Serial - the podcast *spoilers*

Xp while that's not impossible, you're talking about a scenario where the phone changes hands an awful lot between them during the course of the day. Plus it means Jay setting in advance a time by which he knows he will be done disposing of evidence along with Jenn whom he had to page and meet up with. And they're high. "I'll bring it back to mosque at 830 sharp" is not the most likely story under those circumstances. But I agree that the problem is Adnan claiming to have his phone at the mosque at a time when the phone clearly wasn't at the mosque. You read that as adnan being wrong about having his phone, I read it (possibly) as him having stuck to his story after he realized the phone records contradicted it, because he thought changing it would look worse.

Remember adnan did not know in advance that cell evidence could be used against him. No one knew about that stuff
in 1999. So if he made up an alibi in advance, he wouldn't have been able to consider the effect of the phone.

Yes, Alex. Clearly that is the only thing other than 'grasping at straws' I wrote in my post. There are no other words in my post. Def not an explanation of exactly why it seems to me that man alive is grasping at straws. Oh no.

Your explanations are all grasping at straws as far as I am concerned. You haven't made one supportable assertion that I can recall. No offense.

Please explain.

Explain what? That your entire explanation is far more tortured the paragraph that you are responding to (just like virtually every other version of events you've put forth)?

You think people agreeing in advance when and where to meet is 'tortured'? Seriously? That is something you have never ever done before?

And yeah, please explain why your latest allegation is true, instead of just lobbing a ton of other allegations in my way.

What latest allegation? The allegation that you're grasping at straws?

Yes I think your entire story of the murder is tortured and nonsensical. Your explanation for individual events equally so.

You think people agreeing in advance when and where to meet is 'tortured'? Seriously? That is something you have never ever done before?

― Frederik B, 11. januar 2015 16:26 (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

"No one has said this is what happened,,, but people did totally let other people borrow phones and agree to meet places back in 1999. Problem solved!"

I think evidence-free assertions that this is what could have "happened" and thus a good explanation is tortured, yes.

Christ. MAN ALIVE ASKED HOW IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED. That's it. I'm done responding to you with anything other than 'Shut up, you obnoxious troll.'

So shut the fuck up, you obnoxious troll. Why'd you even get involved? Man alive asks, I answer. He does not seem offended by my 'grasping at straws' line - of course, if he was, I'd apologize. Go troll someone else at this point.

Whatever. Have a good life over-sensitive Danish man.

Whoa. I did not know that Ta-Nahisi Coates went to Woodlawn High

Welp, here's the rest:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/exclusive-serial-prosecutor-defends-guilty-verdict-adnan-syed-case-part-ii/

I don't have much to say about it really, it's not earth-moving, it won't change any minds. I did think it was interesting to hear his spin on certain points, like the "procuring a lawyer for Jay" thing (it sounds a lot less tainted the way he describes it), and the reason for the first mistrial (he paints it as Cristina cleverly taking advantage of a moment). This is of course spin, but so is the show's interpretation. It's not conclusive, but it does present another possible explanation for things presented differently by the show.

I feel like I'm missing something on the DNA evidence point, there either was or wasn't DNA evidence, why is this not clear?

Some very valid points here, I think.

http://natashavc.tumblr.com/post/108089592316/here-are-the-e-mails-from-koenig-to-urick-left-on

His spin on the "liar" thing sounds wrong, because the judge clearly does accuse her of lying before she repeats it. Maybe she still seized on it by amplifying her voice (no way to prove/disprove), but she didn't put words in his mouth.

I thought that was at the bench though. She repeats so everyone hears it... I thought.

Well, since there's no decibel meter record I don't think we know for sure whether it was only her voice they heard or not, do we? She claims that other people in the courtroom told her they could hear the conversation.

The event that led to it seems slightly strange -- she claimed to have never seen the key phone records, which were stipulated into evidence? Like was that just negligence on her part then, assuming she wasn't lying?

His general point that CG basically forced the mistrial is doesn't seem unreasonable based on the Serial transcript of the event.

That does not seem possible to me so I kind of suspect she must be lying.

it would be good timing to force a mistrial if she were either unprepared to deal with the phone records or thought they had something damning in them. It also makes me wonder whether it's really significant that the trial was supposedly "going Adnan's way" if they hadn't gotten to that evidence yet.

Like the show has this whole premise that "gee, tough luck, first trial would have turned out differently, that's so fucked up!" except, you know, trial wasn't over.

Yeah Serial points out that neither the cell phone expert or Jenn has testified. Those seem like two significant witnesses to me.

ok at least they point that out then, I had forgotten that

It was interesting what he had to say about polling jurors, given that it's become an article of faith that Adnan was going to win his first trial.

You have to think that CG had some reason to think things either weren't going well or were going to go badly in order to seek a mistrial.

Or she was just thinking more $$$s.

Regardless of that though, it's pretty clear regardless of what Rabia, et al, or normal people like all of us who hate her voice thinks that this was a pretty competent defense (in the face of evidence--valid or not--that was pretty damning). Both Adnan and Urick are consistent on those point and appeals court seem appropriately dismissive of ineffective counsel questions.

CG was definitely forcing the mistrial, that's at least what I got from Serial. And the explanation they allude to is $$$.

I still find that hard to believe, in spite of her later troubles. A reputable criminal defense attorney potentially harming her rep to bill some more trial hours in the short run.

Well I think there is a benefit strategically to knowing the prosecutions entire gameplan too. But $$$s definitely seem to play into a lot of these CG stories.

Certainly hard to believe if she thought she could win.

I wonder what KU means by this:

KU: No, there was never a plea deal offered. It was clear that for Cristina this was about guilt or innocence. The defense had no desire for a plea. So we never offered one.

He means he never offered a plea deal because CG never asked for one--that she was going for a not guilty verdict rather than 10 years in prison or whatever.

iirc Adnan claimed that he wanted a plea deal, but CG didn't ask for one

Right, but doesn't that imply that she thought she could win it? When at other points, he seem to imply that she knew she couldn't. What's the story there? Did Adnan force CG to go to trial?

Frederik, I feel like you of all people might know the answer to this: I noticed some people cite to a line in an appeals decision which says that in one of Jay's statements to the police (April 13, 1999) he told them that the murder happened in Patapsco and that Adnan paid Jay to "help" (though it is not clear from the way the appeal words it if it means "help" kill Hae or "help" cover up after). Do you know where this came from? Is there a copy of the April 13 statement? Is it sealed? Did this come from someone's testimony? It's just a fact I haven't seen raised much yet a pretty significant one if true.

Right, but doesn't that imply that she thought she could win it? When at other points, he seem to imply that she knew she couldn't. What's the story there? Did Adnan force CG to go to trial?

― Frederik B, Wednesday, January 14, 2015 3:21 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's always ultimately up to the Defendant whether or not to plead guilty or not guilty, so he literally can force her to go to trial.

So I don't think it implies anything one way or the other about whether she thought she could win it. But seeking a mistrial generally would be a bad strategic move if you feel very confident that you'll win.

xpost It may be that after polling the jury in the first trial CG thought she could win the case. Adnan stated on Serial that he eventually wanted a plea deal, so he seems to be claiming that CG was the one who pushed his fate into the jury's hands. Seems kind of weird though

I don't know about the april 13 statement. Two Jay transcripts have been released, February 28th and March 15th, first and second interview. I'm guessing none other than that are available. But an appeals decision has been released as well, so it's probably straight from that. Why do you find it so significant? It just seems like another 'collateral' thing Jay made up.

Not significant so much as strange and hard to explain. Weird that, after two prior interviews, he would tell police that he was paid to be involved, which would expose him to greater criminal liability than just helping after the fact. And it's a fact that some of the more pro-Adnan folk around the net bring up, including the blogger you like. It was also the first "inconsistency" I found genuinely disconcerting, because the only alternative theory I find slightly plausible is that Adnan is guilty but Jay was a little more involved than he let on, then lied just enough to get himself off the hook and convict Adnan. E.g., if Adnan made an arrangement in advance with Jay and paid him to help.

There was also that statement from Jenn that Jay would only get mixed up in something like this if "Adnan paid him," but that was so speculative and off the cuff that it doesn't mean much by itself.

maybe reddit can find the receipt

he probably used the thousands of dollars he stole from the mosque coffers

Wow this whole thing has come full circle.

Man, that blogger I like is good. She has picked up, that the map of the cellphonetowers, that the police made, got the position of one of the cellphonetowers wrong, placed it two miles further to the south. And that Jay in his second statement, the first made after the police got the map, has him placing every call he makes from that tower two miles too much to the south. So either a) We're dealing with an incredible coincidence or ii) The police coached his statement, using a faulty map.

http://viewfromll2.com/2015/01/13/serial-evidence-that-jays-story-was-coached-to-fit-the-cellphone-records/

Doesn't really change a thing, really, but it's some good snooping around.

That is certainly good work, but I think she draws some very wild conclusions, even more so in the comment threads.

The thing is, I haven't re-looked at the calls, but it seems like this discovery could just as easily wind up cutting against "team Adnan" as for, i.e. if it provides an explanation for some of the inconsistencies in Jay's stories (you know, he gives one story, then finds out the cell records say otherwise [based on a false tower location] and then thinks "oh, well i must be remembering wrong, x happened after y, not before...")