New trial granted!
So excited! Thanks for posting @treemaven
Sweet vindication
He is guilty. Adnan may get off. Proving guilt is not the same thing as being guilty.
I feel for the family of the deceased–having everything dredged up again and re-living the pain.
^ I agree. But if an innocent man is in prison, it is a double tragedy.
Been thinking about this comment @dstark. You’re right, guilty people sometimes go free (e.g., OJ). Also, sometimes people who did not do the crime go to prison. Adnan could be another OJ. But, in a new trial, all of the evidence (everything you or me could possibly have read, plus more) will be presented. Why assume that if a jury makes a different decision, it’s predetermined to be wrong?
People are going to be asked what happened 15 years later. That’s tough for the prosecution.
@Snowdog, you are relying on entertainment programs to form opinions.
The show How to Make A Murderer…
That guy is guilty too. 
I know there are innocent people behind bars…
Not in these cases though…
Wow, dstark. How can you be so definitive? It pretty much always take some publicity and faith to get the innocent freed following a wrongful conviction. I imagine in the majority of those cases the victim’s family always feels they are being overlooked and that they have lost when the conviction is overturned… It has to be comforting to believe the perpetrator is caught and behind bars. But as you do concede that sometimes it is the innocent stuck behind bars, that would be a false sense of comfort.
In neither of these two cases has the ''evidence" made much sense—especially when the “evidence” not given to the jury is considered. In Adnan’s case, if all the pertinent information is presented, all the people who actually have information to give are actually interviewed and called to testify, and the junk science acknowledged for what it can/cannot do, then perhaps the evidence will actually make sense and a real finding of guilt or not proven will result.
The fact that he is not remorseful, therefore he is a horrible, wicked person is not a very good barometer for anyone to use. After all, an innocent person is not going to appear remorseful for something he/she didn’t do.
And, really, Jay’s “testimony” ? Can anyone really believe him about much of anything?
Sure, it will be harder for memories to be be clear 15 years post-facto. But is that any reason to not take another look on the off-chance that someone who has steadfastly maintained his innocence for 15+ years might actually BE innocent?
@treemaven, did you read the transcripts of Adnan’s trial?
Yes.
As a lawyer, I’m sure you are aware that depending on strategies and rulings not all information pertinent to a case gets into evidence, not all evidentiary rulings are correct (if you’ve never lost a motion you should have won or never won a motion you should have lost, then you are one very special attorney
@treemaven, I don’t disagree with your post #410.
I am not a lawyer. I hired lawyers. Some are better than others.
If you get the wrong judge, you can be screwed.
I know this from my limited experience. 
We will see what happens.
Oops, sorry about the mistake, dstark.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
If anyone wants a similar listen
I just listened to a 4 part mystery on the podcast
“Reply All” - it had a series called “on the inside”.
Not as detailed as Serial but an interesting listen. Discussions about Autism and crime.
No, I’m not. I am relying on a judge, who formerly ruled against Adnan (and can therefore be thought to be impartial and not subject to entertainment), and has now ruled that the process by which he was convicted was flawed.