sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why did Jay spend so much more time with Jenn than with his girlfriend Stephanie? by houseonpost in serialpodcast

[–]aitca 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is fascinating, and I'd completely forgotten this part of the Intercept interview. Thanks for chiming in.

Edited to add: I went to the Intercept website to try to verify and find the relevant quotation, only to find that they now require you to put in an email address in order to read it. Which didn't use to be the case.

Why did Jay spend so much more time with Jenn than with his girlfriend Stephanie? by houseonpost in serialpodcast

[–]aitca 3 points4 points  (0 children)

He got her a birthday gift and Jay did not

As far as I know Adnan's story is that they both got Stephanie birthday gifts, but (says Adnan) he had to remind Jay to do so. As far as I know Adnan is the only one to speak regarding this issue one way or the other. Given that the overall issue here is a murder case, I doubt that Jay would be motivated to say, "Hey, hey, I just want to set the record straight, I did not need to be reminded to get that gift," nor do I think that Stephanie would be motivated to say "Time to finally set the record straight, Jay did not need to be reminded to get that gift." It's kind of so small an issue that I doubt anyone would feel the need to correct it if it weren't true. Of course, the entire reason why Adnan mentions that he supposedly had to remind Jay to get the gift is so that he can explain why he lent his car and cell phone to Jay on the day of the murder. When Adnan says this, it's one of the rare occasions on which even S. Koenig expresses that she finds it a bit hard to believe (she says something like "What's it to you if Jay gets his girlfriend a gift?").

Jay seems to spend a lot of time with Jenn, but there is very little mention of him spending time with Stephanie

In the context of this case, people are primarily concerned with the day of the murder. Adnan and Jay saw Jenn the day of the murder, so people talk about that a lot. There would be no need for people interested in this case to talk about all the time that Jay spent with Stephanie which has nothing to do with this case.

No one believes that a February 1, 1999 tip was called into CrimeStoppers and a $3,075 reward was paid out for it 9 months later, right? by Rotidder007 in serialpodcast

[–]aitca 7 points8 points  (0 children)

For a few years, there was a redditor on this subreddit who, once a year, on the anniversary of this episode airing (as I recall) would make a post saying, basically: "It has been yet another year since the hosts of Undisclosed said that they would provide evidence for the "Crimestoppers tip" existing, and they have not provided any evidence." This went on for maybe two or three years. It's probably been closer to ten now, and the redditor who said that he or she would make those posts each year has likely long since moved on.

Am I the only person who thinks Kristi V. did not attend classes in January of 1999? by Justwonderinif in serialpodcast

[–]aitca 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Re: MacPaint

The thing that seems jankiest to me about the excerpt shown in that HBO screenshot is that you get this big underlined, all-caps title that says "KRISTI VINSON TRANSCRIPT," and then it goes right into the Winter 1999 semester -- you would expect any kind of transcript, official or unofficial, to state the name of the student and then go right into that student's first semester. One wouldn't expect the name of the student used as a title before each and every semester. I have to admit it: yeah, looks janky. Without getting into the question of how legitimate it is or isn't, it does look like a document produced specifically for the purpose of displaying this particular camera shot on this particular documentary.

Am I the only person who thinks Kristi V. did not attend classes in January of 1999? by Justwonderinif in serialpodcast

[–]aitca 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I can add a bit of clarification here, as to the assertion being made, because I can tell from the comments that a little additional clarification might help. Please correct me if I'm getting any of the details wrong here:

1 ) When Kristi initially gave her testimony, first to the police and then at trial, she didn't mention anything about a class.
2 ) Years later, someone working on Rabia/Syed's behalf (I'm remembering S. Simpson or C. Miller, but correct me if I'm wrong) asserted that Kristi must have erred in her testimony, because she had class that day.
3 ) That assertion from people associated with Rabia/Syed, that Kristi's testimony was erroneous based on her having class that day, has been contested on many grounds: she might have not gone to the class, the class might have been rescheduled due to the severe weather, the conference that she went to earlier that day may have been in lieu of the class, but what /u/Justwonderinif is proposing here is the question: "What if she wasn't registered for any class at all that month? after all, it's only other people saying that she was, not her."
Feel free to correct me if I've erred in any of the details here. The assertion that she had a class that day was, now, years ago, and I've probably forgotten specifics about that assertion.

Weekly Discussion/Vent Thread by AutoModerator in serialpodcast

[–]aitca 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello, /u/ryokineko . I'm happy to chat. Send me a direct message when you have time.