As I am listening…many of the discrepancies don’t seem material to me. The address where the car was found was at 300 Edgewood. Jen says 600 Edgewood. So what? So somebody is mistaken or wrote the wrong address.
Also…does the timeline have to be perfect to convict? Isn’t this important? I saw the body in a trunk. We buried the body at xxx. Even if the dates are wrong about certain things…the guy wasn’t late to a class on xx date…it was xxx date…so what? Who cares if somebody ate french fries and the wrapper wasn’t found. Maybe the wrapper blew out the car window.
Some of the details don’t seem that important to me.
Calmom, I think Snowdog is talking a follow-on podcast called Undisclosed regarding Adnan’s case that is made by the lawyer who is his biggest champion and i believe with full cooperation of the defense team. The defense lawyers are definitely involved in that. Snowdog was not talking about Serial.
I wonder if we should start a separate thread for Serial Season 2 to avoid confusiob?
The autopsy showed that Hae hadn’t eaten in many hours on the day she was murdered. The state claims Adnan killed her within minutes after she was seen eating fries by a witness. The autopsy also showed she was never placed on her side in a trunk for hours after she was killed. Meaning Jay’s “trunk pop” tale is just that.
@notelling – I know what Snowdog was talking about. It’s propaganda by a team of advocates who have cherry picked and outright misrepresented stuff on the court record and from police documents, as well as misstating and misrepresenting the law. Anyone can make a podcast and tell a bunch of lies – and you only hear one side of the story, then you might be swayed.
I really don’t want to get into this. But that didn’t happen. There is a witness who testified at trial that the victim had purchased a packaged snack of hot fries – (like chips, not cooked french fries) – but no one saw her eat them.
I’ve read the trial transcripts.
But this is all old news – stuff that has been thoroughly discussed and debunked elsewhere a long time ago.
Jay didn’t claim that she was on her side in a trunk - he testified that she was face down, arms and legs pushed behind her. The autopsy did not make any finding about what position she might have been in prior to the time livor mortis fixed, which would have likely happened at a point 6-12 hours post-mortem – there is no possible way any examination of a body 4 weeks post mortem could have determined anything one way or another about early movement of the body. I’ve read the autopsy report; I’ve read the testimony of the medical examiner and forensic anthropologist at both trials.
These are not claims that were ever raised on any of Syed’s many appeals – for good reason. They simply have no merit.
The transcript of Bowe Bergdahl’s article 32 hearing is also available online - that’'s an easier read, only 1 volume of about 330 pages. I haven’t had time to read that yet, however - I just skimmed through the prosecutor’s opening statement and defense attorney’s closing statement.
If you’ve listened to Undisclosed, read about all the evidence they’ve uncovered, and read Adnan’s appellate brief, it is almost impossible to think he should have been convicted. There is 0 evidence of his guilt. None. The cellphone “evidence” was made up. Hae’s very suspect boyfriend at the time had an alibi that appears to have been fabricated. Whether or not he is the actual killer is beside the point - the police did a terrible job investigating this case and there is good reason to think that the case will now be sent back for a new trial. I also listened to episode 1 of Serial season 2 and it was good, I’m going to stick with it.
Yes, and then if you read the ACTUAL trial transcripts --and the Appellate court OPINIONS (and maybe prosecution briefs for added measure) – and top it off with reading police reports and witness interviews… you get an entirely different side of the story.
OF COURSE if you only read the stuff that the defense lawyers have put out you are going to get a skewed view of things.
Of course, if one never looks for exonerating evidence . . . .
If not for the defense attorneys and loved ones, who else is there to push or care?
Perhaps there is nothing missing from the police reports or trial transcripts, but if there is . . . . ? Junk ‘science’ and evershifing star witness statements are a poor foundation for throwing away someone’s life.
I’d be interested in your comments on the bail hearing @Calmom. For example, a year mysteriously being added to Adnan’s age (17 at the time), so that the judge did not realize he was a minor, therefore could not have committed a capital crime in Maryland, and would have been much more likely to have received bail and access at home to both his family, for support, and his attorneys (who then wasted months trying to correct that mistake and obtain bail, rather than preparing for trial). I imagine the police interview documents don’t state that they kept their detainee from access to the attorney his family had hired while they questioned him, despite said attorney’s repeated requests for access to his client.
That attorney, who is not part of the Undisclosed ‘team,’ sounded highly credible to me when interviewed, and his statements about studies that have been done with regard to the effects of incarceration on trial results were fascinating.
I’ll just say this, and it relates to more more than this case including personal experience. Anyone who has the idea that in general, police officers are trying mainly to get to the truth, as opposed to finding someone that they can easily build a case against, is extremely naive and has been watching too much TV.
Snowdog, it would have been extraordinarily unlikely for anyone to have been granted bail in the circumstances: a charge of first degree murder; the body concealed, the defendant with overseas contacts. I have certainly never seen anyone granted bail in such circumstances in my career. Maryland law mandated that he be charged as an adult for a homicide. Police also are under no legal obligation to give an attorney access to a client prior to booking, nor are they required to stop questioning a suspect unless that person specifically exercises their rights and asks for an attorney. That’s why I always made sure that my clients had several of my business cards and a very clear understanding of what to do in the event of arrest before they were taken into custody. Before arrest was also the one sliver of opportunity that there may have been to open the door to bail.
But usually when you see bail in a first degree murder case, it’s a situation where the police were on the scene immediately and the defendant has been continually cooperative with authorities-- not necessarily giving statements, but certainly making himself available from the start, either directly or through a lawyer. That’s something you typically see where there is a claim of self defense or accidental shooting. But not when some teenage girl is strangled and her body is dumped in the woods.
@dstark I was referring to the attorney the family hired after the arrest. Given that (I am surely not using the correct terminology) there has been a new hearing granted with regard to ineffective assistance of counsel, it’s not just Adnan’s friends who think the trial attorney may have done a poor job. Even if you think Undisclosed is fiction (not sure how you got there Dstark but that’s fine) - there seem to be so many avenues that she never investigated. Basic things like whether witness statements matched up with where they possibly could have been on the dates in question. The fact that the detectives in this case had been censured numerous times for withholding exculpatory evidence and lying about payments to jailhouse snitches (I know, you’ll tell me ‘not relevant.’). And of course, paramount, the crucial cell tower “evidence” that had no basis in fact and that AT&T said at the time could not be used to determine location. I’ll stop there. The podcast is free.
Anyway - I can’t disagree with you Calmom, you are an attorney and I’m clearly not. But what you state above about the law in Maryland and granting of bail is diametrically opposed to what Maryland attorney Rabia Chaudry, Professor of law Colin Miller, and attorney Susan Simpson state in the podcast. To take one example. The fact that Jay Wilds confessed to being an accessory to murder before the fact - yes, a teenage girl dumped in the woods - and never spent so much as a day in jail, and has admitted since that he lied numerous times under oath. It’s incredibly disturbing.
