Serial - the podcast *spoilers*

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

I remember back when it wasn't mandatory to listen to a podcast

i think serial was probably conceived without any clearly defined intentions or ambitions, which suits a podcast which no one could have predicted would blow up like it did.

i liked the random hatepiece especially the last sentence which felt otm for me for a second because i work in a courthouse but several of my coworkers loved serial so i guess that's not it. and many people who don't work in crime/law feel the same. i would have really loved a true crime podcast that had a point that was not curious wandering.

That piece is the standard I was into this first when it was "real journalism" and so I'm going to be shrill about you unwashed dickheads being so into it.

well it was good for 6 episodes then it was only good for unwashed dickheads

lol at expecting a This American Life spin-off to not include curious meandering.

I totally dug Serial and feel a little bad that I ended up thinking too much about whether or not Adnan did it--for the first six episodes I really didn't care and was just enjoying SK act like a semi-stoned private eye.

I do think the last few could have been more artful tho--like I'm sure the reddit mob was demanding updates about the Best Buy blueprints and the contractual details of Maryland butt dials in 1999 but doesn't this show have a website where they could dump that stuff?

i didn't "expect" it not to. it just would have not been so bad. TAL is only an hour show so the meandering is fine.

won't they think of the unwashed dickheads

reading this thread has brought up a lot of thoughts about dickheads for me

fuck washing a dickhead

lol

FWIW I am bored and started reading the decision from his 2002 appeal:
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-sCEhpvo5xTiB4e40/2002_WL_32510996_djvu.txt

This says that the plea agreement Jay got WAS NOT a complete get-out-of-jail, it was an agreement to recommend a five year sentence with all but two suspended. So I'm not sure how he wound up with no jail time, but it's not clear to me that he knew he wasn't going to get jail time when he was testifying.

Well, given that the police and prosecution kept the lawyer deal secret from the defence and jury, that does not seem good to me.

Where are you getting that it was kept secret? He testified and was cross examined about it.

Oh sorry misread your post, but I'm not sure what you mean

The "lawyer deal" (and it wasn't necessarily a "deal") came out in the trial, so the judge and jury knew about it. This issue was also raised on appeal and the appellate court didn't find it significant enough to overturn anything. My point about he plea is that Sarah Koenig makes it sound like Jay testified thinking he wasn't going to get jail time, which could give him a stronger motive to lie, and that the jury found him more credible because they didn't know this. In fact it sounds like Jay thought he faced jail time and testified as such.

Well, I'm not sure what it sounds like. Reading the plea, the story at trial was that Mr Urich would recommend how much time Jay was going to get, but no less than five with three suspended. That was what the jury was told. Turned out to be zero (but probation?) That seems fishy to me. And it was only digging by defence which brought out the lawyer deal as well, which is what makes me more suspicious about other deals by the prosecution.

Did the prosecutor recommend no jail time or is that just what the judge gave?

Well, dunno, but the court thought it was odd as well:

She has a witness on the stand, there's been a hearing involving
this witaess that may or may not reflect on the credibility of this
witness, we don't know if the proceeding was under oath, we
don't know what he said during the proceeding, we don't know
what he was asked during the proceeding, but he is your star
witness in your case. She's reviewed a statement, it's the guilty
plea, but there was another hearing held involving this very
same witness for which she has no clue what it's about and to
ask or inquire bHndly means she doesn't know what she's
dealing with. Perhaps we could bring him in and ask him.
Perhaps he knows. But you [THE PROSECUTOR] can
understand why she might want that information as a lawyer.

Xps the jury didn't know about the lawyer deal - they weren't present when that whole argument was going on.

The thing is I also can't work out any reason the prosecutor would want to push to frame Adnan. Prosecutors like to get wins. You have a star student and a self described criminal element who happens to be black. Why does the prosecutor go after adnan if there's anything pointing to Jay being the real killer? This was pre 9/11 btw so while its clear that there was antimuslim bias at play, it was not some kind of post 9/11 revenge or panic prosecution.

If Adnan was framed, he was framed by Jay and Jenn and whoever made those phonecalls to the police, I guess. The police then just helped them because they thought that was the stronger case.

Also, I'm not really arguing anything untoward went on in that second plea-meeting the defence didn't know about - from the testimony it sounds really fucking boring... - or that Jay getting off without prison instead of what his deal said was a con made by the prosecution. I'm just surprised that it could happen, because it's obviously open to abuse. Like the practice of waiting to turn on the tape-recorder until halfway into the interview. In the majority of cases, nothing untoward happens. But it can be abused, and there's no way to say when that happens. It's just bad practice, it seems to me. Right?

Xp Adnan wasn't talking and Jay was, so that's how they pursued it.

The state has no idea that Jay even exists until they follow up Adnan's cell records. Jay then hands them the entire case. They're obviously suspicious of Adnan prior (probably prior to even getting "the tip") but there is nothing to connect Jay to the crime other than his own testimony and statements to other people.

How many "tips" were there? I thought just one to look at the cell records? Were there more?

Two calls. 1) 'look at boyfriend' 2) few minutes later, mentions 'basser ali' But, well, the police were prob suspecting adnan - and don - from the start. Call-log led to jenn, who led to jay.

Oh ok so I guess the deal was officially that cooperation = rec of five years with all but two suspended, but then at Jay's sentencing the prosecutor made an *additional* rec of suspending the other two years as well because of remorse:
http://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2ldjx7/where_is_jay_now_did_adnan_kill_jay_in_jail_when/

So it is possible that the prosecutor had in fact verbally promised Jay no jail time, but it wasn't in the actual plea agreement. Ulrich might have said something like "Oh and by the way, if this goes well we might even be able to give you a better recommendation than is in the plea agreement." Even if so, I wouldn't say that taints things to the point of calling the trial a "travesty" -- all we know is that one juror was influenced by the fact that she thought Jay was serving time. We also know that's not the only thing that made her credible to him.

*him credible to her

If Adnan was framed, he was framed by Jay and Jenn and whoever made those phonecalls to the police, I guess. The police then just helped them because they thought that was the stronger case.

I'm not saying this is impossible, but it seems odd that nothing had previously pointed to Jay and/or Jenn. No seemed to know of any reason Jay or Jenn would have to hurt Hae. Neither Jay nor Jenn have any known ties to Hae IIRC.