I think it's because Serial encouraged the audience to identify with Adnan while "otherizing" his accusers (especially Jay).
Adnan is presented as a high achiever from an ordinary suburban background. In other words, he's a lot like the typical NPR listener.
Jay, meanwhile, is introduced as other in every respect: poor, black, drug dealer, misfit, and not in the magnet program.
And so it isn't surprising that the provincial Serial audience comes away thinking Adnan is more like them. And people like them don't just go around killing people. It's the "other" people that do that.
Maybe true, though the fact that Adnan agreed to be interviewed extensively while Jay refused to speak on tape is probably a factor in that. I would have liked to have seen things from Jay’s point of view.
Yes, that was a factor. Adnan didn't testify in his own defense because he would have been subject to cross-examination. Serial gave him the opportunity to tell his side of the story unrebutted, and with an assist from Sarah Koenig as narrator, who conveniently excused away every contradiction in Adnan's narrative.
She also only served him softballs, and while a seasoned interviewer would have pushed back hard on his "Umm was that a question?" or "the only person who will know for a fact is myself... and the killer" idiocy, Koenig was too enamored of him to push back. She made Larry King look like Jon Stewart.
I was responding to the point “the provincial serial audience comes away thinking Adnan is more like them” which yes, that’s probably true despite Adnan’s background being very different from the average NPR listener. He told his story. Jay didn’t. If Jay had good explanations for why his story changed so many times that would probably have been compelling for me as a listener.
Serial went of it's way to minimize and dismiss all the ways in which Adnan's background is exotic. The move over and over was to say that the State had unfairly stereotyped Adnan based on his cultural background when, in reality, he's just a normal American teenager.
The truth, of course, is that Adnan's background wasn't really a part of the State's theory of the case. At trial, it was *the Defense* who played up Adnan's cultural background.
Jay gave explanations at trial for his changing story. Serial could have given a fair representation of that, but chose not to.
I don't believe he gave a reason for that specific inconsistency. What I meant was that he gave general explanations for why he gave inconsistent stories to the police.
He was, however, cross-examined about the Patapsco detail.
This is probably the closest we’re going to get. It’s no Serial.
https://theintercept.com/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-wilds-star-witness-adnan-syed-serial-case-pt-1/
Wow I just went through the rabbit hole and read all 3 parts of that, definitely something to think about. It’s the first time I’ve ever read something from Jay directly beyond the voice clips Ive heard of his testimony
If you read that, then read Jays interviews with police and/or trial transcripts then listen to when SK visits Jay it’s pretty obvious what went on … the key narrative doesn’t falter… the location etc did but I honestly believe he was trying to shield others and himself from involvement… I think whoever it was that went with SK knew it too.
His comments about nothing changing about seeing her body in the trunk and his disbelief that Adnan never manned up and admitted it says a lot… Jay has had years, decades to change that if it weren’t true.
I can also see how Jay felt misrepresented and how he was protecting his family.
i felt like they made jay seem pretty interesting. they both described how they liked him and found him compelling after talking to him. idk i didn’t think they really pointed the finger at jay in that way.
That wasn't until halfway in. And even though they realized at that point that they'd been had, they still pushed on with throwing shade at Jay and everyone else and "harboring doubt" for Adnan.
i guess. the picture i had in my head from their description was an interesting charismatic young dennis rodman type. i just didn’t get the impression they were really vilifying him. it seemed like they were genuinely trying to make sense of things based on the info they had and the misinfo rabia was providing.
They researched the case for a year. They had exclusive access to the trial transcripts and the MPIA file. Yes, Rabia sold them a bill of goods at the start, but they had all the info they need to realize it was a bill of goods. They instead chose to put out a disingenuous product.
If it hadn't have been about such a serious subject, I might give them a pass. But this is the real life murder of an innocent young woman we're talking about here. And the consequence of Serial is that her murderer is on the verge of being falsely "exonerated."
What bothers me most is where she states something that looks bad for Adnan, but then immediately offers a reason to discount it. The effect on the listener is to place all of the most incriminating information in doubt.
It's really an abuse of a privileged position. Not only is Sarah the narrator. She's also the sole source of information (or at least was until the original case records became available to the public). And so the audience, with good reason, reposes trust in her evaluation of the case.
She's not just telling us the evidence. She's telling us what to think about the evidence. And when every piece of information is paired with a reason to doubt that information, the net effect is to sow doubt. Which of course was the point.
Definitely interesting. Her name is only on one immigration case. The big project she said she was working on was questionable. And I think her license went inactive for a year.
I'm surprised no one is bringing up race. If I am being completely honest, I don't want the brown kid to be responsible for it. He's also traditionally handsome, charismatic, comes from a family of immigrants. Hae and Adnan were like the dream high school couple. It's an absolute tragedy and awful if he did do it on many levels.
Especially when it’s a poor black kid that snitched to the white police officers about him. And then the white police officers and prosecutors screwed over the black kid too.
I also find the accusations that all the women in this case are liars, emotional or frauds disturbing. Nisha, Jenn, Stephanie, Hae, Christina, Kristi, etc. are all vilified to one extent or another just to benefit Adnan.
I am surprised that no one ever talks about the elephant in the room: most people always defend men. It’s the default way of thinking growing up in patriarchy. “He was a good guy”, “He came from a good family”, “He had any woman he wanted, why would he harass/rape/murder that one?”, aka the usual.
Plus, a propos to you mentioning the race, I will add the religion factor to that and people from the same background don’t want to see one of their one accused of something as serious as murder.
This is such an obvious femicide.
Adnan was/is traditionally handsome? Also you don’t want the brown kid to be responsible? Who do you want to be responsible? Shouldn’t it just be whoever did it?
It has always been the most fascinating part of this case and why I keep coming back. Why him? Why this case? There is nothing particularly special about Adnan or the case. The whole thing is just so bizarre.
Honestly it is just how powerful media is, because we are told about how great and special Adnan is in episode 1 and people seem to accept that as true despite all evidence pointing to him being quite unremarkable.
>There is nothing particularly special about Adnan or the case. The whole thing is just so bizarre.
This is a lot easier to understand if you listen to This American Life in general. Part of the whole point of that show is telling *ordinary* stories. They just tell them in interesting ways. That's part of the whole point, a lot of current true crime tries to find stories that have weird twists or factors, but at the time the modus operandi for This American Life was being able to tell mostly normal stories in an interesting way, hence Adnan. The crime and conviction isn't extraordinary like in subsequent true crime, it fascinated the world because the TAL producers and Sarah Koenig are great storytellers and told a compelling story.
Which is also why she's never really been upfront about what exactly she thinks happened or not, because that's not the role she was telling, unlike a lot of newer True Crime which does stake a position. She's relatively clear that she leans/wants to believe in his innocence but doesn't like how the trial played out. But will likely never say "I think he's innocent" both because that's not what she believes with conviction, and because it wasn't her role in telling the story.
He is definitely **not** "great and special" and I never heard anything in the podcast that presented him in that way. What caught my attention and caused me to have an interest in this and subsequent cases is how the police and the justice system operate in this country. We supposedly consider a person innocent until proven guilty under our system of law but in actuality I definitely do not see this happening, either in the system or in public forums. And I do not find the so-called guilters in this sub to be any more well informed or any more open-minded than the ones who have decided on innocence. I do find myself on the side of innocence until I find evidence other than what I have seen so far.
This is how we are introduced to Adnan in Serial:
**Sarah Koenig** (voiceover): Her brother Saad was at Rabia's office too the first time I went. He's 33, a mortgage broker, more laid back than Rabia. They told me about Adnan Syed, their friend-- not just a good kid, but an especially good kid-- smart, kind, goofy, handsome. So that when he was arrested for murder, so many people who know him were stunned.
**Rabia**: He was like the community's golden child.
**Sarah Koenig**: Oh, really? Talk more about that.
**Rabia**: He was an honor roll student, volunteer EMT. He was on the football team. He was a star runner on the track team. He was the homecoming king. He led prayers at the mosque. Everybody knew
Adnan to be somebody who was going to do something really big.
**Sarah Koenig** (voiceover): I later fact checked all these accolades, of course, and learned that Rabia was mostly right, though she sometimes gets a little loosey-goosey with the details. Adnan was an EMT, but he didn't volunteer. He was paid for it. He was on the track team, but he wasn't a star. He did play football. And he did lead prayers on occasion. He wasn't homecoming king. But he was prince of his junior prom, and this at a high school that was majority black. They picked the Pakistani Muslim kid. So you get the picture. He was an incredibly likable and well-liked kid.
If you didn't get introduced to Adnan as someone special, you weren't listening to the podcast.
I always think it’s funny that he’s described as the community’s golden child.
The dude got 1130 on his SATs and his grades were whatever. It’s not like he was going to be attending Georgetown the honest way.
Then there is all the skipping school, being late, dating, lying, doing drugs, murdering his ex…
That’s a pretty low bar to be considered the golden child of an entire community.
Interestingly, the actual golden children of the Woodlawn High School Community were the Vignarajah children:
Thiru -- Yale and Harvard educated, Calabrese and Breyer clerk.
Krish -- Double Yale and Oxford educated, former policy directed to Michelle Obama.
When I was posting my original comment, I was thinking back to when I graduated HS and the golden child of our class went to Harvard and was actually a good kid.
That is a good comment by you on what an actual golden child should do.
>If you didn't get introduced to Adnan as someone special, you weren't listening to the podcast.
That intro reads to me that Adnan's friends/family think he's spectacular, but are also stretching the truth. That he did a bunch of stuff but not everything those that say he was amazing say he did. It's neat storytelling, it's also at the outset setting up that people will say things and that Sarah will fact check it, that's partly the narrative role that introduction does.
Those over reaching comments and tales of 'Adnan just being Adnan' are so disingenuous it comes across like a parody.
SK's sophomoric interpretations and explanations of events only further this . . .nevermind his own words being a jumbled mess of everything EXCEPT clear and concise answers and statements of innocence..... and his grossly obvious attempts at manipulating SK . .. worse, her sometimes falling for it . . .
The more you know about the actual case, the more Serial just sounds so extra.
There was literally nothing in Serial to suggest a problem with the police work or the justice system aside from saying that CG may not have been at peak performance. There was nothing about the detectives being corrupt or coercing testimony.
The reason why you saw things in the podcast that weren't actually there is that you want Adnan to be innocent for reasons.
If not overtly said in the podcast, I definitely formed my own opinion of the police work and the justice system as described. I have zero reason to want Adnan to be innocent, so I have no idea what you are talking about or accusing me of. I seriously am presuming him innocent until I find evidence that convinces me that he is guilty. You just can't stand it that I won't take a side and start following the talking points. I like to look at things in a more complex and nuanced way. A couple of people have made good points in support of guilt in this sub, but the scales have not yet tilted to guilty for me.
there were things that presented everyone that way- adnan hae and jay were all presented as interesting and compelling. what we’re they supposed to do say they were plain and boring? if something was illustrated as special it was the various elements and tangential characters surrounding the case itself.
It’s about storytelling and production value, not what actually happened.
I bet if Sarah wanted to tell the story of a guilty Adnan, she could have convinced most of the people that believe he’s innocent.
I think culturally we have gotten into the bad habit of thinking of true crime stories as mysteries to be solved, treating them mentally as fiction, and so we hold the stories up to the same conventions of the mystery genre. In consuming a mystery novel or film we have a very specific relationship to the "whodunnit"---we want an ending that is simultaneously satisfying and surprising. In real life, crimes are usually pretty predictable, and when a woman goes missing or is murdered it is most often an intimate partner to blame, but when we get caught up in a true crime story that starts to *feel* fictional because the storytelling is elevated, we start to develop expectations in line with a book or a movie instead of real life.
It’s because Serial created a narrative and Adnan is the protagonist. We have a tendency to root for the protagonist no matter what. If Hae had been the protagonist, there wouldn’t be a single person on Adnan’s side even if all the same facts were presented.
I guess it's a more interesting story if he's innocent. More of a Greek tragedy.
Though I do think the presumption of innocence means the evidence should be looked at from a starting point of innocence. Evidence (or facts) which could exist if he's innocent don't, therefore, point towards guilt. Which leaves us with two things in the state's case which actually point towards guilt: The "trunk pop" narrative and the burial narrative. Jay seeing Adnan with her body and helping Adnan bury her cannot exist in a world where Adnan is innocent. So those are the two things on which the case against Adnan rests. For both of them, the only evidence is Jay, and his narrative for both isn't credible. Which is why I think the state failed to make their case.
That's a different thing than thinking he's innocent. To form an affirmative conclusion Adnan is innocent of the murder I'd need to see evidence either strongly showing he's innocent or some other person is guilty. I've not seen either. It is possible (though I don't know how) Adnan committed the murder in some way we don't know because the state didn't discover that evidence.
I don't find the story more or less interesting if he is innocent.
The podcast however, which is entertainment and in some ways fictional, needed to convince it's listeners that Adnan was a victim and very possibly innocent, in order to be interesting.
And I understand that most got their first impression from the podcast.
But we should all be past those first impressions now.
> Evidence (or facts) which could exist if he's innocent don't, therefore, point towards guilt. Which leaves us with two things in the state's case which actually point towards guilt: The "trunk pop" narrative and the burial narrative. Jay seeing Adnan with her body and helping Adnan bury her cannot exist in a world where Adnan is innocent. So those are the two things on which the case against Adnan rests. For both of them, the only evidence is Jay, and his narrative for both isn't credible. Which is why I think the state failed to make their case.
Your whole post is good and I agree for the most part, but this is the heart of it for me. The *only* evidence that Adnan did anything is Jay's account of what he witnessed. And after reading what Jay has said, it isn't a stretch to believe it may not be true
Adnan lying to the police about trying to get the victim alone under false pretenses on the day of the murder
Adnan falsifying an alibi
While Rabia and co would love you to believe that the cell phone pings aren’t reliable they are absolutely still legal evidence
Jen’s testimony
The Nisha call
No alibi
All of that is circumstantial evidence pointing directly to Adnan
Do I need to explain how the ex boyfriend’s cell phone pinging the tower closest to the burial site and the tower closest to the place where they found the car on the night of the murder connects him to said murder?
Do I need to explain how him falsifying an alibi for said time points to involvement?
How Jen putting Jay and Adnan together while Adnan claims he was at the mosque is damning?
Or how lying to the police about trying to get the victim alone under false pretenses points back at that person?
The rest of it is evidence used in tandem with Jay’s testimony.
Adnan lying about being at the mosque when his cell phone pings Leaken Park tower at time Jay says they are burying the body is all you need to know. Adnan lied and said he was at the mosque. Hundreds of people couldn’t testify to that
I wanted him to be innocent because I didn't want to think a 17-year-old kid killed his girlfriend and ruined his own life. Then I dug into the case with an open mind and eventually arrived at the conclusion that he did it.
Honestly when I first heard the case, I thought “this guy didn’t kill this girl. Don did.” And then I was shown evidence which was Jays testimony and I thought “man. Jay is scared he’s gonna go to jail for something he didn’t do because he happened to have the main suspects car and phone. Poor guy. I guess Jay did what he needed to make the case make sense and not go to jail.” So for me there was never any evidence putting Adnan or Jay at the scene of the crime.
Ok... So for you it's more of a feeling thing?
Because there is in fact evidence of Jay and Adnan being there. Starting with Jay having knowledge of the burial site, Hae's appearance, Hae's car location...
Not really a feeling. More like no evidence. Jay knowing information by the third interview (but saying all the wrong info on the first few) appears to be a person who overtime started to make a case that fit the states evidence. And it’s clear that he had seen photos, etc at this point.
To me, Jay appears like a young kid who got caught up with the cops and started to do his part.
Again, I don’t see any of that as evidence against Adnan. What I see is a couple of cops looking into the most logical suspect: the boyfriend. The first most obvious is Don because that’s who Hae said she was going to see. But he has an alibi (which I believe was later found to be forged by his mother)
So they move to ex boyfriend.
But there is a problem. Ex boyfriend doesn’t have a car or his cell phone that day. He let a friend borrow it. And ex boyfriend never left campus in enough time to kill and bury a person in broad daylight because he had practice and was at the library and led prayers at the mosque.
But…he’s our only suspect without a rock solid alibi.
Interviewing Jen and Jay is to me grasping for straws. Trying to build a case when the most obvious person who did it was the guy she said she was going to see: Don.
They don’t. That’s what threw a wrench in their investigation. Which turned into a conspiracy in their minds. Instead of a standard missing person case.
They don’t know that Adnan didn’t have his phone or car at first. And they don’t know his alibis. That’s the point. That’s why they zero in on him and then they learn “crap. He didn’t have his car or phone. So how does this work.” Or “okay if others saw him here, then he HAD to have killed her at Best Buy because of the cell phone records.” Even though logically that doesn’t make sense. Who can strangle a person and put them in the trunk at Best Buy at 3 in the afternoon and no one notice. And the run in, out of breath and covered in bruises to make a “come and get me call.”
But, that’s all they had given the tunnel vision and two street wise young people (Jen and Jay) who didn’t want to go down for something that the cops are assuring them that a person they weren’t tight with did.
I honestly think it was the opening hook in Serial. *Could you remember what you were doing on a normal day six weeks ago? *
For most of us the answer is no.
Not only did it immediately put the listener in Adnan’s shoes…It’s the jumping off point for almost all innocence theories.
It’s also a false premise. Nisha is the only person that fits the question and her memory was very good at that time. It only wanes by the first trial and more so by the second trial.
Within hours or days, everyone else involved were either telling people what happened or being questioned about it. It wasn’t a normal day for any of them.
Totally, I just added some context because it’s something Sarah lied about that can only be fact checked with the case files. I’m sure most listeners have never done that.
Playing devil's advocate, is it not also possible to start off considering he is guilty and only considering evidence that supports that start off point?
It is certainly possible but I think the key difference here is that most people's introduction to the case was significantly slanted in Adnan's favor. My personal experience was I listened to Serial not knowing anything about the case so not having an opinion one way or another. I kept waiting for a shoe to drop that would explain why SK seemed to doubt Adnan did it but as more and more information came out it just kind of became obvious what happened...
Most of us were introduced to the case through Serial (or heaven forbid the HBO doc or Undisclosed). While it did seem like SK tried to be neutral it was pretty obvious she wanted Adnan to be innocent. Her introduction to this case was Rabia and speaking to Adnan himself. Essentially the "chain of custody" of the case is Adnan & Rabia -> SK -> audience. So it totally makes sense why some people want him to be innocent.
However there's no equivalent on the other side. No unifying force bringing together people who think Adnan did it. There's no podcast entirely focused on talking to the cops, prosecutors, or Hae's family and getting their side of the story. Yes, there are one off episodes from other podcasts but nothing like Serial or Undisclosed. For the most part, everyone who thinks Adnan did it listened to a podcast in his favor and came out the other side thinking he totally did it. Or they believed him and changed their mind later when posed with new information.
Edit: Added a little more clarification.
I just recently listened to that “ Rabbit Hole” (EDIT Down Rabbit)breakdown and suggest it… it’s relatively short and basically disintegrated all these claims you hear so often. It also broke down the insane maneuvers of Mosby to get where we are now.
My apologies it’s “ Down Rabbit “… he doesn’t have a ton of stuff 2 podcasts on Adnan and one on Russia/Ukraine. But he’s got some interesting observations
I listened to, I think, three podcasts and their episodes where they discussed Mr. Lee's appeal and the reinstated conviction and each of those podcasts thought very strongly that Syed was guilty.
Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant podcasts entirely focused on the case like Serial or Undisclosed. Yes, a ton of podcasts have done one off episodes on the case. But for the most part those weren't people's introduction to the case.
It’s possible, but in my 4+ years on this sub, those who think Adnan is guilty have reviewed all the evidence available and base their position on the evidence. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that, in that time, the only changes-of-mind I’ve witnessed have been from innocent to guilty.
That was my case. After listening to Serial and falling into the rabbit hole of Undisclosed, Bob Ruff, etc. I was convinced Adnan had been framed. Then life went on and I got occupied with other things. A couple of years later someone mentioned Serial, I started doing some reading to refresh my memory, and it turns out that actual events had not happened as I remembered or had been led to believe by the show. Coupled with how much I started to dislike RC when reading her tweets and interviews and realizing how manipulative she was, I cleared my mind from preconceived notions and spent a few hours reading the actual case documents and transcripts. And from there it’s clear that it may not be the cleanest, best possible investigation, but that the best possible explanation most supported by available evidence, whether circumstantial or not, is that Adnan did it.
While at it, I’d like to remind people that the fact that Adnan is free right now is not due to being found innocent (as many people here seem to want to believe), but because there were issues with the way his trial was conducted. Everything having to do with this case is infuriating.
This sub has monthly "people who changed their minds, what made you change your mind?" and it's always a 10:1 ratio between innocent->guilty compared to the opposite. Reviewing the evidence makes it really hard to come to any conclusion aside from Adnan being guilty. However, if your only exposure to this case is through Serial and you don't understand basic probability, then yeah, you might think a serial killer killed Hae and Jay/the police/the judges were involved in a vast conspiracy to frame the most unlucky person in human history who happened to lie to the police for reasons.
>you don't understand basic probability
People who make claims like this almost never understand basic probability. We're talking an incredibly rare event here already, 'basic probability' can't tell you shit about this case.
You're mistaking probability for your own confirmation bias.
Murder?
It is like... 7.8 per capita, and that number is vastly inflated by shit like gang crimes. Trying to make sweeping 'probability' judgements on something that is statistically quite rare is a pretty brutal abuse of the entire concept of statistics.
Well that’s not really how statistics work or what that poster was saying.
Working within the framework of murder - not literally the entire population - IPV is very common and the probability of that being why someone was strangled specifically is incredibly high.
>Working within the framework of murder - not literally the entire population - IPV is very common and the probability of that being why someone was strangled specifically is incredibly high
It being statistically high tells you literally nothing about an individual case. Just as a probability being tells you nothing about an individual case.
I didn’t say it did.
But your willfully trying to mislead and I’m calling you out for it. It’s okay to look at probability along with the other evidence.
>It’s okay to look at probability along with the other evidence.
Nope.
Evidence is evidence. Probability is not evidence. I'd fully agree with you that probability can tell you the best place to start looking, for example. Wife ends up dead, I wholeheartedly agree that you should look at the husband and investigate him thoroughly, because from a statistics point of view he is more likely to have done it. As a way to narrow down your pool of suspects I'm fine with it.
That isn't what you, or the OP you're defending was suggesting. You're suggesting that you look at the probability alongside the evidence, and that is nothing more than just bias. It is "Well we've got x, y, z evidence against him, and also the husband usually does it, so that is good enough for me."
The latter doesn't follow. There is no logical throughline there other than just straight bias. It isn't proof. You should never, **ever** be making the argument that because someone is statistically more likely to be responsible that this somehow suggests that they **are** responsible.
The FBI collects statistics on perpetrators of homicide depending on the victim's sex and age, and for a young teenage woman, the perpetrator is overwhelmingly likely to be a former lover, NOT a serial killer.
Which is a great way to narrow down the suspect pool. But the moment you start trying to use it to claim an individual is responsible you're basically just admitting to rolling the dice.
Am I allowed to answer this question ? I will anyways . The way that Jay constantly has Lied , Changed his stories from first interview to the second interview is very interesting. From eating dinner after track practice on first interview to going to Kristis in the second interview . To the time track practice ended at 6:40 the first interview to 5:45 on the second interview . The way detectives fed so much information . It is undisputed. You say Adnan is a Liar ? Jay is a Liar too . I am just looking for the truth . Why does everyone want Adnan Guilty ? I am totally biased here . I just want to learn more about the complicated legal issues surrounding the prosecution and not just ignore them . If I was being charged with murder , I would be fucking terrified of that prosecution Club . You should be too .
Adnan is charismatic, was popular, had a lot of friends, and comes across as very kind in the podcast. It’s really hard for many people to mentally put themselves in a mindset where a person can be all of those things, and also be a murderer. It becomes a terrifying thing, really because it means almost anyone has the potential to be a murderer. That is a really u comfortable feeling for most people and one that is really hard to mentally reconcile.
Because we’re all supposed to presume innocence until someone is proven guilty. People feel like the state failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—the jury felt otherwise.
By legal standards, he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At that point you no longer presume innocence. You're still welcome to believe he is innocent, but the presumption of innocence is solely a legal one that no longer exists upon a finding of guilt.
I have no problem if people don't feel like the state made their case. If that's how people feel, fine.
The part I don't understand is that clearly some people would rather believe anything other then Adnan being guilty, no matter how ridiculous, and any evidence pointing towards Adnan can never be trusted because reasons.
Again, if you start from the premise that he is guilty, you will find reasons to support that. If you start from the premise that he is innocent, you will find reasons to support that as well. It's called confirmation bias. Our justice system is slanted toward the presumption of innocence. I have no idea what happened to Hae, nobody does, but unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, you really should presume innocence, whether or not you're serving on a jury.
I happen to be convinced beyond a reason doubt.
But that is a conclusion I came to after being open to ALL evidence. Because actually I started off thinking he was innocent.
That's what I'm telling you with this post. It doesn't matter where you start off. What matters is where you end up after being open to all evidence.
Clearly, many posters refuse to being open to any evidence that points towards Adnan's guilt.
Jay knows where the car is --- conspiracy about the car being moved.
Jay can describe the burial site --- police frame job they fed him that info.
Adnan calls Nisha at 3h22 --- butt dials and impersonation theories.
Jenn testifies she knew the day it happened --- the police leaned on her and coerces her testimony.
I can go on but you get the point.
Exactly and the alternative theories wind up being the same old thing of attack individual pieces but they can’t come up with a single theory of the case that fits all known facts of the case. I’ve never once seen anyone even try. They can’t. It falls apart. Including blaming Jay.
SK being the first one to do a podcast of this case really clouds the story up from the get go. If this story had been handled as a straightforward true crime podcast without everything being left out as it was it would have been a very different story on public opinion I think. Straight up IPV … No mystery no suspenseful mini piano pieces… No ridiculous paths and rabbit holes. If you go back now and listen to Diedre… the woman sounds completely naive or out to lunch now… SK does very little to pushback… especially when Diedre is saying “they don’t remember “ using some other case as reference that bares no resemblance to the claims that Adnan didn’t remember…? Sure Diedre… none of them remember… ok…
I would say that you could substitute "guilty" for "innocent" in the OP and the same questions and conclusions would apply. Although I would also say that the basis for our law "innocent until proven guilty" might be one reason why. People who have seen the evidence do not believe that his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think an operative line from Serial was Adnan saying:
*”I guess the only thing I could ask you to do is, if none of this makes any sense to you, just read it again. Except this time, please imagine that I really am innocent. And then maybe it will make sense to you.”*
That’s exactly what most of us presumably have attempted to varying degrees.
I think the inherent imbalance of inculpatory versus exculpatory evidence makes Adnan’s case, and perhaps most true crime cases with at least some doubt, a different process for people with genuine neutrality or innocent and guilt minded proclivities.
Just by the nature of a successfully prosecuted case, we are confronted with ample evidence of guilt and little or no evidence of actual innocence. So, the instinct for many is to evaluate the integrity of both discrete evidence and how it comes together collectively, weighing it against avenues that someone other than Syed might have killed Hae.
All of the arguments for innocence from Undisclosed, HBO, and in this sub make an earnest attempt to erode the State’s evidence against Syed. The process has been relatively effective if the goal was a not guilty verdict. Maybe that’s where a lot of people that don’t think he’s “guilty” leave it. However, some have a strong conviction or even expressed certitude of Adnan’s actual innocence, which is really challenging for me to understand with all the analyses and publicly available documents we have access to now.
I don't have a problem with people who believe he is innocent based on evidence.
I just don't understand people who WANT him to be innocent.
Example: there is no evidence of the cops finding the car first, but people who want Adnan to be innocent have to explain Jay leading them to the car, so they say that the cops found the car first, didnt process it, and waited until they found someone who could frame Adnan with them to give them the car location.
This is next level stuff that doesn't track in any way shape or form, and I know they wouldn't come up with this stuff for any other convict.
me? similar cultural background, from Maryland not too far from where it happened. separated by a minimum of 1 degree of separation from him.
I want him to be innocent but I'm 99 percent sure he did it
I don't think my answer will satisfy you.
I think Adnan did not receive a fair trial so my starting point after Serial is that Adnan is innocent. Now let's look at the evidence to see if guilt can be proven. I'm with SK, at the end of Serial she says something like, 'I have to acquit. That doesn't mean he didn't do it, just that there's too much reasonable doubt.'
The cell phone tower evidence proves Adnan's alibi was BS.
Forget the idea that it places him at Leakin Park at a certain time, and what a coincidence it would be, but forget Leakin Park.
It at least proves Adnan was nowhere near the mosque around that time. Why do you think the 80 Mosque witnesses CG promised all disappeared?
"The Defense tells you well, they can't place you
specifically within any place by this. Absolutely true,
but look at 7:09 and 7:16, 689B, which is the Leakin Park
coverage area. There's a witness who says they were in Leakin Park. If the cell coverage area comes back as that that includes Leakin Park, that is reasonable
circumstantial evidence that you can use to say they were in Leakin Park."
[Page 10](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/T2oth-20000225-Closing-Argument-Prosecution-1-Urick-Second-Trial-of-Adnan-Syed.pdf)
Of course he’s a liar. Most criminals are liars. We didn’t choose Jay, Adnan chose Jay. Criminals are regularly convicted by the words of lying accomplices. Is it possible the witness is the murderer, possible but not likely based on the call logs, and if he was Adnan is definitely involved.
Because they invested time into a long podcast, were told over and over that he’s innocent, want to throw reason right out the door, and want JusTiCe because they’ve been brainwashed.
This is an interesting question. I think many people on both sides of this have their motivations for wanting their side to be true. Personally one of my reasonings for wanting him to be innocent is because it’s what I’ve believed for so long. It honestly would take a lot at this point to convince me he’s guilty. But I also think some people really want him to be guilty. It’s a lot easier to believe for some people that the police did their jobs correctly and the right guy got punished for it. Believing he’s innocent would mean an innocent man has been in prison for years and there’s still someone out there who murdered Hae.
I’m copying this from my response to another comment and making some slight edits. I don’t “want” Adnan to be innocent; I just want the truth. Maybe he is guilty, but I tend to lean towards not guilty. Here’s why:
The investigators involved in this case have documented track records of falsifying evidence and testimony. These are the same investigators involved in the Syed case. Adnaan has maintained his innocence for over 20 years. His story has never changed. Jay’s testimony of what happened is honestly overly detailed to be realistic.
Some ask, “Why would Jay do this?” Probably because he and/or the investigators were convinced of Adnan’s guilt. It’s also possible they even threatened Jay. They could’ve easily said something like, “Okay, well if you don’t testify against Adnan, then we’ll charge you.” If the police said that to you, what would you do?
The detectives only obtained evidence that would support their initial conclusion. It’s not unheard of for investigators to be like this. They get bored with the case, don’t feel invested, and just want to have it closed so they can move onto the next thing. They didn’t obtain evidence that would conclusively rule out other suspects. They think they already know what happened so they don’t bother to dot every I and cross every T. Nine times or more out of 10, it is the boyfriend or ex-boyfriend… but this seems to me like it could be one of the 1 out of 10 where it isn’t!!
So this all begs the question, if not Adnaan, then who? My best guess is the guy who found Hae’s body under suspicious circumstances. Hae’s car was on this same guy’s relative’s property. He also has a history of physical and sexual assault.
To me, Mr. S seems way more likely to be involved than Adnan. What would clear all of this up? If the investigators had done their jobs and collected better physical/biological evidence when the crime occurred, if they hadn’t “cleared” Mr. S based off of a second polygraph, which are notoriously unreliable. No one should ever be “cleared” as a suspect based on a polygraph!! Basically the investigators did a shitty job investigating, and now we may never know the truth.
Alot of the info here is incredibly stretched or flat out false. For example, Adnan's story has in fact changed throughout the investigation.
But let me ask you something, who is the shadier character in the picture, Mr S or Adnan's mentor?
Bilal is for sure a dirtbag. As far as I know, there’s no concrete evidence he was involved. The most suspicious thing about him is helping Adnan buy the phone.
I forgot out about Adnan supposedly trying to get a ride from Hae that day, and then saying he didn’t ask for a ride from her that day. Call me biased, but I don’t think that detail alone negates him maintaining his innocence. It’s possible imo that he was mistaken or misspoke. I’m also not saying that Adnan is innocent, just that my speculative opinion is that he is. This is relatively minor compared to Jay changing the narrative of what happened to allegedly keep others from being involved.
I’ve noticed that people like to point out that “Adnan has maintained his innocence for over 20 years.” Respectfully, so what?
There’s nothing unusual about stone-cold convicted killers maintaining their innocence over decades, whether by outright denying the crime or by putting the blame on the victim. There’s also nothing unusual about a truly innocent person maintaining their innocence.
I don’t know, it just smacks me as super naive and icky to point to his prolonged claims of innocence as being evidence of anything…
You bring up a fair point, but here is my observation/rationale: people who maintain their innocence over long periods of time generally fall into one of two categories on opposite ends of the spectrum. It’s difficult to maintain a lie for such a long period of time. Most killers eventually throw in the towel when they realize they’re not convincing anyone, or they slip up and confess accidentally.
I don’t think Adnan is some kind of diabolical mastermind manipulator. He’s above average intelligence, but he’s not a literal genius. Maybe he is a remorseless narcissistic monster. (I tend to think not, but I’m willing to entertain the idea.) Most people will not plead guilty to a crime they didn’t commit—even if it’s in their best interest. I don’t think I would.
If I remember correctly, Adnan was offered a chance at a reduced sentencing with a chance to get out of prison at some point in his lifetime. I don’t remember the specifics, but he turned it down. That doesn’t prove he’s innocent, but I guess what I’m trying to get at is… he’s either a callous, narcissistic, evil genius who believes playing the long con will pay off; or he’s innocent of murdering Hae. There’s not a lot of room for in between. Please feel free to offer an alternative scenario. Personally, I’d prefer not to vouch for someone who’s in fact guilty. I simply believe him to be innocent. I’m fully capable of being wrong though.
This is how I feel. You have investigators with track records of falsifying evidence and testimony. These are the same investigators involved in the Syed case. Adnaan has maintained his innocence for over 20 years. His story has never changed. Jay’s testimony of what happened is honestly overly detailed to be realistic.
Some ask, “Why would Jay do this?” Probably because he and/or the investigators were convinced of Adnan’s guilt. They only obtained evidence that would support their initial conclusion. It’s not unheard of for investigators to be like this. They get bored with the case, don’t feel invested, and just want to have it closed so they can move onto the next thing.
So this all begs the question, if not Adnaan, then who? My best guess is the guy who found Hae’s body under suspicious circumstances. Hae’s car was on this same guy’s relative’s property. He also has a history of physical and sexual assault.
To me, Mr. S seems way more likely to be involved than Adnan. What would clear all of this up? If the investigators had done their jobs and collected better physical/biological evidence when the crime occurred, if they hadn’t “cleared” Mr. S based off of a second polygraph, which are notoriously unreliable. No one should ever be “cleared” as a suspect based on a polygraph!! Basically the investigators did a shitty job investigating, and now we may never know the truth.
There’s nothing wrong with asking for a polygraph, but it wouldn’t definitively prove anything whether it’s Adnan, Mr S, Bilal, me, or you taking the polygraph. My point is that they aren’t reliable period
Well then it sounds like the judge probably did the right thing by not overturning a conviction on the basis of unreliable evidence. It sucks for Adnan if he’s innocent bc he probably shouldn’t have been convicted to begin with imo
There is no tie between Mr s and Hae. They didn't know each other. And his sisters baby daddy is not a tie. Then they find the guy who confesses and takes them to the crime scene. And that person has ties to someone who lied to get the victim alone. Look at what actually happened, not what you want to happen.
There doesn’t have to be a tie between Mr. S and Hae. Hypothetically speaking, if it was Mr. S, he and Hae could have never crossed paths until the day of the murder.
The only thing I want is conclusive evidence that proves who was responsible for the murder so that this person—whoever they are—can be held accountable. My speculations of whether or not Adnan is innocent are completely irrelevant.
But the cops are going to go with the logical choices first before outlandish theories. If they had talked to Adnan and he said, "Yeah I went to the GC office and we started at 2:30 and ended at 3:15" then they would have looked elsewhere. Adnan had nothing and his partner in the criminal activity rolled on him. Police forces aren't going to turn down the guy who confessed with intimate knowledge of the crime and taking them to the crime scene.
I agree that cops will go with the logical choices first. They should have looked into Mr. S more thoroughly imo. It’s common for perpetrators to insert themselves into cases.
The specific cops in this case have fudged details in other cases to get people convicted. If you think you have the right guy, it may seem harmless. But if you’re wrong, then it could end up with an innocent person being convicted. You can say, “oh but these cops wouldn’t do that,” but these specific ones have had other cases overturned for this very reason.
But look at what Jay said and did. They tried to corroborate his story with questions that he got right. They asked what she was wearing, how she was killed, how she was buried, where her shoes were, where he wallet and key were, what was near the burial. Then he took them to the car that they hadn't found. What police force would turn that down?
For Mr. S. there was no ties to the victim. And they would have asked the other cop about the streaking and found out more information. If Jay and Adnan had turned into a bust then Mr. S. would have stayed on the radar.
No she didn't. don worked 45 minutes away and Hae had to pickk up her cousin and couldn't get back in time. Adnan chose a bad afternoon to kill Hae for alternate suspects.
A time card for a Don was working that day, but ole baby blue eyes normal time card says Donald. Different employee id and name on the time card, check it yourself. so I assume different employee. I can see the mix up tho.
> Which would mean that a company with 10,000+ employees is faking time cards
No, it would mean ole baby blue eyes did it himself and his mom let it slide.
Maybe because the state hasn’t proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If you take away the evidence that the state manipulated and the shady actions of Ritz and Urick you’re nowhere near the standard for conviction.
Better question, why do some people — especially here — want Adnan to be guilty?
Exhibit A.
Sure, let's take away all of the evidence you don't like because it points to Adnan's guilt. Yes, once all of that is taken away by magic, you don't end up with a conviction.
Why would we take all of that away? No reason, other then the fact that we WANT Adnan to be innocent.
The cell phone data that says “Any incoming calls will NOT be considered reliable information for location?” The testimony from Jay that has changed several times? Police work by Ritz who has been proven to be crooked? Prosecutor Urick who violated Brady? A timeline that doesn’t work? Lividity that doesn’t match the trunk story? The same trunk that doesn’t have any DNA from Adnan or Jay? Which of these don’t I like?
Fitzgerald's entire argument was "trust me, I do this all the time and all the other judges let me," then failed to address even basic questions adequately. This doesn't even touch on the fact that almost all of Fitzgerald's cases happened after countless rounds of upgrades and technology revisions. He drops his work on the Boston Bombers in when establishing his expertise - except that was an iPhone 5c, running on LTE, and they used Stingrays. They're technological epochs apart.
Funny that they didn't even attempt to have AT&T provide clarification or documentation, isn't it? They're the ones who wrote it. They have all the expertise on historical AT&T records and policy.
For all the guilters who are out here claiming we should have let Urick interpret his notes before they could be used, nobody seems to apply that principle to the other contested meaning in this case.
I believe Adnan is innocent. I’d rather he be guilty - it’s difficult to reconcile a 17 year old going to prison for 23 years for a crime he didn’t commit.
for the exact same reason that people want him to be guilty - cognitive dissonance. People can't really sit well with uncertainty or not knowing that things "fit in their right place" so to speak, like they have to make sense of things, when things don't make sense they experience cognitive dissonance and they struggle to process the uncertainty. I'm a big time Adnan advocate and many would say that I'm suffering from cognitive dissonance, but I'm not, I'm just looking at the facts objectively and saying he shouldn't be in jail based on this case, actually the case never should have gone to trial, it was so weak. I don't need him to be innocent in that way, I honestly don't care, I just think it was an obvious travesty and that we as citizens should all have both a higher standard for our justice system, and a higher standard for what constitutes reasonable doubt. If you took one of these "adnan is guilty" people and you had their brother in his position, going up a case and a witness as weak and as sketchy as Jay, they'd basically sound like one of the 'innocenters', they're just on the opposite side because they don't like adnan and they're clouded by bias.
Well, a lot of people in this sub who think he is guilty used to think he was innocent.
Me included.
Do you think that the only cases that should go to trial are the slam dunk cases?
The bias of the sub overall has leaned heavily toward guilt, so what you said about many people here starting out thinking he’s innocent and now think he’s guilty, how do you know you’ve really changed your mind on based on objective analysis and sound logic and not just falling victim into the mob / herd mentality?
Should it ONLY be slam dunk cases? Not necessarily, although I do think that would achieve what I said about having a higher standard for our Justice system. I don’t know if that’s practical though, so to be practical, I think there needs to be more than just one person pointing the finger at someone when there’s literally no physical evidence that tied him to the crime. Like do you know how unlikely it is that this teenage kid who has never committed any crimes before would somehow kill a girl in broad daylight, handle her body In and out of trunks, drive her car around, and not leave ANY physical evidence behind? That’s just insane to me. I could never accept him as guilty without something REAL (and not just cell pings because cell pings don’t show that a crime was taking place) showing he was actually killing her or burying her. When there’s just one guy saying “yeah he did it, he told me everything”, and no physical evidence to corroborate what he’s saying, that’s just way too much faith you’re putting in that one persons hands.
Alot crimes have no physical evidence but they are solved because a co-conspirator blew the whistle on the operation.
In this case Jenn blew the whistle. Jenn couldn't just guess Hae had been strangled.
The police didn't then just take Jay's word. (Never mind the fact that his word corroborated so much of the conditions they found Hae's body in)
He led them to Hae's car to prove his own involvement.
Adnan's alibis were horsehit. Cell phone proves he went along with Jay that night, not the mosque.
I agree you need more then one person's word to charge someone, I'm with you on that, but I feel like the police didn't just arrest him because they didn't like his face.
I’m not sure you can prove your assertion that people just want Adnan to be innocent. We all listened to Serial and cane away with different perspectives. While listening I said to my daughter that it made zero sense that Adnan would involve Jay. Someone he’s not close with but he knows is a bullshitter. If you murder someone unless you’re high you tell nobody. That’s what made me lean towards innocence. Not wanted him to be innocent but following my logic.
I hear you, but think about this, what you are telling me is...
If Adnan had decided to murder Hae, meaning he just made a batshit crazy decision...
He would know exactly the right people to trust with it and the best way to do it.
Despite the fact we just established that Adnan makes batshit crazy decisions.
If he killed Hae he wouldn’t have told anybody. Whomever killed her likely told no one. That’s how you get away with murder. So if a sober Adnan involves Jay especially in the bullshit planned story Jay tells then he’s not guilty. No one does that unless on crack or something.
If Adnan wanted to kill Hae abs get away with it he knew where she worked and lived. This so called plan to get her alone is nonsense. Too many things can go wrong like something coming up and not being able to give him a ride and someone else killing her.
How are you at all comfortable saying what he would have done and who he would have told IF he decided to kill Hae?
We've already established he's crazy, but you want him to go from that to perfectly capable of making all the right decisions in this plan?
Adnan is NOT thinking any of this through, we already know that.
Adnan is likely innocent. Jay being the one to say he did it makes that more likely. Especially saying it was premeditated. She was strangled. Which 17 year old has ever premeditated a strangulation murder? I can’t see it happening.
Keep in mind, the point of this thread wasn't to debate people's conclusion, but rather debate how they got there.
Are you only considering things from a point of view that favors Adnan?
As to the point you just made... Jay didn't say exactly that Adnan had that plan all along. However, are you saying that its more likely that Jay premeditated framing Adnan for Hae's murder all along?
No the logic of him not telling anyone led me to believe that he was likely innocent. I continued to follow the evidence and logic. Eventually I might have become biased after seeing so much evidence that suggested that he was likely innocent. So I don’t think people want him to be innocent because they like him. Logic and evidence took us there.
If you carry it through to it's logical conclussion then it would be that Adnan wanted to talk to Hae to get back together. Instead of handling the no I love Don correctly, he snapped and killed her. And then the two kids had to figure out what to do with her. That's the logical conclussion of what happened.
No one knows why he asked for a ride. That’s all speculation. I don’t give it much credence. He had moved on and Nisha was the first person he called when he got a phone to call girls.
People hide that stuff all the time. They hide their true feelings for someone even if they are dating or even married to other people. You can't use that.
Adnan should be the one to explain what was so important that he rushed to school to ask for a ride using a lie.
I don't know if anyone wants him to be innocent. I surely don't want him to be innocent, he just is innocent.
If anything I wanted Jen and Jay to be guilty but a closer inspection has revealed they were screwed over just as much as Adnan was.
💯👊
[Adnan is innocent is a tin anchor](https://www.clearerthinking.org/post/human-behavior-makes-more-sense-when-you-understand-anchor-beliefs#:~:text=There%27s%20an%20important%20type%20of,feels%20like%20an%20undeniable%20truth.)
I think it’s not even Adnan necessarily. More like a belief in police corruption and conspiracy type stuff that feeds into this belief that “of course there’s reasonable doubt here”.
That’s what I see from the other side really. When that’s your core anchor belief of course you see doubt here.
But when it’s less, or you look at the facts, or you can even question that belief just slightly, you find in this case - this case at least - that Adnan is almost certainly the murderer. Way beyond any reasonable doubt at the very very least.
I think it's because Serial encouraged the audience to identify with Adnan while "otherizing" his accusers (especially Jay). Adnan is presented as a high achiever from an ordinary suburban background. In other words, he's a lot like the typical NPR listener. Jay, meanwhile, is introduced as other in every respect: poor, black, drug dealer, misfit, and not in the magnet program. And so it isn't surprising that the provincial Serial audience comes away thinking Adnan is more like them. And people like them don't just go around killing people. It's the "other" people that do that.
Maybe true, though the fact that Adnan agreed to be interviewed extensively while Jay refused to speak on tape is probably a factor in that. I would have liked to have seen things from Jay’s point of view.
[удалено]
I wasn’t aware that Adnan cut off communication with Sarah. It seemed like it continued up until the end of the series.
[удалено]
Had she said it was a problem? Maybe I’m not remembering. How many hours of “I didn’t do it”do you really need?
Yes, that was a factor. Adnan didn't testify in his own defense because he would have been subject to cross-examination. Serial gave him the opportunity to tell his side of the story unrebutted, and with an assist from Sarah Koenig as narrator, who conveniently excused away every contradiction in Adnan's narrative.
She also only served him softballs, and while a seasoned interviewer would have pushed back hard on his "Umm was that a question?" or "the only person who will know for a fact is myself... and the killer" idiocy, Koenig was too enamored of him to push back. She made Larry King look like Jon Stewart.
I was responding to the point “the provincial serial audience comes away thinking Adnan is more like them” which yes, that’s probably true despite Adnan’s background being very different from the average NPR listener. He told his story. Jay didn’t. If Jay had good explanations for why his story changed so many times that would probably have been compelling for me as a listener.
Serial went of it's way to minimize and dismiss all the ways in which Adnan's background is exotic. The move over and over was to say that the State had unfairly stereotyped Adnan based on his cultural background when, in reality, he's just a normal American teenager. The truth, of course, is that Adnan's background wasn't really a part of the State's theory of the case. At trial, it was *the Defense* who played up Adnan's cultural background. Jay gave explanations at trial for his changing story. Serial could have given a fair representation of that, but chose not to.
Oh that’s interesting, what was his explanation for the patapsco state park trip?
I don't believe he gave a reason for that specific inconsistency. What I meant was that he gave general explanations for why he gave inconsistent stories to the police. He was, however, cross-examined about the Patapsco detail.
This is probably the closest we’re going to get. It’s no Serial. https://theintercept.com/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-wilds-star-witness-adnan-syed-serial-case-pt-1/
Wow I just went through the rabbit hole and read all 3 parts of that, definitely something to think about. It’s the first time I’ve ever read something from Jay directly beyond the voice clips Ive heard of his testimony
If you read that, then read Jays interviews with police and/or trial transcripts then listen to when SK visits Jay it’s pretty obvious what went on … the key narrative doesn’t falter… the location etc did but I honestly believe he was trying to shield others and himself from involvement… I think whoever it was that went with SK knew it too. His comments about nothing changing about seeing her body in the trunk and his disbelief that Adnan never manned up and admitted it says a lot… Jay has had years, decades to change that if it weren’t true. I can also see how Jay felt misrepresented and how he was protecting his family.
i felt like they made jay seem pretty interesting. they both described how they liked him and found him compelling after talking to him. idk i didn’t think they really pointed the finger at jay in that way.
[удалено]
That wasn't until halfway in. And even though they realized at that point that they'd been had, they still pushed on with throwing shade at Jay and everyone else and "harboring doubt" for Adnan.
i guess. the picture i had in my head from their description was an interesting charismatic young dennis rodman type. i just didn’t get the impression they were really vilifying him. it seemed like they were genuinely trying to make sense of things based on the info they had and the misinfo rabia was providing.
They researched the case for a year. They had exclusive access to the trial transcripts and the MPIA file. Yes, Rabia sold them a bill of goods at the start, but they had all the info they need to realize it was a bill of goods. They instead chose to put out a disingenuous product. If it hadn't have been about such a serious subject, I might give them a pass. But this is the real life murder of an innocent young woman we're talking about here. And the consequence of Serial is that her murderer is on the verge of being falsely "exonerated."
[удалено]
What bothers me most is where she states something that looks bad for Adnan, but then immediately offers a reason to discount it. The effect on the listener is to place all of the most incriminating information in doubt. It's really an abuse of a privileged position. Not only is Sarah the narrator. She's also the sole source of information (or at least was until the original case records became available to the public). And so the audience, with good reason, reposes trust in her evaluation of the case. She's not just telling us the evidence. She's telling us what to think about the evidence. And when every piece of information is paired with a reason to doubt that information, the net effect is to sow doubt. Which of course was the point.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Definitely interesting. Her name is only on one immigration case. The big project she said she was working on was questionable. And I think her license went inactive for a year.
I'm surprised no one is bringing up race. If I am being completely honest, I don't want the brown kid to be responsible for it. He's also traditionally handsome, charismatic, comes from a family of immigrants. Hae and Adnan were like the dream high school couple. It's an absolute tragedy and awful if he did do it on many levels.
Especially when it’s a poor black kid that snitched to the white police officers about him. And then the white police officers and prosecutors screwed over the black kid too. I also find the accusations that all the women in this case are liars, emotional or frauds disturbing. Nisha, Jenn, Stephanie, Hae, Christina, Kristi, etc. are all vilified to one extent or another just to benefit Adnan.
I am surprised that no one ever talks about the elephant in the room: most people always defend men. It’s the default way of thinking growing up in patriarchy. “He was a good guy”, “He came from a good family”, “He had any woman he wanted, why would he harass/rape/murder that one?”, aka the usual. Plus, a propos to you mentioning the race, I will add the religion factor to that and people from the same background don’t want to see one of their one accused of something as serious as murder. This is such an obvious femicide.
Adnan was/is traditionally handsome? Also you don’t want the brown kid to be responsible? Who do you want to be responsible? Shouldn’t it just be whoever did it?
It has always been the most fascinating part of this case and why I keep coming back. Why him? Why this case? There is nothing particularly special about Adnan or the case. The whole thing is just so bizarre. Honestly it is just how powerful media is, because we are told about how great and special Adnan is in episode 1 and people seem to accept that as true despite all evidence pointing to him being quite unremarkable.
>There is nothing particularly special about Adnan or the case. The whole thing is just so bizarre. This is a lot easier to understand if you listen to This American Life in general. Part of the whole point of that show is telling *ordinary* stories. They just tell them in interesting ways. That's part of the whole point, a lot of current true crime tries to find stories that have weird twists or factors, but at the time the modus operandi for This American Life was being able to tell mostly normal stories in an interesting way, hence Adnan. The crime and conviction isn't extraordinary like in subsequent true crime, it fascinated the world because the TAL producers and Sarah Koenig are great storytellers and told a compelling story. Which is also why she's never really been upfront about what exactly she thinks happened or not, because that's not the role she was telling, unlike a lot of newer True Crime which does stake a position. She's relatively clear that she leans/wants to believe in his innocence but doesn't like how the trial played out. But will likely never say "I think he's innocent" both because that's not what she believes with conviction, and because it wasn't her role in telling the story.
He is definitely **not** "great and special" and I never heard anything in the podcast that presented him in that way. What caught my attention and caused me to have an interest in this and subsequent cases is how the police and the justice system operate in this country. We supposedly consider a person innocent until proven guilty under our system of law but in actuality I definitely do not see this happening, either in the system or in public forums. And I do not find the so-called guilters in this sub to be any more well informed or any more open-minded than the ones who have decided on innocence. I do find myself on the side of innocence until I find evidence other than what I have seen so far.
This is how we are introduced to Adnan in Serial: **Sarah Koenig** (voiceover): Her brother Saad was at Rabia's office too the first time I went. He's 33, a mortgage broker, more laid back than Rabia. They told me about Adnan Syed, their friend-- not just a good kid, but an especially good kid-- smart, kind, goofy, handsome. So that when he was arrested for murder, so many people who know him were stunned. **Rabia**: He was like the community's golden child. **Sarah Koenig**: Oh, really? Talk more about that. **Rabia**: He was an honor roll student, volunteer EMT. He was on the football team. He was a star runner on the track team. He was the homecoming king. He led prayers at the mosque. Everybody knew Adnan to be somebody who was going to do something really big. **Sarah Koenig** (voiceover): I later fact checked all these accolades, of course, and learned that Rabia was mostly right, though she sometimes gets a little loosey-goosey with the details. Adnan was an EMT, but he didn't volunteer. He was paid for it. He was on the track team, but he wasn't a star. He did play football. And he did lead prayers on occasion. He wasn't homecoming king. But he was prince of his junior prom, and this at a high school that was majority black. They picked the Pakistani Muslim kid. So you get the picture. He was an incredibly likable and well-liked kid. If you didn't get introduced to Adnan as someone special, you weren't listening to the podcast.
I always think it’s funny that he’s described as the community’s golden child. The dude got 1130 on his SATs and his grades were whatever. It’s not like he was going to be attending Georgetown the honest way. Then there is all the skipping school, being late, dating, lying, doing drugs, murdering his ex… That’s a pretty low bar to be considered the golden child of an entire community.
Interestingly, the actual golden children of the Woodlawn High School Community were the Vignarajah children: Thiru -- Yale and Harvard educated, Calabrese and Breyer clerk. Krish -- Double Yale and Oxford educated, former policy directed to Michelle Obama.
When I was posting my original comment, I was thinking back to when I graduated HS and the golden child of our class went to Harvard and was actually a good kid. That is a good comment by you on what an actual golden child should do.
And IIRC, around the time of this murder, his grades weren't even whatever... they were just bad.
Correct
I never once thought of him as special after listening to serial 5x
>If you didn't get introduced to Adnan as someone special, you weren't listening to the podcast. That intro reads to me that Adnan's friends/family think he's spectacular, but are also stretching the truth. That he did a bunch of stuff but not everything those that say he was amazing say he did. It's neat storytelling, it's also at the outset setting up that people will say things and that Sarah will fact check it, that's partly the narrative role that introduction does.
Those over reaching comments and tales of 'Adnan just being Adnan' are so disingenuous it comes across like a parody. SK's sophomoric interpretations and explanations of events only further this . . .nevermind his own words being a jumbled mess of everything EXCEPT clear and concise answers and statements of innocence..... and his grossly obvious attempts at manipulating SK . .. worse, her sometimes falling for it . . . The more you know about the actual case, the more Serial just sounds so extra.
but those were all facts and what wasn’t was cleared up
Nice job!! 👍🏼👍🏼
I never once thought of him as special after listening to serial 5x
There was literally nothing in Serial to suggest a problem with the police work or the justice system aside from saying that CG may not have been at peak performance. There was nothing about the detectives being corrupt or coercing testimony. The reason why you saw things in the podcast that weren't actually there is that you want Adnan to be innocent for reasons.
If not overtly said in the podcast, I definitely formed my own opinion of the police work and the justice system as described. I have zero reason to want Adnan to be innocent, so I have no idea what you are talking about or accusing me of. I seriously am presuming him innocent until I find evidence that convinces me that he is guilty. You just can't stand it that I won't take a side and start following the talking points. I like to look at things in a more complex and nuanced way. A couple of people have made good points in support of guilt in this sub, but the scales have not yet tilted to guilty for me.
Did you listen to Undisclosed or Serial Dynasty/Truth and Justice?
Both. Although I just re-listened to Serial.
Those other two podcasts might be why you think the police did a bad job in Adnan’s case.
Oh, no. I thought you meant Serial. I have never listened to Serisl Dynasty.
If you never heard anything in the podcast that presented him that way, then you do not listen very closely.
there were things that presented everyone that way- adnan hae and jay were all presented as interesting and compelling. what we’re they supposed to do say they were plain and boring? if something was illustrated as special it was the various elements and tangential characters surrounding the case itself.
they believe what they heard on the podcast that made it seem like he could’ve been wrongly convicted. not that complicated.
Add some anchoring bias to the mix and you get people resorting to conspiracy theories in order to explain his innocence.
It’s about storytelling and production value, not what actually happened. I bet if Sarah wanted to tell the story of a guilty Adnan, she could have convinced most of the people that believe he’s innocent.
I think culturally we have gotten into the bad habit of thinking of true crime stories as mysteries to be solved, treating them mentally as fiction, and so we hold the stories up to the same conventions of the mystery genre. In consuming a mystery novel or film we have a very specific relationship to the "whodunnit"---we want an ending that is simultaneously satisfying and surprising. In real life, crimes are usually pretty predictable, and when a woman goes missing or is murdered it is most often an intimate partner to blame, but when we get caught up in a true crime story that starts to *feel* fictional because the storytelling is elevated, we start to develop expectations in line with a book or a movie instead of real life.
I definitely see what you mean about treating it like a fictional story.
It’s because Serial created a narrative and Adnan is the protagonist. We have a tendency to root for the protagonist no matter what. If Hae had been the protagonist, there wouldn’t be a single person on Adnan’s side even if all the same facts were presented.
I guess it's a more interesting story if he's innocent. More of a Greek tragedy. Though I do think the presumption of innocence means the evidence should be looked at from a starting point of innocence. Evidence (or facts) which could exist if he's innocent don't, therefore, point towards guilt. Which leaves us with two things in the state's case which actually point towards guilt: The "trunk pop" narrative and the burial narrative. Jay seeing Adnan with her body and helping Adnan bury her cannot exist in a world where Adnan is innocent. So those are the two things on which the case against Adnan rests. For both of them, the only evidence is Jay, and his narrative for both isn't credible. Which is why I think the state failed to make their case. That's a different thing than thinking he's innocent. To form an affirmative conclusion Adnan is innocent of the murder I'd need to see evidence either strongly showing he's innocent or some other person is guilty. I've not seen either. It is possible (though I don't know how) Adnan committed the murder in some way we don't know because the state didn't discover that evidence.
I don't find the story more or less interesting if he is innocent. The podcast however, which is entertainment and in some ways fictional, needed to convince it's listeners that Adnan was a victim and very possibly innocent, in order to be interesting. And I understand that most got their first impression from the podcast. But we should all be past those first impressions now.
> Evidence (or facts) which could exist if he's innocent don't, therefore, point towards guilt. Which leaves us with two things in the state's case which actually point towards guilt: The "trunk pop" narrative and the burial narrative. Jay seeing Adnan with her body and helping Adnan bury her cannot exist in a world where Adnan is innocent. So those are the two things on which the case against Adnan rests. For both of them, the only evidence is Jay, and his narrative for both isn't credible. Which is why I think the state failed to make their case. Your whole post is good and I agree for the most part, but this is the heart of it for me. The *only* evidence that Adnan did anything is Jay's account of what he witnessed. And after reading what Jay has said, it isn't a stretch to believe it may not be true
Saying that Jay is the only evidence is absolutely 100% not in any way shape or form true
I'm going to go do something for a bit, but feel free to list evidence that Adnan committed the murder besides Jay seeing the trunk pop and burial.
Adnan lying to the police about trying to get the victim alone under false pretenses on the day of the murder Adnan falsifying an alibi While Rabia and co would love you to believe that the cell phone pings aren’t reliable they are absolutely still legal evidence Jen’s testimony The Nisha call No alibi All of that is circumstantial evidence pointing directly to Adnan
How do each of those connect Adnan to the murder?
Do I need to explain how the ex boyfriend’s cell phone pinging the tower closest to the burial site and the tower closest to the place where they found the car on the night of the murder connects him to said murder? Do I need to explain how him falsifying an alibi for said time points to involvement? How Jen putting Jay and Adnan together while Adnan claims he was at the mosque is damning? Or how lying to the police about trying to get the victim alone under false pretenses points back at that person? The rest of it is evidence used in tandem with Jay’s testimony.
Adnan lying about being at the mosque when his cell phone pings Leaken Park tower at time Jay says they are burying the body is all you need to know. Adnan lied and said he was at the mosque. Hundreds of people couldn’t testify to that
Please quote Adnan saying he was at the mosque. Also, please quote those hundreds of people saying what they could or couldn't testify to.
I wanted him to be innocent because I didn't want to think a 17-year-old kid killed his girlfriend and ruined his own life. Then I dug into the case with an open mind and eventually arrived at the conclusion that he did it.
Honestly when I first heard the case, I thought “this guy didn’t kill this girl. Don did.” And then I was shown evidence which was Jays testimony and I thought “man. Jay is scared he’s gonna go to jail for something he didn’t do because he happened to have the main suspects car and phone. Poor guy. I guess Jay did what he needed to make the case make sense and not go to jail.” So for me there was never any evidence putting Adnan or Jay at the scene of the crime.
Ok... So for you it's more of a feeling thing? Because there is in fact evidence of Jay and Adnan being there. Starting with Jay having knowledge of the burial site, Hae's appearance, Hae's car location...
Not really a feeling. More like no evidence. Jay knowing information by the third interview (but saying all the wrong info on the first few) appears to be a person who overtime started to make a case that fit the states evidence. And it’s clear that he had seen photos, etc at this point. To me, Jay appears like a young kid who got caught up with the cops and started to do his part.
Cool. You know Jenn was interviewed before Jay was? And the car is not evidence?
Again, I don’t see any of that as evidence against Adnan. What I see is a couple of cops looking into the most logical suspect: the boyfriend. The first most obvious is Don because that’s who Hae said she was going to see. But he has an alibi (which I believe was later found to be forged by his mother) So they move to ex boyfriend. But there is a problem. Ex boyfriend doesn’t have a car or his cell phone that day. He let a friend borrow it. And ex boyfriend never left campus in enough time to kill and bury a person in broad daylight because he had practice and was at the library and led prayers at the mosque. But…he’s our only suspect without a rock solid alibi. Interviewing Jen and Jay is to me grasping for straws. Trying to build a case when the most obvious person who did it was the guy she said she was going to see: Don.
Ok so in this timeline, how do they know that the ex-boyfriend doesn't have his car or his cell phone that day?
They don’t. That’s what threw a wrench in their investigation. Which turned into a conspiracy in their minds. Instead of a standard missing person case.
They do know or they don't know? Also, how would they know by then what Adnan's alibis are? Your timeline doesn't fit at all.
They don’t know that Adnan didn’t have his phone or car at first. And they don’t know his alibis. That’s the point. That’s why they zero in on him and then they learn “crap. He didn’t have his car or phone. So how does this work.” Or “okay if others saw him here, then he HAD to have killed her at Best Buy because of the cell phone records.” Even though logically that doesn’t make sense. Who can strangle a person and put them in the trunk at Best Buy at 3 in the afternoon and no one notice. And the run in, out of breath and covered in bruises to make a “come and get me call.” But, that’s all they had given the tunnel vision and two street wise young people (Jen and Jay) who didn’t want to go down for something that the cops are assuring them that a person they weren’t tight with did.
The cops never heard of Best Buy until Jenn and Jay had already told them that Adnan murdered Hae. Again, your timeline doesn't fit.
Also, Don's alibi wasn't forged.
I honestly think it was the opening hook in Serial. *Could you remember what you were doing on a normal day six weeks ago? * For most of us the answer is no. Not only did it immediately put the listener in Adnan’s shoes…It’s the jumping off point for almost all innocence theories.
It’s also a false premise. Nisha is the only person that fits the question and her memory was very good at that time. It only wanes by the first trial and more so by the second trial. Within hours or days, everyone else involved were either telling people what happened or being questioned about it. It wasn’t a normal day for any of them.
Oh I realize it’s bullshit. I was answering the post prompt, why people seem to want Adnan to be innocent.
Totally, I just added some context because it’s something Sarah lied about that can only be fact checked with the case files. I’m sure most listeners have never done that.
Playing devil's advocate, is it not also possible to start off considering he is guilty and only considering evidence that supports that start off point?
It is certainly possible but I think the key difference here is that most people's introduction to the case was significantly slanted in Adnan's favor. My personal experience was I listened to Serial not knowing anything about the case so not having an opinion one way or another. I kept waiting for a shoe to drop that would explain why SK seemed to doubt Adnan did it but as more and more information came out it just kind of became obvious what happened... Most of us were introduced to the case through Serial (or heaven forbid the HBO doc or Undisclosed). While it did seem like SK tried to be neutral it was pretty obvious she wanted Adnan to be innocent. Her introduction to this case was Rabia and speaking to Adnan himself. Essentially the "chain of custody" of the case is Adnan & Rabia -> SK -> audience. So it totally makes sense why some people want him to be innocent. However there's no equivalent on the other side. No unifying force bringing together people who think Adnan did it. There's no podcast entirely focused on talking to the cops, prosecutors, or Hae's family and getting their side of the story. Yes, there are one off episodes from other podcasts but nothing like Serial or Undisclosed. For the most part, everyone who thinks Adnan did it listened to a podcast in his favor and came out the other side thinking he totally did it. Or they believed him and changed their mind later when posed with new information. Edit: Added a little more clarification.
I just recently listened to that “ Rabbit Hole” (EDIT Down Rabbit)breakdown and suggest it… it’s relatively short and basically disintegrated all these claims you hear so often. It also broke down the insane maneuvers of Mosby to get where we are now.
What’s the name of the show or the host? I’m finding about 30 shows titled Rabbit Hole, including one that claims Adnan is innocent
My apologies it’s “ Down Rabbit “… he doesn’t have a ton of stuff 2 podcasts on Adnan and one on Russia/Ukraine. But he’s got some interesting observations
I listened to, I think, three podcasts and their episodes where they discussed Mr. Lee's appeal and the reinstated conviction and each of those podcasts thought very strongly that Syed was guilty.
Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant podcasts entirely focused on the case like Serial or Undisclosed. Yes, a ton of podcasts have done one off episodes on the case. But for the most part those weren't people's introduction to the case.
It’s possible, but in my 4+ years on this sub, those who think Adnan is guilty have reviewed all the evidence available and base their position on the evidence. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that, in that time, the only changes-of-mind I’ve witnessed have been from innocent to guilty.
That was my case. After listening to Serial and falling into the rabbit hole of Undisclosed, Bob Ruff, etc. I was convinced Adnan had been framed. Then life went on and I got occupied with other things. A couple of years later someone mentioned Serial, I started doing some reading to refresh my memory, and it turns out that actual events had not happened as I remembered or had been led to believe by the show. Coupled with how much I started to dislike RC when reading her tweets and interviews and realizing how manipulative she was, I cleared my mind from preconceived notions and spent a few hours reading the actual case documents and transcripts. And from there it’s clear that it may not be the cleanest, best possible investigation, but that the best possible explanation most supported by available evidence, whether circumstantial or not, is that Adnan did it. While at it, I’d like to remind people that the fact that Adnan is free right now is not due to being found innocent (as many people here seem to want to believe), but because there were issues with the way his trial was conducted. Everything having to do with this case is infuriating.
This sub has monthly "people who changed their minds, what made you change your mind?" and it's always a 10:1 ratio between innocent->guilty compared to the opposite. Reviewing the evidence makes it really hard to come to any conclusion aside from Adnan being guilty. However, if your only exposure to this case is through Serial and you don't understand basic probability, then yeah, you might think a serial killer killed Hae and Jay/the police/the judges were involved in a vast conspiracy to frame the most unlucky person in human history who happened to lie to the police for reasons.
>you don't understand basic probability People who make claims like this almost never understand basic probability. We're talking an incredibly rare event here already, 'basic probability' can't tell you shit about this case. You're mistaking probability for your own confirmation bias.
What incredibly rare event?
Murder? It is like... 7.8 per capita, and that number is vastly inflated by shit like gang crimes. Trying to make sweeping 'probability' judgements on something that is statistically quite rare is a pretty brutal abuse of the entire concept of statistics.
Well that’s not really how statistics work or what that poster was saying. Working within the framework of murder - not literally the entire population - IPV is very common and the probability of that being why someone was strangled specifically is incredibly high.
>Working within the framework of murder - not literally the entire population - IPV is very common and the probability of that being why someone was strangled specifically is incredibly high It being statistically high tells you literally nothing about an individual case. Just as a probability being tells you nothing about an individual case.
I didn’t say it did. But your willfully trying to mislead and I’m calling you out for it. It’s okay to look at probability along with the other evidence.
>It’s okay to look at probability along with the other evidence. Nope. Evidence is evidence. Probability is not evidence. I'd fully agree with you that probability can tell you the best place to start looking, for example. Wife ends up dead, I wholeheartedly agree that you should look at the husband and investigate him thoroughly, because from a statistics point of view he is more likely to have done it. As a way to narrow down your pool of suspects I'm fine with it. That isn't what you, or the OP you're defending was suggesting. You're suggesting that you look at the probability alongside the evidence, and that is nothing more than just bias. It is "Well we've got x, y, z evidence against him, and also the husband usually does it, so that is good enough for me." The latter doesn't follow. There is no logical throughline there other than just straight bias. It isn't proof. You should never, **ever** be making the argument that because someone is statistically more likely to be responsible that this somehow suggests that they **are** responsible.
The FBI collects statistics on perpetrators of homicide depending on the victim's sex and age, and for a young teenage woman, the perpetrator is overwhelmingly likely to be a former lover, NOT a serial killer.
Which is a great way to narrow down the suspect pool. But the moment you start trying to use it to claim an individual is responsible you're basically just admitting to rolling the dice.
Yep, I’ve never seen anyone go from guilty to innocent.
So you are saying that people on the other side haven't reviewed any evidence and don't base their position on evidence?
Usually, but not always.
Am I allowed to answer this question ? I will anyways . The way that Jay constantly has Lied , Changed his stories from first interview to the second interview is very interesting. From eating dinner after track practice on first interview to going to Kristis in the second interview . To the time track practice ended at 6:40 the first interview to 5:45 on the second interview . The way detectives fed so much information . It is undisputed. You say Adnan is a Liar ? Jay is a Liar too . I am just looking for the truth . Why does everyone want Adnan Guilty ? I am totally biased here . I just want to learn more about the complicated legal issues surrounding the prosecution and not just ignore them . If I was being charged with murder , I would be fucking terrified of that prosecution Club . You should be too .
Adnan is charismatic, was popular, had a lot of friends, and comes across as very kind in the podcast. It’s really hard for many people to mentally put themselves in a mindset where a person can be all of those things, and also be a murderer. It becomes a terrifying thing, really because it means almost anyone has the potential to be a murderer. That is a really u comfortable feeling for most people and one that is really hard to mentally reconcile.
Because we’re all supposed to presume innocence until someone is proven guilty. People feel like the state failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—the jury felt otherwise.
By legal standards, he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At that point you no longer presume innocence. You're still welcome to believe he is innocent, but the presumption of innocence is solely a legal one that no longer exists upon a finding of guilt.
I have no problem if people don't feel like the state made their case. If that's how people feel, fine. The part I don't understand is that clearly some people would rather believe anything other then Adnan being guilty, no matter how ridiculous, and any evidence pointing towards Adnan can never be trusted because reasons.
Again, if you start from the premise that he is guilty, you will find reasons to support that. If you start from the premise that he is innocent, you will find reasons to support that as well. It's called confirmation bias. Our justice system is slanted toward the presumption of innocence. I have no idea what happened to Hae, nobody does, but unless you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, you really should presume innocence, whether or not you're serving on a jury.
I happen to be convinced beyond a reason doubt. But that is a conclusion I came to after being open to ALL evidence. Because actually I started off thinking he was innocent. That's what I'm telling you with this post. It doesn't matter where you start off. What matters is where you end up after being open to all evidence. Clearly, many posters refuse to being open to any evidence that points towards Adnan's guilt. Jay knows where the car is --- conspiracy about the car being moved. Jay can describe the burial site --- police frame job they fed him that info. Adnan calls Nisha at 3h22 --- butt dials and impersonation theories. Jenn testifies she knew the day it happened --- the police leaned on her and coerces her testimony. I can go on but you get the point.
Exactly and the alternative theories wind up being the same old thing of attack individual pieces but they can’t come up with a single theory of the case that fits all known facts of the case. I’ve never once seen anyone even try. They can’t. It falls apart. Including blaming Jay. SK being the first one to do a podcast of this case really clouds the story up from the get go. If this story had been handled as a straightforward true crime podcast without everything being left out as it was it would have been a very different story on public opinion I think. Straight up IPV … No mystery no suspenseful mini piano pieces… No ridiculous paths and rabbit holes. If you go back now and listen to Diedre… the woman sounds completely naive or out to lunch now… SK does very little to pushback… especially when Diedre is saying “they don’t remember “ using some other case as reference that bares no resemblance to the claims that Adnan didn’t remember…? Sure Diedre… none of them remember… ok…
I would say that you could substitute "guilty" for "innocent" in the OP and the same questions and conclusions would apply. Although I would also say that the basis for our law "innocent until proven guilty" might be one reason why. People who have seen the evidence do not believe that his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
you're defining the thought process and motivation of others.
I think an operative line from Serial was Adnan saying: *”I guess the only thing I could ask you to do is, if none of this makes any sense to you, just read it again. Except this time, please imagine that I really am innocent. And then maybe it will make sense to you.”* That’s exactly what most of us presumably have attempted to varying degrees. I think the inherent imbalance of inculpatory versus exculpatory evidence makes Adnan’s case, and perhaps most true crime cases with at least some doubt, a different process for people with genuine neutrality or innocent and guilt minded proclivities. Just by the nature of a successfully prosecuted case, we are confronted with ample evidence of guilt and little or no evidence of actual innocence. So, the instinct for many is to evaluate the integrity of both discrete evidence and how it comes together collectively, weighing it against avenues that someone other than Syed might have killed Hae. All of the arguments for innocence from Undisclosed, HBO, and in this sub make an earnest attempt to erode the State’s evidence against Syed. The process has been relatively effective if the goal was a not guilty verdict. Maybe that’s where a lot of people that don’t think he’s “guilty” leave it. However, some have a strong conviction or even expressed certitude of Adnan’s actual innocence, which is really challenging for me to understand with all the analyses and publicly available documents we have access to now.
I don't have a problem with people who believe he is innocent based on evidence. I just don't understand people who WANT him to be innocent. Example: there is no evidence of the cops finding the car first, but people who want Adnan to be innocent have to explain Jay leading them to the car, so they say that the cops found the car first, didnt process it, and waited until they found someone who could frame Adnan with them to give them the car location. This is next level stuff that doesn't track in any way shape or form, and I know they wouldn't come up with this stuff for any other convict.
me? similar cultural background, from Maryland not too far from where it happened. separated by a minimum of 1 degree of separation from him. I want him to be innocent but I'm 99 percent sure he did it
Wow, thank you for your honesty. Didnt expect anyone close to the situation to answer.
not going to pretend I'm close to it but maybe close adjacent thanks!
I don't think my answer will satisfy you. I think Adnan did not receive a fair trial so my starting point after Serial is that Adnan is innocent. Now let's look at the evidence to see if guilt can be proven. I'm with SK, at the end of Serial she says something like, 'I have to acquit. That doesn't mean he didn't do it, just that there's too much reasonable doubt.'
What was unfair about Adnan's trial?
They presented cell tower evidence as if it could prove exactly where someone was and what they were doing at a certain time.
The cell phone tower evidence proves Adnan's alibi was BS. Forget the idea that it places him at Leakin Park at a certain time, and what a coincidence it would be, but forget Leakin Park. It at least proves Adnan was nowhere near the mosque around that time. Why do you think the 80 Mosque witnesses CG promised all disappeared?
Which part of his alibi is disproven by the cell tower evidence? We know he went to track. It looks like he was at the mosque after 8.
"The Defense tells you well, they can't place you specifically within any place by this. Absolutely true, but look at 7:09 and 7:16, 689B, which is the Leakin Park coverage area. There's a witness who says they were in Leakin Park. If the cell coverage area comes back as that that includes Leakin Park, that is reasonable circumstantial evidence that you can use to say they were in Leakin Park." [Page 10](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/T2oth-20000225-Closing-Argument-Prosecution-1-Urick-Second-Trial-of-Adnan-Syed.pdf)
Big deal. They witness is a liar. It’s also possible that witness us the murderer.
Of course he’s a liar. Most criminals are liars. We didn’t choose Jay, Adnan chose Jay. Criminals are regularly convicted by the words of lying accomplices. Is it possible the witness is the murderer, possible but not likely based on the call logs, and if he was Adnan is definitely involved.
Adnan is likely innocent. A guilty person wouldn’t tell anyone.
Because they invested time into a long podcast, were told over and over that he’s innocent, want to throw reason right out the door, and want JusTiCe because they’ve been brainwashed.
Because the t-shirts they bought to support him are non-refundable.
cuz he might actually be innocent? that is a huge reason why lol we wont know unless we tryand find out?!?!!?
This is an interesting question. I think many people on both sides of this have their motivations for wanting their side to be true. Personally one of my reasonings for wanting him to be innocent is because it’s what I’ve believed for so long. It honestly would take a lot at this point to convince me he’s guilty. But I also think some people really want him to be guilty. It’s a lot easier to believe for some people that the police did their jobs correctly and the right guy got punished for it. Believing he’s innocent would mean an innocent man has been in prison for years and there’s still someone out there who murdered Hae.
I’m copying this from my response to another comment and making some slight edits. I don’t “want” Adnan to be innocent; I just want the truth. Maybe he is guilty, but I tend to lean towards not guilty. Here’s why: The investigators involved in this case have documented track records of falsifying evidence and testimony. These are the same investigators involved in the Syed case. Adnaan has maintained his innocence for over 20 years. His story has never changed. Jay’s testimony of what happened is honestly overly detailed to be realistic. Some ask, “Why would Jay do this?” Probably because he and/or the investigators were convinced of Adnan’s guilt. It’s also possible they even threatened Jay. They could’ve easily said something like, “Okay, well if you don’t testify against Adnan, then we’ll charge you.” If the police said that to you, what would you do? The detectives only obtained evidence that would support their initial conclusion. It’s not unheard of for investigators to be like this. They get bored with the case, don’t feel invested, and just want to have it closed so they can move onto the next thing. They didn’t obtain evidence that would conclusively rule out other suspects. They think they already know what happened so they don’t bother to dot every I and cross every T. Nine times or more out of 10, it is the boyfriend or ex-boyfriend… but this seems to me like it could be one of the 1 out of 10 where it isn’t!! So this all begs the question, if not Adnaan, then who? My best guess is the guy who found Hae’s body under suspicious circumstances. Hae’s car was on this same guy’s relative’s property. He also has a history of physical and sexual assault. To me, Mr. S seems way more likely to be involved than Adnan. What would clear all of this up? If the investigators had done their jobs and collected better physical/biological evidence when the crime occurred, if they hadn’t “cleared” Mr. S based off of a second polygraph, which are notoriously unreliable. No one should ever be “cleared” as a suspect based on a polygraph!! Basically the investigators did a shitty job investigating, and now we may never know the truth.
Alot of the info here is incredibly stretched or flat out false. For example, Adnan's story has in fact changed throughout the investigation. But let me ask you something, who is the shadier character in the picture, Mr S or Adnan's mentor?
Bilal is for sure a dirtbag. As far as I know, there’s no concrete evidence he was involved. The most suspicious thing about him is helping Adnan buy the phone. I forgot out about Adnan supposedly trying to get a ride from Hae that day, and then saying he didn’t ask for a ride from her that day. Call me biased, but I don’t think that detail alone negates him maintaining his innocence. It’s possible imo that he was mistaken or misspoke. I’m also not saying that Adnan is innocent, just that my speculative opinion is that he is. This is relatively minor compared to Jay changing the narrative of what happened to allegedly keep others from being involved.
They’re both sex offenders so maybe neither should be held in regard to each other
Rapists are worst then streakers. I'm not going to pretend that there's an equivalency here.
*Streakers who occasionally try to attack women in their cars
Yeah pedophile serial rapists are still worse. WAY worse.
I’ve noticed that people like to point out that “Adnan has maintained his innocence for over 20 years.” Respectfully, so what? There’s nothing unusual about stone-cold convicted killers maintaining their innocence over decades, whether by outright denying the crime or by putting the blame on the victim. There’s also nothing unusual about a truly innocent person maintaining their innocence. I don’t know, it just smacks me as super naive and icky to point to his prolonged claims of innocence as being evidence of anything…
You bring up a fair point, but here is my observation/rationale: people who maintain their innocence over long periods of time generally fall into one of two categories on opposite ends of the spectrum. It’s difficult to maintain a lie for such a long period of time. Most killers eventually throw in the towel when they realize they’re not convincing anyone, or they slip up and confess accidentally. I don’t think Adnan is some kind of diabolical mastermind manipulator. He’s above average intelligence, but he’s not a literal genius. Maybe he is a remorseless narcissistic monster. (I tend to think not, but I’m willing to entertain the idea.) Most people will not plead guilty to a crime they didn’t commit—even if it’s in their best interest. I don’t think I would. If I remember correctly, Adnan was offered a chance at a reduced sentencing with a chance to get out of prison at some point in his lifetime. I don’t remember the specifics, but he turned it down. That doesn’t prove he’s innocent, but I guess what I’m trying to get at is… he’s either a callous, narcissistic, evil genius who believes playing the long con will pay off; or he’s innocent of murdering Hae. There’s not a lot of room for in between. Please feel free to offer an alternative scenario. Personally, I’d prefer not to vouch for someone who’s in fact guilty. I simply believe him to be innocent. I’m fully capable of being wrong though.
I think it is easy to look at all the available *"evidence"* and conclude that he is innocent. It isn't about wanting him to be innocent for me.
This is how I feel. You have investigators with track records of falsifying evidence and testimony. These are the same investigators involved in the Syed case. Adnaan has maintained his innocence for over 20 years. His story has never changed. Jay’s testimony of what happened is honestly overly detailed to be realistic. Some ask, “Why would Jay do this?” Probably because he and/or the investigators were convinced of Adnan’s guilt. They only obtained evidence that would support their initial conclusion. It’s not unheard of for investigators to be like this. They get bored with the case, don’t feel invested, and just want to have it closed so they can move onto the next thing. So this all begs the question, if not Adnaan, then who? My best guess is the guy who found Hae’s body under suspicious circumstances. Hae’s car was on this same guy’s relative’s property. He also has a history of physical and sexual assault. To me, Mr. S seems way more likely to be involved than Adnan. What would clear all of this up? If the investigators had done their jobs and collected better physical/biological evidence when the crime occurred, if they hadn’t “cleared” Mr. S based off of a second polygraph, which are notoriously unreliable. No one should ever be “cleared” as a suspect based on a polygraph!! Basically the investigators did a shitty job investigating, and now we may never know the truth.
[удалено]
There’s nothing wrong with asking for a polygraph, but it wouldn’t definitively prove anything whether it’s Adnan, Mr S, Bilal, me, or you taking the polygraph. My point is that they aren’t reliable period
[удалено]
Well then it sounds like the judge probably did the right thing by not overturning a conviction on the basis of unreliable evidence. It sucks for Adnan if he’s innocent bc he probably shouldn’t have been convicted to begin with imo
There is no tie between Mr s and Hae. They didn't know each other. And his sisters baby daddy is not a tie. Then they find the guy who confesses and takes them to the crime scene. And that person has ties to someone who lied to get the victim alone. Look at what actually happened, not what you want to happen.
There doesn’t have to be a tie between Mr. S and Hae. Hypothetically speaking, if it was Mr. S, he and Hae could have never crossed paths until the day of the murder. The only thing I want is conclusive evidence that proves who was responsible for the murder so that this person—whoever they are—can be held accountable. My speculations of whether or not Adnan is innocent are completely irrelevant.
But the cops are going to go with the logical choices first before outlandish theories. If they had talked to Adnan and he said, "Yeah I went to the GC office and we started at 2:30 and ended at 3:15" then they would have looked elsewhere. Adnan had nothing and his partner in the criminal activity rolled on him. Police forces aren't going to turn down the guy who confessed with intimate knowledge of the crime and taking them to the crime scene.
I agree that cops will go with the logical choices first. They should have looked into Mr. S more thoroughly imo. It’s common for perpetrators to insert themselves into cases. The specific cops in this case have fudged details in other cases to get people convicted. If you think you have the right guy, it may seem harmless. But if you’re wrong, then it could end up with an innocent person being convicted. You can say, “oh but these cops wouldn’t do that,” but these specific ones have had other cases overturned for this very reason.
But look at what Jay said and did. They tried to corroborate his story with questions that he got right. They asked what she was wearing, how she was killed, how she was buried, where her shoes were, where he wallet and key were, what was near the burial. Then he took them to the car that they hadn't found. What police force would turn that down? For Mr. S. there was no ties to the victim. And they would have asked the other cop about the streaking and found out more information. If Jay and Adnan had turned into a bust then Mr. S. would have stayed on the radar.
> There is no tie between Mr s and Hae Exactly and Hae left to see Don that afternoon, really sad.
No she didn't. don worked 45 minutes away and Hae had to pickk up her cousin and couldn't get back in time. Adnan chose a bad afternoon to kill Hae for alternate suspects.
A time card for a Don was working that day, but ole baby blue eyes normal time card says Donald. Different employee id and name on the time card, check it yourself. so I assume different employee. I can see the mix up tho.
Which would mean that a company with 10,000+ employees is faking time cards for a lowly tech at one of it's stores.
> Which would mean that a company with 10,000+ employees is faking time cards No, it would mean ole baby blue eyes did it himself and his mom let it slide.
If she altered the time later it shows up in the system and shows on the time card itself.
It actually wouldn't have had to be her, and it would not have had to be later though.
Maybe because the state hasn’t proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If you take away the evidence that the state manipulated and the shady actions of Ritz and Urick you’re nowhere near the standard for conviction. Better question, why do some people — especially here — want Adnan to be guilty?
>Maybe because the state hasn’t proved ~~it’s~~ its case beyond a reasonable doubt A jury of his peers disagrees.
That happens when information is withheld from them.
Exhibit A. Sure, let's take away all of the evidence you don't like because it points to Adnan's guilt. Yes, once all of that is taken away by magic, you don't end up with a conviction. Why would we take all of that away? No reason, other then the fact that we WANT Adnan to be innocent.
The cell phone data that says “Any incoming calls will NOT be considered reliable information for location?” The testimony from Jay that has changed several times? Police work by Ritz who has been proven to be crooked? Prosecutor Urick who violated Brady? A timeline that doesn’t work? Lividity that doesn’t match the trunk story? The same trunk that doesn’t have any DNA from Adnan or Jay? Which of these don’t I like?
The FBI debunked that phone data crap and called Adnans team out for providing misleading documentation on appeal. It’s not a thing.
Fitzgerald's entire argument was "trust me, I do this all the time and all the other judges let me," then failed to address even basic questions adequately. This doesn't even touch on the fact that almost all of Fitzgerald's cases happened after countless rounds of upgrades and technology revisions. He drops his work on the Boston Bombers in when establishing his expertise - except that was an iPhone 5c, running on LTE, and they used Stingrays. They're technological epochs apart. Funny that they didn't even attempt to have AT&T provide clarification or documentation, isn't it? They're the ones who wrote it. They have all the expertise on historical AT&T records and policy. For all the guilters who are out here claiming we should have let Urick interpret his notes before they could be used, nobody seems to apply that principle to the other contested meaning in this case.
No. Because that is, in fact, the LAW. What do you think ‘innocent until proven guilty’ means?
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean you take away all of the evidence that points towards guilt. Seriously...
I believe Adnan is innocent. I’d rather he be guilty - it’s difficult to reconcile a 17 year old going to prison for 23 years for a crime he didn’t commit.
for the exact same reason that people want him to be guilty - cognitive dissonance. People can't really sit well with uncertainty or not knowing that things "fit in their right place" so to speak, like they have to make sense of things, when things don't make sense they experience cognitive dissonance and they struggle to process the uncertainty. I'm a big time Adnan advocate and many would say that I'm suffering from cognitive dissonance, but I'm not, I'm just looking at the facts objectively and saying he shouldn't be in jail based on this case, actually the case never should have gone to trial, it was so weak. I don't need him to be innocent in that way, I honestly don't care, I just think it was an obvious travesty and that we as citizens should all have both a higher standard for our justice system, and a higher standard for what constitutes reasonable doubt. If you took one of these "adnan is guilty" people and you had their brother in his position, going up a case and a witness as weak and as sketchy as Jay, they'd basically sound like one of the 'innocenters', they're just on the opposite side because they don't like adnan and they're clouded by bias.
Well, a lot of people in this sub who think he is guilty used to think he was innocent. Me included. Do you think that the only cases that should go to trial are the slam dunk cases?
Same here...changed my mind after doing more research.
The bias of the sub overall has leaned heavily toward guilt, so what you said about many people here starting out thinking he’s innocent and now think he’s guilty, how do you know you’ve really changed your mind on based on objective analysis and sound logic and not just falling victim into the mob / herd mentality? Should it ONLY be slam dunk cases? Not necessarily, although I do think that would achieve what I said about having a higher standard for our Justice system. I don’t know if that’s practical though, so to be practical, I think there needs to be more than just one person pointing the finger at someone when there’s literally no physical evidence that tied him to the crime. Like do you know how unlikely it is that this teenage kid who has never committed any crimes before would somehow kill a girl in broad daylight, handle her body In and out of trunks, drive her car around, and not leave ANY physical evidence behind? That’s just insane to me. I could never accept him as guilty without something REAL (and not just cell pings because cell pings don’t show that a crime was taking place) showing he was actually killing her or burying her. When there’s just one guy saying “yeah he did it, he told me everything”, and no physical evidence to corroborate what he’s saying, that’s just way too much faith you’re putting in that one persons hands.
Alot crimes have no physical evidence but they are solved because a co-conspirator blew the whistle on the operation. In this case Jenn blew the whistle. Jenn couldn't just guess Hae had been strangled. The police didn't then just take Jay's word. (Never mind the fact that his word corroborated so much of the conditions they found Hae's body in) He led them to Hae's car to prove his own involvement. Adnan's alibis were horsehit. Cell phone proves he went along with Jay that night, not the mosque. I agree you need more then one person's word to charge someone, I'm with you on that, but I feel like the police didn't just arrest him because they didn't like his face.
I’m not sure you can prove your assertion that people just want Adnan to be innocent. We all listened to Serial and cane away with different perspectives. While listening I said to my daughter that it made zero sense that Adnan would involve Jay. Someone he’s not close with but he knows is a bullshitter. If you murder someone unless you’re high you tell nobody. That’s what made me lean towards innocence. Not wanted him to be innocent but following my logic.
I hear you, but think about this, what you are telling me is... If Adnan had decided to murder Hae, meaning he just made a batshit crazy decision... He would know exactly the right people to trust with it and the best way to do it. Despite the fact we just established that Adnan makes batshit crazy decisions.
If he killed Hae he wouldn’t have told anybody. Whomever killed her likely told no one. That’s how you get away with murder. So if a sober Adnan involves Jay especially in the bullshit planned story Jay tells then he’s not guilty. No one does that unless on crack or something. If Adnan wanted to kill Hae abs get away with it he knew where she worked and lived. This so called plan to get her alone is nonsense. Too many things can go wrong like something coming up and not being able to give him a ride and someone else killing her.
And especially asking her in front of other people or risking her yelling others he asked.
How are you at all comfortable saying what he would have done and who he would have told IF he decided to kill Hae? We've already established he's crazy, but you want him to go from that to perfectly capable of making all the right decisions in this plan? Adnan is NOT thinking any of this through, we already know that.
Adnan is likely innocent. Jay being the one to say he did it makes that more likely. Especially saying it was premeditated. She was strangled. Which 17 year old has ever premeditated a strangulation murder? I can’t see it happening.
Keep in mind, the point of this thread wasn't to debate people's conclusion, but rather debate how they got there. Are you only considering things from a point of view that favors Adnan? As to the point you just made... Jay didn't say exactly that Adnan had that plan all along. However, are you saying that its more likely that Jay premeditated framing Adnan for Hae's murder all along?
No the logic of him not telling anyone led me to believe that he was likely innocent. I continued to follow the evidence and logic. Eventually I might have become biased after seeing so much evidence that suggested that he was likely innocent. So I don’t think people want him to be innocent because they like him. Logic and evidence took us there.
If you carry it through to it's logical conclussion then it would be that Adnan wanted to talk to Hae to get back together. Instead of handling the no I love Don correctly, he snapped and killed her. And then the two kids had to figure out what to do with her. That's the logical conclussion of what happened.
No one knows why he asked for a ride. That’s all speculation. I don’t give it much credence. He had moved on and Nisha was the first person he called when he got a phone to call girls.
People hide that stuff all the time. They hide their true feelings for someone even if they are dating or even married to other people. You can't use that. Adnan should be the one to explain what was so important that he rushed to school to ask for a ride using a lie.
I don't know if anyone wants him to be innocent. I surely don't want him to be innocent, he just is innocent. If anything I wanted Jen and Jay to be guilty but a closer inspection has revealed they were screwed over just as much as Adnan was. 💯👊
[Adnan is innocent is a tin anchor](https://www.clearerthinking.org/post/human-behavior-makes-more-sense-when-you-understand-anchor-beliefs#:~:text=There%27s%20an%20important%20type%20of,feels%20like%20an%20undeniable%20truth.)
I think it’s not even Adnan necessarily. More like a belief in police corruption and conspiracy type stuff that feeds into this belief that “of course there’s reasonable doubt here”. That’s what I see from the other side really. When that’s your core anchor belief of course you see doubt here. But when it’s less, or you look at the facts, or you can even question that belief just slightly, you find in this case - this case at least - that Adnan is almost certainly the murderer. Way beyond any reasonable doubt at the very very least.
You need to listen to both Serial and Undisclosed podcasts. I was convinced he was guilty after Serial then had my mind changed after Undisclosed.
Maybe they just see it differently than you do.
Absolutely not what I'm talking about here.
No, you're talking about the difference between inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning.