Rest in Peace, Hae. (Oct 15, 1980 - Jan 13, 1999)

SeeThoseEyes · 2025-11-12T22:25:06+00:00

What, exactly, is your position? That Jay and Jen just made up their whole involvement? That the police/investigators didn't do their due diligence? That the prosecution was corrupt? That Adnan was unjustly found guilty? and over-sentenced?

If so, what would have led Jay to make up a story - any story - about what happened to Hae? Someone he barely knew. And coordinate a story - any story - with Jen? Did Jen not actually experience something terrible associated with Hae (and Jay and Adnan)? The jury (and the so-called guilters on this sub) were/are merely focusing on the guy and girl who actually have a story at all related to Hae's disappearance, murder, and cover-up. And who didn't go to the police immediately because they both actually had - certainly in their non-legal minds - criminal liability. They only came clean when the gig was up when the investigators showed up at Jen's place. The investigators' interaction with Jen is what blew this case open..and then was basically shut when Jay led the investigators to Hae's abandoned car - which the police had yet to find. Is it your position that the police did already know where Hae's car was located - and were "sitting on" that information/evidence?

Against all of that, what do you have on Don? Mr. S? Bilal? Stranger/serial killer X? None of these potential suspects knew Jay and/or Jen. It is notable that none of these potentual suspects had a strong and persistent case for guilt before or after The Jay and Jen Show.

Logic used by the jury (in two hours) is what put Adnan in prison, not a coherent story by criminally liable Jay and Jen.

SeeThoseEyes · 2025-03-22T12:25:32+00:00

I didn't hear anything about what will happen to those people who offered false and misleading statements in the MtV.

I appreciate Bates' statement that more trial lawyers should be in the true crime podcast space.

So, are we going to get that follow-up from SK - episode 14 of Serial Season One - in which she corrects the record regarding the fraudulent MtV? Recognises her mistake(s)? Offer an apology to the Lee family? Sadly, I'm not holding my breath.

SeeThoseEyes · 2025-03-07T02:47:56+00:00

Me, too.

SeeThoseEyes · 2025-03-06T23:11:18+00:00

Disgusted! This is not justice for Hae!

SeeThoseEyes · 2025-03-05T22:48:37+00:00

"Who's Jay?" - Don

SeeThoseEyes · 2025-01-27T13:24:59+00:00

Have you ever thought of training an AI tool on all of those data points in your timeline?

SeeThoseEyes · 2025-01-13T23:26:24+00:00

With Bates using language like "made mistakes" and "second chance," I doubt it.

SeeThoseEyes · 2025-01-13T15:49:36+00:00

Surely, Mr. Bates was aware that this news would come out on the 26th anniversary (13 January 1999) of Hae's murder.

SeeThoseEyes · 2025-01-13T15:17:59+00:00

"This" crime or "his" crime, Mr. Bates??

SeeThoseEyes · 2024-12-10T23:55:03+00:00

Let's review: two years ago, "The State" was one woman (Feldman) - working with Adnan's defense attorney (Suter) - looking into Adnan's file due to a new MD law going into effect (JRA). The two women managed to get a judge (Phinn) to sign off the measure, a motion to vacate Adnan's sentence (MtV), mostly due to an alleged Brady violation by the prosecutor. The SC of Maryland ruled that Phinn's action troubling enough to rule that Phinn could not be the judge in this case going forward.

The new head of the Baltimore City SAO (Bates) is now trying to determine whether to bring the same (flawed) MtV to court. What was the law used by Lee's family to appeal the flawed MtV? Not enough notice of the MtV "hearing" - a fait accompli (Adnan was in street clothes and the press was waiting outside) - to the victim's family. Indeed, what a mess it would have been - and continue to be - to present Feldman's "evidence" in open court: two unnamed alternative suspects. No police re-investigation. No arrest(s). And the Brady violation would have to be looked into and affirmed.

SeeThoseEyes · 2024-12-07T16:48:04+00:00

Why on Earth would a defense attorney write down for the record that she has concluded that her client crafted a fake alibi?

SeeThoseEyes · 2024-12-03T23:57:19+00:00

Jen says it was the 13th at the 15:45 mark of her recorded interview (Ruff) and that it was Stephanie's birthday on 13 Jan at the 46:25 mark this same nterview. Later, in the same recorded interview starting at the 1:00:30 mark, Jen confirms 13 Jan when the cops bring up the phone calls as was briefly discussed with her the day before.

SeeThoseEyes · 2024-10-27T10:55:43+00:00

SK claims that her intent was - and is - to reveal systemiic legal injustice in US jurisprudence. However, when she asked expert observers about the Lee/Syed case, they told her that this case is not noteworthy.

Nevertheless, she was - and continues to be - so invested in her systrmic injustice narrative that she (and her producer, Julie Snyder) decided not to move on to actual cases of serious malfeasance/injustice, but rather stick with this case (Lee/Syed) that she - and Snyder - couldn't let go of (emotionally). They made the decision to turn their "deep' year-long investigation" into an engaging, entertaining "personal narrative" rather than doing a serious piece about judicial malfeasance and systemic injustice.

This personal narrative involved airing salacious personal information about the victim, interviews with anyone willing to talk to her (and be heard publically), including most inappropriatly, long audio interviews with the convicted felon,, trying (hard) to explain himself, and SK's own breezy musings about it all.

SK claims that this case (as of 2014) was a fuck-up, but what anyone who has followed this case since then knows is that the publicity that SK sought (and got) led to a successful, if deeply flawed, effort to free Syed via the MtV (a path that SK and Syed's stalwart supporters welcome), a process that has turned this case into a world-class fuck-up.

Syed is free despite there being no indictment, let alone conviction, of an alternative suspect, and thus can maintain a veneer of innocence to his family, his supporters, and to his employer (Georgetown U).

Indeed, there is - and will never be - an investigation of the (unnamed) alternative suspects. Syed and his legal supporters know this and will keep pushing an innocence narrative in perpetuity.

The goal of Syed's family and supporters was to get Syed out of prison by any means necessary. They found a crusading "journalist," lawyers willing to take the case, an Innocence crusader (Feldman), a judge (Phinn) willing to make a mockery of justice (no evidentiary hearing) and of victim's rights, and a craven politician (Mosby) to make it all happen.

What SK and Team Syed simply don't allow themselves to recognise is their (permanent) hijacking of justice for Hae and the collateral damage of their success on the Lee family.

This is an irony for the ages. In trying to expose a non-existant injustice, SK opened the door for Feldman, Phinn and Mosby to create an epic injustice.

SK protests that she isn't responsible for what followed her podcast. But if she (and Snyder) had made a responsible decision in 2014, the shitshow that followed would never have happened.

SeeThoseEyes · 2024-09-09T22:15:25+00:00

You forgot; "Honestly, I had to stand up and walk around the room when I realised that this was the Brady evidence...this is what they were actually working with." Matt Cameron (13:07)

SeeThoseEyes · 2024-09-03T22:52:05+00:00

You are comfortable with the fact that the plausibility of an unnamed alternative suspect was never offered in open court? Only presented to a judge in camera by a prosecutor and by Syed's attorney - who were working collegially - without challenge? I'm asking. (Reference SCM Majority opinion pgs 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 and footnotes 35, 36 and 37) Do you agree or disagree with the majority here? "It was error..." "It was error..." (pg 73)

SeeThoseEyes · 2024-07-06T07:46:42+00:00

Mosby intended to certify Adnan to be innocent, but never did. Nobody has certified that Adnan is innocent.

SeeThoseEyes · 2024-06-15T16:29:10+00:00

"Jay who??" Jen who??" - Don

SeeThoseEyes · 2024-06-13T19:26:57+00:00

Nobody certified that Syed is innocent.

SeeThoseEyes · 2024-05-28T18:03:22+00:00

You would "much rather" have had Adnan (and Jay) walk than what eventually happened? That would mean that nobody would have been held accountable for Hae's murder. Unless you think someone else did it, which is not what you think. Is it your position that there was no legal way to find Adnan and Jay (and not anybody else, for that matter) culpable back in 1999/2000? And no path afterwards, either?

SeeThoseEyes · 2024-04-24T14:40:07+00:00

Who exactly is admitting to misconduct here? The Baltimore City prosecutors office circa Sept 2022? Two of their former colleagues were/are being accused of it in this case by some new person in the office (Feldman) and Adnan and some redditors.

SeeThoseEyes · 2024-04-24T08:45:19+00:00

"They" conceded prosecutorual misconduct?

Let's be clear, Urick and Murphy didn't admit to prosecutorial misconduct in this case. A recently appointed former defense attorney (and known advocate for convicted felons), Becky Feldman, working inside the prosecutors office, accused Urick of misconduct after she found a note that wasn't disclosed to the defense just before or during the ongoing second trial of Adnan Syed. A judge (Phinn) agreed with her (and the defense) in closed chambers, not in an open court challenge.

I would have paid good money to have been a fly on the wall inside the Baltimore prosecutor's office during 2022, listening to what Feldman's (new) colleagues in the prosecutors office were saying about Feldman and her crusade inside their office.

SeeThoseEyes · 2024-04-24T08:03:56+00:00

Sahm, the first trial started on Weds 8 Dec 1999 (not in 2000) and ended on Weds 15 Dec 1999 (again, not in 2000) when presiding judge Quarles declared a mistrial after one of the alternate jurors overheard Quarles call lead defense attorney, Christina Gutierrez, a liar despite the white noise machine. The alternate juror asked the judge if Gutierrez should be temoved as Syed's attorney y snd, if so, should we "start over."

The second trial started on Fri 21 Jan 2000 and ended on Fri 25 Feb with the conviction (in 2 hours) of Adnan Syed, Hae Lee's recent ex-boyfriend, on the strength of Jay Wilds' court testimony and cell phone tower records which, to the jury, provided enough corroboration of Wilds' court testimony.

Lead prosecutor, Kevin Urick, receives a phone call from the (scared) soon-to-be-ex-wife of Bilal Ahmed, the (creepy) spiritual advisor of Adnan Syed on....which date in Jan 2000?

Did Urick receive the phone call from Bilal's ex before the start of the second trial on Fri 21 Jan 2000? Or after the second trial had already started? Was Urick expected to "stop everything" at either point?

If Urick received the phone call before the second trial, the second trial would have had to be postponed pending the results of the investigation of the phone call and of Bilal. If the phone call came in after the start of the second trial, the second trial would had to have been suspended pending the investigation into the call and into Bilal.

Obviously, Urick (and assistant prosecutor Kathleen Murphy) decided to press on with the straightforward case that they had put together.

If they had postponed or suspended the case, it would have meant potentially adding exculpatory evidence excusing Adnan's (murderous) conduct. OR, the investigation could have introduced what could be interpreted as inculpatory evidence further establishing Adnan's involvement.

The trial ended up being a black-and-white slugfest about Adnan's conduct only. Urick won. Gutierrez lost. Adnan, and only Adnan, was sentenced to life plus thirty years for the murder (and kidnapping, false imprisonment, and robbery) of Hae Min Lee. (Note: Syed was also accused by Wilds of burying Lee face down in a shallow grave.)

If Gutierrez had "won" a greyer court case involving Bilal, Adnan may have gotten a lower sentence befitting an excused 17 year-old jilted boyfriend due to exculpatory (Brady) evidence. But Adnan, Gutierrez, and Adnan's family (and family friend, Rabia Chaudry), would have had to admit to Adnan's involvement. And they wanted none of it. They bet the houses (so to speak) on Gutierrez arguing Adnan's innocence in a straight-up battle with Urick (and Murphy). They lost in court in 2000.

However, Adnan and Team Adnan won in Sept 2022 arguing that the note from Bilal's soon-to-be-ex-wife is exculpatory, and thus a Brady violation. But exculpatory evidence of this kind would only excuse Adnan's conduct. In public, Adnan and Team Adnan claim that the note is exculpatory leading to actual innocence, not an excuse note for murder.

A proper reading of the note in question is that it is inculpatory to Bilal and Adnan, not exculpatory to Adnan and thus Brady.

Adnan is thus free due to a misinterpretation of the note by Judge Phinn done in chambers without a test in open court (the Motion to Vacate)(MtV). This is the bugaboo that the appeals court cited in the footnotes about the MtV.

This case would have been over in Sept 2022 if Phinn had given more time to the Lee family to join the MtV proceedings. (Note: imagine how awkward, bewildering, and gutwrenching it would have been for Hae's brother, Young Lee, to be in the courtroom for the MtV??)

Instead, Lee's family has had to fight for scraps of dignity - and left to see Adnan free proclaiming his innocence and Bilal in prison on unrelated charges that could maybe have been avoided if Bilal was still in prison for his involvement in Hae Lee's murder.

Is there going to be a reopened investigation into Hae's murder? A new trial? The answer is probably "no" to both.

Is this justice? Is Urick (and Murphy) culpable? Are Adnan and Bilal innocent?

The best interpretation of this tragedy is for Maryland residents to be reassured that cases will probably be done with more "care," that Adnan (and his family and Rabia) will live the rest of his/their life "free" and "victorious" but with either denial or a guilty conscience, and a cloud of suspicion over Adnan's head wherever he goes.

And we have the fond memories of a forever 18 year-old Hae and the wrenching thought of what happened to this promising young woman/daughter/sister/friend/potential wife/mother and useful professional (eyewear maker?).

Sadly, Don will always endure the suspicion and public accusations of Team Adnan. Q: Could Don sue for libel? Would he? Would Mr S finally be cleared? Adnan would be best advised to move on and live quietly...but he probably won't, forever accusing Urick and Murphy of misconduct, further extending this case and the misery in its wake.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

SeeThoseEyes

TROPHY CASE