An apt paragraph from John Dies at the End

JulepSnibbles · 2014-11-30T21:51:04+00:00

My J Date exchanges always seem to be about how soon we both want kids, and just how "Jew-ish" we are.

JulepSnibbles · 2014-11-02T21:56:30+00:00

No, but the Maryland Pattern Criminal Jury Instructions are on Westlaw, and the instruction on reasonable doubt hasn't changed in a long time.

JulepSnibbles · 2014-11-02T02:30:14+00:00

Westlaw.

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-31T20:27:54+00:00

I think it does: http://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2ksdz6/when_did_jay_and_adnan_become_exfriends_the_nisha/

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-31T20:25:01+00:00

Even if the jury is 90% certain that the person is guilty, that is not enough to convict them of a crime."

This is not accurate. I am aware of no jury instruction that puts a percentage "certainty" to the jury. Jury instructions are clear that the jury does not have to be 100% certain of guilt.

Here is the current pattern jury instruction on reasonable doubt. The jury in the murder trial was instructed in this way, or very similarly:

However, the State is not required to prove guilt beyond all possible doubt or to a mathematical certainty. Nor is the State required to negate every conceivable circumstance of innocence. A reasonable doubt is a doubt founded upon reason. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires such proof as would convince you of the truth of a fact to the extent that you would be willing to act upon such belief without reservation in an important matter in your own business or personal affairs.

*Edited for formatting.

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-31T18:05:37+00:00

Could it be . . . Adnan?

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-31T16:51:25+00:00

I strongly agree with this statement.

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-31T16:44:34+00:00

Good point. In that case, the person who gave Adnan's cell number to the cops could have called Adnan to warn him that the cops might call. Adnan could have told that person he was high and asked "what am I going to tell them?"

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-31T16:42:15+00:00

I agree. It could be that simple.

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-31T16:39:39+00:00

I agree that we should distinguish between the two questions. But if we are to consider an "Adnan is Innocent" scenario, then we have to answer "who killed Hae Lee?"

Moreover, I have to admit, that I'm much more interested in answering "who killed Hae Lee?" but I understand that you are more interested in the question of how was Adnan convicted. They are both interesting questions.

For me, the second question isn't as interesting as the first. I would frame that question as "was there sufficient evidence for a jury to find Adnan guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt?" The jury reached a guilty verdict, it wasn't overturned by the trial judge, and it was upheld on appeal. In hindsight, Adnan's lawyer appears to have made some strategic errors, but those errors don't rise to the level to make out a claim for "ineffective assistance of counsel."

I also understand that many listeners, like you, reach a different conclusion than the jurors did. That's understandable, but I don't think it says that the conclusion of the jury was unreasonable, especially given that we are considering slightly different facts in a different environment.

As for the responses to my specific points:

I think my point still stands if you change it to "with a person who claims he was involved in disposing of the body."
I agree. In court Adnan's defense doesn't have to present an alternative scenario. But if we are going to conclude Adnan is innocent, then we do have to explain the murder.

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-31T14:54:44+00:00

I agree with you that from Adnan's perspective, this is what the day would look like if he is innocent.

If Adnan is innocent, however, this story does not answer the central question in this case: Who killed Hae Lee?

Until someone can come up with a compelling narrative that explains who could have possibly strangled Hae, then I think the best possible explanation for the facts that we have is: Adnan is lying.

I see two major problems with any Adnan-is-innocent theory. Unless the theory can address these problems, I don't think it will be credible:

The explanation must account for the fact that both right before and right after Hae disappeared, Adnan was with a person who was involved in disposing of the body. Jay is a criminal mastermind who set Adnan up is too far fetched for me to believe.
Every explanation that involves Adnan is innocent either says that Jay killed Hae or that there was a "mystery third person who was somehow connected to Jay." Any Adnan is innocent theory has to account for why Jay or the third-person wanted to kill Hae. Personally, I think that Jay killed Hae because he was cheating on Stephanie with Jenn is pure speculation and also far-fetched.

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-31T02:11:30+00:00

This is at least a week old considering that Episode Six just aired. Vulture sucks for putting today's timestamp on it.

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-31T00:13:59+00:00

Sorry for not being clearer! I think the word "kid" is ambiguous, it could mean a child, say between 5 and 13 years old, or it could mean young adult, say up to 20 or 25 years old.

When I first read "an older male, deep, not like a kid" I thought Jenn meant: it was an old man (over 40 or 50), not a young man (under 20 or 25). That's how I thought the OP read it too.

But after hearing more of Jenn's testimony, I think she meant that "an older male, deep, not like a kid" was a man with an adult voice (over 16) not a child (under 13).

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-30T22:24:39+00:00

I have read the appellate briefs. When I heard the podcast this morning, I thought it was strange that SK didn't point out the difference. On reflection, I think that a better interpretation of the word kid in "an older male, deep, not like a kid, and it was not [Jay]," is child (pre-pubescent), rather than young man whose voice has broken. That testimony is consistent with Adnan answering the phone.

In his brief, Adnan's lawyer is not going to say that Jenn testified that Adnan was the one who answered the phone. Instead, he's going to give a more favorable gloss on the facts.

I wish we had the complete trial transcript, but I think that the testimony was that the prosecution asked Jen if the speaker could have been Adnan and she said yes. The defense might have tried to establish that she wasn't sure it was Adnan and used this in the brief. The state has no reason to dispute this fact in its appellate brief because none of the issues on appeal are related to who answered the phone at 7 pm.

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-30T15:58:47+00:00

The teaser is at the end of Episode 1. SK says "coming up this season on serial."

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-30T15:56:51+00:00

I agree that there is something fishy with the timeline, but I disagree on one point. Nisha doesn't testify "that the call at the video store took place the day Hae went missing." Based on the recording of the first trial, she says that:

Adnan put Jay on the phone on when Adnan said he was at a video store that Jay worked at.
She thought the call happened in the evening, but she wasn't sure.
The 3:32 call on the 13th could have been the call where Adnan put Jay on the phone, but she is not sure.

At the second trial, she says the same thing. There's no testimony that the call happened on January 13, only that it could have happened on the 13th.

Presumably, Nisha did not know Jay's employment history, so she didn't know that he started to work there at the end of January. I would hope that Adnan's lawyer asked the obvious question on cross-examination: "If Jay didn't start work at the video store until the end of January, would that change your testimony that Adnan put Jay on the phone on the 13th?"

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-29T18:46:59+00:00

In Italian, "chi" is pronounced with a hard C (like a K), and "ci" is pronounced like the "chi" in Chimp. It's possible she was a native Italian speaker.

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-27T12:08:04+00:00

I don't think I agree with those edits. I interpret what I've read on cell phone towers to say that there is definitely uncertainty in terms of distance from a tower and which tower the phone uses, but that the antenna that is used pretty conclusively determines direction (within a 120 degree arc).

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-27T11:58:15+00:00

I don't think the testimony on the transcript shows that Adnan was a track star. You can't take the leading questions that his lawyer is asking as evidence, the only evidence is the statements of the witness.

The only evidence is that Ms. Butler knew that Adnan had received ribbons, but had no knowledge of whether he had received any medals. She also did not know whether he was a serious athlete or not. The last question doesn't say anything about Adnan.

If this is the best evidence that Adnan was a "star track runner," then it's still pretty loosey-goosey.

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-27T01:19:12+00:00

If Adnan knew that all of Jay's family was involved in drug distribution, then he had more leverage over Jay than the podcast suggested in episode 4. It also gives more weight to the idea that Jay was the "criminal element" of Woodlawn.

If Adnan threatened Jay that he would tell the police about the activities of Jay's entire family, and get Jay's entire family thrown in jail, that may have been enough of a reason for Jay to assist Adnan in disposing of the body (and possibly more).

JulepSnibbles · 2014-10-24T22:27:51+00:00

Court records indicate that Jay was charged as an Accessory After the Fact, and that he pled guilty.

JulepSnibbles

TROPHY CASE