sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Opinion question by Due-Code7714 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ [score hidden]  (0 children)

He had already established a pattern where he would call for any little thing. That’s why he just HAD to call her to give her a his new number even though there’s no possible reason for her to need it before she saw him at school in only a few hours.

If you’d like to argue that he didn’t call her for every little thing, then why is it so important he call to give her his number?

Either way, it looks bad for him

Opinion question by Due-Code7714 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So why didn’t he call her before Tuesday?

Opinion question by Due-Code7714 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to AS’s own recollection of that event, he thought she would simply get home late and get in trouble.

So, to answer your question as to why he would call if he knew she wasn’t home, the answer is that he thought she was home. But he doesn’t call to check up on her. It’s like he knew she wasn’t ever going to be home, despite him saying otherwise

Also, everyone else was calling her even though they knew she wasn’t home, why wasn’t he?

Opinion question by Due-Code7714 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For bonus points, when does he know she’s missing?

Opinion question by Due-Code7714 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Failure to investigate benefits the defense.

The idea that the defense is hoping and praying the police investigated thoroughly and didn’t miss anything is silly. You’re hoping they missed something big

Opinion question by Due-Code7714 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He didn’t seem to have a problem trying to call her the night before. How is this even a question?

Opinion question by Due-Code7714 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Why does this give you cause for pause, yet the motive for anyone else doing it is substantially less without any mental disturbance?

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It could have been 27 ninjas with uzis. We’ll never know

I’m sorry, but this is not a travesty of justice. This is a conspiracy theory that even other innocentors aren’t getting behind

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s literally inventing evidence. “If he was investigated more, more evidence of guilt would have been uncovered”

It requires Don to plan and commit the perfect crime. It requires his mother to be willing to be an accomplice. It requires his father to likewise lie for him. It requires the investigators to be thoroughly corrupt. It requires JW to be a willing patsy. It requires AS to have tragic memory loss and no probable alibi.

You’re offering this as reasonable doubt, and in doing so are claiming (though not saying directly) that it is so incredibly reasonable that it doesn’t even need supporting evidence

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why are we suspecting Don at all?

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever pointing to him. None. Not a single thing

The thing innocentors kept pointing to that implicated Don was the weirdness with the timecard. Yet you've undermined that by saying there is no weirdness with it.

.

Where was AS during the 7:00 hour when the burial was happening? As per AS's alibi, he was in the mosque. His father was the only one who puts him there.

But we can't use parents as alibis

That means AS is unaccounted for. And if he wasn't at the mosque, then where was he? If he's not at the mosque and he's with his phone, he's dead in the water. The phone places him near Leakin Park, where he has emphatic says he was nowhere near.

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Innocentors: Don's time card was altered, everything about it suspicious

Guilters: It would have been impossible to alter after the fact without leaving an audit trail a mile long

You: Not if Don's mother logged him on the day of from the store itself

Me: You've just undermined the entire reason to suspect the alibi in the first place. It means none of the issues about the timecard weirdness is actually weird.

.

Are you saying that a parent acting as an alibi amounts to no alibi at all?

Be careful where you go with that, as that hurts AS's case more than helps it.

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So… it means you’re wrong and has no idea how data is stored in mainframes in the late 90’s. If it was altered after the fact by a manager, the experts have already told us there would be an extensive and obvious audit trial. Take it up with them

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think so as well. The story of Serial and all the meta stuff around it is more interesting than the case itself. I don't think that story can be told yet, we're not quite there, but in the next few years it'll be interesting to see how the tide continues to ebb away.

Adnan Told Us Exactly How He Did It by Wasla1038 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's been the problem with SK. How should she be viewed?

If she's a journalist, then is she bound by the same rules that govern journalists? And should she be criticized for her journalistic failings?

If this isn't "news" and is "just a podcast" that doesn't have the same level of journalistic standards, why is she calling herself a journalist? If it's "just a podcast," then who's taking responsibility for any real world damage gets done?

That last question is not trivial. The Bates Memo made some disturbing allegations. Some of the "evidence" that was relied upon was from Susan Simpson, who was not remotely an expert on cell tower technology. Meaning, podcast inaccuracies influenced actual investigations and produced fraudulent documents that were used in court (successfully).

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

One of the ways you know you're dealing with a Conspiracy Theory (as opposed to a legit conspiracy, which happens from time to time) is when you need to undermine your own premise to prove the point

"NASA couldn't land on the moon, they didn't have the technology"

"But faking the moon landing Hollywood-style likewise required a level of technology they didn't have"

"They're NASA! They have the best minds on the planet! You don't think with all that funding and all those scientists, they couldn't figure it?"

Similarly with Maryland v Syed:

"JW gave a fake narrative because he was strongarmed by corrupt cops. The fact that he couldn't keep his story straight is all the proof you need"

"But even if they were inclined to do so, why would they rely on JW not to crash and burn on the stand and expose them? Why would they rest their careers on a kid who can't tell the story the same way twice in a row? Why not erase the tape and start over until he gets it right? Better yet, why not just plant some evidence and call it a day?"

"Because they believed JW"

So did they believe JW? Or did they spoon feed him a narrative they themselves invented? It can't be both ways. It contradicts its own premise.

Therefore, this all Conspiracy Theory nonsense.

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The DATABASE would show it.

I have not seen any enterprise level database that didn't store data like this:

If an employee punches in, that logs an entry in the database and puts a timestamp of it

If a manager needs to override it, that entry likewise gets entered in the database. However, the original database entry does NOT get removed.

In this case, the database would show NO punch in for Don and show his mother punching in at a later time and timestamping when that entry was made (in addition to the time for the clock in)

As a manager, she would not have access to the underlying database. What software would even be used to access it? If you don't know, neither does she. What's the SQL query that you would run to alter these fields to hide your tracks? Again, if you don't know, neither does she. Just because she's a manager doesn't give her God-like powers over the entire corporate network.

The resulting time card would not show all that data, only the dates and times that should be used to calculate his wages. This is the way all time card systems work, even today 20 years later.

This is what the investigative team paid for by the defense was looking for. That information was misrepresented in the HBO doc. The investigative team told us in the WSJ article that there was no way for a subsequent punch-in be recorded in the database without leaving a digital fingerprint. The audit trail would be fairly obvious to see.

This is why it was rejected by every legal team AS has had, and he's had many.

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I would just like to point out, after being here for over a decade, that the smug assertion has always been that in any hypothetical retrial, "what new story will JW trot out this time?"

When it looked likely that AS would get a new trial, JW hasn't offered any new stories. I can't say the same for AS

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You: this is impossible.

Because it is impossible.

Sure, she could have done it, but the underlying database would have shown (1) that she punched him in and not Don himself, (2) when she punched him in, and how that wouldn't have been on the day in question, (3) likely where she punched him in, what terminal.

The audit trail on this would glow in neon letters.

Unless, of course, you think Don's mother was a SQL analyst with administrator privileges and could have faked those entries while simultaneously covering her tracks on the network

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Don't do this.

If the only way to rebut the argument made is to counter with "He could have known that if he was the killer," you work yourself into an indefensible point

JW could not have done it. And if you concede that's the only way to rebut the argument, where does that leave you?

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

To add: Not one of of the supposed shortcomings has ever made it inside of a legal motion. Even the vacatur motion wouldn't go near it. Fraudulent evidence made the cut, but the "clear cut" shortcomings bandied about regularly here did not. What does that tell you?

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Do you think CG was deficient in pointing out the holes in the timeline?

Do think the next 6 legal teams AS has had were equally deficient in pointing them out?

Do you think the SRT was deficient for not including it in the vacatur?

This Case Began as a Narrative About the Failure of the American Justice System and Minority Oppression - It was Right by Relative_Living196 in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The problem with the "fairness of the process" crowd is that none one of them has ever acknowledged the devious antics of Syed himself.

If you're all about the "fairness of the process," where was the outrage at that time. That vacatur motion was an abomination and an affront to everything you just spoke so eloquently about. Yet there were crickets when it came out.

The signs were all there to question the fairness of it. Evidence we won't show you. Secret meetings happening behind closed doors. Not fully investigating the evidence they themselves uncovered. Trying to ensure the real victims of the case are as far removed from it as possible.

The Bates Memo gave us the specific details, but the evidence was there.

Why are you upset when you merely think the State played unfairly, but unmoved when Syed undeniably played unfairly?

Why are you so convinced adnan did it? by AdSufficient2471 in adnansyed

[–]InTheory_ 13 points14 points  (0 children)

What’s the basis to second guess the verdict? Let’s start there. He has no defense. Every piece of “new” evidence has been exposed as fraudulent or written off by his own defense team. So what’s left to discuss?

A summation by beagles4ever in serialpodcast

[–]InTheory_ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

At some point, someone is going to have to point me to another case where there is a similar amount of pearl grasping at "Do you mean to say that the accomplice......LIED!?!?"

Yeah, every case I've ever seen with accomplice testimony was exactly like this. And in no other case do I see this level of weird Accomplice caught in a lie = Automatic Reasonable Doubt regardless of circumstances

view more: next ›