|
Adnan is guilty. Beyond a reasonable doubt. He will die in prison.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
stickyfngrdboy posted:What was jay told, or what did he tell the police, in the interview rooms before they started recording? Has that been covered anywhere? Im just asking questions, see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Interested in a quick poll, but does anyone in the thread think that Jay is the guilty party? I don't mean Jay helped Adnan with the body, but straight up Jay is the killer. On another note, The Intercept have delayed the release of their other Ulrick interview. The author has said that the editors were 'taken aback' by the response to the first one, which likely means they're fact checking the next one because they got exposed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I don't think so, because the cops aren't talking, and nothing was recorded. What've they got to hide, huh? Someone should look into it. tell reddit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Interested in a quick poll, but does anyone in the thread think that Jay is the guilty party? I don't mean Jay helped Adnan with the body, but straight up Jay is the killer. How did they get exposed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Presenting the prosecutor's misleading speculation about why alibi disclosure witnesses were not called at trial as fact was pretty bad journalism, but yeah, I donno if they've been "exposed," even about that - does anyone not playing Serial internet detective even read those articles?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
I read the three articles that were an interview with Jay. Im not following the internet detective stuff very closely but still found that particular interview helpful. The stuff with the prosecutor though, I fail to see how it has any real relevance to Serial. He is saying exactly what you would expect a prosecutor to say, and really Serial wasnt about the trial, but if Adnan actually did it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Interested in a quick poll, but does anyone in the thread think that Jay is the guilty party? I don't mean Jay helped Adnan with the body, but straight up Jay is the killer. Exposed doing what? There were a couple of minor factual errors that they later corrected but other than that I didn't see anything particularly scandalous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:Interested in a quick poll, but does anyone in the thread think that Jay is the guilty party? I don't mean Jay helped Adnan with the body, but straight up Jay is the killer. Jay has no motive whatsoever. Adnan has a very typical motive seen in thousands of murder cases. Who would you believe?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Two Kings posted:Jay has no motive whatsoever. Adnan has a very typical motive seen in thousands of murder cases. Who would you believe? The guy whose story doesn't change every ten minutes? Besides, "This dude is really friendly with my girlfriend" is at least as much of a motive for framing someone for murder as "We dated for a while then broke up" is for killing someone. (I don't think Jay did it, and I think Adnan probably did.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:Exposed doing what? There were a couple of minor factual errors that they later corrected but other than that I didn't see anything particularly scandalous. I think it was the fact that these weren't just interviews. They were A) Sticking it to Serial because they got the interviews and Serial didn't. B) Completely going against Serial in not stating "is Adnan guilty lets look at the facts" to "Adnan is guilty! Look at what the prime witness and prosecutor have to say!" If Intercept had been more objective with their reporting I think the backlash wouldn't have come. The way Intercept played their hand did make it far more interesting. CaptainHollywood fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
docbeard posted:Besides, "This dude is really friendly with my girlfriend" is at least as much of a motive for framing someone for murder as "We dated for a while then broke up" is for killing someone. Not really. There's no evidence that Jay was jealous of their relationship, there's no evidence that Jay was cheating on Stephanie, that Hae knew, and that Hae was going to tell Stephanie and that Jay found out and killed Hae to save his relationship. And you're understating the intensity, at least from Adnan's point of view, of his relationship with Hae. According to Hae herself Adnan was not taking the break-up well at all, she pointed out his 'possessiveness' in one her diary entries, Adnan called her after midnight the night she died allegedly to innocently give her his phone number (I find it hard to believe he wasn't calling about the relationship, maybe trying to get back together with her, but that's just a hunch)--and, let's not forget, Hae was infatuated with another person, a man who was 20, had already graduated high-school, and had a sweet car. For a teenage boy going through the emotional turmoil of his first real break up this kind of information might have been unbearable; in Jay's interview he even says that Adnan couldn't be sure, but he suspected that Hae might have been cheating on him with Don. He might not have even believed that they had really truly broken up until he learned of the new paramour. In any case, it certainly looks to me like a solid motive. And the 'I am going to kill' message found on the back of the break-up note from Hae, the one where she tells him to move on and stop being so possessive, isn't something that Koenig should have so breezily dismissed, even almost hinting that it was a forgery by the police or something; that some people claim it's meaningless because the verb is intransitive or because it appears on the back of the note and therefore has no relationship to the written contents on the other side is just absurd. The only person here with anything like a motive is Adnan. To say that Jay had one is entirely speculative. CaptainHollywood posted:I think it was the fact that these we're just interviews. They were A) Sticking it to Serial because they got the interviews and Serial didn't. B) Completely going against Serial in not stating "is Adnan guilty lets look at the facts" to "Adnan is guilty! Look at what the prime witness and prosecutor have to say!" I don't see why everyone imports malicious motives to The Intercept. I don't mind that they were just interviews; in fact, just letting these guys talk might have been the best approach, the one that would most perfectly allow them to freely contradict themselves, and, in the case of Jay, perhaps incriminate himself. And I know everyone wanted Vargas-Cooper to interrogate Jay, plunging into detailed questions about the correlation of his various timelines with the known cell-phone tower records, and so on. But there is a reason Koening didn't get these interviews and that's because neither person is interested in voluntarily subjecting themselves to a cross-examination over a case that's been closed for years and that the reporter can't really justify re-evaluating in the first place. I also think The Intercept journalists, whether they are right or wrong, thought that the podcast did not present a balanced case. The whole format of the podcast demanded that Adnan's innocence, or at least potential innocence, remain titillatingly plausible until the last episode. The case against Adnan, regardless of there being one episode with that title, was not presented in as detailed and honest a way as the case for his innocence. The idea that he had no plausible motive, or a very weak one, is just laughable, for example. He had the classic motive. The Intercept journalists probably simply believed that the case presented in Serial was structurally one-sided by the nature of the genre it was in, and that the testimony of the other major players who were instrumental in guaranteeing Adnan's conviction--Jay and the prosecutor--needed to be heard and fairly evaluated. That they editorialized at the beginning of their second article was a bit strange but I don't think it discredits them at all; they just think that the case against Adnan was perfectly sound. Orkin Mang fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
docbeard posted:The guy whose story doesn't change every ten minutes? What story? "I don't know where I was, maybe I did this or maybe I did that." Very hard to be inconsistent if that's your story.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
I'm not saying I think there's a strong case that Jay framed Adnan out of jealousy. I'm just saying that, as a motive, it would work if there were other evidence there. Like, if it came out that Jay did do all this, I would buy that as a reason. In much the same way that all the typical lovesick teen stuff surround Adnan and Hae's breakup only looks suspicious in light of the other facts of the case. If you seriously think that some dude mooning over his ex and being jealous of her new dude and even making hyperbolic I'M GOING TO KILL HER statements is actual evidence that said dude is plotting a murder, then we may as well just lock up every teenager right now. (Actually, yes, let's lock up every teenager right now.) (I am old.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
The message on the note looks suspicious when the girl who wrote the note actually ends up dead, and the guy who wrote the message has no alibi for the time of her disappearance (among other incriminating things). Though I agree, if that were the only piece of evidence, you could chalk it up to the hyperbole of passion, but in the context of the other evidence against Adnan, it takes on greater weight. Then again, I was pretty shattered when my first girlfriend and I broke up and she started dating an older, cooler, buffer dude, and I said and did some retarded things, but I never even jokingly threatened to kill her or ever entertained it. I was just supremely jealous and resentful and self-pitying--and I was the one who broke up with her. I agree, though, if there was any evidence for the scenario in which Jay kills Hae to keep her quiet about his infidelities, then that would amount to a plausible enough motive. But there isn't any evidence for it. And it would still leave entirely mysterious why Jay came forward and testified in the first place. Orkin Mang fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:The Intercept journalists probably simply believed that the case presented in Serial was structurally one-sided by the nature of the genre it was in, and that the testimony of the other major players who were instrumental in guaranteeing Adnan's conviction--Jay and the prosecutor--needed to be heard and fairly evaluated. That they editorialized at the beginning of their second article was a bit strange but I don't think it discredits them at all; they just think that the case against Adnan was perfectly sound. I just want to point out this quote on the Intercept: quote:Koenig dismissed the decision of the 12 jurors who heard the case, and even though she found nothing that would exonerate Syed, she shifted the burden of proof back onto the state Isn't that how the law is supposed to work? Or am I wrong. They're literally saying, "I can't believe Koenig is trying to make it the state's duty to have evidence to convict Adnan"
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
CaptainHollywood posted:I just want to point out this quote on the Intercept: I think that once someone is convicted they are henceforth presumed guilty, and to be exonerated they have to either demonstrate their innocence or identify a procedural malfeasance of some sort. It's one of the reasons why the Innocence Project focus on cases where there is DNA evidence available, because it has the potential to firmly exonerate the victim. Simply pointing out that the case was circumstantial or somehow not above the threshold of 'reasonable doubt' is really not enough to get someone exonerated, or even a new trial. Once the jury determines guilt presumption of innocence is reversed. It's weird to me that The Intercept pointed out that Koenig ignored the decision of the jurors, though. I don't see why she should have taken it seriously into account. Their determining that Adnan was guilty is not an additional piece of evidence of his guilt. They were probably in a better position to judge the credibility of the witnesses--Jay especially--because they heard them speak personally during cross examination, but other than that their opinions are their own. Jurors can be stupid and are not rarely wrong. Orkin Mang fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Raar_Im_A_Dinosaur posted:It's amazing how different sides of this argument have minimized or completely ignore things to push their pre-decided stance. Oh did I say amazing? I meant completely typical. Anyone thinking this is a clear cut case either way is deluding themselves, and the passion with which some people articulate their point is a bit distressing considering the shakey ground they stand on. Actually you'll find some of us, myself included, have said we have no idea what the gently caress to make of it and in light of that, the fact that Adnan was legally convicted of first degree murder is pretty loving surprising, based solely on literal legal standards, to say nothing of Adnan's guilt or innocence which is extremely murky territory. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:Actually you'll find some of us, myself included, have said we have no idea what the gently caress to make of it and in light of that, the fact that Adnan was legally convicted of first degree murder is pretty loving surprising, based solely on literal legal standards, to say nothing of Adnan's guilt or innocence which is extremely murky territory. Guess I'm not referring to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Raar_Im_A_Dinosaur posted:Guess I'm not referring to you. Well I dunno, seems to me like the majority of this thread is in the same camp, too.  Are you referring to Reddit and whatnot?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:I don't see why everyone imports malicious motives to The Intercept. I don't mind that they were just interviews; in fact, just letting these guys talk might have been the best approach, the one that would most perfectly allow them to freely contradict themselves, and, in the case of Jay, perhaps incriminate himself. And I know everyone wanted Vargas-Cooper to interrogate Jay, plunging into detailed questions about the correlation of his various timelines with the known cell-phone tower records, and so on. But there is a reason Koening didn't get these interviews and that's because neither person is interested in voluntarily subjecting themselves to a cross-examination over a case that's been closed for years and that the reporter can't really justify re-evaluating in the first place. I think just letting the interviewees speak for themselves would've been the best approach. It's the editorialising that takes place that sets it up as an attack on serial. If they uncover that SK and that team did something wrong on purpose, or purposely misrepresented something, then that's fine and it absolutely should be pointed out and Serial taken to task. But Vargas-Cooper frames it specifically as Serial didn't do their job properly, and we got the proof. There's the smug comment of "See, Ulrick isn't hard to find guys." that she lets out in her introduction, and their insistence that they were able to 'fact check' Ulrick's claims that no one from Serial tried to contact him (Made easier by them removing the rest of his quote). Again, I'm not sure how you fact check that someone didn't try to do something without having Serial on record saying that oh yeah we didn't try to contact him. Of course The Intercept isn't going to go hard on their subjects, but they did take the odd stance of treating what they say as Gospel and with no scepticism. Then, when this is pointed out to them (Or when their errors are pointed out to them) they immediately jump to the official stance of "This case is all about Hae, not your favourite podcast, you people should be ashamed". It's a little gross. I actually like Vargas-Cooper as well, she's written some really good pieces (Her article on the Rolling Stone rape accusations was a great read), but she's doing herself no favours by claiming that any heat she gets is down to misogyny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 10:31
|
|
|
Part 2 of Urick interview : https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/exclusive-serial-prosecutor-defends-guilty-verdict-adnan-syed-case-part-ii/ Not much to say except a LOT of editing was clearly done. It's obvious because Natasha wanted to post this: http://natashavc.tumblr.com/post/108089592316/here-are-the-e-mails-from-koenig-to-urick-left-on Here's my question: Why did Urick did say he wasn't allowed to talk about the case - but clearly had no issues talking about it with Natasha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
CaptainHollywood posted:Here's my question: Why did Urick did say he wasn't allowed to talk about the case - but clearly had no issues talking about it with Natasha. You did read the interview right? quote:TI: Why did you not speak to Koenig? He really isn't allowed to talk about the case as he is not a spokesman for the case or office but when something becomes high profile enough people will bend rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
I think the guy has the right to defend himself from a podcast that insinuated a few times he was up to some shady business on Jay's end. The case has already been talked about so it's not like him (or Jay) remaining silent would do anything for Hae's family at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
CaptainHollywood posted:Part 2 of Urick interview : Natasha VC and Ken Silverstein were behaving so completely unprofessionally about this entire situation (their tweets over the past few days are embarrassing), but I'm really surprised more people aren't noticing it in the actual work. NVC posted:Kevin Urick is not a liar. He impressed me with his professionalism, thoughtfulness, and precision about the case. lol NVC posted:In “Serial”, Koenig and her team were willing to fly out, unannounced, and knock on a state witnesses’ door, Jay Wilds, without alerting him. I have done similiar things in the course of my reporting. I think it was a good call to find Jay given how much time they put into the story and how invested the whole team seemed to be. Sarah Koenig posted:Hello Mr. Urick. I’ve been trying to reach you I would be VERY shocked if Koenig did not attempt to contact him numerous times (not that it matters, since he said he definitely would have refused to speak to her anyway no matter how persistent she could have been).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Tormented posted:He really isn't allowed to talk about the case as he is not a spokesman for the case or office but when something becomes high profile enough people will bend rules. It really doesn't matter because: quote:Urick told us he did not and would not have agreed to be interviewed by Koenig because he didn’t trust her to report fairly based on accounts from people who had met with her. That's really what it came down to. I'd say the case became "high-profile" around December so that excuse is also BS. He just didn't want to talk to her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Tormented posted:You did read the interview right? So as you've understood it, TAL doing a show about the case wasn't high profile enough for him to speak out? He didn't speak out because the point of the podcast was to examine the case. Once it got going, there was a definite "he was framed!" tone to it. Why would a person knowingly set themselves up to be scrutinized like that? He gains nothing from it. The Intercept though clearly takes the position that TAL is a bunch of dummies who did a poor job researching - thus placing itself firmly in the "Adnan did it" corner. He's got everything to gain by speaking in a piece like this if he did indeed feel as though he wanted to have his say. CaptainHollywood posted:It really doesn't matter because: Exactly! And I don't blame him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Tormented posted:He really isn't allowed to talk about the case as he is not a spokesman for the case or office but when something becomes high profile enough people will bend rules. Also keeping in mind that Koenig was clearly insinuating that he was guilty of shady behaviour and perhaps even misconduct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Orkin Mang posted:Also keeping in mind that Koenig was clearly insinuating that he was guilty of shady behaviour and perhaps even misconduct. Remember, AFTER the fact. A lot of people are talking about this as if they had all this information. It wasn't until the last 3 (I think? Maybe 4?) episodes that she really started to talk about Uricks involvement with Jay's assignment of attorney. He would have had no idea what kind of picture she was painting of him until AFTER she'd already tried to talk to him. It seems to me that the Intercept is all about trying to show up TAL for some reason (I side with prosecutors, wtf?), and Urick has everything to gain by coming out and saying "We he he he helll THIS is what happened, let me show ya! *tightens up belt and looks smug*"
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Again, I am completely astonished that a prosecutor would go on record saying that he believed he did his job correctly. I can understand Wright being suspicious of Koenig and her motives; while I don't believe Koenig was striving for objectivity as such, I think she was trying to be fair to all sides of this thing, but Wright wouldn't have any reason to believe that, particularly since she was quite open about having been pointed at the case by Adnan's family and friends.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
It looks as if the Maryland Attorney General has recommended Adnan's appeal be denied. Entertainment Weekly article quote:Syed’s appeal is predicated on his belief that his defense attorney, Cristina Gutierrez, did not properly seek a plea deal for him. However, the State of Maryland’s Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General state that “there is no proof whatsoever that [Syed] and the State could have presented a plea agreement that was acceptable to the court.” According to their filing, the judge in the case proceeded not expecting there to be any guilty plea discussions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Wait for the cast descriptions... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-1wldsq8_8 Don't watch if you haven't seen the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
Just saw this: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/01/8560228/natasha-vargas-cooper-out-interceptquote:Natasha Vargas-Cooper has resigned from The Intercept, Capital has learned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
This podcast hosed up the rep of quite a few people. I think Sarah did a fine job but i think she probably left with a worse rep than she went in with
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:This podcast hosed up the rep of quite a few people. I think Sarah did a fine job but i think she probably left with a worse rep than she went in with She went from generic TAL producer to semi-famous podcast host. I think she's much better off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Famous for being a semi competent cocktease
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Shnakepup posted:Just saw this: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/01/8560228/natasha-vargas-cooper-out-intercept
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
She claims that she was planning on leaving before her Serial articles were published for what it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
She already announced that she's joining Jezebel as their senior writer. Since the Intercept's old EiC is back at Gawker and has already nabbed people from First Look, this could have been in the works for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:57 |
|
|
Hmm, no, she clearly left because Jay & a lizard person framed Adnan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 22:48
|
|
