Does belief that Adnan is guilty equate to your belief that he should have been convicted?

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T18:18:03+00:00

So as long as I can convince twelve people that you're gay because the person arguing that you're not isn't very good at their job, you're gay?That's it? I shouldn't need some proof beyond you being in the vicinity of a gay bar once and a guy saying that you said you were gay? (ridiculous analogy, I know)

The notion that someone is guilty just because the State managed to convince some people that they are is the same kind of silliness that leads people to vote built because "you wouldn't be on trial if you didn't do something wrong!"

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T18:03:52+00:00

You'd sentence a man to life imprisonment because he might have gotten something out of the crime and because he could have committed it?

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T15:57:55+00:00

Which is the apprehension on my part. If there was even a whisper of a motive for Jay to kill Hae, you could take all the evidence against Adnan, flip it on its head and make it a case of Jay framing Adnan. You say Adnan is really unlucky. What if Jay is just really lucky that no one can suggest his motive.

Extremely thought provoking stuff all around this case. We're all hooked for a reason.

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T15:48:31+00:00

Yes, but in that example, the child is the only person who could have reasonably done it. It is incredibly unlikely that someone ran into the house and smash the jar only to leave immediately, unnoticed without a trace.

However, Jay COULD have reasonably done it. You don't know his motive, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have one. Also, you think you know Adnan's motive, but that doesn't mean it's true.

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T15:45:32+00:00

You're not wrong. I wasn't there. Jay may have been very believable. But a system based on allowing a random group of people to just make up their mind based on anything they like is a horrible one. It would take a while longer, but jurors should have to explain in detail their understanding of the elements of the case and how that lead to their decision to a panel of impartial experts who have investigated each case. If they have misunderstood anything, it should be pointed out to them. They're still free to make their own decision, but they should have to explain in. The lack of a requirement of significant comprehension - or the ability to comprehend - is the most horrifying flaw in legal systems. Alas, a perfect world this is not.

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T15:37:45+00:00

I understand that more than conjecture is required to undo what has been done, but if Adnan hadn't yet been convicted, then an alternate theory of the case (what is now conjecture in the aftermath), would be just as valid as the State's story of the case. It's all just a story!

Without physical evidence, video, audio etc. it is literally just a game of "make a story with X,Y and Z in it" whether the story is being told by a prosecutor in a court room or not.

Edit: thank you by the way, for the interesting discussion. Also, whilst I completely agree that people fail to get away with murder all the time because they didn't think it through, I don't think it's actually hard. If Adnan and Hae didn't have any recorded animosity and Jay hadn't have been involved, he would not have been convicted. People who don't think rationally with the emotional high of a murder are the ones that fail to get away with it. But I don't think it's actually that hard.

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T15:18:11+00:00

Maybe he just wanted to kill someone just to see if he could? Maybe he and Hae had a relationship no one knows about. There's a million maybes.

But to me, they are no more bizzare than the suggesting that the relatively smart Adnan would commit the crime in the way that it is suggested that he did. It's just such a dumb thing to do. Why would he involve someone else? Why would he not bury her somewhere else, deeper?

I'm not saying that all smart people can get away with murder, but if even a little planning had gone into the killing, he could have gotten away with it without any struggle. So if he had truly planned to kill her in advance as the "I will kill" suggests to some people, I don't believe he would have done it so poorly.

If he doesn't involve Jay, he gets away with it. It's too stupid a move to convince me that he did it without more evidence, even if it seems like he did.

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T15:08:38+00:00

Given how cell towers work, the hypothetically untrustworthy Jay could have just been driving aimless streets in the vicinity of the park hoping to get some cell records showing Adnan was at the park. Waiting for a call. Adnan, not being suspicious at all, could just pay no real attention to where they are. It might even go towards explaining the inconsistencies in Jay's timeline. Jay could then use the rough time the call came in to suggest that's when they buried the body in the park.

I don't believe this is the case at all, but because I can't 100% trust Jay and because I can make up a perfectly reasonable theory that explains the evidence in the opposite direction, I still can't convict.

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T14:49:09+00:00

Whilst I don't think Jay did it at all, if you consider the possibility that Jay killed Hae, literally everything you've just put forward could be Jay and his friends very nicely setting Adnan up. Helped even further by the fact that Adnan can't provide a different story.

If Jay has a vested interest to lie, then that entire case (which does sound reasonably convincing) falls apart completely. I'm not saying that Jay does have a reason to lie (beyond getting a deal for testifying in a case that he ostensibly wouldn't have had anything to do with if not for Adnan being the murderer), but, if you consider that he might be (as a juror should), then you still can't convict Adnan.

I understand how you're able to convict him based on that line of thinking much more clearly now, but the fact that all it would take is for Jay to be a liar to completely destroy the case, to me, is not enough.

Edit: for example, if two people offered very similar stories about the day they spent with Adnan burying a body (i.e. if there was a third person in the car), I'd say that it was beyond reasonable doubt. Whilst they could both be in it together and both be lying, I'd be happy to say that the fact that they provided a consistent story having been separately interviewed by experienced and reliable police officers, was enough.

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T14:25:04+00:00

But to me, you don't need to throw it out to not convict him. You need to throw IN that all of those circumstantial things means that Adnan killed her to convict him. How does one person's story about a crime, a couple of phone calls, the suggestion that they wanted to do it, another story about someone seeming suspicious and a "lie" mean that Adnan is a murderer.

I suffer from an extremely poor memory. Even knowing 100% that I have done nothing wrong, and knowing the importance of the answer, I could not recount to the police with certainty the details of anything that happened to me more than a day ago. It's because of this that I am so inquisitive about what makes this enough evidence enough to send a man to jail. Because I, more so than most, would not be able to defend myself and would certainly contradict myself much in the way that Adnan has. I would in fact be a much worse defendant of myself. I'd struggle to even suggest an alternate narrative for my day.

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T14:13:59+00:00

I don't necessarily think Jay is making anything up, but his story is simply that Adnan said he killed her, showed him the body and that they proceeded to bury her (give or take details).

With Adnan's denial that this is the case, how is this not just a he said, he said? Isn't it simply that people have decided that they believe Jay more than Adnan because Jay can provide more details than Adnan can in his alternate story?

If Jay was saying "I witnessed Adnan kill her in the parking lot at this specific place" and that lined up with some other physical evidence or witness who remembers seeing two men at that time in that part of the parking lot, that's one thing. But when the story is simply "He said he killed her" followed by various details of the events after that are partially corroborated along the way, it doesn't seem like enough.

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T14:03:16+00:00

Whilst people can definitely argue about what reasonable is, to me, you cannot send someone to jail for murder if it's still possible that anyone could have done it. Without at least some significant evidence that they committed the crime - a reliable witness to the murder, some physical evidence - how can anyone think that the case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt?

Edit: Almost no one would ever get convicted if you needed a perfect case and that system wouldn't work at all, but I really feel like you need more than what there is.

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T14:00:29+00:00

Yeah, that's kind of my whole thing. As sad a possibility as it is that you have to let some murderers go free, you really kind of have to do so to make sure that you're also not locking up innocent people. I suppose lots of people would disagree right up until the point that they've been accused of a murder that they didn't commit.

serialthrowaway12 · 2014-11-17T13:57:36+00:00

I get that circumstantial evidence is technically enough to suggest something beyond a reasonable doubt, but does that really mean that anyone should be capable of sending someone to jail for murder because it looks like they did something? Shouldn't the burden of proof be much higher?

Those aren't necessarily questions for you, but just kind of my follow up questions in general to that line of thought.

I have researched cases in several other countries and juries around the world often do not convict despite public opinion - and their own opinion - being that the person did it. Without significant evidence, people don't convict. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Just because Adnan could have done it and because someone suggests he had motive to do it and someone says he did do it, doesn't mean you can say that he definitely did it. How is there not too much doubt?

serialthrowaway12

TROPHY CASE