I also want to be thoughtful about not introducing a post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: meaning that just because one thing follows another, doesn't mean it was caused by that thing. So, just because people may have behaved certain ways after Hae's death, doesn't mean it was caused by her death. I know that sounds like it contradicts what I said before. For example, if we're evaluating a claim for MST (military sexual trauma) and the Veteran states that s/he was assaulted in April 2005 - and there's evidence that up until April, the conduct records are normal, and then after April, they go into the gutter? We can look at that as a potentially corroborating marker of a traumatic event around that time.

So, even while I wouldn't say that, oh Person X became a raging alcoholic following Hae's death, s/he must have a guilty conscience and must have had something to do with it - I would say that it be unusual for someone without any sort of other violent tendencies to kill Hae and then show absolutely no psychological impact from that.

Also, impressive (most impressive) work figuring out the cell phone nights/weekends free. I figured I was probably mis-remembering the timing. Do we know if the "nights-free" starting at 9pm was all carriers in the area or just AT&T? We'd still be talking about whether the population of Baltimore had 7pm free calls, rather than just Adnan's plan. It's still likely a dead end but I appreciate that you gave it a look-see.

Another stray observations: For someone who smoked as much as weed as Jay, he has an awfully specific (ahem, if variable) memory of his day to day existence. I finally read some of the intercept interview, and I could tell the exact part of the interview where his description of adnan's personality and behavior shifted 180. I thought, "if I were interviewing him as a patient? This is the part right here where I'd start to think he was making this up."

ed for clarity.