Serial - the podcast *spoilers*

something weird about hearing SK tell Terry Gross that she wished there'd been no SNL or Funny or Die parodies because the case is so serious and then finding out that they're shopping Serial around to Hollywood producers. Maybe it's all Ira though.

This is such a bad bad idea.

i guess hbo is also trying 2 spin this to serial fans, it could be really good regardless - robert durst docuseries

http://www.hbo.com/the-jinx-the-life-and-deaths-of-robert-durst#/

Ryan Murphy bursts through the double doors of the conference room, startling the NPR and HBO execs sitting around the table. He stands before them, beaming with utter confidence.

"Ladies and gentlemen, my pitch will be brief." Glancing at the nearest executive, he asks her "May I have your pen?" She looks to the senior executive sitting at the other end of the table, who nods his assent. The exec hands the pen to Murphy. He proceeds to write down a few w brief words on the legal pad she was using. As soon as he finishes he gets up and heads toward the door, but not before turning back to the execs in the room. "You know where to contact me." He bows, turns and exits through the double doors.

A few moments later the senior executive breaks the stunned silence that has overtaken everyone in the conference room. "Wanda, what did Mr. Murphy write down?"

"Just four words" replies the younger executive. She holds up the pad for everyone to see. In bold block lettering filling almost the entire page is Murphy's pitch:

THIS AMERICAN HORROR STORY

Immediately the senior executive leaps up from his chair and jumps on the table. "KAAAAAA-CHING!!!!" he cries as his hair stands on end, his tongue sticks out, and his pupils morph into dollar signs. He then collapses. The next day he is pronounced dead.

https://mobile.twitter.com/rabiasquared/status/556498629872345089

Rabia going on downward spiral

She's seems like a pretty intense person.

I think this is a good example of how good people feeling righteous can potentially do harm, like Rabia and Susan Simpson are wholly convinced they are fighting a virtuous battle to exonerate an innocent man, whereas they may actually just be needlessly upending the life of a different man who is actually innocent. And it's a little gross to me how much both of them have it in for Jay, but again, they feel they are fighting a virtuous battle, and I don't ultimately know with 100% certainty whether they're wrong. I do still feel like when you have a man who has been convicted, had a competent if imperfect defense, has had access to legal help and the ability to appeal multiple times, and thus far nothing has overturned the results of the trial, you'd better have some damned good new evidence to start disturbing all the settled sediment again, whereas this "ask questions" and "poke holes" game can be played ad infinitum to no particular end.

Rabia is touting some new info about Asia M. but she's linking to Glenn Beck's website so I guess I'll never find out what it is

Basically Asia McClean has filed an affidavit asserting she was with Adnan at 2:30 that day, she neve spoke to CG and Urick discouraged her from testifying.

Rabia is now in full Urick is worst prosecutor ever mode.

Does she also have some gold to sell us?

There are a few holes in the alibi.

The affidavit is pretty damning.

not really

Urich discouraged a witness from testifying and then lied under oath about what she said to him?

the thing about Adnan's family pressuring her? good luck getting a new trial with that.

The whole thing is bizarre: Adnan's defense team tries to contact Asia, so she calls the guy who prosecuted Adnan, who persaudes her that Adnan is guilty.

like why wouldn't he?

though I guess it's cool that right wing websites have moved on from Benghazi to a new obsession

I'm confused, when did Ulrich testify under oath? Was that related to the appeal?

Urick, sorry

so now asia says she never received pressure from adnan's family or chaudry, and that she never recanted her affadavit - and urick says she's lying. what would asia have to gain from lying?

ok, if she didn't recant her testimony then why couldn't Adnan's team use her? Is she saying that Urick forged her name on documents or something?

The whole issue is why Adnan's team didn't use her. That is why they are claiming ineffectual counsel.

Urick testified during the appeal trial that she called him and told him that she only wrote those letters because Adnans family pressured her, something she now says that she never said, and that she has notes from the phonecall backing this up.

Of course, the ironic thing is that Asias alibi actually isn't an alibi at all. It just would have worked that way because the prosecution botched the timeline so badly.

Sidenote, but I love the fact that Urick is the one name we consistently misspell. I'm not during it with intent, I just constantly think it's with an h.

The whole issue is why Adnan's team didn't use her. That is why they are claiming ineffectual counsel.

Adnan's first lawyer never contacted her at all. When he went for an appeal, his new legal went looking for Asia, who at that point contacted Urick. Urick says that she then recanted her affidavit in writing. Adnan's new team could not use her.

If she never recanted then Adnan should have been able to use her. A lot of this is not so believable. It seems like she went from being willing to help, to not wanting to be bothered, to suddenly being part of a nationwide phenom.

Where does Urick say that she recanted in writing?

Also, don't really get what's unbelievable about what you say at all?

Rabia claiming this amounts to "witness tampering" by Urick is really off the rails. She is supposed to be a lawyer.

or "obstructing a witness" or whatever she called it.

But multiple articles refer to Urick "testifying" -- when did he testify?

xxxpost
It's unbelievable to me that Urick made up Asia's recanting, invented a reason (pressure from Adnan's family) and Adnan's defense team seemingly took his word for it and stopped trying to contact Asia, even though she never signed anything recanting her affidavit. Maybe I have something wrong here. Maybe Adnan's second lawyer was bad too.

I'm sure Urick didn't want her to testify, but how could he tamper with her exactly. By telling her that Adnan was guilty? By convincing her that she didn't see what she said she did?

also wasn't there something about her boyfriend not wanting her to get involved?

Ok, this clears some things up:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bs-md-adnan-syed-alibi-20150120-story.html#page=1

man alive: Urick testified at the appeal. There was a clip from it in Serial episode 1. Also, consistently going off the rails is kinda the most lawyerlike thing in the world, imo ;)

Keyes: Adnan's defense team only knew what Urick had to say at trial, so it could never be said that they 'took his word for it'. At that point it was already too late. They tried to find her, they found her, she didn't want to talk to them. And she never knew that her testimony tore apart the prosecutions case. In her letters, she says that if she'd stayed with Adnan, perhaps none of it all would have happened. Seeing as her testimony doesn't disprove that Adnan did it, there is no reason as to why she should believe him innocent?

The fact remains that Christina Guttierez chose not to call Asia McClain at trial. That was before Urick allegedly discouraged her from testifying, which happened only during the appeal process. The only question for appeal is whether Christina Guttierez provided ineffective assistance by failing to call Asia McClain. The appellate court found it to be a strategic decision. I'm not sure how the new affidavit would impact that finding.

but how did she make the decision not to call her as a witness when she never even contacted/spoke to her?

Well, the appellate court ruled partly based on Uricks testimony - and got several other things wrong. As far as I understand, the question for the state court is whether or not the original appelate decision was faulty, and this does seem to help that case. Though I can't say I have high hopes.

but how did she make the decision not to call her as a witness when she never even contacted/spoke to her?
--just1n3

She could make the decision that because Asia's alibi didn't cover entire period where crime was committed that it wasn't likely to contribute to a strong defense.

Reading Rabia's writing about Urick is positively surreal. You'd swear she was talking about a deranged person not a seemingly lucid and logical prosecutor.

Asia's version of events is straight weird. I mean of course Urick is going to say they got the right guy. Also it's odd that on two separate occasions she's basically said "I'm done talking" only to come back again.

Rabia is pretty much a propagandist

rabia took Asias first affidavit herself. Was she representing Adnan at the time? Otherwise it's a bit odd.

I can def. buy that Asia was feeling pressure from Adnan's family if that's the case

Well she says that's not the case. But it's pretty peripheral, Urick's impressions of why Asia didn't testify and whether they were wrong.

Asia went and talked to Adnans family day after arrest, and wrote first letter same day, second the day after. When are they supposed to have pressured her?

The affidavit with Rabia was taken after Adnan was convicted, has nothing to do with Asia's original letters.

Yeah after trial, before appeal.

Urick said Asia told him she had written the affidavit, post-conviction, to get Adnan's family off her back. If Rabia was the one taking the affidavit then that does not seem like a wild tale.

did Urick even claim that she was claiming the affidavit wasn't true? It sounds more like she was trying to make it go away so she wouldn't have to testify at an appeals trial

Well, to TheIntercept Urick says it's about the letters and that he testified to that. He is almost as untrustworthy as Jay.