<p>@Notelling, I think the plea deal argument is just a matter of appellate lawyers presenting the only legally viable argument they’ve got. It’s a reaction to an intervening Supreme Court decision related to ineffective assistance of counsel and plea negotiations.</p>
<p>Calmom: But wouldn’t he have to present evidence to support the ineffective assistance argument – that the attorney’s error caused harm, because he would have taken a plea deal if one had been offered? </p>
<p>I haven’t looked at the papers, but an admission that he would have pled guilty would be significant to me. It is inconsistent with the podcast’s message that he has consistently maintained his innocence over 15 years. Saying in an affidavit: “I would have admitted guilt” is not maintaining innocence.</p>
<p>That being said, this may just be naivety on my part. The system seems to tolerate winks and nods about admissions of guilt in connection with guilty pleas. (I do understand the point about the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel but my point is that there had to have been some proffer that the error would have mattered).</p>
<p>There’s something called an “Alford” plea, which is when a defendant maintains innocence but accepts an offer to plead guilty to a lesser offense (with lesser sentence) because the prosecution’s evidence makes a conviction on on a more serious charge likely. In other words: Adnan was facing a certain life sentence if convicted of murder, and he was unable to account for his own whereabouts on the day in question – so if he had been offered the opportunity to plead guilty to manslaughter for a shorter sentence – at least in theory he might have opted to take the plea.</p>
<p>But right now the point is that’s the only claim the appellate court is interested. I think the lawyers raised other issues about ineffective assistance of counsel, but the plea issue is the only one the appellate court seems to think has potential merit. </p>
<p>But the bottom line is that a defendant does not have to admit guilt in order to plead guilty. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is what happened with the boys in the West Memphis Three case. They were very clearly innocent but this was the only way they were ever going to get out of prison after more than 18 years.</p>
<p>Interesting commentary. I have my own theory (based on no evidence) that Jay was the one who got a ride downtown from Hae, led her probably inadvertently into a situation well over his head, and she was in the wrong place at the wrong time with some scary people, such as Jay’s drug suppliers.</p>
<p>But that’s neither here nor there, really…my takeaway from this story is that the police are not, contrary to what I always thought,searching for the truth. If they were there would not have been, for example, hours of unrecorded interviews with Jay. </p>
<p>What I got from this is that the truth is nice but it’s not a requirement. The police are looking for a narrative that a prosecutor can sell to a jury. I find that incredibly scary and it’s the reason organizations such as the Innocence Project exist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would Jay be asking for a ride when he was in possession of Adnan’s car? Where would Adnan’s car be during that episode? Where would Jay have been to ask for a ride? At the school? Would he have intercepted her someplace off the school grounds? And if so, how would he have managed to hook up with Adnan again to take Adnan back to school for track practice? </p>
<p>And why would Hae give Jay a ride? Jay was Adnan’s friend, not Hae’s.</p>
<p>
Back when I was practicing law, it was fairly unusual for any witness statements to be recorded. Typically I would be provided with written summaries of witness statements. It was more common for a suspect’s statements to be recorded, but even that was not universal.</p>
<p>The last criminal case I handled was in the early 90’s – so things may have changed since then in terms of routine police practices, along with changes in technology. But, given my experience, I would see the recording of so many hours of Jay’s statements as a lucky break for the defense – they had more to work with because of the various changes and inconsistencies.</p>
<p>In fact, if the police had been using unrecorded time to work with Jay to concoct a story, I would have expected the stories to be more consistent. They’d get it right the first time and stick to a consistent sequence of events.</p>
<p>Interrogations and witness statements ought to be recorded from start to finish. Otherwise who knows what mischief the interrogators might get up to in attempt to nail the person they are convinced is guilty?</p>
<p>Jay gave an interview here: <a href=“Exclusive: Jay, Key Witness from 'Serial' Tells His Story for First Time, Part 1 - The Intercept”>https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-wilds-star-witness-adnan-syed-serial-case-pt-1/</a></p>
<p>Yet another version of the story.</p>
<p>I see why the jury convicted Adnan.</p>
<p>And it just confirms my suspicions of Jay’s personal motive for providing motive, opportunity, and working out a timeline to satisfy the detectives. Jay felt he had a lot to lose if he didn’t deliver sufficiently. 
</p>
<p>So will have to continue to agree to disagree. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are a lot of things that “ought” to be.</p>
<p>Sometimes people aren’t willing to talk on tape.</p>
<p>In my state it’s illegal for anyone to be taped without their knowledge, so if they passed a law requiring that police record all statements from all witnesses all the time… then it would probably be a lot harder for police to get anyone to talk to them.</p>
<p>I should have been more precise. I think they should have recorded the long sessions with Jay. He was a suspect, so that should be OK. </p>
<p><a href=“http://viewfromll2.com”>http://viewfromll2.com</a>
- detailed and credible blogging from a lawyer who is not involved with the case</p>
<p>I wonder why Jay is talking now. </p>
<p>In the recent interview, Jay admits to perjury. And the location of some crucial events changes yet again!
I find the analysis at View From LL2 detailed and authoritative.
By the way, Jay and Hae knew each other better than it would seem. Jay was dating Hae’s best friend, and Hae was aware that Jay was cheating on her. </p>
<p>One of the comments from that blog states that the police had an official accounting of the contents of Hae’s car the day before Jay took them to it? This case just gets ‘curiouser and curiouser’. </p>
<p>I think this last interview with Jay is a bit of a mess. I don’t mind the changing timelines so much. Eyewitness testimony is often this way. But, he admits to lying to the police and lying under oath. Even though lying both times, he presented a compelling testimony to the police, jury, and the prosecution. He is obviously a very successful and convincing fabricator. He gives some detail about Adnan’s personality and attitude after the break-up, which contrasted with what others said, even though he was a “casual acquaintance.” I suspect he is a borderline personality who is able to spin convincing stories. </p>
<p>My current theory is that the police knew where the car was–Jay didn’t tell them–but needed a “friend” of Jay’s to help them convict the guy they were sure had done it. Maybe Adnan did, maybe he didn’t, but Jay has so many different versions of the story that the only thing I’m sure of at this point is that he was covering his own tuchis and didn’t give a damn about the truth or anything else. </p>