Appeals Court Upholds New Trial for Subject of 'Serial'(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Appeals Court Upholds New Trial for Subject of 'Serial'
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-29/appeals-court-upholds-new-trial-for-subject-of-serial?cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-tictoc&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_content=tictoc&utm_source=twitter
29 comments
Yeah the question should really be if he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt, to which the answer can only be no.
What was poor about it? All my research into the case show that the prosecution was fairly above board and comprehensive. Syed had motive, means, and opportunity. There was physical evidence, a pattern of Syed lying to police and a confessing accomplice who had information the police didn't.
Real tragedy in this case how the justice system can be so easily manipulated by the media.
Real tragedy in this case how the justice system can be so easily manipulated by the media.
The police coaching ? The witness lying about, well, pretty much anything ? The defense not calling critical witnesses ? Or pointing out timelines that can't work ?
Murder accomplices tend to be liars. There isn't any compelling evidence of police coaching. The "critical witness" the defense failed to call disappeared for 15 years, and came back with a cash in book deal in tow once the case was popular again. The timeline wasn't perfectly nailed down, but that isn't a prereq of a murder conviction.
There's virtually nothing that Jay asserted in his first interview that stands in his 3rd or 4th. Magically it lined up with the State's case. For me that's an issue more than a blanket 'boys will be boys' statement. AFAIK Asia didn't dissapear but was never called/pursued, and the notes on which her testimony is based predates the tv show by more than 10 years. I agree with your timeline statement, and with the fact that media distorts things a lot as well.
There was no physical evidence in the case.
Syed's fingerprints were in the victim's car, no other suspects were.
His fingerprints were on a map in her car. He was her boyfriend, so it’s no surprise that some of his fingerprints would be there. It has no actual connection to anything related to the murder.
I spent some time looking into this case as well and came to the conclusion that there is simply not enough information to definitively conclude anything, and that people seem too eager to take several leaps of faith to assume he’s guilty. He very well may be, but it isn’t close to being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Every piece of evidence used to convict him is sketchy in some way.
I spent some time looking into this case as well and came to the conclusion that there is simply not enough information to definitively conclude anything, and that people seem too eager to take several leaps of faith to assume he’s guilty. He very well may be, but it isn’t close to being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Every piece of evidence used to convict him is sketchy in some way.
The mind can always come up with an innocent explanation if it wants to see that. He had been an ex-boyfriend for nearly a month, and no other suspects had fingerprints in the car.
Not sure how you believe people are too eager to see him as guilty when the only reason anyone knows about him is a campaign to free him.
Not sure how you believe people are too eager to see him as guilty when the only reason anyone knows about him is a campaign to free him.
I don’t think he’s innocent, I think there’s not enough info, and people are being intellectually lazy in proclaiming him guilty. It’s a common and dangerous trend in the US and I think it’s one of the reasons why so many innocent people are wrongly convicted.
It is absolutely ridiculous to claim the fingerprints have significance. Fingerprints on a weapon, or her clothes, or even the trunk or door handles are evidence. Fingerprints on a map are meaningless when he had probably been in her car dozens of times before as her boyfriend.
It is absolutely ridiculous to claim the fingerprints have significance. Fingerprints on a weapon, or her clothes, or even the trunk or door handles are evidence. Fingerprints on a map are meaningless when he had probably been in her car dozens of times before as her boyfriend.
I think it is equally intellectually lazy to throw up your hands and claim solipsism in a murder case, particularly when there is a lot of compelling evidence.
The real significance of the finger prints isn't that Syed's were there, but that they were there and no other suspects were. Someone with murderous intent was in that car, and the evidence shows that Syed was at least recently in car while all other suspects have no evidence that they were.
The real significance of the finger prints isn't that Syed's were there, but that they were there and no other suspects were. Someone with murderous intent was in that car, and the evidence shows that Syed was at least recently in car while all other suspects have no evidence that they were.
What's intellectually lazy is that you're clearly approaching this from the assumption that Syed is guilty and demanding proof that he isn't.
The American system is founded on the exact opposite principle: the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Syed is guilty. Syed doesn't even have to show that he is innocent, just that the State can't prove his guilt.
In the case of the fingerprints, as many other posters have pointed out, he was the victim's boyfriend and so had been in her car many times. The presence of his fingerprints in her care is therefore neither surprising nor evidence of guilt. It just shows that at some point he was in her car, which already know was true many times.
It's not for Syed to explain away the fingerprints, it's for the State to explain how it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murder. Despite your numerous erroneous assertions to the contrary, the evidence presented by the State is extremely weak and circumstantial, and testimony of their key witness demonstrated to be extremely unreliable.
Not to mention your assumption that it MUST be one of the listed suspects, and since their fingerprints weren't there it must be Syed. It's possible the killer was an unknown person. It's possible one of the other suspects wore gloves or some other protection against fingerprints. It's also possible Syed was the killer, but the fingerprints being in the car are not in any way proof of that because, as noted above, their presence is to be expected.
Yours is precisely the kind of mindset the entire system is set up to avoid. Thankfully people who actually know the law and have gone over the evidence haven't approached this question with your attitude.
The American system is founded on the exact opposite principle: the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Syed is guilty. Syed doesn't even have to show that he is innocent, just that the State can't prove his guilt.
In the case of the fingerprints, as many other posters have pointed out, he was the victim's boyfriend and so had been in her car many times. The presence of his fingerprints in her care is therefore neither surprising nor evidence of guilt. It just shows that at some point he was in her car, which already know was true many times.
It's not for Syed to explain away the fingerprints, it's for the State to explain how it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murder. Despite your numerous erroneous assertions to the contrary, the evidence presented by the State is extremely weak and circumstantial, and testimony of their key witness demonstrated to be extremely unreliable.
Not to mention your assumption that it MUST be one of the listed suspects, and since their fingerprints weren't there it must be Syed. It's possible the killer was an unknown person. It's possible one of the other suspects wore gloves or some other protection against fingerprints. It's also possible Syed was the killer, but the fingerprints being in the car are not in any way proof of that because, as noted above, their presence is to be expected.
Yours is precisely the kind of mindset the entire system is set up to avoid. Thankfully people who actually know the law and have gone over the evidence haven't approached this question with your attitude.
> Compelling evidence
The thing is that the evidence is not compelling at all. It relies on sketchy cell phone evidence and the witness of a guy who told three entirely different versions of his story.
The cell phone evidence is so bad that the expert who testified for the prosecution retracted his analysis during the appeal. Prosecutors presented location for incoming calls as evidence, even though the AT&T call log made it clear that incoming calls did not have valid location info. The police mistakenly placed one of the towers in Patapsco State park, and the first version of Jay’s story had them driving through there. The police fixed their map and the second version of his story does not have them going to that park. That seems pretty clear that he was being coached, which puts the claim that “he knew where the car was” in doubt.
The thing is that the evidence is not compelling at all. It relies on sketchy cell phone evidence and the witness of a guy who told three entirely different versions of his story.
The cell phone evidence is so bad that the expert who testified for the prosecution retracted his analysis during the appeal. Prosecutors presented location for incoming calls as evidence, even though the AT&T call log made it clear that incoming calls did not have valid location info. The police mistakenly placed one of the towers in Patapsco State park, and the first version of Jay’s story had them driving through there. The police fixed their map and the second version of his story does not have them going to that park. That seems pretty clear that he was being coached, which puts the claim that “he knew where the car was” in doubt.
He was her boyfriend and had been in the car many times. I may sound like I'm defending Adnan, but I am not. I just don't think that the case was well prosecuted and or defended, which is either now allowing a killer to walk free or an innocent person to have spend years in jail for something he didnt do.
Jay knew where the car was.
Do we know that?
One of the many eye-opening things in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH_nP8pX4Fg is that during a long questioning session the police will often introduce facts about the case to see if you recognize them, then forget that they did so, then hours later ask a different question and your knowledge of the facts that you were previously told BY THE POLICE is now evidence against you.
This happens frequently enough that I would want to know that an independent third party reviewed tapes of all questioning of Jay before concluding that he in fact had previous independent knowledge of any fact about the crime.
One of the many eye-opening things in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH_nP8pX4Fg is that during a long questioning session the police will often introduce facts about the case to see if you recognize them, then forget that they did so, then hours later ask a different question and your knowledge of the facts that you were previously told BY THE POLICE is now evidence against you.
This happens frequently enough that I would want to know that an independent third party reviewed tapes of all questioning of Jay before concluding that he in fact had previous independent knowledge of any fact about the crime.
Yeah, like the child sexual abuse trials of the 80's. The children were fed facts that were later presented as information in the trial obtained from the children.
I do think this is the central question the retrial should deal with.
I do think this is the central question the retrial should deal with.
Children in particular are very suggestible. We had to learn how to question them without eliciting the response that we are priming them for.
This is the fact that I always come back to when I assert that I think Adnan is actually guilty.
Yup, so it was either him or Adnan. If you ever played a deception game, when someone falsely accuses you, you go mad. Adnan is not mad and not accusing Jay back. He is guilty but didn't want to disappoint his community by admitting it, because they were so supportive during the trial.
How do articles like this pertain to Hacker News?
This case involves two things that are very interesting for this audience:
1) Cell phone data was used as evidence to convict him. It later came out that at the time it wasn't that accurate and that the prosecution misled the jury about it (perhaps based on the prosecution not understanding the data either). Also of interest was how much trouble the judge, prosecutors and jury had with making sense of this data. Cell phone location data is way better today, but when this kind of data first became available -- much like DNA evidence -- juries have trouble making sense of it.
2) This trial is also interesting from a DNA evidence perspective. A lot of people feel that DNA evidence makes a case ope and shut, but everyone involved with this case was purported to be friends. So, what does some small amount of DNA evidence mean in a case like this?
I find this trial is also interesting as we look at data from home AI speakers. I get the sense that we may have a few trials like this coming up in the future where the quality or type of data that a home AI speaker records is misunderstood, and it leads to bad evidence being shared.
1) Cell phone data was used as evidence to convict him. It later came out that at the time it wasn't that accurate and that the prosecution misled the jury about it (perhaps based on the prosecution not understanding the data either). Also of interest was how much trouble the judge, prosecutors and jury had with making sense of this data. Cell phone location data is way better today, but when this kind of data first became available -- much like DNA evidence -- juries have trouble making sense of it.
2) This trial is also interesting from a DNA evidence perspective. A lot of people feel that DNA evidence makes a case ope and shut, but everyone involved with this case was purported to be friends. So, what does some small amount of DNA evidence mean in a case like this?
I find this trial is also interesting as we look at data from home AI speakers. I get the sense that we may have a few trials like this coming up in the future where the quality or type of data that a home AI speaker records is misunderstood, and it leads to bad evidence being shared.
Serial is a popular podcast among the hacker news crowd. So a follow up on one of their stories is probably going to be popular too.
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting.
That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to
reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that
gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
If you think it's not useful, flag and move on ...
Just imagine it has "blockchain" in the title.
If you believe Adnan is guilty - he goes free because of poor prosecution and defense; If you believe Adnan is not guilty - he spend years in jail for a crime he didn't commit - because of poor prosecution and defense.
:(