Serial - the podcast *spoilers*

Btw, this: http://viewfromll2.com/2014/12/13/serial-why-the-nisha-call-shows-that-hae-was-murdered-at-332-p-m/ Apparanlty, buttdials ocures with some frequency during violent attacks... The writer is a bit disengenous, as he claims he isn't making a statement on WHO had the phone, just that the guy with the phone probably murdered Hae during the Nisha call. Seeing as the phone called Jenn ten minutes before, though, it's a pretty speculative attack on Jay.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, January 7, 2015 5:08 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this makes a lot of pretty big leaps

It definitely does. But something weird happened with that call.

The mosque as apparantly L651, same as Adnan, Best Buy and Woodlawn.

The 6:24 call pings at Cathy's. Don't think Adnan can get to Jay from Cathy in four minutes. And yeah, there are two outgoing calls right before Leakin Park, as in, only ten minutes before, but problem is they don't ping from Leakin Park, but from the mosque. So they hardly prove that Adnan called anyone from Leakin Park.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, January 7, 2015 5:05 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

BTW not sure this is right either, the 6:24 call doesn't ping from the tower closest to Cathy's on the map, nor does the 6:09 call, only the 6:07 call does.

But something weird happened with that call.

But even proving that the call was a butt dial wouldn't be proof of anything else, it would just take away the "Nisha call" theory.

Well, true that. But everyone has said there were multiple calls at Cathy's, so it seems more likely that the place is covered by two towers?

x-post, that. And you're of course right on in you're post right above me, man alive.

lord of the pings: the two towers

lol

BTW who were "Phil" and "Patrick" again?

the 3:48 and 3:59 calls

Patrick is a friend of Jays. He claimed it was his weed-dealer. Phil, dunno. Anyone else know?

Starting to go down the rabbit hole now, but is there any way Adnan had the cell at 3:21 and made the "come get me" call to Jay on Jenn's home # at that time?

I guess that would contradict the whole "it was definitely after 3:30" thing though

I've thought about that as well, but then everybodys story is so weird, because why would everyone say Adnan borrowed out his phone? Also, earlier outgoing call at 12:41 is also to Jenn.

wasn't the phil the coworker from the video store?

Well, Jay didn't work there at the time, so that would be weird?

Maybe Phil got him the job at the store. I actually think the guy SK interviewed in ep. 12 though was named Josh.

yeah I think you're right

about it being josh

I don't recall if it was his real name though. Maybe it was a pseudonym for "Phil".

i can't find any info on who phil is.

but josh IS the coworker dude

He has to be a friend of Jays, since everyone agrees that Nisha is the only call to someone only Adnan knew. Could be a friend of both.

I've been pretty critical of Serial, but these Intercept interviews are awful.

And all she had to do is put the tough questions raised in Serial to these guys - the hard work is already done.

haha it says pubic library

I'd say dude caught curating a pubic library prbly did it

This is the case that'll never stop being litigated.

On message boards.

That 80 alibi witnesses who go poof is pretty interesting. Pretty clear why they didn't focus on Adnan's non-alibi in that light. Also odd that it's not brought up by Serial to my recollection.

Well, probably, none of the alibis were bulletproof, and they were all dropped? I think Adnans dad testified that he was at mosque, and one other guy said the same at grand jury trial. Also, honestly I find it really really weird that it's TheIntercept themselves that presents that evidence. Where did they get that from? And if they know that, why don't they know that the cellphonerecords actually doesn't do what Urick says they do?

Also, Urick says that Jay stated that he got a call 'around 2:45', which Jay never did. He always said 3:45, though that is demonstrably untrue, and prosecution ignored it as well.

The Intercept interviewer, Natasha Vargas-Cooper, didn't actually follow Serial, but got offered an interview with Jay through someone who know him. She listened to the podcast over 'a few days' and got involved because she 'saw some really huge… I mean just some stuff that I was like – I mean problems, and I don’t mean that necessarily in the ethical sense but it was like …' I think we know why these interviews are so poorly researched.

http://observer.com/2014/12/heres-how-the-intercept-landed-serials-star-witness-for-his-first-interview/#ixzz3OBRTP490)

"Where did they get that from?"

Well they have a link to the document signed by the attorney so they clearly got it.

"Well, probably, none of the alibis were bulletproof, and they were all dropped?"

More like they were bullshit. Did you read doc? It's basically patently untrue.

It's just weird to me that they did extra research to ask questions that would help Urick attack the defence, when they don't have the basic facts of the case straight. It's a weird priority to me. I'm not insinuating that they got something secret through unholy backchannels.

Also, the document doesn't say what they claim. It says that they've got 80 witnesses at woodlawn, track and mosque or 'would have noted his absence'. Urick misrepresents it, and Intercepts presents that misrepresentation up top.

Basically, Urick says something untrue. And Intercept repeats that untruth.

Now, Urick might simply misremember. But Intercept once again does rubbish journalism, not only not pointing out in the interview that what Urick says isn't true, but repeating it up top to support their argument that the case was alright.

I think you're missing the point (no shock there). There were supposedly "80 witnesses" who would support Adnan's alibi and the defense did not bother to even present that alibi because the cell phone pings/calls basically undermine that entire line of defense. The disclosure doesn't even acknowledge being at Cathy's house at any point. Urick didn't misrepresent anything and pretending and the ENTIRE text of the disclosure is in the article.

"pretending the Intercept is weird when"

Actually, it's worse than I thought. The document doesn't say that the witnesses would give Adnan an alibi at all. It says: "These witnesses will testify to as to the defendant's regular attendance at school, track practice, and the Mosque; and that his absence on January 13, 1999 would have been noticed."

They were just going to say that Adnan used to be those places, and that people would have noticed that he wasn't.

Also, everyone was being really civil to each other, until you showed up. And once again started attacking me personally.t

"The document doesn't say that the witnesses would give Adnan an alibi at all." doesn't remotely square with "These witnesses will be used to support the defendent's alibi." But hey you can go on believing that Urick "lied" and Intercept was like whatevs "free pass dude".

Ultimately the problem with playing the phone records game is that there are too many moving parts. We already know the stories are inconsistent. We know that any one of many elements of any one of the versions of the story could be incorrect. We know that things could be out of order, we know that any person who went on the record could have been wrong about some aspect of their story. It seems almost mathematically impossible to triangulate the exact events of the day (or to triangulate with certainty that there is no possible version that matches the "core" of Jay's testimony). We already know that Jay had many reasons to lie about specific details that do not necessarily point to him trying to frame Adnan for a murder he committed (or for one they committed jointly, or for one someone else committed).

The case for me boils down to logical possibilities. What Jay's testimony does leave me with is that either (1) Adnan did it, with Jay as accomplice after the fact, (2) Jay did it and framed Adnan, (3) a third party did it and Jay framed Adnan, (4) Adnan and Jay did it together and Jay pinned it all on Adnan (or Adnan hired Jay to do it and Jay pinned it on Adnan, which is basically the same thing). There isn't really another possibility I can think of that doesn't involve aliens or multiple personalities or manson-like serial killers with brainwashing powers.

Nothing in the investigation or in the evidence that has been presented seems to have remotely pointed to 2, 3, or 4. #2 and #3 seem especially far-fetched, since no one has given a concrete reason to even suspect Jay of being the primary driver of the murder, and no one has pointed to anyone else (let alone someone Jay knew) who had a motive to murder Hae. #4 seems at least sort of plausible, and would maybe explain some things about a lot of what Adnan says on the show. But why doesn't Adnan rat out Jay after all these years, if that's the case?

I sometimes feel like there are some analogies to the 9/11 Truth movement here. Admittedly, not as clear-cut, and I don't think you have to be crazy on the level of a 9/11 truther to have doubts here, but I see a parallel inasmuch as people keep poking all these "holes" in the lead theory of what happened, but every alternative theory is far more ridiculous and fuller of holes.

Alex, what Urick says isn't true. Do you disagree? And this is what the article says:

Early on in the case, Urick said, the defense sent a disclosure to the state saying it had 80 witnesses who would testify that Adnan was praying at the mosque during part of the time period when Adnan allegedly buried Hae’s body. But when the defense found out that the cellphone records showed that Adnan was nowhere near the mosque, it killed that alibi and those witnesses were never called to testify at the trial.

Which is demonstrably not what the disclosure says.

And the disclosure doesn't say 'give' but 'support' an alibi. Which, granted, is pedantic as fuck, but by god are you being pedantic, if you can somehow get what Urick says to not be untrue?

@man alive. It's #2. People don't say it because of perjury laws, I think. But everyone knows the alternative is #2.

You mean defamation laws. But again, no evidence of that, and no motive.

9/11 happened because America found out that Al-Queda was cheating on Stephanie

The story would go something like this: Hae saw Adnans car at around 3:30 that day, went to say hi. Saw Jay inside the car. They got into an argument, he ended up strangling her. Which, yeah, not a good story. But on the other hand pretty easy to square with cellphonerecords, much easier than the story about Adnan. Go ahead, try.

That's not a motive or evidence.

No it's not. But it squares better with evidence than any story about Adnan as murderer I've seen. And I think Adnan's motive is weak anyway.

But do present a story about Adnan that fits the evidence.

At best you can say that Urick very mildly misrepresented what the 80 people would do. Their intent and the document are the same, far from "untrue".

Adnan has a motive -- jealous ex-boyfriend. There's lots of speculation as to just how jealous or just how broken up he actually was, but we know that (1) they were recently broken up (2) people who break up tend to feel distressed about it (3) at least some people say he was at least somewhat distressed about it. That's an actual motive, one that is not just plausible but within the realm of known reality. We're not really in a position to say whether it's "weak" or not, and neither was Sarah Koenig based on what Adnan and some of his acquaintances said 15 years after the fact.