|
DrVenkman posted:I think by the end she sums it up pretty well: She can't say with any certainty that he's innocent because she doesn't know. But based on the evidence presented I think it's hard to say that beyond a shadow of a doubt Adnan is guilty. That's exactly what it comes down to. He may have been "not guilty" but that doesn't mean he was innocent of the crime. Also here's a comparison between the original interview and the recently edited interview https://www.diffchecker.com/07aann7u The two major edits: Urick disputed this account, saying the first time he heard from Koenig was in that mid-December email, which was sent through the contact form on his personal website. “They did not make multiple attempts to reach me,” he said. “They never showed up at my office. They may have left a voicemail that I didn’t return but I am not sure of that.” [Ed. note: In the editing process, Urick’s quote was shortened. When provided originally with Urick’s full statement, "Serial" producer Julie Snyder declined to respond beyond her original comments. "Serial" now, via Twitter, says, “Koenig left numerous messages for Urick, starting last winter and into the spring, many months before the podcast started airing.”] (Koenig did interview the second prosecutor, Kathleen Murphy. “Serial” was not allowed to air the interview, but Murphy made a few cameo appearances in audio clips from the original trial.) KU: I think the judge in the post-conviction trial does a very good job of pointing out that in the letters to Syed, she is very vague and indifferent about what she’s doing. The difficulty comes from Syed. In all his statements about his whereabouts the day of the case he says that he was at the school from 2:15pm to 3:30pm. He never once, in any statement, at any time, made any reference about being in the public library. His defense was that he was at the school from 2:30 to 3:30. So [Asia McClain’s] reporting seeing him at the pubic library contradicts what he says he was doing. The letters were also sent in March of 2000, two months after Syed was charged. [Ed. note: the letters were actually dated March 1999, in the days after Adnan's arrest.] The second part of the interview was supposed to be released yesterday. They must be going through it with a fine tooth comb now.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
I don't know why people think Adnan couldn't strangle Hae and put her in the back of his car in his own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
bowmore posted:I don't know why people think Adnan couldn't strangle Hae and put her in the back of his car in his own. What baffles me is that people don't think he had a plausible motive. He had the classic motive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
It's very cynical for people who declined to participate in Serial to then complain that the series seems one-sided. What was supposed to make Serial balanced if not more perspectives?
Watermelon City fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Watermelon City posted:It's very cynical for people who declined to participate in Serial to then complain that the series seems one-sided. What was supposed to make Serial balanced if not more perspectives? They had no obligation whatsoever to talk to Sarah Koenig. She presented no new evidence that would justify a re-evaluation of the case; and, to be perfectly honest, if I was aware that Rabia Chaundry had been the one who gave Sarah Koenig the story, I'd understandably be pretty suspicious of her motives and capacity to report with impartiality. Jay and the prosecutor had no reason at the time to think that some radio segment would turn into an international phenomenon casting doubt on the conviction of the man they believed guilty of strangling his ex-girlfriend. Only at that point did they seem to think that a response was necessary to balance the one-sided public perception that, at the very least, Adnan may (but probably not) have been guilty, but shouldn't have been convicted. I believe Jay when he said that he saw absolutely no reason to resurrect a closed case unless the family of the victim approved, and that to choose to speak anyway in the face of the family's disapproval would achieve nothing other than the exploitation of possibilities for entertainment and internet-wide amateur gumshoeing. Orkin Mang fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
People are genuinely reacting to this series like they've never encountered the true crime genre before. It is what it is, the series is no legal testimony, just entertainment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
EDIT: Misread, my bad.
thefncrow fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
e: misunderstanding
Orkin Mang fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
EDIT: Misread, my bad.
thefncrow fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
e: misunderstanding
Orkin Mang fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
I'm currently binging this series and really digging it. Let me just say before anything else that I haven't gotten to the parts about Adnan's story's holes and the case against him (I'm about to). I am totally willing to buy the "Adnan's not guilty legally, but is also not innocent" theory. I just find it really galling any time someone is convicted with such lovely prosecution when the entire basis of our legal system is to go against that. Now, all that said, something else that confuses the gently caress out of me, completely unrelated to Adnan's guilt or innocence. IF we buy Jay's account, how on Earth was he not charged with absolutely anything? Dude drives around with A loving DEAD BODY that he knows is in the back of a car and does literally nothing about it and goes and gets high with the murderer (again, if we accept Jay's account as true), and he knows who did it and does nothing? Isn't that kind of part of the point of Obstruction of Justice? I mean I'll admit I'm not a lawyer and I don't have all the facts yet but I find myself really annoyed in general with Jay, maybe because he's kind of a personification of the shoddy prosecution which I find annoying in principle, not necessarily because I presume Adnan to be innocent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:I'm currently binging this series and really digging it. Let me just say before anything else that I haven't gotten to the parts about Adnan's story's holes and the case against him (I'm about to). I am totally willing to buy the "Adnan's not guilty legally, but is also not innocent" theory. I just find it really galling any time someone is convicted with such lovely prosecution when the entire basis of our legal system is to go against that. I don't know about all the legalities involving obstruction of justice, but I think Jay was convicted of something like accessory to homicide after the fact (and I think a few other lesser crimes)--but received around 2 years or so probation instead of serving any jail time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:I don't know about all the legalities involving obstruction of justice, but I think Jay was convicted of something like accessory to homicide after the fact (and I think a few other lesser crimes)--but received around 2 years or so probation instead of serving any jail time. Oh okay, then retract the majority of that post (other than my generally being annoyed by the shoddiness of the prosecution and the fact that Adnan was convicted by it which remains whether Adnan is a saint or the guiltiest motherfucker ever). But yeah I hope Season 2 is as good because I think the premise of this podcast is loving fascinating and the first season is a really entertaining, if dark, listen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
Don't read it now--wait until you're done with the podcast--but The Intercept did a three part interview with Jay after the podcast finished. He's still apparently not consistent in his recollection but it at least makes some sense of the reasons he had to lie about certain things to the police and when was on the witness stand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:Don't read it now--wait until you're done with the podcast--but The Intercept did a three part interview with Jay after the podcast finished. He's still apparently not consistent in his recollection but it at least makes some sense of the reasons he had to lie about certain things to the police and when was on the witness stand. Duly noted, thanks. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:They had no obligation whatsoever to talk to Sarah Koenig. She presented no new evidence that would justify a re-evaluation of the case; and, to be perfectly honest, if I was aware that Rabia Chaundry had been the one who gave Sarah Koenig the story, I'd understandably be pretty suspicious of her motives and capacity to report with impartiality. Jay and the prosecutor had no reason at the time to think that some radio segment would turn into an international phenomenon casting doubt on the conviction of the man they believed guilty of strangling his ex-girlfriend. Only at that point did they seem to think that a response was necessary to balance the one-sided public perception that, at the very least, Adnan may (but probably not) have been guilty, but shouldn't have been convicted. I believe Jay when he said that he saw absolutely no reason to resurrect a closed case unless the family of the victim approved, and that to choose to speak anyway in the face of the family's disapproval would achieve nothing other than the exploitation of possibilities for entertainment and internet-wide amateur gumshoeing. The funny thing about Jay's "I didn't talk out of respect for the family" is that he then goes on to give an interview to someone else anyway. The Intercept aren't doing themselves any favours. They take out the quote from Ulrick that says they "may" have left him a voicemail and despite that their editors on Twitter are doubling-down on the assertion that Serial didn't try and contact Ulrick until December. At the end of the day and with a subject that's hot like this, you have to accept that you're going to be under much closer scrutiny and you can't run with errors. You can't put up an article and then say that you're going to edit it afterwards (Which is why you get poo poo like "Pubic library") when you're being watched so closely, let alone leave quotes out or not do some simple fact checking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 10:24
|
|
|
Once people started hanging around out the front of his house and publicly accusing him of murder he probably decided that it was about time he started protecting himself. As for The Intercept leaving out a sentence about whether Koenig might have tried to contact Urick by voicemail before December: who cares? What does that have to do with the case? I'm sure Koenig is telling the truth when she says she tried to contact him, and it was probably done in the form of voicemail, and Urick probably either just ignored them or may never have received them--but, once again, who cares? Those seem like fairly trivial details, and in the context of the guilt or innocence of Adnan, totally irrelevant. I don't know why people are so hung up on them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:Once people started hanging around out the front of his house and publicly accusing him of murder he probably decided that it was about time he started protecting himself. I agree with you, but to understand why people care you have to not be operating under that presumption that Koenig is telling the truth about trying to contact him. If she never even tried to contact him, that would matter because it would put Koenig in a bad light, as if she was intentionally hiding anything negative from the narrative in order to construct the story she wanted to tell. It would put a big black mark on Koenig and Serial's credibility. Which would be a big deal... if Koenig/Serial's credibility mattered. But as near as I'm aware, pretty much everything she reported is just public record anyway, in which case it doesn't actually matter at all whether you trust her or not. People can check everything for themselves, and they have, like the case of Koenig's story about Hae never calling Adnan possessive turning out to be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
This is about ethics in podcast jouralism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:The funny thing about Jay's "I didn't talk out of respect for the family" is that he then goes on to give an interview to someone else anyway. That's because he is bullshit. It's the same faulty logic he used back then, "I turned adnan in because I was scared for my grandmother because I was selling weed out of her house" If you're so scared for her, how about, uh, not selling weed out of her house? Especially after you have admitted the cops visiting her place previously? Jay and Adnan are liars and are hiding some information. Maybe they are involved with someone "bigger" than them that would hurt their families if they came forward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:As for The Intercept leaving out a sentence about whether Koenig might have tried to contact Urick by voicemail before December: who cares? quote:The most troubling part of “Serial” is Koenig’s underwhelming efforts to speak with Urick, the state’s lead prosecutor. He told us that she only emailed him on Dec. 12, less than a week before the podcast concluded, to ask about an allegation that he had badgered a witness against Syed for not making the defendant look “creepy” enough. That charge was aired on the show. (Urick vociferously denies it.) She edited it out - because it doesn't fit Natasha's narrative of "Sarah never tried to look into the prosecution's side of things"
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
If everyone is willing to believe that the Serial journalists were willing to weave a narrative that fit their story, why are they unable to believe that The Intercept would do the same thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Before Serial aired all journalism was 100% objective and researched completely and exhaustively before being reported.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:Jay and Adnan are liars and are hiding some information. Maybe they are involved with someone "bigger" than them that would hurt their families if they came forward. Hahahahah jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Daikatana Ritsu posted:Hahahahah jesus christ This times a million. If Jay is lying (which seems likely), then it's about his involvement. Adnan can't call him out on this lie because to do so would be to admit his own role in the crime. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Kelly posted:If everyone is willing to believe that the Serial journalists were willing to weave a narrative that fit their story, why are they unable to believe that The Intercept would do the same thing? No one's in a position to be talking about intention here. I don't see any reason to think Koenig or Vargas-Cooper are acting in bad faith. Certainly the errors of detail in Vargas-Cooper's interviews have nothing substantial to do with the guilt or innocence of Adnan. So who cares? The Intercept compensated for two enormous gaps in the reporting of Serial, and all anyone seems to want to do is cavil over irrelevant details and bleat about journalists being meanies to each other. That Koening--for whatever reason--left out the 'possessiveness' note from Hae's diary is a failure on her part, intentional or not, to accurately present the evidential case against Adnan; whether Koening left voicemails on Urick's machine or not, and whether he received them or didn't, is of no evidential importance whatsoever. Who cares.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
If this were a TV show, the Real Killer (TM) would be lurking in the shadows with blackmail material/credible threats against Jay and Adnan, and would even now be terrorizing Koenig until John Reese* revealed that the prosecutor was to blame, beat him up and made him confess, shocking us all with the reveal that the Intercept lady hired him to murder a teenager 16 years ago as part of a nefarious plan to get critical Internet Website Ratings in 2015. In real life, a 16-year conspiracy of silence is just silly. ___ *I've been watching a lot of Person of Interest lately.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
New episode of Serial is up, with a big twist the killer was us all along
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
I just finished the series, and while some of these thoughts may not be the prevailing opinions, I'm gonna say them anyway because I'm not stating anything definitively and I don't blame anyone for having different opinions. That said: -I think the fact that the people from that Innocence Project are trying to help Adnan and the fact that the PA hired by Serial (not to mention apparently other people who got interviewed) talk about what a loving mess the case is is pretty telling. I lean, just like before, towards the opinion that Adnan may be guilty, but based on legal standards shouldn't have been found as such. The entire thing is so flimsy and we're talking about proving first degree murder. Not manslaughter, not second degree, first degree. It's nuts. -I really, really don't like Jay. He seems full of poo poo to me, but that said I also have no idea why he'd lie so it's a frustrating place to be in. -That said, the Reddit poo poo with Jay is utterly reprehensible. -THAT being said, I think the idea Koenig leaked poo poo to Reddit is farfetched to say the least. Does anyone believe this? -That serial killer or whatever thing seems like a reeeeeach, but it does reaffirm my frustration with the system in this case that not only is there no physical evidence linking Adnan (by "guilty" law standards), they had potential DNA stuff and didn't bother to test it. -The Urick thing with the attorney blew my loving mind. Why was this not a bigger deal? Again, not speaking to how it affects Adnan's guilt or innocence in anything, or Jay's, but from a legal/procedural standpoint the fact that the judge sort of handwaved it shocked me. -Adnan's defense attorney seems like a pretty colossal fuckup on a variety of levels. That said, I'd rather not speak ill of the dead. -Hae seems like a pretty cool person who probably would've had a really good life. Huge shame.  I wonder what Season 2 will be, but if the subject matter isn't similar, gotta be honest I don't think for me personally it'll carry the intrigue that's so integral to the format working well. Still, really good stuff. Glad I listened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
I finally heard the whole thing, read some of the extra interviews, and it was an interesting experience. Looking forward to S2. One thing I found frustrating was the feeling that Sarah Koenig was trying to maintain a balanced narrative for "good radio." It also seemed like she was completely oblivious to some very manipulative behavior from Adnan, and her threshold for pro-Adnan evidence was far lower than for condemning evidence. In the episode about rumors, for example, she hints that some totally damning piece of evidence exists, but she couldn't verify it so it's dismissed. Then in the same episode, a guy tells her that Adnan was a totally cool bro who stood up for him in gym class - which she puts the guy on the podcast without verifying it with anyone from school. I realize the scope of the two things are far different, but as parts of a pattern it's really tedious. She was audibly very excited when the thing about the serial killer came up, but for anything that looked bad for Adnan she was all "Well I just don't know. I want to believe this, but I can't completely believe it, and I wasn't there, and it would be irresponsible to present it as fact. And I just don't know." I'd summarize Serial as: Reporter hears convicted killer's side of story for a year. Starts seeing things his way. 12 episodes.. Also I think Mr S was being a naked weirdo drunk freak in the woods and tripped over the body. I think that's what he does on his lunch breaks, because that's something we know he does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
moths posted:In the episode about rumors, for example, she hints that some totally damning piece of evidence exists, but she couldn't verify it so it's dismissed. Then in the same episode, a guy tells her that Adnan was a totally cool bro who stood up for him in gym class - which she puts the guy on the podcast without verifying it with anyone from school. I agree with your overall sentiment but it wasn't that she just couldn't verify the rumor, it was that the supposed source of it flat-out denied it. It really can't be compared in any way to the gym class guy, who was the primary source of his statement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
I thought the supposed source couldn't recall, was unsure, or didn't want to get mixed up in a murder investigation either then or now. Instead of talking with whoever heard [thing said at a party], she only checked with the person who supposedly said it. Which, given that at least one other person remembered and came forward about whatever was said, makes it at least credible as the other single-source gym class feel-good story. Not that this makes the statement true, but the fact of a made statement was just as established. Basically if someone wrote in "This guy Steve told me Adnan said he regrets strangling Hae" but it was actually Scott who told him that, then we'd get the scenario from the podcast. Or if Steve just didn't remember, or if he regretted not coming forward when appropriate, or etc etc. I had the impression that multiple people heard this thing at the party, but I'd have to listen again. E: Most likely it was something seemingly inconsequential (at the time) that's incompatible with Adnan's story. But we'll never know. moths fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
moths posted:E: Most likely it was something seemingly inconsequential (at the time) that's incompatible with Adnan's story. But we'll never know. I thought the rumor was that he had stolen money from the offerings at the mosque.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
moths posted:I thought the supposed source couldn't recall, was unsure, or didn't want to get mixed up in a murder investigation either then or now. Instead of talking with whoever heard [thing said at a party], she only checked with the person who supposedly said it. My read - the rumor is that Adnan confessed to the Imam/others at the Mosque. When Sarah tried to track that down to some of the people he supposedly confessed to, they denied it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:I thought the rumor was that he had stolen money from the offerings at the mosque. There is another unspecified rumor that Koenig mentions and dismisses in literally the same sentence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
That actually makes a lot of sense, I'll have to re-listen to that one - for some reason I thought it was something said at a party. But then you compare it with dedicating hours of work to prove even a snowball's chance that one phonecall maybe possibly could might have been an unanswered butt-dial. Her efforts are disproportionately supportive of Adnan, and I think the podcast suffered for it. I had the impression that by the last episode she had personally concluded he did it, but wanted to maintain the podcast's neutral tone. So anything that would swing it too far in that direction got glossed over, and instead we were getting fluff pieces about what a great kid he was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
fullroundaction posted:The one thing that really stuck out to me from the beginning is why during all of SK/Adnan's calls the issue of "well if you didn't do it why did Jay frame you?" only comes up a handful of times and is never really pressed. Each time Adnan is like "no idea man this whole thing is hosed up ya know?". Christ yeah that really bugged me too. Hell, it's the key question as far as I'm concerned and Adnans hand-wavingly vague response of "I dunno, mebbe someone put him upto it? Who knows!" never convinced in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
BeigeJacket posted:Christ yeah that really bugged me too. Hell, it's the key question as far as I'm concerned and Adnans hand-wavingly vague response of "I dunno, mebbe someone put him upto it? Who knows!" never convinced in the slightest. This is brought up multiple times in the podcast. Adnan has no reason to say anything about Jay in the podcast, because things he says could be used against him at his future hearing. He's been coached to not talk about Jay, and he mentions that he is obviously mad at the guy, even fifteen years later, so what would be the point in dwelling on it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Just finished this after a two day marathon. If pressed I would have to say I personally think Adnan probably did do it. However I do not think the legal standard of proof was even close to being met here. I still have a reasonable amount of doubt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:47 |
|
|
Drunk Tomato posted:what would be the point in dwelling on it? If I was innocent of murder but got framed for it by one of my acquaintances/friends for seemingly no reason whatsoever - and it landed me in jail for life - I think the "why" of that whole situation would be a reasonable thing to dwell on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 22:20
|
|