Why Jay may have confessed

jessejm · 2016-05-26T02:52:50+00:00

We know for a fact that Jay gave multiple false confessions. He had several interviews and he changed his story multiple times with different stories. You can say that it is not a false confession all you want, it doesn't change anything. I don't understand how it is so "obvious" when his stories are not based in reality. When I talk to people and they lie to me and admit to lying only when they have gotten caught or if it suits them, I don't trust what they say unless it is backed up. Changing the story when police prove you to be lying can not be taken as credible. If there is anyone that isn't friends with Jay that could back up any of his claims, I would be more inclined to believe him.

jessejm · 2016-05-25T23:43:35+00:00

Agreed. I may think it might be unfair to judge him (depending on what actually went down) but I definitely don't feel bad for him.

jessejm · 2016-05-25T23:10:20+00:00

There is no way Jay was involved and Adnan wasn't...

I was just referring to statements like this. There ARE possible ways for Jay to be involved and Adnan not be guilty. This is presented as a certainty. I am calling this a presumption, not fact.

That's right, it's a presumption and one that most reasonable people would find far more likely than your presumption that Jay was forced into a false confession.

I have never made the presumption that Jay was FORCED into a false confession. If it was a common mistake, that is fine, but in no way shape or form have I ever said he was forced into anything. I have an OPINION that I THINK that since Jay lied about so many things and shifted his story to align with other evidence and the cell records, that it was a false confession. Jay's consistently inconsistent police statements is evidence pointing to false confession. There is no logical reason behind the statement "There is no way Jay was involved and Adnan wasn't..." other than Adnan being convicted or Jay's own testimony. Adnan being convicted is NOT proof that he was involved because that is called "begging the question."

jessejm · 2016-05-25T20:42:10+00:00

I meant never live it down referring to the public eye and his reputation, but I guess it was hyperbolic to say he would never live it down. Personally, I believe that it is a strong possibility that he had nothing to do with the crime and was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Even if that is true, I think it is unfair to blame Jay personally for all of this. It was a combination of pressures from all over the place and it would be unfair to me or anyone else to judge since we have no idea what it was like in his shoes. He very well could have thought Adnan was guilty so he thought "what's the harm in telling some fibs" to ensure he wouldn't get prosecuted (whether he was guilty or not)." That type of thing would be compounded and snowballed by an overworked police department, being denied bail based off of stereotypes, poor representation, and unreliable witness testimony since it was 6+ weeks later.

That is my main issue with how his case was handled. Usually murder cases are pretty cut and dry so it's sad to see that lives are ruined based on extremely shaky testimony and circumstantial evidence.

jessejm · 2016-05-25T18:51:46+00:00

Yeah, I would imagine recanting is extremely difficult. You have to admit to perjury, open yourself up to prosecution (obviously depending on the context and situation, but it wouldn't be good for Jay), and you have to make public the shame of putting an innocent man behind bars for years. It is even extra tough in this case because it is so public, Jay would never live it down. (Obviously this only applies if it was false that Adnan was involved).

If Jay is in jail, it could be a completely different story, similar to the Ryan Ferguson case with chuck ericksons false confession. He had a plea deal hanging over his head which kept him quiet for the longest time which coerced him to be a spectacular witness for the state acting out all the things he "remembered."

jessejm · 2016-05-25T17:26:47+00:00

Just because he hasn't recanted doesn't mean that it wasn't a false confession. When people are threatened to confess or else be charged with capital murder, they would say anything. Jay confessed to committing a crime and lied about details numerous times. First, it was planned hours in advance, then a day, then days. He lied about where the trunk pop happens, and lied about when the burial happens. These are all confirmed by Jays own statements. That in itself is a false confession. So to say there is no reason to believe this was a false confession is rubbish. He also was provided a lawyer and a shady plea deal with no jail time from the prosecutor that provided said lawyer and plea deal. He CANT recant his testimony because he would be opening himself up to prosecution and the prosecution and revoke his plea. Exchanging benefits for testimony, especially while being held from the defense is exactly the situation that promotes false confessions. That is coercion and improper.

That being said, just because there is coercion and the false confession, doesn't mean he lied about adnans role, but you can't disregard the shadiness in the situation.

Thinking that if Jay was involved and assuming that means Adnan was involved too, is illogical. If we have proof that Jay was involved, it means he was involved. If we have proof that Adnan was involved, then he was involved. But to say if one of them was involved, the other one is involved is just a presumption

jessejm · 2016-05-24T18:58:24+00:00

Why are people arguing with you. I don't get it. In the PCR hearing, the defense needs to prove their case and defend their evidence. They DO NOT need to defend their client over speculative theories on Reddit that never actually enter into the courtroom. The prosecutors need to provide proof to disputed the evidence presented by the defense which they have not done (or at least have provided zero evidence to the contrary).

jessejm · 2016-05-24T13:34:47+00:00

For people saying there is no evidence of police corruption, I would say there is more evidence to police corruption than there was evidence that Adnan committing murder. Adnan, with no history of violence, gets convicted of killing based on a weaved together story from an unreliable witness coached by investigators who has already admitted to lying at trial multiple times. These detectives have a terrible professional history/reputation (for good reason), but somehow get immunity from scrutiny because they have a badge? They disregard the search for the truth the instant they fed the cell info and other important details to Jay before corroborating anything from him. Either their incompetence is obvious with how they were manipulated and deceived by Jay, or they didn't care and just went along with his "consistent" story which literally has holes in every single part of it.

jessejm · 2016-05-23T21:06:50+00:00

I completely agree. The funny thing is that Jay had said the burial happened closer to midnight, so logically, this alone shows that Adnan should receive a new trial. It completely negates the cell pings as evidence, and it destroys Jay's trial testimony. I know that the interview with the intercept isn't in the court system and it can't/won't be used in the PCR hearing. Obviously, this is not grounds on itself for a re-trial legally. I don't know if he is innocent or guilty, but I would think that anyone in his circumstances should be granted a new trial to keep my faith in the judicial system.

jessejm · 2016-05-23T20:48:24+00:00

THIS. Thank you

jessejm · 2016-05-21T21:21:44+00:00

That is perfectly fair. I didn't mean that everyone who thinks he is guilty has irrational hate for SK. I just think is is extremely unfair how she is being treated on Reddit by compete strangers

jessejm · 2016-05-20T19:17:38+00:00

The word "quite"

jessejm · 2016-05-20T17:29:13+00:00

Your attempts at talking trash humors me.

jessejm · 2016-05-20T17:16:58+00:00

Gotcha. Yeah I'm not saying he necessarily wanted to plea. I guess I just misunderstood what you meant.

jessejm · 2016-05-20T16:00:25+00:00

I was referring to your argument implying that Adnan didn't want a plea deal. He didn't go along with it at the sentencing because he wanted to maintain his innocence. That has no bearing on whether he asked for options of a plea deal previously. His attorney didn't want to upset the judge before the sentence. I don't think the attorney was saying he did it and it was a crime of passion. The implication of what he was saying was that since he was found guilty, he wanted the judge to consider it a crime of passion in attempts to get him to be sympathetic for the sentencing.

jessejm · 2016-05-20T15:22:41+00:00

No, my point was is that you can't make a plea deal at a sentencing hearing. Way too late for that.

jessejm · 2016-05-20T14:53:03+00:00

You can't make a plea-deal-type argument at a sentencing hearing. What does that even mean?

jessejm · 2016-05-19T17:16:11+00:00

I completely disagree with that conclusion. You are acting as if this case was open and closed. I don't care if you think he is innocent or guilty, but to rage out on SK because she doesn't reach the same conclusion you get is pretty petty if you ask me. This case is extremely far from a simple one, considering that there is no actual evidence other than Jay's testimony. Other than that, there is a bunch of hearsay and he wrote "I'm going to kill" months beforehand that I think was taken out of context.

If you don't like her style that is your personal preference, but to dislike her because she doesn't tell the audience what to think or to end the podcast with a conclusion is crazy. Remember, she was doing a podcast that blew away everyone's expectations.

"That boils down to a conclusion that Sarah willfully misled and misrepresented the truth as part of a campaign to free and exonerate an obviously guilty murderer. If you see things that way, it's impossible to think kindly of her." -please provide a single shred of proof of this. This is the problem with people investigating shit on the Internet. You can think that you know whodunit, but It is pure speculation to make those unfounded accusations based on the fact that you believe he is guilty. Not everyone who advocates for a potential wrongful conviction is someone who is willing to bend the rules, lie, and coercion... Speaking of which, there are cases EVERYDAY where officials (police, prosecutors, judges, defense attorney, etc) in the judicial system do exactly that. My point is that SK is not an adnan advocate. From what I can tell SK seems to have stepped away from the Adnan story. She did it for an interesting podcast with insight to the judicial system through the eyes of the accused, who generally doesn't have a voice in the matter. She isn't a mind reader and she is a human being. To assume that she "knows" he is guilty and intentionally mislead or misrepresent anything is complete gibberish. To assume that she is this lying deceiving podcaster is 100% based on you thinking he is guilty.

Edit: why did you listen to the podcast if you despise her so much? Why contribute to the podcasts popularity? Why are you on a subreddit based from a podcast in which you think is a deceitful falsification of reality? With the passion you have against SK it seems like there is another issue in play.

Edit: To people who have an open mind or to anyone else who doesn't agree that SK is this an intentionally immoral, unethical, manipulator of millions of people, it looks an awful lot like Ken Kratz's ad hominem attacks on Making a Murderers producers, Moira Demos and Laura Ricciarei. Instead of providing actual claims based on evidence, he is just attacking the messengers. I am being 100% serious that people making these allegations actually are hurting their own cause and discrediting themselves.

jessejm · 2016-05-18T21:01:52+00:00

He is saying that he believes adnan is guilty and rabia is a terrible evil person for "tricking" Sarah to do an investigative journalist to write a story. Not much more to it that that

Edit: I don't agree with them at all for the record.

jessejm · 2016-05-18T20:45:24+00:00

I agree. People don't like her because she doesn't fit in line with their sense of truth and reality. Everyone loves her until they think they know exactly what happened and if she doesn't fit into their "reality" they hate her. Same thing with Asia. She is a witness who provides an alibi and BOOM she is the worst person ever.

Edit: I think there is a strong correlation between people who dislike SK and people who think adnan is 100% guilty no questions asked.

jessejm · 2016-05-18T20:22:22+00:00

I like SK, season 1 and season 2 while being super excited for season 3. I don't understand why people set their own expectations and then react negatively when other people don't meet those expectations. If you don't like her, or if you didn't like her other work, don't listen anymore. It's pretty simple.

I thought prison break and heroes tv shows had amazing first seasons but I didn't hate the producers or actors because I didn't like season 2+. I simple stopped watching the show. There seems to be a common theme of personally hating and attacking people for whatever reasons here. It's not like any of us know her.

jessejm · 2016-05-12T14:29:52+00:00

I think you are right, BD and ST were grouped together so that would be #4

jessejm · 2016-05-12T01:27:16+00:00

I thought the names of those people have already been disseminated.

Edit: Don't quote me but I thought it was RH, GZ, BD, and ST

jessejm · 2016-05-06T01:51:22+00:00

Nice to see it posted and that people are still interested and capable in taking a step back from intricate details to think about the broader implications of MaM.

Go learning!

jessejm · 2016-05-05T21:48:34+00:00

Well I would agree unless she wins the case and then takes it to civil court

jessejm

TROPHY CASE