<p>
</p>
<p>Stopping in for a quick present for her friend Stephanie’s birthday? If she knew what she was going to get it could be a quick stop. Did they have CD’s then?</p>
<p>But that would have required an unbelievable amount of luck on Jay’s part to have all of the other evidence fall into place; Adnan’s phone just happening to be in the location where body is buried; lack of an alibi for Adnan; and the other details that I can’t recall now. And why would Jay cone forward if that were the case? What a giant risk that would be!</p>
<p>One persuasive detail for me – not by itself but as a minor confirming detail – is Adnan’s complete failure to attempt to contact Hae after she disappeared. The call log shows that Adnan had spoken to her late the night before she disappeared so they were still in close contact. It strikes me as unbelievable that he would not have attempted to call her if he didn’t know she was dead. </p>
<p>My daughter and I have been listening to this podcast. We’d listened to most of it before I came upon this thread. But now, having read this thread, I think I will go back and listen to it all again. It would appear that my daughter and I have not been listening to the same series as most of you all. LOL</p>
<p>Lol, treemaven. What do you and dd think?</p>
<p>So interesting, Treemaven. What makes you say that? Would love to hear what you think!</p>
<p>Not to change the subject, but one thing I’ve been reflecting on is this: why is this podcast so much more interesting and compelling than the run-of-the-mill true crime programs that are all over tv (or at least used to be)? </p>
<p>Perhaps it is that those shows don’t really do independent investigations (though they purport to do so, I think). </p>
<p>Or perhaps it is because Sarah Koenig has been so transparent in her process that the show is as much about her reporting as it is about the underlying story of Hae’s murder.</p>
<p>But I think the biggest difference between this and other shows is that Sarah Koenig has established absolute credibility as to the genuineness of her reactions and conclusions. There is absolutely no sensationalism. There is some storytelling manipulation but it seems minimal. Most of all, we trust her to be perfectly frank with us.</p>
<p>It is really quite an amazing feat to be able to establish that level of trust with an audience. I’d love to hear others thoughts on this, both as to whether you agree with me that this is one of the distinguishing features of this series, and, if so, what it is about Koenig’s presentation that engenders such trust. </p>
<p>I think that there is a certain intimacy that the podcast format creates. It is not the same as sitting in a chair and watching something across the room, it’s more like a person is talking to you. Podcast listeners are more likely to be using earbuds or a headset, so it’s not just a voice heard from afar, it seems more like a voice inside you’re head.</p>
<p>I love “discussion or round table” type podcasts. I don’t enjoy listening to one person just talk nearly as much as I enjoy hearing good banter. I think some of it is that I am alone a large portion of my day and when I am not alone I am teaching exercise. So the conversation is geared around that. </p>
<p>The podcasts give me the conversations I enjoy -often (not always) with like minded people. </p>
<p>Which ones do you listen to? I have a long list of favorites but I’m always looking for more.</p>
<p>Many of the slates ones. I like Political Gabfest (leans a little left), Culture Gabfest, Slates Spoiler Specials, Slates Working.</p>
<p>I like BBC’s “Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo Film reviews”,
“BBC Friday night comedy” (sometimes this is too topical for me to get all the British political stuff -but I still enjoy it)</p>
<p>Simon Mayo’s “confessions” -a silly one where people write and confess their crimes (something light hearted - like childhood highjinks not real crimes) then the panel decides whether or not to forgive them. </p>
<p>NPR’s “Wait Wait Don’t Tell” me and “This American Life” </p>
<p>I occasionally listen to “stuff you should know” </p>
<p>Sometimes I will really get into one for a while and then get sick of it -then pick it up later. I love that podcasts are free and so specialized. Would love to hear what others listen to that they really enjoy</p>
<p>My absolute favorite is Judge John Hodgman. It’s a Judge Judy format, but really funny and surprisingly insightful at times.</p>
<p>Others I like:</p>
<p>EVERY EPISODE LISTENS:
Judge John Hodgman (just in case you missed it above!)
Slate DoubleX
Good Job Brain
BBC A Good Read (part of BBC Books and Authors)
PRI: To The Best of Our Knowledge
New Yorker Out Loud
New York Times Book Review
America’s Test Kitchen Radio
Stranger
This American Life
NPR Pop Culture Happy Hour
Slate Lexicon Valley
Way With Words
Slate Audio Book Club
Books on the Nightstand (this one is just okay; wouldn’t necessarily recommend it).</p>
<p>OCCASIONAL LISTENS:
Several from Slate: Political Gabfest, Cultural Gabfest, Mom and Dad Are Fighting, Working
Freakanomics Radio (drives me absolutely crazy, but I still listen sometimes)
The Moth
Ted Radio Hour
Los Angeles Public Library “aloud” (if I’m interested in the guest)
Fresh Air
Sporkful (kind of silly; will probably get sick of it soon)
KCRW Good Food
Philosophy Bites
Discovery (BBC)
Nature
Live from the NY Public Library ( have to get it through ITunesU)
Person, Place, Thing (very occasionally)
Guardian Books</p>
<p>I’ve tried many others but they haven’t stuck.</p>
<p>I will definitely try the ones on your list, Veruca, that are new to me.</p>
<p>@nottelling - Thanks. A few of those I have tried -but most I haven’t.
Thanks! I listen while I am cleaning and driving -so always good to have new ones to try</p>
<p>I have a question for @calmom and [other] criminal lawyers. (Calmom, I’m assuming you are a criminal lawyer because your comments reflect expertise in criminal law and procedure. Sorry if I’ve got that wrong!)</p>
<p>Does this case affect your thinking about whether to allow your client to take the stand? Conventional wisdom is that it is much too big a risk to allow a criminal defendant to take the stand and thus criminal defendants generally assert their Fifth Amendment rights.</p>
<p>So, here, in this case, it means the jury never heard Adnan’s voice. For the folks claiming that the evidence is so weak, imagine that the only testimony of substance you hear is Jay’s — you hear that Adnan confessed to Jay and that Jay helped Adnan bury the body. Then you hear about the evidence that corroborates Jay’s testimony. The defense is able to show inconsistencies in Jay’s story, but you never hear Adnan say, “I didn’t do it.”</p>
<p>For those of you who think the evidence is weak, I am assuming this is in large part because you find Adnan’s presentation persuasive and credible. </p>
<p>I’ve heard many many people say they believe Adnan. And yet the jury never heard him – as is 100% was to be expected, given conventional wisdom and practice.</p>
<p>The podcast suggests that the outcome may well have been different if Adnan had taken the stand. I’m not so sure about that, but it does seem that his case would have been stronger.</p>
<p>So, criminal lawyers out there, has this podcast influenced your thinking about whether to allow your client to take the stand? Or, for prosecutors, whether your opponent should do so?</p>
<p>(I should point out that we have no idea how Adnan would have done on cross-examination. It could have been a disaster for him.)</p>
<p>(Also, just for full disclosure, I’m a lawyer but a civil litigator, not criminal, so I don’t deal with this issue in my practice.)</p>
<p>@notteling – I was a lawyer for about 20 years, but I haven’t practiced law since the 90’s. I had a mixed practice but I started out as a criminal lawyer and almost all of my trial experience was with criminal defense. (The civil cases almost always settled). </p>
<p>I have to say that I really haven’t heard anything that sets this case apart from any other one. In my practice there were times when the defense hinged on the testimony of the defendant, and there were times when I wouldn’t have wanted my client anywhere near the witness stand. The only thing that makes this case different is that lawyer who represented Adnan is dead, so there is no possibility of hearing what reasons she may have had for advising her client not to testify. However, by all accounts she was an experienced attorney and aggressive courtroom litigator – it also seems that she was losing focus during the trial and made some errors, but the choice of whether or not the defendant testifies is not something that is typically overlooked. That is, she may have forgotten to follow up on a witness but it’s unlikely that she forgot that her client was there.</p>
<p>When a person takes the stand in his own defense, it’s not just a matter of being able to deny something. He’s going to be cross-examined by the prosecution, and that means that a good lawyer would spend time with the client asking all of the hard questions that she anticipates the prosecution will ask. A defendant who offers a broad denial but has lapses in memory when it comes to critical details is not going to help himself. </p>
<p>I might have missed it, but I don’t recall SK ever asking Adnan whether he had gone over his anticipated testimony with his attorney or what efforts she had made to prepare him to testify. However, in the episode that focused on the attorney, I got the impression that she had spent a lot of time with him. I can speculate a variety of possible reasons why the attorney might not have wanted him to testify.</p>
<p>I think that the only trial strategy that would have made sense would be to destroy Jay’s credibility as a witness. I get the sense that the trial lawyer understood that, but that she wasn’t able to pull it off. I believe that was like either a direct or indirect result of her serious health problems. </p>
<p>When a defendant has been convicted after a trial where he did not testify, then I think it is normal that former jurors would say they wish they had heard from him – but if he had testified, then his demeanor on the witness stand, gaps in his testimony, or statements the jury did not find credible might have simply given the jury a stronger basis to convict. </p>
<p>I think a good prosecutor would have had a field day with the whole business of his lending his car and cell phone to Jay that day. </p>
<p>Thanks, Calmom, that was very helpful. </p>
<p>Yes Thanks Calmom. Why did he give Jay his cell phone? I know he wanted Stephanie to get a gift -but that seems strange to me.
Other things that work against Adnan for me:</p>
<p>Not calling Hae after she was murdered( as others on this thread have mentioned)
Not remembering ( It wasn’t a typical day Hae was missing and he talked to the police- and he leant his car out -all things that I would think would be different enough to remember where he went after school that day) </p>
<p>Exactly – and those are the sort of things he would have been questioned on intensively by the prosecutor. The whole part about Stephanie’s birthday gift seems contrived to me – my lawyer instincts would have me hone in on all those odd details. For example, why was Adnan late to his psych class? </p>
<p>(See <a href=“Timelines: January 13, 1999”>Timelines: January 13, 1999; for details)</p>
<p>The same goes for Jay’s testimony as well: a good lawyer would have torn him apart on the details. But Jay has a clear motive for fudging or lying on the details that doesn’t necessarily help Adnan: Jay could have been trying to minimize his own involvement in a planned homicide in which he had a large participatory role, or he could be trying to avoid implicating others or exposing other criminal activity of his own (e.g, drug dealing) by fudging on some of the details. However, a strong cross-examination could have left Jay looking extremely sketchy. But Jay’s not the one on trial-- and the jury doesn’t have to buy his story 100% in order to convict Adnan. It seems to me like the Jay having Adnan’s car & cellphone are the really damning parts of the story – so again, Adnan’s testimony would have needed to provide a very good, believable alternative scenario for those elements. (Why would Adnan allow an evil sketchy guy to have the use of his car and phone anyway?)</p>
<p>We don’t have to believe Jay’s every word to think that Adnan did it. I think Adnan thought Jay’s timeline wouldn’t work, and was surprised that it turned out to be barely possible, because Adnan knew that the real scenario was something different-- because Adnan was the murderer.</p>
<p>The only part of the timeline that really matters is 2:15-3:15 pm. 2:15 because that’s when school lets out – 3:15 because that’s the last incoming call on the phone log until 4:27pm, and we know that Hae either had to be killed or abducted within the time frame between her getting out of school and the time she should have arrived at the cousin’s preschool. And it doesn’t matter whether Jay’s times are exact – he’s a human being, not a chronometer, so he easily can be mistaken about exact times. </p>
<p>I don’t know why the prosecution fixated on the 2:36 call rather than 3:15 – but the jury would have been instructed that the attorney’s arguments are not evidence. So basically everything the prosecution argued about times is irrelevant. </p>
<p>I don’t agree with the explanation at <a href=“Why It Can't be the 3:15 Call”>Why It Can't be the 3:15 Call; because it is based on Jay’s narrative as to events which occurred outside of the critical time frame – Jay is obviously way off about the time that he dropped Adnan off for track practice. I also don’t really buy the idea that Adnan goes with Jay anywhere to smoke a joint before track practice – maybe that’s Jay’s mistaken recollection of something that happened at a different time. So I think that it’s entirely plausible that Adnan calls Jay at 3:15pm, they meet shortly after, have time to move Hae’s car to the Park & Ride and for Jay to bring Adnan back to track practice at around 4pm, when it begins. </p>
<p>Did you listen? It was a much more satisfying ending than I thought it would be. </p>