New Podcast "Serial"

nottelling · December 30, 2014, 6:34pm

I just looked at Adnan’s appeal from his conviction. (The original appeal). His lawyers did NOT argue that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. (These are different lawyers than the trial lawyer, and the briefing is well done). Not saying that this means anything, but it is interesting to me that the appellate lawyers looking at the entire record didn’t think this argument was worth making. (Whether the evidence was sufficient was the focus of the podcast and discussions here).

I agree that Jay’s interview raises additional questions, and that his casual admission of perjury is very troubling.

nottelling · December 30, 2014, 6:54pm

I should add that the reason the appellate lawyers would not have made a “lack of sufficient evidence” argument is because credibility determinations are for the jury to make and the jury found Jay’s testimony credible.

However, the argument the podcast makes, and expressed by those here and elsewhere, is that Jay’s testimony was so riddled with holes that it was legally insufficient to support a verdict.

In legal terms, the argument is that “Jay’s testimony was so riddled with holes that the credibility determination should have bern taken away from the jury and Jay’s testimony should have been found to be legally insufficient as a matter of law.”

My point in the prior post is that the appellate lawyers did not think that this argument was worth making.

calmom · December 30, 2014, 7:12pm

As a legal matter, there really can be no claim of “insufficient evidence” in a case like this, where there is a witness who testified that (a) the accused admitted killing the victim, (b) the accused showed the witness the body of the victim, and © the accused asked for help burying the body.

The witness may very well be lying, but only the jury can decided that --the appellate court cannot second guess the testimony of a witness. The only exception would be in a situation where the witness later recanted, or some sort of irrefutable physical evidence emerged (such as a case where the eyewitness identification of a rapist is refuted by DNA evidence).

So you simply can’t have a claim that the prosecution had a weak case or lacked evidence. There can be all sorts of other claims, including claims that the jury should have been allowed to hear other facts or evidence that might have cast doubt on Jay’s credibility – but “insufficient evidence” isn’t one of them.

There’s a pretty big difference legally, because if a case is reversed on ground of insufficient evidence, it can’t be tried again under double jeopardy rules. That is, if the appellate court determines that as of the close of the prosecution’s case, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law, then the defendant is held to be entitled to a verdict of acquittal.

The other claims fall under the umbrella of “unfair trial” – something happened that rendered the process unfair, so the defendant is or may be entitled to a new trial.

Because of that difference, appellate lawyers will always raise a claim of insufficient evidence if there is any possibility of prevailing on that argument – but again, the direct witness testimony in this case means that claim was not available.

treemaven · December 30, 2014, 7:35pm

My view has been that Jay’s testimony (taken in toto) was not sufficiently credible to remove all reasonable doubt (for this arm chair juror), which would mean I would find the remaining evidence insufficient for a guilty verdict.

But for those of whom find Jay sufficiently credible (the original jury and most of you all here), the evidence was sufficient.

On appeal it is very, very difficult to impeach the jury and its verdict. Merely alleging ‘insufficient evidence’ would be an attempt to impeach the verdict. If that motion were to be made (and have any hope of succeeding), it would have to be made before the judge gave the case to the jury (ie., a request for directed verdict).

nottelling · December 30, 2014, 8:32pm

Yes, I understand that. However, in response to the podcast, many here and in published media reports have suggested or stated that courts SHOULD HAVE concluded that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict Adnan. In considering whether the Court of Appeal should have reached that conclusion, the very first question is, “Did Adnan (through his lawyers) ask the Court to make that ruling?” Looking at the appellate briefs, the answer is no – they did not ask the court to do so (for the very reasons you state).

In other words, the reason that his appellate lawyers did not contend, on appeal, that the evidence was insufficient was because (contrary to opinions expressed here and elsewhere), the evidence WAS legally sufficient to convict him as a matter of law because credibility determinations are for the jury.

Cardinal_Fang · December 30, 2014, 10:00pm

Suppose that it was discovered that the police had known where Hae’s car was, were convinced of Adnan’s guilt, and suborned perjury from Jay (who was also uninvolved) by threatening him with a drug conviction. Would that be enough evidence to reverse the result?

calmom · December 30, 2014, 10:44pm

@CardinalFang – yes, if those facts could be proven, then that would support a collateral attack on the verdict.

There are cases that have been reversed on those grounds – typically with the use of a “jailhouse informant” who testifies falsely that the accused person confessed their involvement in the crime. In those cases, sometimes the jailhouse informant is essentially a professional witness (i.e., just about everybody “confesses” to them, and jailers will arrange for them to be housed with their target)… but Jay doesn’t fit that model, because he is another high school kid, and the police would have no way of knowing that Adnan lent his car and cell phone to Jay on the day in question, but for Jay telling them that.

@Treemaven

I haven’t heard Jay’s story directly, so I can’t make a judgment as to whether he is credible or not. But at least he has testified under oath and was subjected to cross-examination; Adnan chose not to.

I have heard selected quotes from Adnan (via the jailhouse phone conversations) - but did not hear anything from him that seemed convincing as a counter-narrative to Jay’s account. The fact that Adnan seems like a nice guy and is articulate is irrelevant – most people I’ve met in prison are like that, and I was working with people charged with all sorts of horrendous stuff since I was in law school. I find it somewhat troubling that SK apparently never once visited Adnan in prison, but was content to handle all communications through phone contact – that pretty much put the timing and content of all communications within Adnan’s control. Certainly as a lawyer I would have wanted face-to-face conversations with my clients and with witnesses - it just seems that part of the process of sizing someone up and making a judgement as to credibility is the ability to look them in the face as they are speaking. (I know that it’s fairly easy for a journalist to arrange to visit a prisoner, and I don’t recall SK ever offering a reason that she chose not to visit).

I am not troubled by inconsistencies in the narrative of any witness outside the specific time frame of Hae’s disappearance and the time that Jay claims the Leakin Park burial took place – that’s pretty typical for any case – people get fuzzy on details and confused. Jay’s first interview with the police took place about 6 weeks after the murder and he’s known to be a stoner – so I’d expect that he would have a pretty vivid memory of seeing the body and the events surrounding the burial, but no particular reason to remember details from the rest of the day. I would not expect anyone to be particularly accurate about reporting times – people rarely are, unless there is a specific appointment they can tie it too. The Leakin Park cell phone ping seems pretty damning, given that it seems to corroborate Jay’s account of the burial, and Adnan seems to concede that he had been reunited with his cellphone by evening hours. I think the Asia “alibi” is bogus, both because she later retracted and because she relates her memory to an event that did not take place that day (snowstorm).

FWIW, I have no particular reason to believe anything took place in the Best Buy parking lot-- Jay might not have wanted to reveal the actual location where he met Adnan in order to protect others or avoid leading the cops to a site connected to his drug-dealing activity. He might have simply come up with the Best Buy story because it was a public place that he was familiar enough with to plug it into his story.

treemaven · December 31, 2014, 4:49am

So, Calmom, are you saying that because Adnan did not testify, he is reasons for not doing so are are suspect??? As an attorney, surely that isn’t what you are saying.

I totally get that witnesses often have discrepancies when repeating statements and recounting events. However, Jay’s discrepancies entail total changes in locations, timelines, people, and events go way beyond mere discrepancies in detail. They are often entirely different stories and events, often irreconcilable. But, eventually —over time, additional interrogation and information provided by the detectives coalesce into a nice neat timeline encouraged and coached by the detectives’ leading statements that Jay merely agrees with.

It is precisely this fluidity of Jay’s evolving story regarding the surrounding events that gives me pause about the truth of what he says occurred during the critical time period. He has admitted to quite a few lies, so why should I believe his ‘most important’ statements, especially when he had so much incentive to provide the detectives with someone else and remove himself from the central role? He didn’t just mis-remember some of the details, he flat out lied about them. For the longest time, over several interviews, he insisted Adnan called him (on Adnan’s cell phone) at 3:40 to pick Adnan up. Only after the detectives showed him that there was no 3:40 call on Adnan’s phone log did he change to 2:36 being the pick up call— and thus THE timeline is established.

Adnan said he would probably have been at the mosque between 7and 9 during that time (Ramadan). Jay could have still had the car and phone while he was busy at the mosque. No one was really asked about Adnan’s whereabouts until 6 weeks or so later. His father said he was at the mosque, but no one could swear yes or no. It just wasn’t memorable enough.

What do you remember about your whereabouts and specific activities on any given day 6 weeks ago? What about those of your friends and family? What about one week ago? I can probably say what I would normally be doing, but not sure how precise I could be. As teenagers, my twenty somethings were, and still are, especially unconcerned about cataloging their activities---- even on days where things happen and they’ve interacted with any number of friends and acquaintances.

And it seems no one was too concerned about Hae until a week or so after that day. ( I still can’t reconcile that statement that is made often with the one saying the police were calling around looking for her that same evening. I thought missing persons reports weren’t taken until at least 24-hours unless it’s a young child or senior/disabled person.). So, it really was at least a week before any one realized there was anything about that day that was significant by which to mark their own activities

Jay certainly had very detailed information regarding the burial events, a degree of detail that is missing in so much of the rest of his events recount. So I certainly believe Jay was present at that event. But that doesn’t mean I must
necessarily accept his inclusion of Adnan being there just because Jay says he was.

calmom · December 31, 2014, 6:11am

No, I’m saying that I don’t give much credence to what he tells people in phone calls. The prisons are full of people who claim to be innocent; most of them aren’t. But they all have stories to tell.

People aren’t clocks, and they don’t experience time consistently. There is no particular reason for Jay to have had any particular memory of specific times, especially given the fact that he apparently was stoned much of the time and he didn’t talk to the police until 6 weeks after the event. So if he thought something happened at 3:40 pm and a prosecutor showed him a log and managed to get him to admit that it could have been 2:36… I view that discrepancy as being insignificant. It’s typical in investigating an event that witnesses are wildly divergent when it comes to reporting times and durations. The more significant demarcations are daylight / dusk/ night, because people are more likely to agree on whether it was light or dark.

I don’t know why the prosecutor focused on the 5 second incoming 2:36 call – I think the “pick me up” call was more likely the 20 second incoming call at 3:15 pm.

I don’t know why the police were so quick to get involved, but that evidence is uncontroverted – the cop who made the call testified, Adnan doesn’t deny receiving the call, and other witnesses testified as to his reaction when he got the call - so obviously that call was made. Apparently it was one of three incoming calls between 6:07 and 6:24 pm. So that establishes that Adnan is in possession of his cell phone by 6:24pm at the latest.

The Leakin Park cell phone pings are at 7:09, 7:16, and 10:02. Cell phone log: <a href=“Cell Phone Call Log”>Cell Phone Call Log - Serial;
Cell tower map: <a href=“Cell Tower Map”>Cell Tower Map;

By 7pm it’s already well after dark, so again, I don’t think time confusion is very significant.

calmom · December 31, 2014, 7:17am

@Treemaven – I’d add this: Adnan was CONVICTED. Prior to conviction, the state had the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Post conviction, the burden is on Adnan (or his lawyers) to prove his case. He has the burden of showing cause why his initial conviction should be reversed. Post conviction, he is legally presumed guilty.

I’m looking at this case through the eyes of a lawyer, mostly from the standpoint of the current procedural stance. I haven’t heard anything that would make me feel that he’s got a significant chance of convincing a judge to give him a new trial.

If I try to cast myself back in time and look at the case through the eyes of a trial lawyer, then I’d want to know what Adnan’s account of events was, as told to his lawyers, before he had 15 years to think about it. I’d see this is a difficult case to defend, dependent entirely on discrediting Jay’s claim that Adnan admitted the killing, showed him the body, and asked for help burying her. All the rest is pretty much irrelevant.

And as a trial lawyer, if I thought the prosecution case had come in strong, I would damn well see it as my responsibility to provide the jury with a counter-narrative. At trial, it’s not proof beyond all doubt or proof beyond any doubt – it’s proof beyond a “reasonable” doubt, and “reasonable” is going to equate with notions of likelihood or plausibility.

HImom · December 31, 2014, 7:53am

Per what I heard of Serial, Adman could not remember most of the day that Hae disappeared, even tho the police called him that evening that she disappeared. I would think a call from the police might make one think carefully about the events of the day. This was much sooner than the one week and of course closer in time to when she disappeared than when her body was found 6 weeks later.

I really feel for Hae’s family. I’m sure all of this publicity has been extremely painful to them and reopened horrible wounds for them.

nottelling · December 31, 2014, 3:18pm

I have a question for those of you who think Adnan should not have been convicted (or who think Adnan didn’t do it.)

Obviously, the jury heard Jay’s testimony and despite all the inconsistencies believed Jay. And the judge believed Jay too. And under our current legal system that credibility determination is for the jury to make. In legal terms, the evidence was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that Adnan was guilty. That’s not in question. If his lawyers had tried to challenge his conviction by saying that the evidence was not sufficient to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they would have lost.

So, for those of you who disagree with the verdict, are you saying, either:

(1)" If I had been on the jury, based on what I know, I would have reached a different conclusion (but his conviction should stand)"; or

(2)" Adnan should NOT have been convicted (and therefore there should be (or should have been) a legal remedy on appeal). His conviction should be (or should have been) overturned."

In other words, do you believe a reviewing court should be able to make a credibility determination contrary to the jury’s in situations like the one here?

That would be a radical departure from long-settled law, and would effect a fundamental change in our legal system. I really want to stress this, because this point seems to have gotten lost in the commentary on the case.

Or, are you saying something else, other than one of those two points? Like, perhaps, even though there was sufficient evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor should have exercised discretion and not brought the case?

Snowdog · December 31, 2014, 7:06pm

The lawyer who hosts the View from LL2 blog notes in her post “Serial: Why the Nisha Call Shows That Hae Was Murdered at 3:32 p.m.” that there is just one thing that Jay has stuck to all the way through (pretty much every other aspect has changed in some large or small detail): an alibi for 3:40 pm. On that he has never wavered. For reasons she articulates well (better than I can try to regurgitate here), including the timelines of Hae sitings before the wrestling match, she thinks that the murder occurred at about that time - not within minutes of school getting out per the prosecution’s timeline.

@cardinal fang - I believe the current thinking is to try to show ineffective counsel (Adnan’s lawyer did not contact Asia McLain for a possible alibi (yes she recanted but on the show, she un-recanted); did not insist on DNA testing of physical evidence, and so forth).

calmom · December 31, 2014, 8:20pm

I also think that the prosecution’s time line is questionable – but again, the jury did not have to buy that timeline to convict. I think the 3:15 call is much more likely the “come and get me” call, and the Nisha call at 3:32pm was in fact Adnan calling Nisha after he had been reunited with his cell phone. The jury heard Jay testify that Adnan had called her; and Nisha also testified that she had received a call from Adnan when he was with Jay.

Juries very often scrutinize and reevaluate evidence and come to different conclusions than the lawyers. Sometimes it helps the defense, and sometimes it helps the prosecution. Sometimes the jurors are making improper conclusions-- for example, based on a misunderstanding of science or statistical information- but very often there are people on the jury who are smart and really are simply seeing something that the lawyers have missed. Even if they are mistaken, however – there is usually nothing that can be done about it – there are a lot of thing that jurors are prohibited from doing, but simply making errors or misunderstanding key evidence is not subject to challenge later on.

It seems to me that people are operating on the assumption that if there is evidence that could support a reasonable doubt, the jury was obligated to accept that theory. That’s not how it works. The jurors decide whether THEY have a reasonable doubt, based on evaluation of all the evidence. They are free to reject potential alternative explanations as being “unreasonable” simply because they don’t buy it as anything reasonably likely to happen. The View from LL2 blog post about the time is based on speculation, with the assumption that the Nisha call is a butt dial made in the course of the assault. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that. (I have a hard time believing that blogger has actual trial experience, as she doesn’t seem to understand the normal discrepancies in witness testimony or how juries typically go about their task).

Has anyone in this thread actually served on a criminal jury? When the case is submitted to the jury, the jury will typically try to make sense of the testimony and evidence they have. They ordinarily won’t acquit because of reasonable doubt based on random bits of unexplained evidence – for an acquittal, the doubt usually needs to make sense to them, as a plausible alternate explanation of what happened, or at least as a plausible explanation of why the perpetrator might be someone other than the accused. It’s possible to hang a jury with less – to get one or two jurors who will refuse to vote to convict because of some stray piece of evidence that just doesn’t fit with the prosecution’s theory … but it’s not going to happen with 12 jurors. If the 12 jurors are going to reach a consensus, they will need to be able to build their own case for reasonable doubt, not just a series of random, disconnected hypotheticals.

The problem with the butt dial argument is that it is a way to try to explain away a piece of very damning evidence – if that is the only damning piece of evidence, that might work. But when a case goes to jury and there are multiple pieces of damning evidence, all of which need to be explained away by different hypothetical scenarios going against the plain sense, most-likely interpretation of the evidence - it’s not going to work. The jury just hears a chain of implausible, unconvincing excuses – and if anything, it probably reinforces the strength of the prosecution’s case.

In other words, if the Nisha call were the crux of the prosecution’s case – if, for example, there was no testimony from Jay and the prosecution was trying to build it’s entire case from cell tower records and phone records-- and Adnan’s defense was that he didn’t have his phone with him for most of the day – then the butt dial theory might be the basis for reasonable doubt. In my state, jurors are instructed that with circumstantial evidence, if there are two or more reasonable explanations for the evidence, they must adopt the explanation that is consistent with evidence.

But in this case they have Jay’s testimony that after he met up with Adnan, Adnan made a call to some girl in Silver Springs. They have Nisha’s testimony that she remembers getting a call. The phone record is not merely circumstantial evidence of a call being made; rather it is documentary confirmation of the witness’s testimony. To get to reasonable doubt over the call – the jury has to buy into three separate arguments: (1) Jay is lying, for no apparent reason – why even mention the call if it didn’t take place? (2) Nisha is remembering some other call made at some other time, and (3) The call itself is a butt dial which somehow ended up as a billable call on the phone records. And all of that is about a collateral point that doesn’t do anything other than potentially cast doubt on Jay’s timeline and memory of events – Adnan could have killed Hae whether or not he also called Nisha.

GTalum · December 31, 2014, 8:26pm

nottelling - I would probably go with option (1). However, I wasn’t on the jury and didn’t sit through 6 weeks of testimony so who knows how I would have decided if I was on the jury. I’m not a big fan of eyewitness testimony without corroborating evidence which I don’t think the cell phone pings give me. Jay is a convincing witness, but I believe probably a pathological liar. His last interview is so detailed. I think he spins stories. That doesn’t mean Adnan didn’t do it, but I don’t see any evidence he did besides Jay’s stories.

Snowdog · December 31, 2014, 8:27pm

^ The Nisha call - in which Nisha actually spoke with Jay - occurred after he took the job at the porn video store. The prosecution conflated two separate calls (one possibly a pocket dial), purposely, it seems. If you listed to the recorded testimony on the show, the prosecutor shushes Nisha after she starts to actually discuss her conversation with Jay and attempts to mention that he was working at the video place.

The lawyer at that blog most certainly is familiar with jury rules at criminal trials.

P.S. now that the state’s star witness has admitted he committed perjury at trial, how long is everyone going to insist that this is/was pretty much all okey dokey…?

calmom · December 31, 2014, 9:18pm

@Snowdog – legally, a lie under oath is not perjury unless it is intentional (not a mistake) and also relates to material fact – if the lie is just a collateral matter, it’s not perjury.

It’s hard for me to see how the location where Adnan popped the trunk to show the body would be material under the facts of this case. That is, would it change the jury’s view of the evidence if Jay had testified that they were in front of grandmother’s house? Would it change the timelines? Or provide an different interpretation of cell phone ping evidence-- something that could have undermined Jay’s account or suggested that Adnan was not or could not have been there? It’s hard to know without knowing where the grandmother lived – but if grandma’s house is within the same general vicinity as the Best Buy it’s hard to see how it matters.

In any case, Jay has NOT admitted to perjury – he has said he lied about a fact that he considered immaterial, in order to avoid leading the cops to to the location where he kept his stash. Which sounds like the best information I’ve heard so far as to why Jay was lying about details of location and the time line seems off.

Again, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that if a witness testifies-- and some of the testimony is true and some is false – then the testimony has to be rejected in full, or that proof of the false parts would undermine the verdict. That’s not what juries are instructed – they are told that they have the option of rejecting all of the testimony if they believe some of it is false, but they are also told that is a choice that is entirely up to them. MOST testimony in most cases – at least in criminal cases - is a mixture of true & false or mistaken reporting. People’s memories are fallible and subjective, and people tend to be reluctant to admit their own wrongdoing or mistakes. They hedge on details that they find embarrassing and they tend to exaggerate on details that that they think are favorable to them.

Snowdog · December 31, 2014, 9:29pm

@calmom - yes I am under the impression that proof of the false parts (perjury) would undermine the verdict. From this article (admittedly authored by a key Adnan supporter):

<a href=“Is there still a case against Serial's Adnan Syed after Jay Wilds' interview? | Rabia Chaudry in Baltimore | The Guardian”>http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/30/-sp-case-against-serial-adnan-syed-after-jay-wilds-interview</a>

" It has always been the state’s theory of the case that Adnan and Wilds buried Lee’s body around 7pm that night; Wilds testified to that, and the state corroborated his account by pointing to two calls made at that time that “pinged” a cell phone tower in the wooded area where her body was found. Yet Wilds told The Intercept that he and Adnan buried Lee at midnight – at least five hours after he swore in court that they buried her. There are no recorded cell phone calls at that time."

I don’t think these are small details.

Plus:

“in my opinion as an attorney, there may be enough evidence for the state of Maryland to pursue a perjury charge against Wilds. There is no statute of limitations for perjury in Maryland, and it’s an offense punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Coupled with the terms of Wilds’ plea deal, which allow the state to revoke the arrangement if it was ever proven he lied about his involvement in the case (and under which Wilds served no jail time as an accessory after the fact to Lee’s murder)”

and

“Wilds’ interview, while not a sworn statement, can still be used to impeach his previous statements and credibility – and challenge the state’s version of events in any future re-trial. It could even be used as a basis – new evidence – for a new post-conviction appeal.”

Your thoughts?

treemaven · December 31, 2014, 10:02pm

As I stated, Calmom, I am not applying appellate review standards in the review of the evidence presented at trial or looking at the current procedural process. We don’t have the record in full to do that. I have clearly stated that for this exercise, I am indulging in de novo review: Did the jury really get ALL the information that is available to consider? Or was there more information that was not provided (for whatever reason) that might have altered the outcome?

I know exactly what the burden is for the jury and I know from experience that jury’s do the best they can, but also from experience that they don’t always get things right. And I know for a fact that innocent people end up charged, prosecuted, and convicted of crimes and sit in prison., stuck because of the ginormous hurdles in the post-conviction relief process.

I am not faulting this jury and I am not attempting to impeach their verdict. They were charged to render their opinion, whatever it may be, and that they did. Any twelve people on a jury, however, are not interchangable. (Note the first jury was leaning toward acquittal). That is why we have preemptive strikes and strikes for cause. That is why a whole specialty of jury consultation has evolved and that is why jury selection is considered an art and a highly respected skill for the trial attorney.

I am, however, willing to review the ALL the evidence currently available and consider whether some injustice may have occurred, whether by design or by benign neglect. Are you? If not, then there is no need for this thread, as yes, the jury verdict is sacro-sanct as to the witnesses and evidence presented AT TRIAL—which is never comprehensive, but selected by each side to put their witnesses in the best light and to fit a developed story line.

As for the writer of the LL2 blog, her credentials are there for review. I reviewed them before I ever read what she wrote. I never give credibilty to bloggers, journalists, commentators, etc., without having some frame of reference within which to place their opinions or comments. I was sufficiently satisfied that she did have experience with not just the legal system in general, but the criminal legal system. I find her blog particularly interesting in that she provides access to primary source materials. Those primary sources are even more damning of Jay’s credibility.

Over the course of 30+ years, I have taken enormous amounts of witness depositions, statements, along with formal and informal interviews—along with reading or being present for even more----- including ‘eye witnesses’, witnesses who have agendas, witnesses who have motives to lie for their own reasons, and those who have poor memories, witnesses who have to think back and dust off memories, and witnesses who simply can’t remember anything useful, both civil witnesses and criminal witnesses. Based upon all of that experience, yes, I STILL find Jay’s testimony suspect and unconvincing as being ‘the truth of what occurred at those times’. The only portions of his testimony that seem to be corroborated by other evidence (that he wasn’t first presented with prior to making his statement on the evidence) were details of the where the car was found and how Hae’s body was positioned.

The change in his cell phone timelines came, in each instance, once the detectives go ‘Ehhhh! Wrong! try again. There was no call to/from that person or that location at that time.’ And at each of those instances, Jay would re-wind and change his story to align with what the detectives said. That, to me----based upon my experiences in interviewing, reviewing witnesses–including my own kids—gives me reason to question whether what he stated actually happened as he said OR was tailored to give the detectives what they needed so he could get what he needed, i.e., his plea deal.

And, the mere fact that Adnan’s cell phone was somewhere does not, in and of itself, categorically mean that Adnan was WITH the cell phone. We have the information that Jay did have the phone and car for periods without Adnan’s presence. We ONLY have Jay’s word that Adnan was with him at Best Buy and in Leakin Park-----no other corroborating evidence. No one saw Adnan leave with Hae; the last person who saw Hae said she was alone in her car.

Jenn’s testimony is not corroborating as regards anything Adnan did or didn’t do outside her presence—it was only hearsay, information that JAY told HER. Therefore, you must accept Jay’s word to place Adnan at those locations, i.e., the parking lot pick-up and the burial site. And Jay’s word is soooo credible . . . . . And calling him a stoner doesn’t give him a pass for being ‘inaccurate’ on anything except what the prosecution needs to tie Adnan to the crime. We are supposed the buy that the ‘stoner’ who is such a liar or confused about everything else, has two moments of unquestionable clarity and truthfulness that are unassailable. Tell me again why he is so believable???

I know Calmom believes it is only necessary to believe Jay’s words during the ‘critical times’, i.e., his picking Adnan up from Best Buy (the site of which changes in Jay’s statements) and at the burial site. But, given that Jay lies about pretty much everything or makes it up or confuses it or is willing to say what the detectives need to make their case, what makes him so reliable about ratting Adnan out? To me, his waffling, his vagueness, his changing of locations, times, people present or called is so willy-nilly-----and so self-serving----that he has significant credibility issues. It seems one has to WANT to believe that small segment of his oft-changing narrative to believe it despite the likelihood that, if it suited him or the detectives’ story board that he’d change it again in order to keep his sweet deal.
And why does one WANT to believe it so badly as to ignore Jay’s lack of propensity for clarity and truth?

Jay was very quick to get with Jenn prior to her interview with the detectives to ‘get their stories straight’, but he never contacted Adnan to work out THEIR stories??? Why not? Jay would have far more to gain by getting he and Adnan on the same page prior to them being questioned than he would by leaving Adnan to tell a different story, if he really was involved at either scene.

Adnan has no concrete alibi or even a specific story for his activities and whereabouts the day of Hae’s disappearance. He has only some potential witnesses who were not interviewed in a timely manner, his father’s memory of him being at the mosque, and ‘probably where I was’, along with some ‘probably where Adnan was’ witnesses (e.g. the track coach). Jay, by contrast, has attempted to work out an alibi for himself with specificy, fluid and confused as it was—and continues to try to get it all worked out neatly.

Pretty stupid of Adnan to rely on something so useless as “I don’t know where I was when.” as a viable explanation for his whereabouts that day. And not very good for a person who just planned and supposedly carried out a premeditated murder on a tight time schedule.

To answer your question, nottelling, I do not know what I would have voted as an original juror because I do not have the full record of the testimony and evidence that they were presented. I cannot insert myself into that ‘bubble’, which was a very specific experience. If I had the transcript of the 6-week trial, I would have a better chance at being able to answer your question.

What I can answer is: Based upon the testimony from Jay we heard on Serial, I did not find him credible sufficiently to stake the freedom of a 17-year old on. Based upon the other evidence presented at trial that we were given on Serial, I had reasonable doubts about what happened, when, and by whom.

calmom · December 31, 2014, 10:20pm

My thought is that it is patently ridiculous to try to impeach a witnesses testimony by how he remembers the time of an event 15 years later. He didn’t say that the burial took place “at” midnight, he is quoted in the interview as saying “closer to” midnight. (We don’t have an exact transcript of the interview, so we have no clue as to context, or what may be his exact words or the interviewer’s interpretation). It was dark at 5pm that night, there was no moon, the guy was stoned – so it was probably really dark and scary that night at 7pm, and given the circumstances he probably had a stretched out perception of time anyway (minutes seeming like hours, etc.) – so I can see how he might now remember things as being later.

In any case, there is another ping from the Leakin Park cell tower shortly after 10pm – so it’s possible that Adnan went on his own to Leakin Park at around 7 with the intent of disposing of the body by himself, realized once there that he couldn’t manage it, then came back later to enlist Jay’s help.

The only thing Jay could say now that would be legally significant would be to recant on the key details - that is, to say that Adnan never said he had killed Hae, that Adnan never showed him the body, and that he did not go to Leakin Park with Adnan to help bury the body.

If you could overtiurn guilty verdicts by reinterviewing witnesses 15 years later and labeling every inconsistency a lie then there would be a lot of convicted murderers walking free. I guess that is one way California could resolve it’s prison over-crowding problem.

As far as I can tell, nothing has changed as to timelines – Jay was obviously confused and mistaken in his time estimations back then, and obviously 15 years of not thinking about this case hasn’t made him any less confused.

The lie about the grandmother’s house doesn’t do anything to suggest Adnan’s innocence-- though it does explain the changes between Jay’s first interview with the police (when he offered a different location for seeing the body in the trunk) and subsequent interviews.

New Podcast "Serial"

Related topics

CONNECT WITH US