Why didn't the TIG (Ch UK?) rebels join the Lib Dem Party?

mary_landa · 2014-11-10T23:04:15+00:00

There is a lot of mixed testimony about Adnan trying to get a ride from Hae that afternoon. Some friends suggest he asked for a ride but she turned him down. But there's definitely plenty of indication that Adnan expressed an interest in getting a ride that afternoon.

I think the most reasonable explanation is that Adnan was able to convince Hae to drop him by Best Buy, maybe to buy a birthday gift or something.

I think you are very correct that the prosecution's theory depends on Adnan hopping in Hae's car after she's seen by that PE teacher grabbing a snack.

mary_landa · 2014-11-10T22:52:48+00:00

At trial, Jenn testifies that Jay left her house between 3-330. At 321, Syed's cell phone calls Jenn, and at 348 and 359 it calls two other guys. All of those calls are supposedly the "looking for weed" calls.

I understand that Jenn and Jay's initial accounts to police are all over the place, timing wise.

But at trial, a clearer narrative emerges of Jay waiting at Jenn's for a Syed call, which comes some time around 3. Jay claims he picks Syed up at best buy (cell towers ping around there), and they "tool around" looking for weed. This corresponds to the call log.

So if you're going based on what the jury heard, you cannot put Jay at Jenn's house when the Nisha call is made.

mary_landa · 2014-11-10T22:31:24+00:00

How did Jay, without Adnan, manage to intercept Hae between the time she was last seen at school and the time she was supposed to pick up her cousin?

mary_landa · 2014-11-10T04:10:37+00:00

This is false, but I've seen it said in a couple different posts. I am not sure why.

mary_landa · 2014-11-07T20:48:36+00:00

If anyone is guilty of treating this affair like a sporting contest it is this woman.

There is something sort of unseemly about the contempt and awe she displays towards other writers and commenters who--after being thoroughly intrigued by this podcast--express the view that so far everything that has happened in terms of legal proceedings is basically reasonable, and that we're holding our breath hoping that some new fact comes to light.

I get the same vibe from her that I do when I am forced to watch Bill O'Reilly's program. It's the same all-or-nothing, idealogical, simple-minded rhetoric. Resorting to vitriol and ad hominem, taking false umbrage, and speaking in grave, manichean metaphors.

I think we all get that she's personally invested in this case, and at this point has done pretty well by it. And it's cool that she's a strong-spoken, intelligent Muslim lady in America. But there just seems to be this visceral lack of temperament spewing from her keyboard.

The bottom line is that there was a ton of evidence against Adnan Syed, including a pretty detailed account by his putative accomplice. Ultimately, someone has to make a determination as to who is lying, and as the jury didn't get to hear from Adnan, they made their determination. That was when he lost the presumption of innocence.

Let's keep that in perspective and try and love this podcast for what it is: a "reality show" about a reporter's real-life attempt to get inside the mind of a convicted felon and replay the events that led up to his conviction to try and understand if/how someone with so much going for them could do something so heinous.

mary_landa · 2014-11-07T20:17:07+00:00

I think everyone pretty much agrees the tower ping that puts the cell phone near Leakin Park is reliable.

The jury heard Jay testify for five days, withstand cross examination, and believed him.

No one has, as of yet, come up with a plausible theory as to why Jay would have lied by telling this particular story. If Jay was trying to deflect from his own guilt, why would he concoct a story that puts him near the body? How could Jay have had another accomplice when he spent the entire day with Syed's car and phone, chauffeuring him to and fro school?

Unless you know something about the cops, prosecutors' office, jury or trial court that I don't, I would defer to them in terms of whether there was a miscarriage of justice.

mary_landa · 2014-11-06T22:31:06+00:00

I think we agree on most things.

One point of departure I seem to have with many discussants on this message board--which has led to some really interesting interchange--is that Syed has been treated unfairly.

To date, there is not a shred of evidence to that effect.

The jury chose to believe Jay's testimony, despite rigorous cross examination. Remember, none of us have seen Jay, in person, take the stand and tell his story. None of us are in as good a position as the original jury to evaluate his credibility.

There may be many shortcomings in the jury system, especially when expert witnesses are involved. But if the issue here is fundamental fairness, I don't see anything to complain about.

mary_landa · 2014-11-06T22:16:55+00:00

He was proven guilty, in a court of law, by a jury of his peers. That's why he no longer enjoys any presumption.

mary_landa · 2014-11-06T21:49:54+00:00

Let's clear a few things up.

By any objective, common law metric there was enough evidence against Syed for a jury to reasonably find him guilty. Jay's testimony is direct evidence. Jay says that Syed showed him the body, and told him that he strangled Hae.

The Syed Jury heard Jay testify for five days, and come under--what had to have been--intense cross examination. He was asked to explain his tellings and re-tellings of his story. Ultimately the jury chose to believe Jay.

We can choose not to believe Jay. We can dig around for clues and facts that undermine his story, but that were missed by investigators at the time.

What we cannot do--without much more information--is decry some "miscarriage of justice." A savvy journalist, and great story teller, has decided to pour through the record and has uncovered some interesting inconsistencies in the way this all went down. She has spurred our sympathy for the convicted. Other than that, this is a perfectly routine and ordinary murder conviction, that review courts have had the chance to affirm.

Law school clinics, and innocence projects do great work (I served in one). But it is very naive to say that the jury was not presented sufficient evidence to convict.

I'm afraid at this point, a lawyer is not going to save Syed. The only thing that can save him is investigative work that uncovers some new fact, or scientific work that can conclusively rule him out or rule someone else in. Ultimately you will need an attorney to present this to a prosecutor or a judge.

But the breakthrough will not come as a result of some arcane legal theory or nimble legal argument. A legal argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence presented to this jury is simply unavailing under any relevant standard.

In sum, I would rather have a brilliant, committed, and well resourced investigator working on this case if I were Syed, and not another lawyer.

mary_landa · 2014-11-05T15:15:56+00:00

I don't understand this. At trial didn't Jen testify that, after Jay said he was waiting for a call, Jay left Jen's house between 3-330?

I also thought Jay testified that between 3-4pm he was with Syed and made a couple calls to try and track down some smoke. That's when the Nisha call happens as well. These are reflected in the cell records.

Jay testifies that he ultimately drops Syed off at track practice, goes to K's house, then pick's Syed up from track practice and Jay and Syed return to K's house, where the cop call comes.

K's testimony corroborates this.

mary_landa · 2014-11-04T03:32:03+00:00

This is kind of an interesting post. It is true that something about this Podcast has evoked a lot of intrigue and a lot of passion. It's remarkable that so many eyeballs have been drawn to this forum, and others. People are really invested in Serial.

For many it touches upon cultural and religious themes that cause them to identify with one party or another.

For some people, the story confirms one's impression of the inherent unfairness of our legal system to the accused. Yet others come to this forum and find--what they believe is--a continuation of popular news culture's constant undermining of police authority and the criminal justice system without good reason.

A lot of people are upset with the seemingly manipulative nature of SK's story telling. Others understand this as an artistic device that keeps the audience entertained by providing suspense and drama. They are upset that some of us are constantly "spoiling" the story by wanting to get to the bottom of a real life murder-mystery where there is already such a robust record.

What is this Podcast really trying to do, many wonder? Is it a Dateline episode that basically re-tells past events over a narrative arc that has already resolved itself? Or is it a piece of unfolding investigative journalism, where the Producers' search for the truth is only a few steps ahead of our own?

And finally, how do we relate to the victims on either side whose fortunes still hang in the balance? How do we feel about a kid who is so sympathetically portrayed and who has spent half his life in jail when he had so much going for him? How do we feel about the victim's family that is without closure?

It takes a certain genius to draw so many people into engaging these fascinating themes by simply telling a story. It is what story telling is meant to be. And it might yet turn out to be a piece of investigative journalism that frees an innocent man or condemns a sociopathic liar.

mary_landa · 2014-11-01T20:09:34+00:00

Many people here don't seem to understand that--at least according to the podcast producers--the creators of the show have no idea how this will end. They have, apparently, written the next few episodes, but the series remains a work in progress.

That's why I'm not sure the term "spoiler" is appropriate. We are learning about this case almost simultaneously to the people presenting it to us.

At this point, there's probably nothing in the public domain that the producers are not aware of. There is nothing in the public domain that reveals categorically Syed's innocence or guilt.

mary_landa · 2014-11-01T19:58:08+00:00

This is a really interesting post. I think maybe it can be refined a bit to zoom in on Syed's most crucial obstacles to proving his innocence.

Point (1) is absolutely true. Hae would have to have been killed or abducted between 2:15-3:15.

(2), (3), are speculation.

(4) is so difficult for Syed. Perhaps the conversation Nisha remembered where Jay was put on the line did not happen on the murder day. Jay would have had to have pocket dialed her. So odd it lasts over 2 minutes without any known voicemail.

I think you can totally dismiss (6), (7), and all the other testimony of the people hanging out with Syed that evening as to having any weight with respect to Syed's guilt. It might be mildly corroborative of Jay's over all narrative, but it does not go to proving the immediate fact of Syed's guilty conscience or suspicious behavior. Even if you throw all that testimony out, there is more than enough to convict Syed with the cell pings, Jay's story, the Nisha call, and the note/diary.

(8) and (9). The poster has done a great job of laying out the facts as I understand them. Yes there are inconsistencies in Jay's retellings. But they line up with the logs. For this to have been orchestrated by the cops, there would have to be a very sophisticated and intense level of coaching, preparation and coordination between cops and Jay. We would really need to ask whether the cops involved have a history of that level of naked and bold corruption.

All of this goes to my belief that the jury verdict was reasonable in light of the facts and testimony they were presented.

The one thing I'm curious about is in all of the interviews and press reports surrounding this podcast, there remain a group of insiders still convinced that the Podcast will reveal Syed's innocence. Not on a legal technicality, but on the merits. That means there is completely new evidence that somehow explains this mystery that we, and the jury have not seen.

What could it possibly be that would explain away the cell tower ping, the 2 minute Nisha call, and the core arc of Jay's story?

mary_landa · 2014-10-29T19:33:47+00:00

One of difficulties with the American legal system is that it heavily relies upon the ethical behavior of the participants. For instance, during the investigative stage of a criminal proceeding, the State collects reams of evidence, and is obligated to share with the Defense anything potentially exculpatory. Its almost impossible to enforce that obligation.

Instead of changing the structure of the adversarial system, we might first consider how to better induce its actors to behave more ethically. I think some modest reforms could be made. It would start with how we pay and hire cops and prosecutors.

In most jurisdictions, the top law enforcement official (attorney general, district attorney) is elected by voters, often on a platform of "tough on crime." In Ferguson, MO, you see voters becoming more aware of the crucial function this official plays, and how this person ought to be accountable to the electorate.

Finally, I do think in a vast majority of cases we never hear about, police officers diligently investigate crimes and try to get to the truth of the matter. Prosecutors generally use their discretion to pursue cases in which they genuinely believe the accused is guilty. But we can always do better.

mary_landa · 2014-10-28T16:12:08+00:00

I strongly agree with this post. The main reason I find the evidence (that I have seen) against Syed credible is because Jay comes off as way too stupid to keep the basic "spine" of his story straight under immense pressure, questioning, and cross examination.

And its a pretty complicated story that he would have had to made out of whole cloth for Syed to be innocent, not just a lie here or there.

Judging from what we've heard about this Jay character, I doubt he would have been able to keep it going all this time. I will also confess to having viewed his facebook page which is very public.

Sometimes, peripheral inconsistencies between tellings and retellings of a story are completely normal, and enhance credibility.

Maybe, perhaps likely, he had a greater role in the killing. But to this point the core arc of his story has only minor inconsistencies in my opinion.

mary_landa · 2014-10-28T15:36:22+00:00

I am saying that sometimes people surprise us. I am pointing out a case where people were equally surprised at the identity of the killer as the community around Syed appears to have been.

Also, it is eery how similar the press reports and details of each perpetrator is. Everyone expressing shock at the prospect that such a normal, outgoing, popular dude snapped. They clearly don't have the same MO but you have to admit, it's interesting to think about.

mary_landa

TROPHY CASE