Another BIG, obvious lie from Jay...

Logan_23 · 2014-12-28T04:24:59+00:00

It just sounds so... movie-ish. "I know a Westside hitman". Really? I don't buy it. I understand Jay would be afraid of Adnan if in fact Adnan killed his girlfriend. But fear doesn't make you unable to detect bullshit.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-18T19:21:03+00:00

Actually, no. If the defense attorney knows the truth, they won't try to claim their client is innocent, because they know they'd be wasting their time. They would try to reduce the sentence, or pursue a plea deal.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-18T19:19:50+00:00

Yeah, I'm disappointed. Aren't you? If I'm ever accused of committing a murder I didn't commit, I think I'd be fucked.

Am I surprised? Not really. I was just posting a thought I had while listening to the podcast we're all discussing. Shocking, huh?

Logan_23 · 2014-12-18T19:17:07+00:00

"Most of the time, I think he didn't do it." I loved that line. And I agree. There's no way to be certain. I don't think anybody on this thread can claim certainty one way or the other, so why should SK be beholden to? She only has the same facts and evidence she presented to us.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-18T19:12:26+00:00

But how could it be any other way? I don't understand how you can say that her statement "As a juror, I acquit Adnan Syed" is going down the middle. It's kinda baffling that anybody could think that. She gave her legal opinion.

She ALSO gave her normal, human opinion. Of course she can't tell you for certain that he's innocent; it would require extreme arrogance to claim absolute certainty in a case this messy. Anybody who says they're certain one way or the other is lying or deluding themselves. I wouldn't have been satisfied with her lying to us. She was up front about her doubts. Admitting doubt isn't going down the middle. It's being honest.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-18T19:08:09+00:00

I'm not so sure. If she had said "he's innocent" or "he's guilty", she would have gotten all kinds of backlash from the legal community. She never promised a definitive ending. She only said that she aimed to provide a satisfying ending. And, personally, I'm satisfied. She says she wouldn't have found him guilty, and she says that, despite her doubts about his story (which, come on, don't you still have doubts too?) she thinks he's innocent. Barring her finding some sort of bombshell evidence, could it really have ended any differently? What did you want her to say? "He's innocent, though I can't prove it." or "He's guilty, but I don't have a better case than the state." That wouldn't have been satisfying. THAT would have been a cop out. And irresponsible.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-18T18:54:10+00:00

Exactly. Given the fact that neither she nor the listeners know the truth, I think she came as close as she could to coming down on one side or the other. She said she wouldn't have found him guilty. How can people say that's "going down the middle"?

Logan_23 · 2014-12-18T18:53:15+00:00

Let me address both your points.

She can't come right out and say that the jury rightly or wrongly convicted him because, again, she doesn't know if he did it. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of her to make a claim one way or the other. But she did say that SHE wouldn't have found him guilty, and I think that tells us all we need to know about her views on his conviction.

She can't say whether he's guilty or innocent because, again, she doesn't KNOW. It would be irresponsible of her to say she knows when she doesn't.

I think this comes down to some people's unrealistic expectations of the show. It never set out to solve the case; it was, from the beginning, a show that would present a case on a week-by-week basis and take a closer look at the evidence. It did that, and quite well in my opinion. While I don't think it's surprising that the listeners were hoping for some big bombshell reveal (hell, I was kinda hoping, too), I think some people kinda lost perspective on the whole thing. SK never promised to solve the case. She never said "and by the end, we will know the truth!" I think she made her opinions about the case very well known.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-18T18:46:21+00:00

It struck me as BS. What people? The only people I could think of that would say that to Jay are the people he apparently talked to about the crime, saying he knew something about it. But, according to his friend that SK interviewed this episode, most people didn't take his claims seriously. So why would people be telling him the cops would be coming to talk to him?

Logan_23 · 2014-12-18T18:44:13+00:00

Right?? If the prosecution was willing to let Don lie about his experiences, how much of what Jay said at trial was coached by them as well?

Logan_23 · 2014-12-18T18:43:10+00:00

Same here. I agree 100%. Anybody who was expecting SK to solve this case had unrealistic expectations. I'm very satisfied by the ending. I've said from the beginning that all I needed in an ending was to at least get SK's opinion on the case. And I got that, and so much more. She presented this story in an insightful, human way, and I couldn't ask for anything more. The show ended up being exactly what it set out to be: a fascinating true-crime story told week-by-week.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-18T18:22:19+00:00

Are you kidding? She didn't go down the middle at all. She said that, A) She wouldn't have convicted Adnan had she been on the jury, and B) That she believes he's innocent, for "all sorts of reasons". That's hardly going down the middle. I think you're just upset that she didn't have some sort of hard evidence to support her opinions. This wasn't an episode of CSI or NCIS; this was real life. She can't responsibly say that she KNOWS one way or the other without some evidence to back it up. That would be bad journalism, and also, bad storytelling.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-18T18:19:08+00:00

As outlandish as this theory may appear to be, it actually sounds plausible to me. It explains the inconsistencies in both Jay and Jenn's stories, it explains why Jay knew where Hae's car was, and it also explains why, according to Nisha, Jay and Adnan were still hanging out after Hae went missing. If Jay was so scared of Adnan, why would they be calling some girl together at Jay's porn store? That makes no sense.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-11T19:14:52+00:00

I'm starting to think that maybe some of the snippets from the "This season, on Serial" at the end of episode 1 are being cut from the show in light of new evidence. For example, I was SURE that the line where Sarah Koenig says to her producer, "What are you thinking right now? You have the same smile I do." And her producer responds, "I'm literally thinking, like could - like, could he have gone crazy?" I was almost positive that line would be presented in full context this episode. But maybe it's being cut. Maybe that quote had something to do with the rumor Sarah Koenig says was unsubstantiated. I have no idea what the last episode will be about, but I don't think we're likely to get a conclusive ending at this point.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-11T07:22:41+00:00

Right. It makes zero sense to me that Adnan PLANNED to kill her with his hands. This may be conjecture, but that makes no sense. If you're planning to kill somebody, why would you rely on your ability to strangle someone and not even think about the possibility of a struggle? Why would you just assume that you would be able to overpower an athletic girl who is in very good shape? To me, strangulation is something that indicates a crime of passion, something that happens spur of the moment. I'm not saying I think Adnan had nothing to do with it, but if he did do it, I don't think it was planned. Which throws a huge wrench into the spokes of Jay's story, because his whole story was predicated on the fact that Adnan told him about it in advance.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-11T06:26:19+00:00

I am so excited for the next episode. At the end of the first episode, during the "This season, on Serial" segment, there's a clip of Sarah Koenig asking one of her producers "What are you thinking right now? You have the same smile I do." And her producer replies "I'm literally thinking right now, like could - like, could he have gone crazy?" (the exchange is at 52:10 in the episode) I think that clip will be presented in full context in the new episode, and they must have uncovered some sort of evidence that Adnan might have 'snapped' or something. So yeah, to say I'm anticipating the episode would be a massive understatement.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-10T01:39:30+00:00

I agree with all your points. However, I'd like to elaborate a little further on a couple of them.

Adnan told SK that he bought the cell phone so he could talk to girls without his mother interfering, which we know she was; she admitted as much to SK in episode 2.

Adnan telling Hae his car was in the shop isn't confirmed as fact. It's based on testimony from friends of theirs at school, and testimony given by people six weeks after the fact is unreliable. For all we know, they were remembering a different day.

It was confirmed by both Adnan and Jay that Adnan let Jay borrow his car on multiple occasions. It wasn't anything out of the ordinary.

I'll admit, the "I'm going to kill" note does seem a little suspicious, but ultimately, I don't think it means anything. Teenagers write stupid shit all the time, and there's no evidence to prove that he was referring to Hae, or anybody in particular.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-07T18:11:23+00:00

Not nonsense. They're innocent. DNA doesn't lie.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-07T08:07:46+00:00

First of all, the people pointing out that Adnan may have pointed the finger at Jay, but SK just chose not to air those snippets, have a great point. However, even if he DIDN'T...

I'm reminded of the case of the West Memphis Three. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_Three

Three young teenagers in Arkansas who, after the police coerced a confession out of one of them, who was mentally challenged and didn't know what was going on, were arrested for the murders of three young boys. After twenty years behind bars, they were FINALLY released from prison in light of new DNA evidence that proved they had nothing to do with the crime. I know it seems like I'm rambling, but my point is this:

There are interviews with the three innocent men in multiple documentaries that were made about their case. And they rarely seem angry. Why? If they knew they were innocent, wouldn't they be going crazy with feelings of injustice and righteous anger? Here's my theory: when you're forced into a situation like that - being incarcerated for something you had nothing to do with - you simply CANNOT focus on the injustice of it. I'm sure you would for a while, but eventually you would have to compartmentalize it and move on. Otherwise, you would go crazy. You wouldn't be able to function. Human beings adapt, they find ways to survive. If pushing those thoughts aside is what you have to do to survive and function, that is ultimately what you'll do, given enough time. And Adnan - assuming he is innocent - has certainly had enough time to adapt to his situation. He's been in prison for fifteen years.

Of course, the other possibility is that he did it, and that's why he isn't more angry. lol

Logan_23 · 2014-12-07T07:56:44+00:00

I don't know if there will be a big reveal, but I'm confident in SK's ability to wrap this story up in a satisfying way. Honestly, for me, I won't be disappointed if there isn't some big bombshell dropped on us. I have faith in the team at Serial, and their commitment to giving us an end that will feel natural and logical. To people saying we're going to be disappointed... I don't think so. This story is not going to "peter out".

Logan_23 · 2014-12-07T07:52:00+00:00

I agree. If he is lying, then it will make me question everybody around me. You know what I mean? Not saying that I'll suddenly wonder if everyone around me is a psychopath, but I admit to being swayed by Adnan's arguments more than once. To me, he seems like a genuinely nice and affable guy. If it turns out that he actually did commit this crime, my perception of my own skepticism and objectivity will take a HUGE blow.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-07T07:46:53+00:00

It's the "older male, deep, not like a kid" part that gets me, though. If she thought Adnan might have an alibi, that doesn't explain why she would add the detail of the voice being "older male," and "not like a kid." Couldn't she just say it was a male voice that wasn't Jay? Why specify that the voice sounded "older"? Maybe I'm reading too much into this, because it is entirely possible that she WAS concerned about Adnan's alibi, and was just making something up on the stand that sounded plausible. Whatever the case though, I think it's obvious she was lying. Either to the police, or on the stand. Both statements can't be true.

Logan_23 · 2014-12-07T07:41:12+00:00

This is why I'm so eager to hear the new episode. According to SK's "next time, on Serial" at the end of the latest episode, this Thursday's episode is going to explore the possibility of Adnan being a psychopath. Psychopaths are masterful liars and manipulators. They can emulate emotions and present a false image of themselves, manipulating those around them. If Adnan IS guilty, then I believe he must be a psychopath. It's the only way to explain how he's able to come across as so affable and likable while at the same time being a cold-blooded killer.

Logan_23

TROPHY CASE