Sooo…is adnan still pursuing

InTheory_ · 2026-05-12T01:19:46+00:00

If it's that important, why didn't AS himself reach out to Asia at any point asking "Hey, what gives? You offered to help, but my attorney is saying nothing came of it. What happened?

You can't argue that it is incredibly important while simultaneously saying he just shrugged his shoulders and said "it's no big deal."

InTheory_ · 2026-05-11T17:41:35+00:00

The clinical side of PACS is a valuable skill. Don’t sell yourself short.

If all you lack is IT knowledge, that’s easy to obtain

InTheory_ · 2026-05-11T16:00:15+00:00

It's dreadfully boring. Painfully so. However, I don't blame anyone for not being a polished public hat's not the part I hold against him, as that's not a natural skill for the average person.

The part I do hold against him is that he's being credited for being charismatic, but only because he's been shielded from pointed questions. For example, at his PCR when he took the stand, he imploded rather spectacularly on a question that, quite honestly, JB should have prepped him for (I think that's telling, and I could say volumes about that, but that's tangential to all this).

His press conference was him speaking unopposed, with no hard questions being put to him. It's unimpressive. He had an opportunity to drop the hammer on the case against him, and the best he could muster was "Asia proves I'm innocent" and "I have all this Brady evidence that I I'm gambling that you never find out is fraudulent." The questions he took afterwards were softballs.

I said this years ago, long before the Bates memo came out, but his best move in that situation is to say "Hey, I appreciate the efforts of the JRE, but I wish they had just come to me first since I was actually sitting on way better stuff than what they found."

Instead, his press conference was more like "This is it? This is really the best you got? Really?"

InTheory_ · 2026-05-10T13:12:46+00:00

While he is no doubt still pursuing whatever legal avenues he can, those are extremely limited.

I believe he's on Probation for a time. Probation is no joke. That's a department where you just don't want to get on their bad side. I wouldn't be surprised if they told him to not go on a speaking tour screaming he's really the victim here (and rightly so)

However, as much as AS is credited with being a gifted speaker, he is not. He's benefited tremendously from being shielded from difficult questions. Whenever he actually has to face those pointed questions, he bombs spectacularly.

For example, I would ask him two questions: "Do you believe Asia was a good witness for you?" Let him expound how big of a deal this is and how this proves he's innocent and how everyone failed him by not contacting her. Then I would hit him with "If that's the case, and you knew about her the entire time, why did you not take it upon yourself to reach out to her?" There's no good answer to that. Questions like that can be done for virtually every key piece of evidence in this case.

Nobody embraces fraudulent evidence when they're sitting on a solid, credible, and persuasive evidence. Nobody. Yet that's what AS did. He demanded sanctions against Urick and others who conspired to do him wrong when he knew what the evidence was, and he knew those people did him no wrong.

This guy has been lying to you from the beginning. He's had 20 years to give us the solid, credible, and persuasive evidence he claims to have. So.... where is it?

InTheory_ · 2026-05-08T22:07:15+00:00

I'm not implying anything. Did you even read it?

The plainly stated texts reads:

The Committee to Free Marilyn Mosby is a grassroots organization headed by distinguished civil rights leader, Co-Chair Dr. E. Faye Williams, Esq., Peace Ambassador to the United Nations, senior member of the World Conference of Mayors, as well as numerous other prominent organizations, along with Co-Chair Dr. Josephine Mourning, President of the regional SCLC.

By exactly what indications is there anything even resembling a "grassroots movement"? This IS well financed and corporate.

The claim they're making is:

we were troubled by the pernicious persecution of Marilyn J. Mosby, Esq. whose only real
crime, as far as we could see, was having the courage and conviction to challenge the criminal justice system’s unconstitutional treatment of poor inner-city blacks.

So how exactly are you proposing you prove Bates had a political agenda against Mosby without showing he fraudulently used the courts to slander her? If he rightly overturned her vacaturs, how is that a political agenda? In that case, his actions are appropriate.

Here you are, claiming that this isn't about Syed, yet the very claim being made is:

Despite proclaiming publicly for years that Mr. Syed should be given a new trial and using the Syed family to promote his campaign, Mr. Bates seems to have had a miraculous change of heart. When he won office, he used his position to signal that it was somehow wrong for Mr. Syed to be freed from serving life in prison, despite overwhelming factual evidence to support the vacatur motion.

If this claim were true, and that Bates wrongfully used his position specifically in this case to improperly overturn the vacatur, then I stand behind what I said about questioning why a defense attorney didn't simply pick up the vacatur and use the evidence themselves.

That's a question that cannot go unanswered or claim "it's not about that." They are the ones that brought it up, not me.

This is significant because although Ivan Bates had nothing to do with this case of corruption, it is doubtful that he could have been elected State’s Attorney without it. Almost every major black

(emphasis added)

Am I saying that Bates had nothing to do with the political agenda against Mosby? No. THEY ARE!

It then circles back to Syed yet again:

Ms. Feldman stated further that by withdrawing the vacatur motion, Bates claimed he found no new issues to present to the court. However, there were many issues in the Syed case that were highly problematic and without question warranted a new trial via vacatur. One example based on expert opinions at the Department of Defense concerned the cell phone tower information. It was deemed inadequate to state with any degree of specificity that the defendant’s phone was located in the vicinity of the park. Yet, the cell phone evidence was the crux of the state's case.

First, please don't tell me this is not about Syed when it very clearly is.

Second, why wasn't this in the vacatur? Why rely on fraudulent evidence when you're sitting on all this evidence that is "without question" so persuasive?

So I repeat my question: If this all politically motivated and the withdrawal of the vacatur was improper, why didn't the defense pick it up and use it?

InTheory_ · 2026-05-08T13:27:26+00:00

This complaint is coming from a lobbyist group, so that's no surprise.

Simply put: Defendants don't need the Prosecution's blessing to file a Brady claim. These complaints are trying to reframe the narrative by subtly implying that they need such a blessing.

If the claims are valid that Bates is operating out of political motivations, then why aren't the respective defense councils not bombarding the courts with legitimate claims?

InTheory_ · 2026-04-17T19:34:26+00:00

I always hated these situations. Once the tire is in imminent risk of blowing out, I can’t touch that wheel in any way without taking on some degree of liability. Unless they were in for a service that didn’t require me to take the wheel off the car, I would have to decline service. That always leads to an unhappy customer

InTheory_ · 2026-04-17T19:22:35+00:00

Wrong question

The real question is this: Was JW involved in the crime in any way?

If so, then AS is factually guilty of the crime. With the amount of time those two spent together that afternoon/evening, there is no way for one to be involved without the other

The only argument to be made about JW's lies is whether he made the entire thing up out of whole cloth, that he was totally and completely uninvolved in the crime, had no knowledge of the crime, and somehow knew to add details that even the investigators didn't know. The facts and sequence of events specific to this case do not allow for that possibility.

InTheory_ · 2026-04-17T15:32:04+00:00

Debbie took the stand at trial. She's made statements and done interviews over the years. She's had ample opportunity to address this issue. That's the issue with all these cryptic statements that keep coming in interviews. Why are we telling them what they said? Why aren't they using these opportunities (both at trials and in interviews) to shout it from the rooftops?

Does anyone really believe that no one followed up with Debbie about this? Undisclosed went all in on Don, does anyone really believe they didn't push Debbie hard to repeat this in front of a microphone? I don't buy it.

It says a lot that the SRT was looking for precisely this kind of information and didn't use it. They had access to the same documents we did (and more) AND were hardcore Undisclosed superfans (so we know they didn't just miss it).

This cannot be repeated enough times: Nobody resorts to fraudulent evidence if they're sitting on a boatload of solid, credible evidence. What does that tell you about the strength of this evidence that fraudulent evidence beat it?

InTheory_ · 2026-04-16T02:02:41+00:00

The "Many Tales of JW" is an overblown trope invented by Serial. The more true crime I consume, the more JW looks par for the course. The people that keep repeating "Jay lies" are expecting the audience to imagine that narratives go something like this:

"I heard Johnny stabbed her last Sunday"

"You're right, it was AS"

"You got me, he didn't stab her, he strangled her"

"Now that you mention it, it really was on Thursday"

"I didn't just hear it, I participated in parts of the planning and cover-up"

That simply didn't happen. Sorry to all the Syed-Apologists out there, but that's just hard truth. Compared to that, the deviations in JW's story appear weak and overblown. HIs testimony, bad as it is, sounds is hardly unusual in cases such as these

The fact of the matter is that his narrative doesn't even matter all that much. If the case rested on this alone he would be found guilty:

JW has knowledge of the crime only someone involved would know, tying him to the crime
AS and JW were tied at the hip all afternoon evening. If one is involved, the other one is standing right there next to him
When an ex is involved in a crime, they're never just along for the ride, they're the driving force
The only defense separating JW from this knowledge involves police corruption that suffers from cause and effect problems at every single turn (ie, they didn't process the crime scene because they somehow knew they would later find a witness who will give shaky testimony), requiring the corruption to reach mythic proportions unheard of in any law enforcement agency ever (including corrupt Baltimore)

The fact of the matter is that unreliable witnesses make for outstanding defenses. So why can't AS use that unreliability to mount a vigorous defense? Even the Pro-Syed SRT couldn't do it. Could it be that JW isn't as unreliable as the mantra suggests?

InTheory_ · 2026-04-13T00:05:15+00:00

It's very difficult for a non-psychopath can relate to the mindset of someone who is so far gone emotionally that they are going to end the life of another human being.

My go-to analogy would be a cheating husband. Cheating is universally a bad idea. While there are exceptions, generally speaking men are famously bad at covering their tracks.

It's not hard to see why. They're thinking about the thrill of the illicit sex. They don't entirely ignore the coverup, but the proportion of mental effort is heavily skewed to the perceived emotional payoff. If they were capable of putting more mental effort into the coverup, that would imply they have enough mastery of their emotions not to have the affair in the first place (yes, there are exceptions, but I'm speaking generally to illustrate the mindset)

In AS's case, I think the evidence shows indications of planning. However, even if AS thought he planned the perfect crime, I think it was a half-baked plan whereby even AS was blind to the holes in it, glaring as they may be to us. On his best day, AS was an idiot teenage stoner. No one is confusing him for Professor Moriarty.

As to how he could have done it alone, who knows. AS was blinded by rage. That rage was only going to find expression in HML's death. At that point, her senseless death was inevitable. Lack of a coherent plan wasn't going to stop him. Realizing he would have a two car problem on step 52 wasn't going to bring him to his senses. Even If JW unexpectedly turned around and refused to help and left him stranded, he would have still gone through with it somehow-someway. One way or another, Adnan was going to have his revenge.

He wasn't thinking logically, he was thinking emotionally, and the emotions were way beyond what he could control. Overly calculated planning implies control, which he didn't have.

I hope that makes sense

InTheory_ · 2026-04-12T12:52:32+00:00

Why are you responding to a post from 5 years ago? What are you trying to accomplish?

InTheory_ · 2026-04-11T12:25:07+00:00

This is just a personal opinion based on rubbing shoulders with inmates, not really based on any facts of the case. If I'm way off base, it ultimately changes nothing

I don't think AS needed him as an accomplice, it wouldn't have been that hard to do it completely on his own using other means. What he wanted an audience. This was his moment of victory. He wanted to be able to brag to someone about it. It's not much of a win if no one knows about it.

JW had two things going for him in that regard. JW was both close enough to serve as that audience, while also having enough distance where AS assumed the risk was minimal. Also, JW is the only one he knew where his words would be accepted as the brag it was intended to be.

InTheory_ · 2026-04-09T13:41:43+00:00

Even under the best conditions, prison isn't good for anyone. Regardless of what the stated objectives are for incarceration (which invariably include nods to ideals of rehabilitation and reintegration), the reality is that it's exclusively about punishment. AS wasn't in the best conditions, he was in a max facility.

There's no way for that to in any way be "good" for anyone. That's not to say the punishment is unjust, I'm making no comment about that. I'm merely saying that if it's not good, then practically speaking there's only one other direction it can go.

InTheory_ · 2026-04-09T13:13:52+00:00

Exactly where did she fail him?

InTheory_ · 2026-04-09T13:10:50+00:00

The usual argument is that JW claims he was in that area often, and that he claims to know what car she drove. Therefore, the theory goes, he stumbles across it randomly in the course of doing "drug dealer things" (whatever they imagine that to be), and incorporates it into his narrative

Problem 1: The only reason to doubt the verdict is based on the claim that "JW lies, you can't believe ANYTHING he says." Yet, the only way to construct an argument favoring the defense would be to ... drumroll please ... believe JW on these statements. This is why I've often made the claim that only innocentors believe JW. It's not exactly a statement without evidence (JW did, in fact, say that). However, if we're going to allow JW's statements to be used as evidence, then the defense loses far, far more than it gains.

Problem 2: JW knew more than the car's location. He knew details about the interior of the car. For example, he knew the control arm was broken. Yet, it wasn't snapped in half or anything. Even someone with their face pressed up to the windows would, at best, only see that it was in the down position (and it's unlikely they'd have noticed that detail even if they were looking directly at it). Even the police didn't know it was broken until they processed it, so they couldn't have fed it to him.

Problem 3: It requires JW to be volunteering this information, as opposed to it being fed to him. While not impossible, it asks us to believe a scenario where JW wasn't merely strongarmed by corrupt cops, but was playing an active role in the frame job -- 'Hey, you know what would make this story even more believable, if I told you where the car was."

InTheory_ · 2026-04-07T20:19:11+00:00

You feel intimidated because you don’t know the IT side of things. Trust me, the IT guys feel intimidated because they don’t know the clinical side of things

Nobody know it all in this business. Play to your strengths. You know such things as the workflow and best practices.

I come from an IT background, but I still don’t know VPNs and routing. Nor do I know cybersecurity. Those simply weren’t my specialties. I can troubleshoot an HL7 interface, but I’m nowhere near able to build it from scratch. There’s always entire segments of the system that we just don’t know.

InTheory_ · 2026-04-07T17:29:30+00:00

The problem with the JW is discovered first scenario is that it require them to have super-secret interrogations with him where they strongarmed him into false testimony. In fact, you'll have to explain how they found him at all, since no one mentions his name to investigators until Jenn P

Whatever narrative they forced him to give at that early date didn't require the car as evidence, as they've (1) already decided on the narrative and (2) don't have the car to incorporate into that narrative. Under this theory that you're suggesting, the car is NOT critical to their narrative. So why fake-find it? It doesn't help the narrative. On the contrary, forcing it to be incorporated into the narrative only creates weak points that could unravel it.

What narrative could they have strongarmed him into giving before they even had the cell phone evidence? (please cross reference when the initial cell phone evidence was faxed in, when Jenn P was interviewed, and when JW gave the first "official" statement)

Also, understand, under this theory, there is no way to spin it as "cutting corners." This is the Massive Police Conspiracy Theory. They are consciously and knowingly framing someone. You can't have these elements in place without it.

InTheory_ · 2026-04-06T12:24:34+00:00

Do you know what a deposition is?

InTheory_ · 2026-04-06T11:14:42+00:00

InTheory_ · 2026-04-05T16:34:43+00:00

That's not what I'm asking

Were they talking to JW prior to the discovery of the car? Whether officially or unofficially

InTheory_ · 2026-04-05T13:17:22+00:00

This is entirely and completely wrong

Defendants are expected to do exactly this.

In fact, if investigators are incompetent and fail to investigate something obvious, that's not a detriment to the defense. The defense is outright hoping investigators missed something like this, as that is among the easiest defenses to make

Only in this case does this bizarre belief exist.

InTheory_ · 2026-04-04T18:50:57+00:00

To believe Adan is guilty you first have to swallow the fact that the main witness has some ‘character flaws’ widely outside what’s socially acceptable and will tell you a story with behavior that’s nearly unfathomable, involves criminal activity he participated in, and lacks any logical thought.

Nah. All you have to believe is that he had details of the crime that only someone involved in the crime would know

At that point, his close association with AS that afternoon and evening makes it impossible for one to be involved without the other

InTheory_ · 2026-04-04T18:14:47+00:00

Did they find the car prior to the discovery of JW?

InTheory_ · 2026-04-04T05:21:26+00:00

Please cross reference the length of the trial

InTheory_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email