|
Maybe she's being coerced to say that she was never coerced 
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
Maybe Urick's being coerced to say she was coerced. Hei faked her own death and is orchestrating all of this and is actually Andy Kauffman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
sejoonki posted:I binge-listened to Serial this weekend I did the same thing in the last week. Really good stuff. They mention that guy who found the body early on as being key and they will get back to him but never do (unless I accidentally skipped an episode)?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 12:56
|
|
|
Jippa posted:I did the same thing in the last week. Really good stuff. They mention that guy who found the body early on as being key and they will get back to him but never do (unless I accidentally skipped an episode)? You missed that bit since the guy who found the body was Mr S, who she talks about for about ten minutes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2015 13:50
|
|
|
Reading through the thread. I think the problems with the show's "aimlessness" (that people have complained about) become way less jarring when you just binge watch it. That's what I did, so I felt like I was just along for the ride, not expecting there to be any sort of conclusion. It may have helped that I right away saw that the final episode's name is "What We Know," which sounds inconclusive as hell. I don't know why people are insisting that there be a definitive conclusion anyway. Some true crimes go unexplained. Doesn't mean the story isn't worth telling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
I've listened to most (not all - just finished 7) and I'd vote to convict. Jay's story may change in some details - there's that "witnesses lie because they have to" saying - but the core is the same and always has been, and the reasons why he'd lie make a lot of sense, he's terrified about going to jail for drug stuff and may not trust the whole "oh we are murder police and don't care about drugs" that you see on TV because it's TV. The cell phone stuff is odd and only seems to make sense if Adnan made that call and he's lying about that. The lack of physical evidence is easily explained - she was obviously not murdered where she was found, she was murdered somewhere else (and Jay only knows what Adnan told him.) "Smart" murderers will do this because most of the evidence will be at the murder site, and if detectives can't find it, they may never even begin to suspect you. If I was a juror, I'd be frustrated when Adnan didn't testify because - well at this point it likely would have been clear to everyone in the courtroom that Adnan was losing, the jury came back in a few hours. Here is his chance to tell his side of the story. Not have his lawyer do it, but Adnan himself doing it. And he declined, and here I am as a juror desperately wanting to hear him because I really want to do the right thing and have all the evidence and perspectives in my hand so I can make the right decision, and I can't, and I walk into the juror room without hearing Adnan say "I didn't do it" and while it's not going to be an additional reason for me to convict, more importantly it's not going to be a reason to find him innocent. The defense had nothing to lose by this point, Adnan has the right not to go on the stand but really gently caress that at this point. He'd pass the reasonable doubt test. Also season 2 should be Ray Gricar because that is one heck of a mystery. monster on a stick fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
Jurors are instructed to ignore a defendant's refusal to testify, but they are still thinking humans and it'll have some effect. But here that effect was magnified: the perception is that if Adnan was innocent he could have cleared it all up in five minutes of honest testimony. He never offered up anything to explain why his phone was driving around where his ex's body was found. Even in a year of talking with SK, he still "can't remember" a single drat thing that would clear him. From a legal standpoint, having no alibi is better than having a flimsy one - The prosecution has nothing to poke holes in. It worked for Reagan. But outside of a courtroom it's shady as gently caress, and the laypeople of a jury aren't beep boop testimony evaluation droids.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
moths posted:Jurors are instructed to ignore a defendant's refusal to testify, but they are still thinking humans and it'll have some effect. But here that effect was magnified: the perception is that if Adnan was innocent he could have cleared it all up in five minutes of honest testimony. It's not even beep boop must follow instructions. You can't hear him say "I lent my phone to someone which is why a call was made near the body" or "Jay did it for reasons" from his mouth because he doesn't put his rear end on the stand. If I'm a juror, I want to hear that. That counts as much as Jay's testimony. People have said that if Jay doesn't take the stand, there would have been no conviction; maybe that is true. But if you make that case, then Adnan would have made a difference too, even if he wasn't required to take the stand per the Constitution. It would have been a Hail Mary pass but sometimes those work. I have no doubt that Adnan would not have done well on the stand, but still it isn't going to hurt at that point. Maybe it would impact sentencing but with a first degree conviction you are going to be locked up for a long time anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
The podcast was well worth the listen and very entertaining. At first I rolled my eyes every time they mentioned a serial killer, but it was really genius production work. The hundreds of posts spawned on reddit alone theorizing how a serial killer teamed up with Jay who then framed Adnan made for some fun reading. I mean, written by complete morons trying to defend a murderer, but still fun reading. Really fed into Reddit's unrelenting drive to minimize violence against women. Also that drive from the high school to the best buy parking lot? It can currently be done on a public bus in the allotted time. DARPA fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Mar 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
Adnan didn't refuse to testify; his own attorney didn't want him to
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Adnan didn't refuse to testify; his own attorney didn't want him to Well, that's according to him, right? He may well have agreed at the time. Not that this makes him guilty of anything, other than not rolling the dice to help his case at the cost of possible sentencing. Also, holy poo poo about Koenig asking him about stealing a few bucks from the mosque. I got the impression that she was scared that her waifu would never talk to her again so she backed off on any actual questions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
The way the rules of evidence work, if Adnan goes up to testify he may waive a bunch of privileges or say something that can then be impeached. There are so many reasons why a defendant may not take the stand that thinking it indicates guilt is a total fallacy. You may have a common sense belief that things can get cleared up if Adnan speaks, but unless you know what evidence is available and what may be keeping prosecutors from using some other incriminating evidence, there's no reason to think it was a mistake for him not to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
I wasn't stating that guilt would be the only reason for him not to take the stand; far from it. If I were in a trial, I would not take the stand myself if at all possible. If things looked really bad, and I was facing an almost certain guilty verdict, that answer may be different. I'd have nothing to lose. The jury should not consider Adnan guilty in any way because he didn't take the stand, but it didn't help his case, does that make sense? Also I just realized how easy it is to reconcile the claim that Adnan stole a significant amount of money from the mosque, the theory that Jay did the actual killing, and why Adnan would keep his mouth shut and call Jay pathetic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
I think Adnan has a classic case of admit what you can't deny, deny what you can't admit. He's had a lot of time to think of reasonable ways to explain away his actions. Things like asking for a plea deal, twice. To me, he sounds very manipulative. More than just charming Sarah, he tries to balance what he says and moderate his reactions (another thing he has a rational explanation for). I think he is an adept liar. Anytime he gets called on something he doesn't remember or can't explain, he's got another thought-out rationalization. Jay is a bad liar and doesn't seem too concerned about his story adding up. He had a legitimate reason to lie about parts of that night and his latest version makes a whole lot of sense. And it may have problems too, but I'm more inclined to believe him. That said, I don't think they presented enough evidence at the time to find Adnan guilty. It's a shame we hear next to nothing from people who are more certain of Adnan's guilt, like the prosecutor and detectives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
triteon posted:I think Adnan has a classic case of admit what you can't deny, deny what you can't admit. He's had a lot of time to think of reasonable ways to explain away his actions. Things like asking for a plea deal, twice. To me, he sounds very manipulative. More than just charming Sarah, he tries to balance what he says and moderate his reactions (another thing he has a rational explanation for). I think he is an adept liar. Anytime he gets called on something he doesn't remember or can't explain, he's got another thought-out rationalization. Jay is a bad liar and doesn't seem too concerned about his story adding up. He had a legitimate reason to lie about parts of that night and his latest version makes a whole lot of sense. And it may have problems too, but I'm more inclined to believe him. That said, I don't think they presented enough evidence at the time to find Adnan guilty. It's a shame we hear next to nothing from people who are more certain of Adnan's guilt, like the prosecutor and detectives. I think that by and large it's the best way to look at it. The truth is a murky middle-ground and you have to accept that either Adnan happens to be the world's unluckiest man or that he is denying away the things he can't explain, or trying to reason out some things that don't make sense. I still think that Jay is way more complicit than he makes out, since neither of those guys have really admitted the nature of their relationship and instead stick to this story that they barely know one another.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:I think that by and large it's the best way to look at it. The truth is a murky middle-ground and you have to accept that either Adnan happens to be the world's unluckiest man or that he is denying away the things he can't explain, or trying to reason out some things that don't make sense. I still think that Jay is way more complicit than he makes out, since neither of those guys have really admitted the nature of their relationship and instead stick to this story that they barely know one another. Which ties into the "pathetic" line - this was a prisoner's dilemma and Jay chose to talk. If Adnan is guilty - and I personally believe he is - then anything he says to incriminate Jay would by definition incriminate himself in the crime, which is why he keeps denying it to this day. I'm not sure if that would kill his appeal but the "Free Adnan" t-shirt prices would end up heavily discounted on Meh or something. Speaking to my line in the earlier post, I'm sure someone has suggested this on Reddit or some other sleuth board, but has anyone thought about Adnan effectively hiring Jay to do the actual crime, so that Adnan could have an alibi and Jay would have no motive and hopefully avoid police attention? The main problem besides getting a minor-level drug dealer to do the deed is that Adnan did a crappy job with getting a good alibi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
Why would you hire someone to commit a loving homicide, give him your car and phone, spend most of the day hanging out with him, disappear for large chunks of time, and not even create a semblance of a cover story? Adnan choked the life out of his ex, tossed her in a trunk and got Jay to help shuttling the car about and digging the hole.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
That theory is more for people who think he had some alibi due to magic cell stuff and unreliable witnesses who happen to be friends with him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
triteon posted:That said, I don't think they presented enough evidence at the time to find Adnan guilty. It's a shame we hear next to nothing from people who are more certain of Adnan's guilt, like the prosecutor and detectives. This is where I'm sitting as well. The episode about the lawyer does make me think Adnan is owed an appeal due to having bad legal counsel, but ideally the outcome of the appeal will be to uphold his sentence. The whole case and the trial read like shenanigans, and I really have no idea what to make of Jay, but the cell evidence and a couple of other things make it seem unbelievable that Adnan is innocent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Also, holy poo poo about Koenig asking him about stealing a few bucks from the mosque. I got the impression that she was scared that her waifu would never talk to her again so she backed off on any actual questions. a really weird part for me was when she ends up discounting the break up letter with 'i am going to kill' written on the back of it on the grounds that it all sounds like something in a tv cop show (or whatever). she never mentions it again but the implication is that the police fabricated the evidence. to me the idea that he was reading the break up letter over and over again after he'd found out about the new boyfriend and getting more and more angry and jealous to the point that he makes a decision and writes it down to make it feel real to himself is pretty plausible. koenig just dismisses it. i'm also willing to believe jay had more to do with it in terms of encouraging adnan to do it (to seem hardcore) and discussing it with him as a sort of just-maybe hypothetical and giving him advice (because jay seemed to like being seen as a hardcore criminal when he wasnt really at all) but then finding himself trapped when adnan actually goes ahead and loving does it. i don't buy that he was actually physically involved in the murder or that adnan paid him to do it though. Orkin Mang fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:It's not even beep boop must follow instructions. You can't hear him say "I lent my phone to someone which is why a call was made near the body" or "Jay did it for reasons" from his mouth because he doesn't put his rear end on the stand. If I'm a juror, I want to hear that. That counts as much as Jay's testimony. People have said that if Jay doesn't take the stand, there would have been no conviction; maybe that is true. But if you make that case, then Adnan would have made a difference too, even if he wasn't required to take the stand per the Constitution. Last or page before last covers that the cell phone records don't allow you to conclude anything, they wildly extrapolated a lot of things and downright misinterpreted others. If adnan goes on the stand and can't explain false cell phone accusations away then he just buried himself even further. Did you completely forget that serial talked to attorneys and most recommend to their clients that they don't go on the stand???
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Yes, keeping your client of the stand probably is better legal advice when your client is a murderer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
all the defense attorneys always have guilty clients and that's why they said it 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
A good lawyer can make most people look unsure or confused about events, even when they're absolutely certain of what actually happened. Questioning an evasive teenage murderer whose alibi is already that he's unsure and confused about events? Yeah good luck finding a defense lawyer eager to try that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
moths posted:A good lawyer can make most people look unsure or confused about events, even when they're absolutely certain of what actually happened. Yes, that's exactly why you can't draw any conclusion from a defense attorney not choosing to put their client on the stand.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
But jurors aren't necessarily going to understand or appreciate that. It's a judgement call whether to put him up or not. Most of the time it's the wrong play, but it's always a mistake when your guy is guilty as gently caress. Adnan had a year to explain any non-murdering circumstances to SK, in a non-adversarial environment. And he couldn't, despite her obviously wanting to believe him. Now, if he hadn't killed Hae it's possible he could have made a good witness. But without that, the jury has only his body language and behavior to form an opinion on, and the only documented account of that is him calling his accomplice "pathetic."
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
moths posted:But jurors aren't necessarily going to understand or appreciate that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
People are bad at following instructions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Yeah they will still outright ignore instructions at times, this is all too common.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
This week's "true crime" episode of The Sporkful is a pretty good parody of Serial: http://www.sporkful.com/true-story-office-fridge-food-theft-shock-you-serial/
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Edit: nevermind.
Mystic Stylez fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Mar 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Another podcast is in the works. (and a PBS article on it.) Even if you think Sarah Koenig was biased, this is a podcast by Rabia Chaudry. I don't know if it'll be worth listening to, because of how one-sided it's going to be, but I'll probably end up doing it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Ugh, unless they actually come up with some new piece of evidence a la The Jinx I really don't see another podcast about this case to be even vaguely interesting. I followed Serial at first because I thought it was going somewhere; it didn't. This should have been an episode of TAL, not on ongoing podcast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
bad day posted:Ugh, unless they actually come up with some new piece of evidence a la The Jinx I really don't see another podcast about this case to be even vaguely interesting. I followed Serial at first because I thought it was going somewhere; it didn't. This should have been an episode of TAL, not on ongoing podcast. Gonna be a huge sperg and say that even if it doesn't "go anywhere," it's still a podcast worth listening to -- it doesn't require a teleology for it to be worthy of attention or consideration. (To really crank it up to asinine college sophomore literature analysis, Serial always struck me as a Bildungsroman more than a conventional quest-plot story). The podcast Criminal is definitely recommended -- it's in the same vein, but deals with separate issues related to crime (solving, committing, etc) every episode.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
bad day posted:Ugh, unless they actually come up with some new piece of evidence a la The Jinx I really don't see another podcast about this case to be even vaguely interesting. I followed Serial at first because I thought it was going somewhere; it didn't. This should have been an episode of TAL, not on ongoing podcast. True their 15 minutes are up, the genre has already been done better with The Jinx
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Bitchkrieg posted:Gonna be a huge sperg and say that even if it doesn't "go anywhere," it's still a podcast worth listening to -- it doesn't require a teleology for it to be worthy of attention or consideration. (To really crank it up to asinine college sophomore literature analysis, Serial always struck me as a Bildungsroman more than a conventional quest-plot story). you suck
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
I too am disappointed that a documentary examining the the investigation of a real-life murder from fifteen years ago didn't end with an Agatha Christie-ish drawing room scene in which Hercule Koenig methodically eliminated every possible suspect except for the real killer. ...actually I am kind of disappointed it didn't end this way, now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Actually I'm just disappointed that they didn't have any information that wasn't already in the publicly available court documents. I read many of the documents and summaries while waiting for new episodes of Serial to come out, thinking maybe Koenig had at least uncovered some sort of new information that would: a. provide one new fact or scrap of evidence that points more decisively towards Adnan's guilt or innocence. b. provide a plausible alternative narrative for Hae's death. The show failed on both accounts, and wound up being an extended contemplation on how the truth is ultimately unknowable, and it's the journey that's more important than the ending, and no one will ever know what really happened to Hae.. and of course SK's experience working the case because that's what's really important. ..Which would have made a fantastic This American Life episode. But if I were her producer I wouldn't have let this go to air until she produced something - some concrete tangible fact that casts new light on the case. I would have told her to shelve the story until she came up with something that wasn't already part of the public record. Or I would have insisted she edit it down into a one or two-part TAL episode. In any case I really hope whatever story she chooses for season 2 doesn't end with "welp, I guess we'll never know the truth" because then why do a show at all? Investigative journalists don't usually get front page articles based on "well we did a bunch of digging and came up with nothing so we're going to pretend it was a story about digging all along".
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Starting this series for the first time, I'm on the first episode. Wish me luck. I'm smoking like Adnan, and I like Robbie, he's a cool dude. edit: he doesn't remember, guys!!! let him go!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysFxrPNjvNA Mr. S is living a wild life why does she say the courtroom action is boring? that sounded super exciting to me, I want more! Objection! Punkin Spunkin fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 11:02 |
|
|
Serial was a shaggy dog story. It starts out promising but ends up completely pointless and unsatisfying. bad day posted:The show failed on both accounts, and wound up being an extended contemplation on how the truth is ultimately unknowable, and it's the journey that's more important than the ending, and no one will ever know what really happened to Hae.. and of course SK's experience working the case because that's what's really important. I think SK already had been given the go-ahead (and money) for an extended series based on promises from Rabia and sweet talking from Adnan that they'd find him an innocent man behind bars (which plays well, better than guilty man behind bars anyway.) Even if SK realized that she had been duped, she and her team had already spent too much time digging into the case and making promises about some big podcast that would get everyone talking and become a regular series or something. So they produce some poo poo about how it's about the journey not the destination which was about as satisfying as the ending to  Hell, look at how panicked SK got when Adnan got pissy when she asked him about stealing from the till at the mosque. Without him she had nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:26
|
|