<p>As someone who is often delayed by innocent incidents, I don’t necessarily think that something nefarious happened in those 45 minutes, especially considering a teenager was involved.
Also if they ruled out as a suspect the man who found her body based on a lie detector test, was anyone else given a lie detector test?
Jay or Adnan?</p>
<p>If she was delayed and showed up 10 minutes late, that would be one thing. But she never showed up, and her body was later recovered from Leakin park. So while there is an outside possibility that Hae was delayed for innocent reasons, it’s much more likely that something happened within that 45 minute time frame. So that’s what makes that time frame critical from a legal analytic standpoint. </p>
<p>Lie detector tests are not reliable and they aren’t admissible in court. Police often use them more as a way to put pressure on a suspect – the prospect of a polygraph might lead an unsophisticated witness or suspect to volunteer more evidence than they would otherwise. But the test itself is meaningless, so no reason to expect that it would be used in a particular case. It wasn’t needed for Jay because he was a cooperating witness, and there would really have been no benefit for Adnan to submit himself to a polygraph once Jay had come forward. </p>
<p>Right, she could have had an innocent diversion, but then been abducted before was able to notify anyone, still could have stretched the timeline.
Convenient coincidence, but coincidences do happen.
For instance yesterday a close friend of a close friend, and a close relative of a close relative- who both happened to have the same last name, died.
At first I thought there was even more of a coincidence and they were the same person, but a little more investigating found they were not.</p>
<p>But there is no evidence to support another time line. So yes – Hae could have been delayed and abducted or killed outside that 45 minute time frame, but that doesn’t really do much to help Adnan. And it doesn’t explain how Jay knew the whereabouts of Hae’s car. So that’s speculation that really leads nowhere. </p>
<p>It appears we are either in the "I believe Jay wholeheartedly’ or the ‘Jay’s testimony is shaky’ camp. So several of us have noted the basis for our hesitancy to take Jay’s testimony at face value, so out of curiosity:</p>
<p>Why does everyone believe Jay? I mean, what is the basis that makes him so believable or credible to you? </p>
<p>Are your thoughts based solely upon what evidence was reportedly presented at trial, or are you willing to consider the additional information that was either deliberately left out at trial (which is the attorneys’ perogative to support their ‘story line’, of course) or had not yet been found, tracked down or explored further at time of trial.</p>
<p>Oops!</p>
<p>I don’t believe Jay wholeheartedly. I think he was more involved than he says. But he knows who did it, and he says Adnan did it, and Adnan’s phone was at Leakin Park.</p>
<p>I second the podcast-is-not-a-trial sentiment. There certainly was evidence that the jury heard that we did not. Plus, they saw Jay’s testimony and his cross-examination. I understand the purpose of the Fifth Amendment, but I am not sure I can blame the jurors for wanting to hear Adnan’s defense. </p>
<p>Legal people: as I understand it, in order to get a new trial, Adnan’s lawyers would have to prove that his trial lawyer provided ineffective assistance – is that correct? Or I guess if the physical evidence implicates some known criminal (other than Adnan)? I am assuming that it wouldn’t really help Adnan if the physical evidence does not link to him? </p>
<p>Or there was fundamental error…error that goes to the very heart of a trial…which is rare. Like a confession as the result of a beating or the denial of a jury. The error here is more likely “harmless error.” Error that while erroneous likely would not change the result. This kind of evidence stands up everyday on appeal. Accomplices or accessories get sweet deals regularly to testify against the primary defendant. Think sausage. </p>
<p>They’d be testing the hairs found on her body and the rope near her body for DNA. It’s unlikely that either of these will yield a useful result. If the hairs matched the serial killer, I’d say that would pretty much prove Adnan’s innocence, but that is exceedingly unlikely. If the hairs matched Adnan he’d look even guiltier than he does now, we’d probably not hear about it, and the Innocence Project would quietly drop his case. If the hairs matched someone unknown or an animal, the most likely result, that means nothing.</p>
<p>@MathildaMae – Adnan has already had an appeal and lost. He can still attack his conviction, but the grounds available are very narrow-- it has to now be based on facts that are outside of the trial record. His currently has an action pending based on ineffective assistance of counsel that is before an appellate court, and I think that the appellate court has asked for further briefing on the claim that his attorney failed to pursue a plea bargain on his behalf. That’s probably the best argument (legally) that he has – but if he prevails, the result would be a retrial (with a possible opportunity for a negotiated plea with a lesser sentence).</p>
<p>The innocence project lawyers are also trying to get a court order for DNA testing of physical evidence recovered at the time the body was discovered, in the hope that produces something that would point to someone else’s involvement. But that’s a long shot. </p>
<p>@Treemaven – it doesn’t matter what we believe. The jury obviously believed Jay. They didn’t have to believe him wholeheartedly. They just had to believe the part about Adnan asking him to help bury the body.</p>
<p>To get a new trial, there are several ways, all requiring one to fit into a specific pidgeon-hole. It is a high standard to meet because the judicial system is set up to have a finality point, closure. But, there is so much at stake when taking a person’s freedom that there are specific pidgeon-holes to provide for corrections. But they are not easy. </p>
<p>Ineffective counsel is one such pidgeon-hole. I think that ground for appeal was already used. </p>
<p>Another is exculpatory evidence in possession or known by the police or prosecutor that was not shared. Another is new evidence not known at trial. Crucial witnesses (such as Jay) changing their stories post-conviction can be grounds, but it is a high standard to meet before that one works. Physical evidence that was untested can also yield new evidence sufficient to support a request for new trial. That’s where DNA, etc can come in. </p>
<p>The jury itself can be impeached, but that is extremely difficult. So, most of the time, even if the jury considered something it shouldn’t or misapplied the court’s instructions, there is nothing to be done about it. It takes something really egregious, like fraud or jury tampering, to have the jury’s verdict impeached. </p>
<p>There are probably other grounds, but it is a fine needle that must be threaded. </p>
<p>All the more reason our law requires ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in order to deprive someone of his freedom because once there is a conviction, his chances of reversing that conviction is minute.</p>
<p>As for Adnan testifying at trial, if he had testified (base upon both his statements given at the time and his conversations with Sarah now), pretty much all he could say was ’ I don’t remember’. ’ I don’t know’, and ’ I usually do . . . '. How would that satisy anyone? </p>
<pre><code>IF he is innocent, he would have no details to add because he honestly didn’t know any. So what would make him any more believable or credible than what he’d already said.
</code></pre>
<p>The jurors would have been asked in voir dire (or should have been) whether they could refrain from assigning any meaning to a defendant who did not testify. But it is apparent that some jurors (based upon their statements to Sarah) couldn’t really do that when the time came. </p>
<p>I do not not know what all was presented at trial. So all my views are based upon what was stated and presented in Serial. I am not looking at this discussion as an appeal of the original verdict, but rather in a nouveau review of the information and further evaluation of evidence that was presented and deeper investigation that was presented in Serial. The jury’s verdict is not my starting–or ending—point. Therefore, I am not willing to concede or rely on ‘facts not in evidence’—i.e. anything we did not hear about in Serial. </p>
<p>What needs to be known about the attorney not pursuing a plea deal in order for it to count as ineffective assistance of counsel? People do go to trial and get acquitted; it can’t be that every time a lawyer doesn’t pursue a plea deal, that’s automatically ineffective assistance of counsel. </p>
<p>If the prosecution had an open and shut case, so that no one could imagine a jury would acquit, then I could see how failing to make a plea deal would be culpably bad lawyering, but this was not an open and shut case.</p>
<p>If Adnan had testified at trial, he would have had to say whether or not he asked Hae for a ride that day. I think that he told the police on the day that Hae went missing that he had asked Hae for a ride; then a few weeks later he told police that he hadn’t and wouldn’t have because he had his own car. I also think there were two other witnesses who overheard Adnan asking for a ride from Hae. That is a critical detail, and it would have been a big problem to overcome if he had testified. </p>
<p>As I said in my initial post on this thread: I must have been listening to a different podcast than most. Lol It’s been a good discussion, but I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.</p>
<p>I just see too many holes in both Jay’s story, how it came to be that and too many questions about Jay’s motives and how all the other information fits in. Absolutely everything from motive, to opportunity, to the alleged timeline comes from Jay. Given the sum total of all the information, I have doubts. I’m not comfortable cherry-picking elements of Jay’s evolving story-line, especially given the extent of what he got in exchange and how.</p>
<p>My job (as an armchair juror in this nouveau review) is not to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Adnan is innocent, but rather to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. They are not two sides of the same coin. With the whole case arising out of Jay’s statements (which were the Detective’s statements presented in leading form to which Jay merely agreed in the recorded one) , I have too many doubts to conclusively state that Adnan is guilty. Maybe he is, but I am not without reasonable doubt. I just can’t put that much faith in Jay’s own motive for settling on his final version of events. </p>
<p>I’m still interested in hearing what the basis folks have for believing Jay’s critical testimony is so credible—I.e., Adnan’s alleged motive, intent, planning, time line, etc—even if they don’t believe all of what he says. (By the way, what part don’t you believe and why?)</p>
<p>And how that would change–or not-- if the three kids who may have seen Adnan in the library had been interviewed at the time of the initial investigation and did confirm their interaction with him then and there? 
</p>
<p>Cal mom, I know what the actual verdict means as to what they believed. I’m not attempting to impeach that jury’s verdict. Rather I have been looking at the Serial information in a de novo review of the ‘evidence’ evaluated, discovered, and reviewed. We have information they didn’t, some because it wasn’t known or looked into previously, other because it was strategically withheld from the jury. </p>
<p>If you are looking at the information only in terms of a regular appeal, then we are applying different standards of review. In that regard, I’d have to uphold the jury’s verdict whether I agree with it or not because there isn’t enough information given to us to debate whether any of the ‘new’ evidence meets the narrow legal criteria to trigger post-conviction relief considerations. </p>
<p>But what’s the fun in that kind of a thread? :D</p>
<p>I believe the critical details about Jay’s testimony: that Adnan confessed to killing Hae; showed Jay the body; and that Jay helped Adnan bury the body. The reasons I believe him are because the critical parts of his testimony are corroborated by external evidence: other people heard Adnan ask Hae for a ride; Adnan’s cell phone pinged a tower near the location where the body was buried at the appropriate time; Adnan and Jay were seen together later that evening; Adnan has no alibi for the key time periods; Jay led police to Hae’s car; Jay consistently implicated Adnan in contemporaneous conversations with third parties (Jen, guy at video store). I didn’t follow all details abt the Nisha call but that seems to implicate Adnan too. Adnan had contact with Hae in the early morning hours of the day she disappeared but didn’t try to contact her after. The new boyfriend provides a convincing motive. I find Adnan’s claim that he can’t remember what he was doing that day beyond incredible – the police questioned him about Hae’s disappearance that night so it was not just a normal night. And, I admit to being influenced by the judge and jury’s determination that Jay was credible. They saw him on the stand for hours and hours.</p>
<p>I don’t believe Jay’s entire timeline, and I don’t think we know exactly what happened. I think Jay was more involved than he admits. But we don’t need to know every detail of what happened to conclude that Adnan was guilty.</p>
<p>Think about how unbelievably lucky Jay would have had to have been to make up the story about Adnan and then have all of these independently corroborating details fall into place. It would be very very difficult – if not impossible – to engineer.</p>
<p>Don’t forget, on the podcast we heard significant excepts from Adnan and very few from Jay. The jury heard hours and hours of testimony from Jay but they never heard Adnan say he didn’t do it. They didn’t have to choose between Jay and Adnan to determine whom they believed; Adnan stayed silent as was his right. There were no competing credibilty determinations for the jury to make. They could say, “I believe Jay” without having to say, “I don’t believe Adnan.”</p>
<p>Adnan would have been a disaster on cross-examination and conventional wisdom would be that he was properly advised not to take the stand. After listening to this podcast and seeing the reactions, I’ve changed my thinking about whether conventional wisdom is correct. With a defendant that likeable, the best shot seems to be having the jury hear Adnan say that he didn’t do it, even with holes as wide as trucks in his testimony.</p>
<p>(I am not a criminal lawyer. But I am a civil litigator and it is very common for witnesses to get timelines screwed up, either inadvertently or because they are lying in some portion of testimony even though the rest is true.)</p>
<p>Oh, by the way, keep in mind that Adnan could have had the DNA tested himself (thru his lawyers). I think they made a strategic decision not to do so because of concerns about what it may show.</p>
<p>I have lots of criminal defense lawyer friends. I’m looking forward to discussing this case with them. I’ll let you know if they have any additional insights that are interesting. </p>
<p>My feeling that Adnan did it may be influenced by the fact that I dislike him. And every time Sarah Koenig was interviewing him, I felt like she was being played.</p>
<p>@Treemaven, most of the witnesses whose testimony supported the prosecution either refused to talk to SK, or refused to be recorded - so we didn’t hear from them. SK interviewed defense-oriented lawyers, but she never chose to include the views of an experienced prosecutor, who might have presented a different perspective. So you heard the defense “case” that wasn’t presented at trial - including all sorts of statements and opinions that wouldn’t be admissible in court in any case - and you never really heard the prosecution’s case, at least not from prosecution witnesses. </p>
<p>So you can draw whatever conclusion you want from the broadcast, but you can’t really frame it in legal terms
“reasonable doubt” because you didn’t hear the full story.</p>
<p>If, hypothetically, you could hear Adnan testify in a court of law, your opinion might change dramatically if you also heard him cross-examined. SK didn’t really ask him the tough questions a prosecutor would, and he seemed to get quite put out when she even touched on sensitive areas.</p>
<p>What do folks think about his plea deal argument? He is basically saying – and had to have presented evidence to the court saying (in connection with the current appeal) – “Had I been offered a plea deal, I would have ADMITTED I WAS GUILTY under penalty of perjury, and pled guilty.” That is highly inconsistent with an “actual innocence” theory. The jury would not have been permitted to hear evidence about plea negotiations because of the policy in favor of encouraging guilty pleas by guilty defendants. But WE podcast listeners certainly can consider it. I view this argument by Adnan as either (1) an admission of guilt; or (2) an admission that he is willing to lie under oath to get a perceived benefit. Either way, it doesn’t look great in terms of proving he was actually innocent, which is the goal of his lawyers on the innocence project. Courts considering whether to grant post-conviction relief certainly may consider it. (i realize people lie under oath to get plea deals all the time but it is a serious matter. And Adnan’s appeal would have gotten no traction at all if his argument was “I would have lied under oath and said I was guilty when I was not to get the plea deal.”)</p>