. A trial has two sides presenting info, a judge managing the info, and a jury pool weighing that info for credibility. A podcast has none of this.
My other problem is that yes, it's investigative reporting, but when I started listening way back before it was a cultural revelation (#sohipster) I honestly thought the investigation would have a conclusion. Like she was reporting on something final. The case was overturned already and she was reporting on that "one story told week by week." I actually refused to Google anything in those early days because I didn't want to learn what actually happened. In reality and what I discovered a couple episodes in was that she was flying by the seat of her pants, reopening an old case, causing a media firestorm, all because a passionate friend had contacted her to report on it with promises of getting to the bottom of something big. And I think that's what Sarah thought she was going to have too. A big finale with a clean conclusion. Instead we got her meandering, not really well articluated thoughts on "due process" and then she wiped her hands of the whole thing. Even though there was a rabid fan base playing Monday Morning Matlock on the Internet. Creating this "intense spotlight" that well no wonder everyone wants to free Adnan. But that doesn't seem like justice necessarily to me.
Finally the comment I made about being "more troubled..." needs context. The context is that I was indirectly responding to a tacos question that said "even if you think he is guilty aren't you troubled by the particulars in this case" (or something like that). Well...there was my response.
Side note: is anyone listening to season 2? Is there a discussion for it?
I listen but find it only somewhat interesting. It doesn't have the compelling "did he do it?" angle like the Hae case. I'd probably get more out of it if I were really concentrating on it, listening to it while exercising so that I retain more of what I listen to. I also have a bias against Bergdahl. Trying to act like he's some kind of Jason Bourne out there was so juvenile.
I strongly, strongly agree with downtoearth's previous contention that the Serial podcast season 1 is influencing testimony. Asia was meh on the whole thing, now she's gung-ho about where he was. To me, any "new" testimony that occurs after the podcast is suspect because people probably want to be in the spotlight and be with the "cool kids" who think Adnan's innocent and want him released from jail. How they would be feted if they provided the info that let him out.
I remember hearing on Serial that she at one point said that she was NOT sure. Why is she so sure now? I can't even recall important details about my romantic relationships from 20 years ago, let alone these details about who was where and at what time.
My issues with the podcast are not that people are talking about this case. That's a stretch and making these stretches is one of the reasons I think talking about this case (lol) is tedious. I do have a problem with people taking what they hear on a podcast as more credible than what was given to a jury during a trial. A trial has two sides presenting info, a judge managing the info, and a jury pool weighing that info for credibility. A podcast has none of this.
My other problem is that yes, it's investigative reporting, but when I started listening way back before it was a cultural revelation (#sohipster) I honestly thought the investigation would have a conclusion. Like she was reporting on something final. The case was overturned already and she was reporting on that "one story told week by week." I actually refused to Google anything in those early days because I didn't want to learn what actually happened. In reality and what I discovered a couple episodes in was that she was flying by the seat of her pants, reopening an old case, causing a media firestorm, all because a passionate friend had contacted her to report on it with promises of getting to the bottom of something big. And I think that's what Sarah thought she was going to have too. A big finale with a clean conclusion. Instead we got her meandering, not really well articluated thoughts on "due process" and then she wiped her hands of the whole thing. Even though there was a rabid fan base playing Monday Morning Matlock on the Internet. Creating this "intense spotlight" that well no wonder everyone wants to free Adnan. But that doesn't seem like justice necessarily to me.
OK, I think you're being a bit weird about all this. I feel like what you're insinuating is that people are dumb and/or fickle if they are influenced by a podcast, or you are outraged that a podcast has any power: neither of which is completely fair because this is the world we live in now, a new means of delivering journalism and a new means of outreach. Dateline did this kind of stuff for years. So does any sort of true crime. And many, many things go viral (both touching stories and shaming stories). I don't get your outrage.
My issues with the podcast are not that people are talking about this case. That's a stretch and making these stretches is one of the reasons I think talking about this case (lol) is tedious. I do have a problem with people taking what they hear on a podcast as more credible than what was given to a jury during a trial. A trial has two sides presenting info, a judge managing the info, and a jury pool weighing that info for credibility. A podcast has none of this.
My other problem is that yes, it's investigative reporting, but when I started listening way back before it was a cultural revelation (#sohipster) I honestly thought the investigation would have a conclusion. Like she was reporting on something final. The case was overturned already and she was reporting on that "one story told week by week." I actually refused to Google anything in those early days because I didn't want to learn what actually happened. In reality and what I discovered a couple episodes in was that she was flying by the seat of her pants, reopening an old case, causing a media firestorm, all because a passionate friend had contacted her to report on it with promises of getting to the bottom of something big. And I think that's what Sarah thought she was going to have too. A big finale with a clean conclusion. Instead we got her meandering, not really well articluated thoughts on "due process" and then she wiped her hands of the whole thing. Even though there was a rabid fan base playing Monday Morning Matlock on the Internet. Creating this "intense spotlight" that well no wonder everyone wants to free Adnan. But that doesn't seem like justice necessarily to me.
OK, I think you're being a bit weird about all this. I feel like what you're insinuating is that people are dumb and/or fickle if they are influenced by a podcast, or you are outraged that a podcast has any power: neither of which is completely fair because this is the world we live in now, a new means of delivering journalism and a new means of outreach. Dateline did this kind of stuff for years. So does any sort of true crime. And many, many things go viral (both touching stories and shaming stories). I don't get your outrage.
Dateline is what I was thinking of specifically. They always have a conclusion. Or at least the ones I have seen end with a "and now her murderer/husband sits behind bars." There isn't ambiguity. Justice was served. Admittedly, I don't watch a terrible amount of Dateline.
If pointing out the weirdness of how people respond to this podcast makes me weird, so be it.
OK, I think you're being a bit weird about all this. I feel like what you're insinuating is that people are dumb and/or fickle if they are influenced by a podcast, or you are outraged that a podcast has any power: neither of which is completely fair because this is the world we live in now, a new means of delivering journalism and a new means of outreach. Dateline did this kind of stuff for years. So does any sort of true crime. And many, many things go viral (both touching stories and shaming stories). I don't get your outrage.
Dateline is what I was thinking of specifically. They always have a conclusion. Or at least the ones I have seen end with a "and now her murderer/husband sits behind bars." There isn't ambiguity. Justice was served. Admittedly, I don't watch a terrible amount of Dateline.
If pointing out the weirdness of how people respond to this podcast makes me weird, so be it.
(huh)
This had a conclusion. It ended with Adnan in jail. It started with its conclusion. I dunno.
You don't believe Adnan because he most probably did it, probably with Jay's help.
I was just saying this to tacosforlife but as soon as Serial said that Adnan had no idea where Leakin Park was I thought "lying liar who lies." I keep getting stuck on that because it is such bullshit that it enrages me.
I'm not at all familiar with Baltimore, but I always kind of assumed that was about as believable as someone from here saying "I have no idea where Minnehaha Park even is!"
Yeah it is a huge park that goes from Baltimore City to Baltimore Co near their school. Plus it has a reputation of being a place bodies are dumped. Everyone knows it.
A lot of what the attorney did actually makes sense if you look at it through the lens of her knowing her client was guilty. She didn't contact the alibi witness because she knew she had to be lying. She didn't hammer the timeline because she didn't want to draw so much attention to it or let it raise questions she couldn't answer. She didn't let him testify because she didn't want him misstepping. She spent so much time yelling and harping on irrelevant but tawdry details like Jays porn shop job because she wanted to confuse and distract the jury.
Not that this is necessarily The Answer but it makes her actions a lot clearer.
A lot of what the attorney did actually makes sense if you look at it through the lens of her knowing her client was guilty. She didn't contact the alibi witness because she knew she had to be lying. She didn't hammer the timeline because she didn't want to draw so much attention to it or let it raise questions she couldn't answer. She didn't let him testify because she didn't want him misstepping. She spent so much time yelling and harping on irrelevant but tawdry details like Jays porn shop job because she wanted to confuse and distract the jury.
Not that this is necessarily The Answer but it makes her actions a lot clearer.
Dateline is what I was thinking of specifically. They always have a conclusion. Or at least the ones I have seen end with a "and now her murderer/husband sits behind bars." There isn't ambiguity. Justice was served. Admittedly, I don't watch a terrible amount of Dateline.
If pointing out the weirdness of how people respond to this podcast makes me weird, so be it.
(huh)
This had a conclusion. It ended with Adnan in jail. It started with its conclusion. I dunno.
Dateline always ends with justice served. It knows where it is going. Woman gets thrown off a cruise ship. Husband denies it. Husband ends up in jail at the end. Everyone is happy.
This show though ended with maybe justice was served maybe not. Who knows? It was more of a meandering look at a criminal case.
It's not really the same. I wish it had been more like a Dateline episode instead of cracking open a closed case and then walking away.