<p>I agree.</p>
<p>Although, I was really sleepy when I listened and, in fact, kept nodding off. She thinks he shouldn’t have been found guilty, but did she think he did it?</p>
<p>I thought the new witnesses provided further corroboration for Jay’s story. I also thought that the gymnastics around the “butt dial” possibility pretty meaningless. Jay reported that Adnan had made a call to a girl in the same location as Nisha. The chances that there was a “butt dial” to that same woman at about the same time Jay’s false report are very, very low. That someone could theoretically be charged for a phone ringing for 2 minutes doesn’t mean anything to me. </p>
<p>I did think it was a very satisfying end to the series.</p>
<p>I had gotten used to the idea that there was not going to be some kind of big reveal. I think I may re-listen to the whole thing. I get a bit confused about some of the details.
I do think it was a great podcast season that had some impact -not just entertainment but in possibly changing lives.
I am not sure Hae’s family would view it in the same light. I do hope that they have some kind of peace -but I doubt it. </p>
<p>I have enjoyed our discussion and hope it carries on next season. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I got that she would acquit based upon “reasonable doubt”, but isn’t 100% convinced he is innocent. </p>
<p>I agree that it was a great ending. I like it when things aren’t tied up neatly in a bow and you can still think about and discuss the series afterwards.</p>
<p>…but would love to hear an episode 13 after the DNA testing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Me too. I think even if the ending was satisfying to some extent, I would like to know the outcome of the appeal or a new trial if there is one.</p>
<p>What I have to wonder about is, if this mystery mass murderer rapist was involved, what was Jay’s motivation for pinning it on Adnan? Was he jealous of Adnan and Stephanie’s relationship? And if it turns out he was lying and that is proven, what would his consequence be? Does his deal on the first trial protect him from perjury? </p>
<p>The fact that Jay knows so much and told things to Josh and others makes me thing the new guy isn’t going to pan out. But he’s a good reason to ask for the DNA testing.</p>
<p>I agree that it makes sense for the innocence project to ask for the DNA testing, but also that is a long shot if there ever was one. The time window for Hae’s disappearance is just too small – and Jay knows far too much. There was a very old case local to me that was recently re-opened due to DNA testing – it involved a serial killer who probably killed 5 young women in California and Nevada, and a mentally ill woman in Nevada had confessed to that particular killing and was incarcerated – with the new DNA evidence, she was recently released. So you never know. (Link for that story: <a href=“Gypsy Hill killings - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsy_Hill_killings</a> )</p>
<p>But I think the other new details that SK had would tend to help the prosecution. The fact that the cordial meeting between Don and Adnan took place in December, but that Don did not actually start dating Hae until January, makes the meeting insignificant – obviously Adnan would have no reason to be hostile or angry toward Don at that point. And then there’s the fact that Hae was at Don’s house the night before her disappearance – a fact that Don might have withheld </p>
<p>Then there’s the fact that Hae was at Don’s house the night before she disappeared. (Possibly spending the night?). That certainly is something that could have fueled Adnan’s anger the following day – especially if he knew or believed that Hae was having sex with Don. I’m guessing Don probably withheld that detail from the police at the time – after all, he knew he was a potential suspect. </p>
<p>I do think that there was something else going on that day with Jay and Adnan, and I haven’t a clue what it was – but Jay obviously had motive to change a lot of details, and Adnan seems to have reasons for not being being able to recall what he was doing on what was obviously a rather busy day for him. </p>
<p>Did we ever hear from Stephanie? I don’t recall SK ever mentioning being able to reach or interview her-- she’s definitely a person who would be high on my priority list to contact. </p>
<p>One real-world effect of the podcast is that it will likely pretty much ruin Jay’s life. They were very, very careful to avoid speculation that Jay killed her, but if Adnan didn’t do it and Jay is lying, that’s the obvious implication. </p>
<p>If Adnan or Jay’s DNA is under Hae’s fingernails, I wonder if we will ever hear about it. I don’t know who controls results in these circumstances (ie if the defense gets access to the samples in the post-conviction period and results are bad for defense whether they have to share results with prosecution). And I don’t know if the defense has a reference sample of Jay’s DNA. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It was weird that Don said that the prosecutor was yelling at him for not portraying Adnan as creepy enough, though. And this is the same prosecutor that set Jay up with an attorney.</p>
<p>But if this recently (to the crime) released convict is the killer, how did Jay know about the car and other details? When one of SK’s researchers posed a similar question, SK curtly dismissed her by saying “focus on the big picture”.</p>
<p>SK was interviewed on NPR today. SK basically said she didn’t think it would ruin/impact but the interviewer clearly did. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s my speculation: I think that a police investigator who interviewed Don must have written a report that misconstrued Don’s statements, perhaps because the investigator asked leading questions and essentially put words in Don’s mouth – but there must have been a report that the prosecutor had in front of him that led him to believe that Don would be a pro-prosecution witness. [In my legal career I saw that sort of stuff happen all the time – I think cops are trained to frame their reports in ways that will support probable cause for a search or arrest warrant,]</p>
<p>Then the prosecutor did something that was inexcusably sloppy - he put Don on the witness stand without re-interviewing him (twice). </p>
<p>The only alternative explanation that makes any sense would be that Don badmouthed Adnan before trial, perhaps in an effort to deflect attention from himself (since he though he was also a potential suspect ) – but that when it came to testifying under oath in front of a jury, with Adnan siting in the courtroom looking at him, he felt safer giving the neutral and innocuous account of the conversation. </p>
<p>Calmom – Assuming that Adnan’s new lawyers from the Innocence Project are successful in their motion for DNA testing, do you know (1) whether they will be able to have their own experts test the DNA; and (2) if the results are BAD for the defense, will the defense have any disclosure obligations? Or, alternatively, will the prosecution likely simultaneously test the DNA? I’m thinking the prosecution will do their own tests only if Adnan’s lawyers claim that the DNA exonerates him. </p>
<p>What I really want to know is this: if the results show Adnan’s DNA under Hae’s fingernails, will we ever find out about it? </p>
<p>I believe the Innocence Project director stated that anything they determined was for Adnan’s benefit only. That is, they would have no obligation to disclose anything to the prosecution. ----unless, of course, the case was reopened based upon their findings. </p>
<p>Nottelling, that all really depends on Maryland law and on the terms of the court order – so no, I don’t know. However, I am sure that if the defense is given the opportunity to test with its its own lab, the prosecution can also do its own testing. Unless the serial killer’s DNA turns up, it really doesn’t matter – the absence of identifiable DNA is not exculpatory, and the Adnan has already been convicted – so I’m not sure whether the prosecution would even care. (To them, no news is good news).</p>
<p>Here’s what I do know:</p>
<p>
- Source: <a href=“Serial creators don’t know what will happen to Adnan Syed - Columbia Journalism Review”>Serial creators don’t know what will happen to Adnan Syed - Columbia Journalism Review;
<p>I think that given the fact that there was no evidence of sexual assault coupled with the narrow window of time for Hae’s disappearance, coupled with Jay’s involvement & knowledge – that it the odds are minuscule that the DNA test will turn up a match to the dead serial rapist. </p>
<p>A match to Don’s DNA is more likely, but that wouldn’t be exculpatory of Adnan, given Don’s statement that Hae was with him the night before. (I am frustrated that the broadcast is unclear as to whether Hae stayed the night at Don’s). </p>
<p>As to Deirdre Enright’s enthusiasm - I think that’s just an illustration of the adage, “to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” She’s in the business of finding reasons to retest DNA… </p>
<p>But couldn’t there be Adnan’s or Jay’s DNA under her fingernails? I would think that any struggle at all could leave DNA. (Of course the defense will not be testing for Adnan’s DNA.)</p>
<p>I never assumed she spent the night. Why do people think she might have?</p>
<p>I believe the call logs show that Adnan and Hae spoke on the phone in the early morning hours of the day she died. (Need to double check this). </p>