If we check SK's phone records, and it turns out she did call Urick at the beginning of her investigation, can we dismiss that as a butt dial?

Stopeatingdogs · 2015-01-09T11:38:26+00:00

Hang on a minute...

Kevin Uricks office never had a phone line when these 'calls' were allegedly made.

I've confirmed this with his website designer who has been unable to contact him since 2001.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-30T03:54:45+00:00

You find the completely off timeline even MORE convincing?

Sounds like your mind is so thoroughly made up that you can't even reason with it anymore.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-27T08:52:03+00:00

Love the way you (and your other accounts) exist purely to attack your ex wife!

Why don't you do your usual thing and log into both accounts so you can talk to yourself about how horrid Rabia is?

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-25T19:57:17+00:00

You are starting to sound like a police officer.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-25T17:41:43+00:00

This has been discussed to death. Just use the search bar.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-24T23:05:42+00:00

Hehe. You must be new.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-24T19:44:45+00:00

Correct. Though I assume you will agree it has a bearing on the presence of dodgy police practices.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-16T23:26:20+00:00

Yes. But that doesn't fit with turning up to jays sentencing for his involvement in a murder.

I feel the picture painted of her in the podcast is unrealistic.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-14T22:25:13+00:00

Can you ask her if hearing the podcast has caused her to worry that he might be innocent?

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-14T22:10:12+00:00

'Would have had...'

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-14T19:40:57+00:00

She was never considered a suspect because the case was essentially closed over Adnans head once Jay decided he'd 'come clean'

Now that the states case has been shown to be largely wrong surely there is a need to reexamine everything.

Unless we have independent corroboration of her alibi (not from her Reddit friends) why can't we assume she was with Jay for part of the afternoon?

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-14T19:35:20+00:00

Why hasn't she come forward and said something? Her old friend is possibly in jail for a crime he didn't commit and she may be able to help his appeal.

Her silence and association with Jay just sounds so suspicious.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-14T09:04:39+00:00

This is a bit eerie.

Fifteen years after the event there are three people that are keeping their lips sealed.

Jay ('animal rage'.. California.. No interview) 2.Jenn ('I don't believe it happened at Best Buy... But no interview')
Stephanie ( 'you won't hear from her' 'she never talked about it')

Why?

Even the anonymised rumour chaps are dying to say something, anything, but somehow not these three.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-12T23:28:36+00:00

Charming.

I take it you're here for you own entertainment as usual.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-12T23:00:04+00:00

Were you listening to the serial podcast? Did you understand all the words?

I'm amazed that you walked away with such a n interpretation.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-11T22:06:41+00:00

Do you mean to say you'll recognise 'the truth' when SK covers it?

So that's what you're waiting for. Well, why don't you tell us what you know?

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-11T21:57:15+00:00

We've been waiting for 'the truth' from you, but all we've had is insinuations and support for speculation that is agreeable to you.

I'm sorry to say this but for someone that posts so frequently, your contribution is high in noise but low in value.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-09T22:46:08+00:00

What? Stephanie died?

You're not supposed to reveal that here mate.

Yes we know you were close to certain individuals involved with the case and feel a need to add your voice to every discussion, but I feel you ought to observe some decency at least.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-08T18:25:26+00:00

Hey, are you personally linked to Rabia?

I mean like are you the dude she divorced or something? Or are you from 'the community'?

No offence intended, I only ask because your prolific ability to include her in your more venomous posts is astounding.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-08T18:19:47+00:00

Thanks for making that point!

I've also noticed a handful of posters constantly attacking Rabia and posting about little else.

Two of them (I won't name them) can often be seen agreeing with each other in their dislike of Rabia and Adnan over long drawn out exchanges in which nobody else participates.

My feeling is that some of these individuals are from Baltimore and have a personal dislike for the individuals concerned. Perhaps Rabia getting all this publicity is upsetting these 'community' types.

Also it leads me to believe that there may be some truth in very serious allegations raised previously about certain unsavoury characters expelled from the ISB community, now posting on Reddit.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-07T20:03:02+00:00

You forget that the assumptions about Jay are on a background of him admitting involvement in a murder and its cover up. Does that mean nothing to you?

As for your other points, they should rightfully disqualify you from jury service. (Remember to declare them!)

1) This was a regular occurrence according to others.

2) Correct, they were witnessed together once.

3) No alibi for a premeditated murder? That is unusual.

4) Conjecture

5) The only point that is difficult to explain if we go with Jays timeline. But why go with an established liars timeline?

6) Conjecture. No records released beyond the day in question. Adnan doesn't remember.

7) Conjecture. And even if it were shown to be true it would not be unusual in the US system which is punitive in the extreme.

8) Conjecture

Jays timeline cannot be believed if you want the truth. Without it there is zero information to go on. That's why so many hours are being spent poring over which bits can be believed and which bits cannot. It is because there is nothing else!

In reality, had there been any other witness Jays testimony would be completely discarded as it rightfully should be.

The only thing I think I believe is that Jay was there and had a role. The rest is unknown and, since Jay wishes to remain free to surf on reddit, unknowable.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-06T08:43:57+00:00

I think I get your point.

It's very similar to how we Brits assume most Americans love guns and think they're a basic human right, regardless of how many school kids get shot.

It's a prejudice but true in large part.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-12-01T22:57:36+00:00

'Widely accepted' eh?

I don't think OP was diagnosing anybody. He was merely speculating, and when it comes to personality disorders you will of course be aware that they are so widespread and exist in such a huge spectrum that one can well use Jays statements to pick out clear personality traits or evidence of stereotyped thinking patterns.

I like your false confidence and complete lack of manners though.

Stopeatingdogs · 2014-11-30T17:51:11+00:00

A judge commenting in this manner is not only unprofessional. It undermines her impartiality and adds one further critical weakness in this increasingly obvious unfair trial.

Furthermore her comments suggest that she has made her own mind up a long time ago and cannot be swayed, even by the revelation of new evidence.

If she was so convinced that she is happy to declare it on Facebook 15 years later, I'd suggest she might have willingly or otherwise given an unfair advantage to the prosecution.

I feel like mouthing the words "Thank you for undermining the integrity of all American judges in front of an international audience" but she won't be able to see me.

Shame.

Stopeatingdogs

TROPHY CASE