http://viewfromll2.com/2014/12/29/se...ppeal-in-2003/

Very interesting read. This from a lawyer arguing points of law, not conjecture.

I don't get this perspective at all. Regardless of whether he did it, Adnan was convicted based on:

1. A clearly incorrect state's timeline.
2. No hard evidence.
3. The testimony of a single witness with a reputation for lying and a story that constantly changed.

The question you should be asking is "is there reasonable doubt?" not "do I feel like he probably did it?" I don't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that "No, there is no reasonable doubt, Adnan 100% did it" yet that is what the jury decided. That makes it a compelling/interesting study of our justice system.

Made me legitimately LOL, such an apt description.

A couple comments based on the recent posts,

1) the podcast was not about if he did it but if he should have been convicted. A critical distinction both morally and legally

2) of course Koenig was biased. There is no such thing as unbiased. It's like asking her to be a unicorn

3) the Jay interview makes him seem much more guilty

1) the podcast is not about anything. There are no legal standards for what to do with the info provided. One element of it was the merit of the conviction. Another is who committed the crime and who you believe. If guilt is not ever provable by the court system the crime did not cease to exist. Somebody did it. It is not correct to judge information that is presented outside of the rules of a courtroom by the standard required inside. He could be not guilty legally but still the killer.

2) Noting her bias and the direction it leans is not the same as expecting it not to exist.

3) I read the interview from a different starting bias, so maybe that is why I disagree. Are you saying you think Jay killed Hae? If so would you explain why?

I think koenig would say she was unbiased. She certainly never admits to or examines her bias.

I also think her opinion (and that of most people she interviewed) swung more on likeability than evidence. And that was really the unconscious theme of the season, imo.

I would literally snap bet $1000 that if asked she would freely admit bias.

you watch too much fox news

Of course she's biased, but hanging on to your biased viewpoints turns into stupidity at some point.

The point is that it is literally impossible to not hang onto your biased viewpoints. The entire field of epistemology and the infrastructure of science is devoted to this fact and to developing ways to minimize its influence on decision making.

I don't find the whodunnit part interesting at all. Do I think Jay did it? Probably but I haven't spent much time thinking about it other than his story changes every time he tells it which strikes me as a strong sign of guilt.

The interesting part is the nature of the legal system including its strengths and weaknesses.

Do I think Adnan is guilty? Not sure but 60/40, no. Do I think he should have been convicted, 100% no.

I really don't understand how someone with a dead body in their car is in a position to blackmail a drug dealer or why adnan would even involve jay since jay says they didn't know each other very well and jay wasn't of much use. That being said if jay is guilty of more than he says it's insane to be doing interviews.

No mention in this about why jay was acting like he feared for his life based on the fellow employee interview.

She believed Adnan was innocent before the first MailChimp ad dropped, and spent 12 episodes working towards that goal, yet does her best to convince herself and the audience that she's giving equal regard to Jay and the prosecution. I'm sure, if asked, she would give a hand-wavey 'of course there's always bias' statement while simultaneously insisting she was looking at all sides with open eyes.

An honestly objective telling of this story would center around Hae-min and explore outwards from there. Instead, Hae-min was a bit player in the Adnan tragedy.

Not that I think that makes this a poor story. As I said before, I think the most interesting thing about Serial is the way personality (and the snap judgments and stereotypes that are rolled up within that) trumps evidence in the justice system, and having the narrator be a walking, unconscious example of that is fascinating.

I assume we will get to that in subsequent parts of the interview but that is only an assumption.

Agree. For me it has morphed into an exhibit about people's reactions.

As for those who don't get why Jay was scared of Adnan's leverage I have two thoughts. The first is it was not a one or the other quid pro quo blackmail, it was if you don't help I'm taking you down with me for drugs, which Jay was guilty of. Adnan being convicted would not shield Jay from trouble necessarily.

Second, just imagine that Jay got convicted for this murder on the same flawed prosecution. Would there be a podcast? Would there be fundraisers? Would his community have rallied behind him? The dude never was even named as a suspect and there are people all over saying he did it because he lied to the police. Police don't belive anything anyone says because they are lied to constantly. Jay is guilty in the court of public opinion based on who he is and the reverse is true for Adnan. He was correct to be scared of Adnan's leverage.

I mean literally the only two people who could have done it are Jay and Adnan, and only one of those two had anything remotely resembling a motive.

The prosecution's case was full of holes and a competent attorney could have probably gotten Adnan acquitted but there's little doubt in my mind that the cops got the right guy.

Serial killers, tho

Part 2 of Jay interview up

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...ve-jay-part-2/

Not the first time I felt really uncomfortable about this whole thing.

At a minimum he helped bury an innocent girl and now is whining that a reporter knocked on his door. Lol to him. Seems like pretty minor karmic payback.

If you take him at his word, he was a scared 18 year old kid who got bullied into it and eventually did the right thing, apparently at greater risk to himself than my privilege will allow me to realize. Now, 15 years later, we're running his name through the muck in front of his wife and kids for our own entertainment purposes.

The whole thing kind of feels like tragedy porn. Like I would pretty easily forget while listening that these are real people who are being pressed to relive the worst times of their lives so that we can play out a highbrow version of Casey Anthony. My comment wasn't even referring to Jay so much as what he said about Hae's family. They don't seem to want any part of this.

Like, if it sets an innocent man free, then its obviously worth it. If we're just jerking around here, then its pretty messed up. Not sure what probability of innocence is required to cross that threshold.

And of course, my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

By that standard investigative journalism wouldn't exist. He is hardly an innocent bystander. Hae's family has an argument to make in that sense. Jay has none.

I disagree with this. For me, the podcast consistently veered towards the claim that Adnan is innocent (without actually saying so). Most people - even the ones who think Adnan is guilty - agree that he should have been acquitted. It's almost become accepted at this point that he shouldn't be in prison. A lot of the true intrigue (for the average listener) comes from people wanting to determine if he actually killed Hae. This is why you have an entire corner of the internet devoted to proving his innocence, including people coming up with insane theories about random serial killers. In reality, this is all pointless and stupid, as we can never be 100% certain if Adnan is innocent.

I'm right there with you. In fact I think part of me searching for an alternative meaning or worth in the whole phenomenon, like focusing on examining the social experiment it created, is guilt driven to some degree. Highbrow Casey Anderson is spot on. Damn it.

I think this experiment shows that this is not how one conducts a journalistic investigation. You don't dig up a 15 year old case and research it while the internet watches, speculates and harasses.

We've seen in the Boston bombing case how easily internet sleuths draw the wrong conclusions. We've seen with Sandy Hook that they will go so far as to harass victim's families. If you drag 15 year old case like this out into the light like this you better have a damn good reason for it, better than Adnan Sayed's big brown eyes, which was all Koenig had to show for her months of sleuthing.

I disagree. The podcast consistently veres towards the claim that Adnans prosecution being seriously flawed. Which it is.