Serial - the podcast *spoilers*

I'm assuming season two will not be helmed by SK, but some other TAl person.

I guess Alex Blumberg already has his own serialized thing, with that Start Up podcast.

it's a tough one because, true crime or not, it kind of has to be some kind of mystery to keep people hooked.

and it has to be unsolved/mysterious enough for make it really hard for the internet to solve it before the show does.

but also solve-able enough that not every series ends up being an unsatisfying "meditation on the nature of truth" type thing.

(which this kind of did, as much as she said she was taking a stand, she really did split it right down the middle... will be hard to get away with the same ending again next time, even though I think most people, myself included, were fine with it for this one).

unless it was some kind of story that was unfolding in real life at the same time as the show, like say someone's appeal trial or something

the other problem will be that as soon as they start investigating something new people will jump on Reddit and say "I just got an email from Serial!"

I imagine they'll do something very very different from this season - any kind of true crime would be boxing them into a corner, and I got the sense they want to keep it more open-ended.

they should do Mumia next.

they should do cereal: what is riboflavin?

they should find out which religion is correct

they should attempt to confer canonical veracity upon an apocryphal gospel

next season on serial: how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

That woodchuck is guilty and I said do from the start.

Ok finally listened to this. What the hell is "the westside hitman"? That just kinda gets left out there, is that a famous hitman or something?

The explanation that continues to make the most sense to me is that Adnan did it, and Jay's story is inconsistent because he started out by lying to protect himself (perhaps having been more involved than he let on or trying to prevent cops from knowing something else about him) and then later may still have been partly lying because the aggressive prosecutor was trying to push the narrative he thought made sense and Jay went along with it as long as he didn't have to reveal whatever he didn't want to reveal. In other words, Jay thinks "ok sure, the pickup was at best buy, as long as I don't have to tell them ____." Of course it could also just be him being scared shitless that he's going to jail as an accessory so best go along with what the prosecutor says. Like maybe Jay is stoned all day, can't actually get the story clear in his head, and just figures "I know the important parts are true so whatever the prosecutor says about everything else is fine with me as long as I don't go to jail."

If Jay did it himself or with someone else, then it's just hard to believe that he randomly wound up with this perfect opportunity -- having possession of Adnan's car and cell phone. Unlike SK's producer, I don't think the Nisha butt dial thing seems way too unlikely, I mean there are probably a lot of numbers in Adnan's phone that are people only Adnan knows and not Jay. I feel like it's one of those things that only feels unlikely in hindsight. But it does seem a little unlikely that Jay, by himself, or Jay and someone else would just happen to kill Adnan's ex who Jay had no known issues with on the day that Jay had Adnan's car. And as noted above, the serial killer theory doesn't account for Jay.

I get irked that SK keeps saying there's almost no "evidence" of Adnan committing the murder. Testimony is evidence. Direct witness testimony is direct evidence. This isn't a case based on circumstantial evidence, it's a case based on the testimony of a man who claims to have been an accessory to the crime, plus a bunch of circumstantial evidence. That's very strong evidence! It's not perfect evidence, because people lie, but I think the testimony of an accessory plus the dearth of logical alternatives is a stronger case than a lot of people are making it out to be.

Ding ding ding.

I did wonder for a moment if Jay might be some kind of amoral psychopath or something, but his paranoia about people coming after him and his apparent fear with regard to the police didn't seem consistent with that. I could also see how he might have gotten caught up in being an accessory out of an unfortunate mix of youthful poor judgment, shock, fear, and just stoned going along with things. I've certainly never gotten into anything like that, but I can remember the feeling of being that age and feeling like sometimes I would just go along with something that didn't seem right at all, like my fear of sticking out as the person rejecting the moment was greater than my fear of consequences.

And also, to speculate in a way I have mostly tried to avoid, I was only half joking about the "right" vocal tic. Something actually does bother me about the way Adnan speaks, almost every time he speaks, the way he's always kind of spinning these theories about why x doesn't make sense but peppering them with "right" and "know what I'm saying, so" and all these little casual but actually sort of nervous interjections. Of course, I think it's dangerous to read too much into the way he talks about anything, because he's been in jail so long and so much of his life has been consumed by thinking about this case that it's not totally surprising that the way he talks about it could sound a little tortured whether he's guilty or innocent.

cool npr content

Of course it could also just be him being scared shitless that he's going to jail as an accessory so best go along with what the prosecutor says. Like maybe Jay is stoned all day, can't actually get the story clear in his head, and just figures "I know the important parts are true so whatever the prosecutor says about everything else is fine with me as long as I don't go to jail."

This has always seemed most likely to me. I heard that Rabia Chaudry had a lawyer look over Jay's testimony and point out things that were obvious coaching by the DA--but that really just highlights the shady lengths prosecutors go to in order to win cases.

How is that "shady"? Juries (and judges) are human beings. Makes sense to try to put your witnesses best face and most coherent story forward when these folks are scrutinizing your words/demeanor. It would be nice if everyone could just be all "here are the facts" in some neutral fashion and then have someone render a verdict based on that, maybe I'm cynical but it's hard to imagine such a system of jurisprudence working like that these days.

You're insane... The prosecution telling a witness to lie isn't shady to you? I'm beginning to understand why the American justice system is so screwed up.

Coaching /= lying. If you are saying the prosecution invented Jay's narrative out of whole cloth then sure that's shady. Trying to tame an obviously disjointed mess into something approaching coherence, not so much.

Yeah I doubt the prosecutor was like "here's what you're gonna say." But it's possible that the cops or prosecution was like "well there's no record of a call at x time. Are you sure it didn't happen at y time?" And to be clear, yes that's not the best interrogation technique and can lead to some bad results. But it doesn't mean Jay is lying about the entire story.

Prosecutors review testimony with witnesses all the time. In this case since Jay is BASICALLY the entire case and has already given three (more?) semi-conflicting in minor ways accounts of the events of the day, it doesn't shock me that they would spend quite a bit of time trying (as it turns out successfully for a jury and unsuccessfully for some home listeners) to coaching him on both what/how to present events and respond to the defense responses. I don't see the malpractice there and I'm trying to imagine a legal system where that did not occur.

I feel like Jay was coached to say that Adnan planned the murder beforehand.

That does seem plausible to me and Jay does seem all over the place on that count (did Adnan mean to give him the cell phone, did he tell him he was going to murder Hae that day, day before three days before, etc).

I'm actually kind of surprised there wasn't more movement towards a plea deal here, since this seems like the kind of case that could really have gone either way at trial. I am guessing that was Gutierrez though.

Being overconfident or greedy.

Coaching /= lying.

Looool, well no, but then I didn't say that the prosecutors told Jay to 'coach', now, did I? The combination of your lackluster reading skills and your arrogant insistence that you know who should spend lifetime in jail without parole really makes me hope you never gets called for jury duty. Because, yeah, the whole story Jay told is a bunch of lies that makes no sense. There was no 2:36 call, there was no murder at best buy, Jay wasn't at Jenn's when he got the call, there was no convo with Patrick to get weed, no trip to Pascipso park, etc. So much was lies, completely made-up stories. And that is a fact, proved by the call-log. And that story condemned Adnan as having comitted pre-meditated murder, and send him to jail for life, which is def completely unproven, and just an idea, based on Jays story of which almost every detail is faulty. Even if we say that Adnan did it - which I'm still not convinced about, and smh at the idea that it's somehow coincidental that Jay would pin the murder on the guy who's car and phone he had with him - there was no proof that it was premeditated. The thing you didn't find 'shady', Alex, is that the prosecution allegedly made up a story about that, and fed the witness lies to corroborate it. That is insane, that is some Ferguson bullshit. And I find it terrifying that you guys aren't upset by that. But not really surprised, US is a clusterfuck.

Believe me I hope I don't get called for jury duty either (esp. because I keep getting called for jury duty!)

I have no idea what happened and I don't think Adnan should be spending the rest of his life in jail or even that it was pre-meditated and if the question was about SENTENCING guidelines I'd be on the other side, but at the same time I'm not up in arms about this conviction itself being some crazy miscarriage of justice because the whole thing is pretty straight-forward. A witness said Adnan did it. The witness' testimony no matter how convoluted it seems was corroborated by a mess of circumstantial evidence (as well as said witness telling a bunch of people prior to the cops that it happened). There is not any reasonable explanation that disputes his testimony. And Adnan has NO ALIBI for basically the entire period of time that the crime occurred. It's not shocking that Adnan would be convicted and absent a reasonable explanation I'm having a hard time figuring out how that is a miscarriage or a clusterfuck or anything.

When I say "I have no idea what happened" I mean I have no idea EXACTLY what really happened. I am comfortable enough that the general outline of Jay's testimony is true that I think that's probably what happened.

this case is nothing like ferguson. that's just some hysterical naif bullshit imo.

It's a miscarriage because the prosecution's story makes no fucking sense. That Adnan doesn't have an alibi means nothing in that context - it's not as if he made up an alibi that was proved wrong, and he actually had witnesses placing him in the mosque when he apparantly was burying Hae. The prosecution made up a bullshit story, based on a witness' testimony which wasn't corrobarated by anything - was in fact actively disproved by the call-log, along with Jenn's story - except they claimed that it was corrobated, and neither the defence nor the jury figured out that that was the case. It's scary and it's a travesty.

There's a huge difference between saying 'Adnan probably did it' (which, whatever, I still disagree) and beginning to talk about the trial not being a mess. How can you split conviction and sentencing? Adnan was sentenced extremely tough because he was found guilty in premeditated murder, right?

And I didn't say 'the case' was like Ferguson, btw. I said the idea that it is ok for the prosecution to feed lies to a witness to get a better case and a tougher sentence is some Ferguson bullshit. And I stand by that. If that is what happened, then that's is some Ferguson bullshit.

that video of hae made me so sad.

The prosecution's story actually makes a great deal of sense (that's why it took a jury two hours to convict Adnan). The timeline makes no sense, sure, and a better defense would probably have exposed that fact and maybe created more reasonable doubt. That Adnan doesn't have an alibi means a good deal. It means he can't actively disprove any timeline and it's also means that alibi can't be exposed to any scrutiny (which is a legal strategy in and of itself).

How on earth can the prosecution's story make a great deal of sense if the timeline of it makes no sense? You keep blowing my mind, man, you're really off in your own universe.

And Adnan put forth an alibi at the mosque, meant nothing. So much for the idea that the lack of alibi was a legal strategy. The double standards you use to defend a 17 year-old being sent to jail for life on trumped up charges (pre-meditation was def never proofed) is really something else.

"You keep blowing my mind, man, you're really off in your own universe."

Yeah it's totally crazy. I can't imagine anyone else would see it this way.

"And Adnan put forth an alibi at the mosque, meant nothing."

No he didn't. He didn't testify and he doesn't recall being there.

"pre-meditation was def never proofed"

I don't think you understand how "proofed" works. See the prosecution presents evidence. The defense attempts to rebut said evidence. A jury weighs evidence and renders a verdict. Voila.

In this case by the way the evidence of premeditation was the state's witness saying "Adnan told me he was going to kill her and then he killed her and we disposed of the car and body." I'm not a lawyer but I could see how a jury could (absent reasonable doubt that the witness was lying) would find that "proof" of premeditation.

I'm really surprised at the idea that a story makes sense although the timeline of it does not make sense. Do people think there are a supply of timemachines to help with that?

And lol at: 'he didn't testify'. So if you don't testify, then you never have an alibi? Other people said he was there.

And the (alleged) problem in a nutshell: The prosecution made up evidence, fed a false story to a witness. The defense was inept, didn't rebut. The jury rendered the wrong verdict. Voila, a travesty of a trial.

Like, it's not just about reasonable doubt that the witness was lying. The witness lied, there is no doubt at all about that. It's a fact. No reason to believe him at all about that, absolutely none. There's a ton of other logical explanations of what happened, that does not include pre-meditated murder.

I think if your reasoning is Jay's testimony has lies and inconsistencies therefore it is all lies then sure the whole thing is an abomination. But I think that the testimony is consistent enough on enough points that it (and by extension the prosecution) is generally credible. You don't fine. Either way I tend to reserve phrases Iike travesty for things that are more clearly outrageous.

No, my reasoning is that if Jay's testimony has 'lies and inconsistencies' - so many that nearly nothing actually makes sense - then I'm sceptical of all of it. So on a question like pre-mediation, where there's no corrobation and a ton of other logical possible stories, there is no reason to believe that's what happened. Zero. And I think it's bullshit to accept a life-sentence - which in US means actual life, not 14 years or so, as in Denmark - on 'generally credible'. That's insane.

But also, again, I used 'travesty' not with regards to the trial as such, but with regards to the alleged problem, which is what you defended upthread. That the prosecution fed lies to the witness to get a tougher sentence. Don't you find that outrageous?

If it happened sure, but what's your evidence that it did? Jay maintained Adnan told him he was going to kill Hae that day from jump.

I guess I don't buy that there a ton of other logical stories and I'm not that skeptical of the claim.

This has always seemed most likely to me. I heard that Rabia Chaudry had a lawyer look over Jay's testimony and point out things that were obvious coaching by the DA--but that really just highlights the shady lengths prosecutors go to in order to win cases.

― ancient texts, things that can't be pre-dated (President Keyes), 20. december 2014 12:40 (6 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

How is that "shady"? Juries (and judges) are human beings. Makes sense to try to put your witnesses best face and most coherent story forward when these folks are scrutinizing your words/demeanor. It would be nice if everyone could just be all "here are the facts" in some neutral fashion and then have someone render a verdict based on that, maybe I'm cynical but it's hard to imagine such a system of jurisprudence working like that these days.

― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), 20. december 2014 14:13 (4 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

[...]

I feel like Jay was coached to say that Adnan planned the murder beforehand.

― ancient texts, things that can't be pre-dated (President Keyes), 20. december 2014 14:48 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

That does seem plausible to me and Jay does seem all over the place on that count (did Adnan mean to give him the cell phone, did he tell him he was going to murder Hae that day, day before three days before, etc).

― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), 20. december 2014 14:53 (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Like, I don't need to prove it. It's not my claim. It's Keyes' and yours. And you didn't seem troubled by it. Which is blowing my mind.

I'm not following. Because I agreed that there would have been coaching that's same as saying a prosecutor suborned perjury? Jay had a couple of timelines for when he heard Adnan say it first, yes, but he also always maintained (I believe) that Adnan told him that day as he gave him the car.

The coaching strikes me as more to emphasize that the car/cell phone/contact was all part of plan to kill Hae since yes it emphasizes that the crime was pre-meditated. But I don't think that's same as saying prosecution told him to lie when Jay maintained all along that Adnan told him that he was going to kill Hae in advance of doing so.