The one segment that has stuck with me all these months is his reaction when SK tells him that she successfully accomplished the state's timeline.
But she really didn't. It takes way longer to kill someone by strangulation than she allotted.
I know that's a small point.
That's not the point though.
His reaction to being told it was, more or less possible, was weird. To me it seemed like he knew the state had the timeline wrong and he was hanging his hat on that.
But she really didn't. It takes way longer to kill someone by strangulation than she allotted.
I know that's a small point.
That's not the point though.
His reaction to being told it was, more or less possible, was weird. To me it seemed like he knew the state had the timeline wrong and he was hanging his hat on that.
Yes, it wasn't so much the timeline itself (I don't believe anyone could have done it in that time either) but that pregnant pause when told it was feasible - you could almost feel the oxygen being sucked out of him.
Adnan talks like everyone I represented in the public defender's office. It's always "they have no proof" or "why would I do it" not "I didn't do it."
I thought it was interesting he had the exact same reaction as I did.
It bothers me that your h is a public defender and assumes all his clients are guilty...
He hasn't worked for the public defender in almost 10 years.
I used to do criminal defense, too. Both public and private, and in general, there's a marked difference between how people talk when they're guilty (if they don't outright admit it, which most do) and when they're innocent.
It's something that struck me when I started doing it 10 years ago and stayed with me.
It bothers me that your h is a public defender and assumes all his clients are guilty...
He hasn't worked for the public defender in almost 10 years.
I used to do criminal defense, too. Both public and private, and in general, there's a marked difference between how people talk when they're guilty (if they don't outright admit it, which most do) and when they're innocent.
It's something that struck me when I started doing it 10 years ago and stayed with me.
/Edited for clarity and brevity.
That is a lot more specific than what you originally said. Thanks for clarifying. Since you have been very clear in this thread that you think Adnan is guilty what you said about your h working as a public defender seemed prejudicial.
He hasn't worked for the public defender in almost 10 years.
I used to do criminal defense, too. Both public and private, and in general, there's a marked difference between how people talk when they're guilty (if they don't outright admit it, which most do) and when they're innocent.
It's something that struck me when I started doing it 10 years ago and stayed with me.
/Edited for clarity and brevity.
That is a lot more specific than what you originally said. Thanks for clarifying. Since you have been very clear in this thread that you think Adnan is guilty what you said about your h working as a public defender seemed prejudicial.
I've also been very clear that I don't think the case should've gone to trial and/or that I don't think the evidence as presented by the podcast are enough to have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I mentioned my H's reaction because I thought it was interesting that he had the exact same reaction to Adnan as I did, and the same reaction that several of my friends with a criminal defense background have had.
It bothers me that your h is a public defender and assumes all his clients are guilty...
He hasn't worked for the public defender in almost 10 years.
I used to do criminal defense, too. Both public and private, and in general, there's a marked difference between how people talk when they're guilty (if they don't outright admit it, which most do) and when they're innocent.
It's something that struck me when I started doing it 10 years ago and stayed with me.
That is a lot more specific than what you originally said. Thanks for clarifying. Since you have been very clear in this thread that you think Adnan is guilty what you said about your h working as a public defender seemed prejudicial.
I've also been very clear that I don't think the case should've gone to trial and/or that I don't think the evidence as presented by the podcast are enough to have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
I mentioned my H's reaction because I thought it was interesting that he had the exact same reaction to Adnan as I did, and the same reaction that several of my friends with a criminal defense background have had.
But what do you mean by "prejudicial?"
Honestly, the more I think about it the more clear it becomes I was reading way too much into it. My apologies.