Serial - the podcast *spoilers*

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.

It's a bit taxing to constantly have to explain things on a level where you can follow along. But how on earth do you understand 'Jay was coached to say that Adnan planned the murder beforehand.'

Maybe if you were a better communicator you wouldn't find writing sentences such a chore.

I can believe that the prosecution led Jay to testifying in more detail about Adnan's "plan" to murder Hae (I also can very much believe that they're trying to make sense of narrative all along and trying to guide it to something coherent). At the same time (I know these at the SAME TIME things are blowing your mind "oh shit how can two things be true!") Jay was pretty clear that the crime was PREMEDITATED from the get go.

Jay was known as liar and exaggerater, large chunks of his story appeared and disappeared, and the jury gave credibility to jays testimony because they were lead to believe he was also facing jail time.

xpost

Frederick, I think you may be getting angry with your own comprehension and communication problems. You seem to base a lot of your arguments around fallacious ideas, and false equivalencies.

Hey, I wasn't angry. I get a bit pissed when people I discuss with doesn't even have the courtesy to spell my name right, though. That's kind of a bullshit move, don't you think?

And Alex, maybe if you answered the questions I asked, I wouldn't be annoyed at having to restate the same questions over and over and over. I didn't ask you what you belive, I asked you how you understood that sentence. You apparantly understood it as meaning something completely different than what was said, ok, I guess that is my lack of reading skills showing there, then.

I'm pretty sure I've answered most of the questions you've asked (except for the "don't you find this totally made up bullshit thing I just made up outrageous" one.) But if you point out the relevant ones I've missed I'm happy to answer them too.

Also, Alex has consistently misrepresented what I've written. When I said that police told Jay to lie, he wrote 'Coaching/=lying' which has fuckall to do with what I wrote. The guy is doing his very best not to get what I write, he is a disingenous arguer. That is the problem.

"So if you don't testify, then you never have an alibi?"

I did miss this one. I'm pretty sure based on the presentation of the case that the defense did not put together much of an alibi (since Adnan didn't have a verifiable one for most of the day) and instead spent most of its time attacking Jay's credibility. No idea if Adnan's father or anyone testified at trial to Adnan's whereabouts at the mosque.

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.

― Frederik B, Saturday, December 20, 2014 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Coaching /= lying.

One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF)

Hmmn who is consistently mis-representing what somewhat else said?

OK apologies for misspelling your name. I think several people, myself included, are experiencing the same problems understanding your point - so you should consider that the problem might be with how you're expressing yourself and not with all the people reading what you write.

Simply put, you seem to be asking the same thing over and over because you don't accept that it's possible for a person to lie about some things and not others, or for parts of a story to check out while others don't. I think most people accept this.

On Mosque-alibi: It's discussed in last episode. Dad said he was at mosque, someone else corroborated that but only to the grand jury (which does imply that dad told that at trial, don't you think? But it's not explicitly said, I don't think)

Here's my point, as quoted upthread. Which part do you have trouble understanding, brio? :

"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."

Yes, you've made that point and it's been understood. I don't agree with several points. But I do understand that this is your opinion. I do get it. That's what you're not understanding. People get what you are saying, but they don't agree. It's not misreprenting you. It's not a failure of comprehensio. It's not mind-boggling. You are not dealing with people who are staggeringly stupid, as you've suggested.

You just repeated what I just said: "you don't accept that it's possible for a person to lie about some things and not others, or for parts of a story to check out while others don't."

Are you from Denmark? It's beginning to make more sense to me why this entire thing seems insane.

Okay so point by point in my opinion.

Is it insane that people (including the jurors) find Jay's overall testimony credible? In my opinion, no.

In light of the above is it insane that those same people believe Adnan's murder of Hae was premeditated? In my opinion, no.

Is the fact that premeditated murder basically an automatic life sentence (or worse a DEATH SENTENCE) in the United States insane? In my opinion, yes.

Is the fact that Adnan is LESS likely to get parole because he did not either take a plea or admit guilt insane? In my opinion, yes.

Is Jay's credibility or the strength of the state's case against Adnan terribly relevant to the last two points? In my opinion, no.

Yes, I'm from DK. Which is why I've written about Denmark and how I find US justice screwed up, and why I have a Danish name (and gets a bit upset when people for the 10.000th time spell my name the american way) Like, I don't think I've been THAT subtle about not being American ;)

And the main point is I disagree on point e. That's what's frightening to me. That's def a big part of why I get so upset by this case, and by your callous (hope that's the right word) atitude towards it. There is another point though:

Is it insane that a jury would find the case 'beyond reasonable doubt' even if they find 'Jay's overall testimony credible'? In my opinion, yes.

What's your opinion on that?

@brio: No, that is not what I said. Did not say it's not possible, just said that I'm skeptical and that there's no reason to believe it. Which is something else entirely. You are in fact misrepresenting me once again.

When I sat on a jury as an alternate it was for an aggravated assault case. Something like 7-10 witnesses testified that the one dude hit the other dude (it happened on a fairly busy street in NYC). But each testimony was a little different. One guy heard the assaulted say one thing, another saw it happen down the block from other testimonies etc lots of inconsistencies. So maybe I'm just more ready to believe that a witness could be super fallible on more technical details (when exactly X happened, where even) and still have a credible testimony. NB I think all prison sentences are inhumane.

sorry - "possible" was an overstatement. In this case, you think Jay lied too much to be at all credible. I disagree with that, and I think there are good reasons to believe big parts of his story.

Even just recently I was hit by 2 cars while waiting to make a turn and the police officer asked if I felt two bumps or just one (indicating that the second car was at fault or the third car) and I had no idea. Stressful moment, a little hazy but I couldn't answer a pretty easy question. I knew I got hit tho.

I'm well aware that witness testimony is fallible. As I've mentioned upthread, I have a degree in History, I used to do Source Criticism problems all the time.

(Doing source criticism on Serial is not smart, though, would never be able to get beyond the presentation by the producers. I will say, though, that listening to it there's an alarm bell that rings at the consistencies between separately given statements by Jay and Jenn, where the phonerecords seems to disprove it. That's the biggest indicator of influence there is, which brings a whole lot of other questions to the front.)

I think Mordy's point was that witness testimony can be flawed and still be credible.

Right. But I would be a pretty shitty history-student if I didn't know that as well ;)

this thread is rly awesome guys great job

random hatepiece Serial Sucked And Wasted Everyone's Time