Serial - the podcast *spoilers*

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.

It's very easy to make up a story that perfectly fits the evidence.

"There were demolition charges in the towers"

Please do so.

You just did.

The whole internet has done it dozens of different ways on this case.

XXxxxp odd that they didn't present that theory at trial oh yeah it's because it makes no fucking sense.

Please make up a story that fits the evidence in which Adnan is the killer. Jay tried to do this over and over, couldn't do it. The prosecution never managed to do this. If it is so easy, please, do so. If the internet has done it dozens of times, please, link to one.

Also, my story hinges on the Nisha-call being a buttdial. Which nobody thought possible at trial, but which I think is far more likelier than Adnan calling a girl he flirts with right after he killed his ex, and neither Nisha nor Jay being able to remember that call.

(though obviously, the Nisha-call being a buttdial could have happened if Adnan was the killer as well)

fwiw, here's a quote from a Georgia Supreme Court decision from around the same time that seems to confirm what Urick says about cellular tower tech being different back then:

At the evidentiary hearing, the State produced six expert witnesses who testified to the accuracy and reliability of records establishing the location of a tower which services a particular cellular call. In essence, the evidence established that a radio signal from a digital cellular telephone such as the one Pullin used is transmitted to the cellular tower which is geographically closest to the handset; if the handset moves out of the geographical area covered by the originating site during the call, the call is relayed or “handed off” to the next nearest site; the two cells which are the “originating” and “terminating” point of the call are automatically recorded; this “historical data” is relied upon for billing purposes, and has been an integral part of fraud investigation and prevention. The experts consistently testified that the historical data is accurate and has never been found to be incorrect. One expert opined with “100 percent certainty” that based on the information in this case, the calls at issue could not have originated in Stockbridge.

This makes me wonder about the calls at Cathy's, why they pinged two different towers. Maybe they were so geographically close that that was possible? Also, the "originating" and "terminating" thing raises new questions for me about any calls that might have been made while driving -- are we seeing the originating or terminating tower on the log?

argh, I am really annoyed with the grip this show has on my mind right now

I gotta say I'm totally baffled by that sort of response to this. I listened to the whole thing, thought it was an engaging expansion on the This American Life approach to reportage, was left with a lot to think about but I have no impulse to, like, start reviewing documents and trying to understand what "really happened".

otm

i think i am kind of bored by the whodunnit now. like i care about the people but i dont really need a bow on it. the whole thing is such a mess

i mean more power to you if you are down the rabbithole but imo there are better rabbitholes

Discussing this with someone elsewhere. He claimed that Jay was able to pinpoint times even before the police obtained the cellphonerecords. When I pointed out that that was obviously untrue, since the phonerecords let the police to Jay, he said 'well, that's not what the prosecutor said'. And I checked, and it's really really vague in the interview. First he says 'And he said that in the police interviews prior to obtaining the cellphone evidence.' and then 'And he said that in the police interviews prior to obtaining the cellphone evidence.' There is no way this is true, there was only one interview before Jay saw the cellphone evidence, and Jay did not pinpoint anything exactly right in that one. But it also misleads people into thinking something much different, even more untrue happened. It's such a shitty article, it's amazing. It's because of these shitty interviews that the discussion is flaring back up.

Also, remember Jay in the interview complaining about being described as having 'animal rage'? Checked it, turns out the producer is quoting Jay himself when she says those words...

if you believe she was quoting him accurately

That isn't really true. I mean, Jay says he hasn't heard the show, and of course he can't remember, no problem there. But no matter what, the article in the Intercept should have noted that it's allegedly Jay himself who says it. Such shitty shitty journalism.

Or maybe just boring trivia. It's an interview not a game of Gotchya.

even if Jay did really say "I'm feeling so much animal rage right now" (so believable!) to the two idiots who just bumrushed his family--it was SK's decision to play that post-ambush giggle-fest for an audience of millions after Jay had declined to be taped. It totally played as "Look at how brave we are! Two white girls entering the cave of this black monster who wants to bite our heads off!"

Isn't the Adnan kills Hae scenario basically just:

Adnan decides to kill Hae.
Adnan gets ride from Hae ~2:30.
Adnan kills Hae sometime/somewhere before 3:25 or so.
Adnan calls Jay either @ cell or Jenn's house or Jay's own house using a payphone.
Jay picks up Adnan at 3:30.
They drive around (doing things or not) and then drop off Adnan at track.
Jay picks up Adnan at track at ~5.
They go to Cathy's house ~6.
They bury the body in Leakin Park around ~7.
They drop off Hae's car after.
They go separate ways, etc, and Adnan goes to mosque and starts using his phone again.

How exactly does this not fit the "evidence"?

No it does not fit. And it's up to you to make it fit, so please do so.

Sorry missed the part where you explained how it doesn't fit?

The NVC interviews are not great, but otoh, hey she got them to talk, more than SK can say. Also, they'll never be good enough to satisfy camp Adnan.

x-post: I didn't. It's not my job. But it doesn't.

And it's not about the interview being 'Gotcha'. The Serial crowd is really impasssioned - obviously - so publishing interviews where you allow your subjects to say untruth after untruth, and even repeating a few of them yourselves, is just a bad idea. People has begun repeating all the false things that is said, and using it to attack Sarah Koenig and the other producers. Even though it's provably untrue.

Actually Adnan was convicted with that scenario so basically yeah now it is your job to prove it sorry.