<p>I understand she started with just a few in the can and is working on it as we listen. </p>
<p>She did not as a a month or so ago. She was on the Slate Gist podcast and at that point she was still working on the coming week’s episode (I think that was either just prior to or right after the Innocence project one). She had lots of tape - the interviews were conducted over the past year (she visited Jay at home before the first Serial episode was released) and she has all this tape and a general outline of how she wants to spread out the story. But on that podcast she said she was only 60 or 70% sure of how the Serial story arc would end.</p>
<p>That’s what I figured, that it was a combination of both.</p>
<p>nottelling, I am not sure at all. If Adnan says he didn’t do it, then he couldn’t implicate Jay. But maybe it’s because Jay was part of Adnan’s alibi – we were at the mall getting Steph a present or smoking weed or whatever – that they started looking into him.</p>
<p>Also, if anyone is hesitant to listen to the Spoilers series, trust me, you leave just as confused! lol </p>
<p>Against my better judgment, I listened to the one from T’giving week, where they talked about things they learned from other social media (that’s a departure for the podcast), but even that episode didn’t tell me anything important. It was interesting – who in the cast of characters has his/her own blog, etc. – but it was nothing shocking or definitive. I agree that there likely will never be THE smoking gun that tells us definitively who killed Hae.</p>
<p>Sarah Koenig will be on Colbert tonight. </p>
<p>OK, anyone else listen yet?</p>
<p>OK, I’ll go first.</p>
<p>I am frustrated that there is one more episode so I know she can’t possibly hit on everything I need her to hit. And I can’t decide whether that is part of her “story-telling” or she’s incompetent or what. In this episode, why didn’t she ask Adnan about the “I’m going to kill her” (or whatever it said) writing at the top of the note??? If she asked and he didn’t want to talk about it, then tell us that. If she hasn’t asked, she’s nuts. </p>
<p>I had forgotten about that. </p>
<p>I don’t really understand Adnan. He seems great now - but stealing from the Mosque , smoking weed -etc… Those things make me nervous. I am such a rule follower and people pleaser -I can’t relate</p>
<p>The Amnesia stuff was interesting </p>
<p>I’m not sure even after 11 episodes whether or not Adnan is guilty, but I don’t think there is any doubt that he shouldn’t have been convicted. There is so much reasonable doubt in this case.</p>
<p>? The prosecution had a witness who testified that Adnan admitted killing Hae and asked him to help bury the body. Assuming that the jury believed that witness… what impediment would there be to conviction?</p>
<p>I agree with Calmom; the evidence against Adnan is very, very strong. There’s strong, compelling eyewitness testimony against him. The only issues concern Jay’s credibilty, and, while there are relatively minor inconsistencies that could potentially call into question his credibility, there is strong corroborating evidence to bolster his credibility. This is NOT a circumstantial evidence case (though some circumstantial evidence in some other cases, like DNA evidence in some circumstances, can be very strong). This is a case with DIRECT evidence of guilt – Adnan’s own admission of guilt to Jay plus Adnan’s having Hae’s body in the trunk of the car. It’s the kind of evidence that used to considered the gold standard. </p>
<p>I wonder how listeners would feel if Jay had been willing to give a taped interview to SK? There are a lot of missing voices in Serial, some by choice, some by circumstance. It makes for a very compelling broadcast, but the story we are hearing is not the same story the jurors heard. Even the bits and pieces of the trial that SK has played are only tiny excerpts from a very long trial. </p>
<p>Was that witness mentioned on Serial? If so, I must have missed that on whatever episode covered it. Obviously, we are not hearing everything that took place in a weeks long trial, but even at that, relying on Jay’s version of events, and that seems to be what happened, how do you reconcile all the lying that happened? The problems with the timeline were also an issue. </p>
<p>After recently watching the Paradise Lost documentaries about the West Memphis Three, perhaps I’m more skeptical than I used to be. That case was simply an appalling example of the so-called justice system.</p>
<p>Re: my above comment. I’m assuming now that you’re talking about Jay. I initially thought you meant an additional witness. I didn’t find him credible, from what I heard on the tapes. The inconsistencies in his story each time he told it, the lying that he admitted, the timeline, it just isn’t convincing beyond a reasonable doubt to me. As I said, Adnan may, indeed, be guilty but from the limited information and testimony we have, strictly from Serial, there’s a lot of reasonable doubt, in my opinion.</p>
<p>Are people often convicted of murder on the basis of one witness? I have never thought about it to be honest</p>
<p>One direct witness is a lot better than what is available in many cases. Often there is only circumstantial evidence. Fingerprints and DNA can’t tell you whether or not a given person committed a crime --at best they can only tell you whether that person was present at the crime scene or had physical contact with the victim, but even that generally can’t be narrowed down as to specific time. </p>
<p>It’s quite unusual for there to be multiple direct witnesses to a murder, especially a premeditated one. (Criminals generally try to avoid being seen). When it does happen, it’s going to be rare for the case to go to trial as opposed to being settled by a plea agreement-- or else when it goes to trial, it’s not a matter of figuring out who did the killing, but whether or not the killing was justified or mitigated (such as with a claim of self-defense).</p>
<p>@alwaysamom – most of the “timeline” is a distraction. For example, I find the whole issue of whether or not there was a pay phone at Best Buy to be irrelevant. I mean, maybe Jay lied about Best Buy and he met Adnan somewhere else that he didn’t want to tell the police --so what? </p>
<p>The bottom line is that there is a very narrow time window during with Hae disappeared: she left the high school to pick up her cousin from preschool, and she never turned up at the preschool. Her disappearance does not have to coincide with her death - she could have been abducted then but killed later on – but something happened within that time interval. So the question is who had the opportunity to have intercepted her during that time, and who had motive. (It’s unlikely to be a crime committed by a stranger, because Jay knows too much - the “stranger” would then also have to be someone known to Jay). Anything occurring outside that time frame contributes to the narrative, but is ultimately not material in terms of figuring out who intercepted and/or killed Hae. </p>
<p>What’s an alternative plausible theory as to what happened to Hae, within that time frame?</p>
<p>The only alternative theory I have is that Jay, plus possibly other person or persons, killed Hae. Jay knew far too muchn not to have been involved at all. But then how did Adnan’s phone get to Leakin Park? And why doesn’t Adnan throw Jay under the bus-- how does Adnan say that Jay knew where Hae’s car was? And if Jay killed Hae, why? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One theory that I heard discussed was that Hae came upon Jay and another girl (Jen maybe?) getting cozy in the best buy parking lot. Hae threatened to tell Stephanie, and Jay tried to stop her and ended up killing her not necessarily on purpose. Jay and the other person then went on to frame Andan. </p>
<p>What would Hae have been doing in the Best Buy parking lot? She was supposed to be picking up her cousin.</p>