Gutierrez really should have ripped into the timeline inconsistencies hard. On the other hand the prosecution should have ironed out the inconsistencies, but they got the result they were after.

We're left with a moral question of course, someone who is very likely to be a killer is behind bars. However, we all agree that he probably shouldn't have been convicted on the evidence that was presented. So do we feel justice was served?

I haven't been reading reddit much. What are the prevailing alternative theories as to what happened on there?

Clovis8, do you also consider Adnan a pathological liar?

I haven't either, but alternate theories I've read include:

1. Jay did it.
2. A 3rd person, who Jay wanted to protect for some reason, did it.

3. Adnan may not have actually strangled Hae, but his actions (or in-actions) started the chain of events that resulted in Hae's death.

This allows both Adnan's and Jay's point of views to be correct.

I haven't read all the discussions at Reddit, but the more compelling arguments I have seen revolve around the core idea that Jay and Adnan were dealing drugs together and got in over their heads. Like a lot of the discussion, it's mostly speculation of course. But it generally explains a lot of the inconsistencies and reasons why both Jay and Adnan seem to be making a substantial effort to hide information. The general theory is that they were both scared of retribution from drug dealers at the time, so that's why they try to mislead about exactly where and when certain things happened.

Why do you say this? Are you saying that based on the evidence presented at trial, a jury could not have found Adnan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, obviously the jury did--you're just saying they blew it? Also, the reasonable doubt they should have had is the possibility that Jay did it?

Based on what I know the conviction seems reasonable. But it's very difficult to draw a conclusion having not been at the trial or read the transcripts.

We'll probably never know, but I would bet a substantial sum that Adnan confessed his guilt to Christina Gutierrez. This would explain several things that are brought up in Serial.

First, why Adnan didn't testify. Based on the prosecution's case, the obvious thing any lawyer (or non-lawyer) would think is that it is critical that Adnan testify to rebut Jay's testimony and proclaim his innocence. However, if Adnan had confessed to CG, the ethical rules basically prohibit CG from allowing Adnan to testify. What other reason would CG have for not strongly advising Adnan to testify in his defense and directly contradict Jay's testimony?

Second, why CG did not show significant interest in the library alibi witness. If Adnan had confessed his guilt to CG, CG would not ethically be able to allow the witness to testify to an alibi that CG knows is false.

Third, why did CG not push for more DNA testing (I could be wrong about that, but I believe that is what happened.) That one's obvious -- if CG knew Adnan did it, the forensics are very unlikely to be favorable.

Finally, why CG didn't implicate Jay or anyone else more strongly. I think the law is unclear on this point, but there may be some limits on how much a defense lawyer can implicate someone with respect to a crime that the lawyer knows they didn't commit.

So, if Adnan had confessed to CG, a lot of her actions and defense of Adnan make a lot more sense.

Wouldn't said confession be in her case notes? Or is that against the law and ethics as well?

I don't understand her reasons for not wanting him to testify, but IIRC Koening pointed out it's not uncommon for lawyers to not want their client to testify. What are some of the reasons a lawyer would not want their client to testify other than the client privately admitted guilt?

Hmmm... I'm actually wondering more whether it's ever in the interest of a client to testify if pleading not guilty.

What's the point of taking the stand and saying "I didn't do it"? Ideally, you'd get other, more impartial witnesses on the stand who can attest to your innocence.

The arguments against testifying are a lot stronger than you're implying.

Everyone expects you to get up and say "I didn't do it". The jury isn't going to react to that as a new fact, they're going to pay attention to the way you say it and base their reaction on their feelings about whether or not you're telling the truth. This is super subjective and unpredictable. What if you're nervous about testifying and are maybe a little sweaty? What if your voice cracks just a little bit? A bunch of people will jump all over that as "sure signs of guilt" no matter what else happens in the trial.

Don't forget that if you take the stand you are also exposed to cross examination. Many people, guilty or not, will slip up under a barrage of aggressive questioning from a trial lawyer. Putting yourself under that kind of pressure is a big gamble. Again, any small mistake may be read by irrational jurors as a "sure sign of guilt".

Yup, completely agree.

I don't know, but I'm confident she would remember that fact without having to write it down in her notes.

I generally agree with that. And, of course, the decision whether or not to testify is case-specific. Moreover, different lawyers have different opinions on whether clients should testify.

That said, in my opinion, this is a pretty clear case where you would want your client to testify. Adnan is well spoken and likable and seems like he would present well at trial. He also had no prior record that could be used against him (apparently that is a pretty big reason why defendants don't testify -- to prevent prior crimes from being used against them). I would guess most people would find him to be a more credible witness than Jay.

But most importantly, you have a case based on a guy saying that you told him you did it, you showed him the body, and you buried her together. Sure, there are lots of inconsistencies in Jay's stories, but the only way to rebut those main points that he has been consistent about is for Adnan to testify and say Jay is lying. When you don't testify, you have to know it will look sketchy to the jury.

Since the prosecution seemed eager to portray Adnan as a crazed Muslim performing an honor killing, I can see how you could make the case for him taking the stand to counter that.

Judging by the recordings we heard from Jay's testimony, he came across quite polite and calm. That may have helped the prosecutor's case in the eyes of the jury.

If you Google there are dozens are articles about the case from lawyers and they are basically unanimous that they would never have him testify.

To the lay person it seems obvious he should testify. To a lawyer its suicide.

The general rule is to avoid putting a defendant on the stand, if you can help it. It is easy to say that he should have testified, in hindsight, but the risks can be enormous.

Think about what Adnan was going to say under cross examination. While he goes up there and says "I didn't do it", there is a prosecutor that is asking him where he was that day and all he can say is that he doesn't remember. What is he going to say when confronted with the cell phone records? How about the testimony of the third parties that saw him acting goofy? How does he counter Jay? Even now, 15 years later, when he has had plenty of time to think about his testimony and think about every piece of evidence used against him, he still does not have a satisfactory explanation for anything. What he does is try to poke holes in the state's case himself to SK, but he does not offer an explanation for anything at all. THAT is why he didn't testify. He would have been obliterated if he had taken the stand.

Agree. Taking the stand would be at best a gamble and the goal of the defense is to produce reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case, not prove innocence.

I testified in a criminal case once regarding crime I witnessed. I saw a drunk guy on a bike knock an old lady down in the crosswalk and ridr away, chased the guy for a block, motorcycle cop caught him, and myself and my wife who were within a few feet of the collision went to court. He was yelling at the cop that the lady was crossing on red but later said he didn't hit her. He got off. I don't know where the reasonable doubt was created because I was only in the courtroom for my own testimony, but the prosecution was a **** show without a doubt.

The experience left me a lot less confident in the system and also a lot less confident in eye witnesses. A year later I had to look up the time of sunset on that date to settle argument between me and wife and sister, who was also there, as to whether it was dusk or full daylight. I was wrong. I also could not recall exactly what he was wearing even though I chased him for a block and saw him in cuffs yelling on the sidewalk for at least 10 minutes. He was dressed head to toe in giants orange but I only remembered his socks and his bike tires.

Inconsistencies in testimony are not as damning in my eyes anymore.

It is entirely possible that Gutierrez didn't think the prosecution had proven their case, in which case there is no benefit (and only down side risk) in putting the Defendant on the stand.

Even if the case was looking dicey at that point, there is little upside and much downside to Adnan testifying. Listen to what his side of the story is during the podcast. He has nothing to say except that he doesn't remember. When he has to actually answer questions about the mountain of evidence against him, he would have had his ass handed to him. While he can sound great while talking to SK, the prosecutor was not going to lob a bunch of softballs at him like she did.

In the trial itself, the defense attorney does what I believe was a competent job. The entire defense in that case has to be that Jay is lying, and she tries her best to discredit Jay. When it comes to pre-trial work, such as the possible alibi, that is another matter entirely, and she may very well have been ineffective because of that.

I agree it's dicey to have him testify, although I don't think it's as clear cut as you do. There are going to be holes in the story, but he can basically give the same answers he has given to SK (i.e., he doesn't remember the specifics of the day because it was just a typical day, Jay had his phone at certain times, he was high in front of the third parties, etc.). Yeah, those responses don't sound great on paper, but they worked on a big portion of the Serial listeners (at least judging from here and Reddit).

The alternative is sitting there having someone that knows you say you did it with zero rebuttal. That obviously will look awful to a jury and in fact several of the jurors appear to have focused on it. So, while it's a judgment call and many defense lawyers may not have the defendant testify, I'm confident many lawyers would put him on the stand under these circumstances.

Again, not having Adnan testify is just one of the things that makes me think that Adnan confessed to Gutierrez. It's not the only factor or even the most important one.

I think that there is expectations as well. There is a huge difference listening to an entertainment piece and sitting in a jury chair for days on end.

You actively want to listen to a story. You actively don't want to be in a jury.

You're expectation of listening to Serial is "not guilty." Your expectation of sitting in a jury is "probably guilty. Why else am I here?" Confirmation biases will make the first group more excepting of human fault and the second group think negatively of this (no matter how human it is).

I don't see how Adnan wouldn't be ripped to shreds if he was on the stand. He doesn't even look good when there is someone who is rooting for him. Imagine what it would be like if SK was a hard-ass and wanted to play "gotcha" games.

Agreed. Getting people to think about how we lock other humans in cages is never a bad thing imo.

I agree w 1 & 2 but I actually thought Jay's interview wasn't that bad. This is an effed up situation and for any of us to make statements that one person unequivocally did or did not do something is laughably naive.

I'm not sure you know what "literally" means. See my post above re: naiveté.

Adnan (to Hae's family's home phone): Hi, this is Adnan, is Hae there? No, still missing? Ok, great thanks.

(Point...why call someone's house when you know they are missing.) I am curious as to why he didn't page her.

Good post. As many have explained since, most defense attorneys are not putting Adnan on the stand regardless of guilt or innocence, but your theory seems to make sense.

I'm also curious about this?

As a defense attorney, I don't always write down bad stuff that was told to me and such in my notes. Depending on the kind of case, I don't always ask them for their side of the story either. If it is the kind of case where they were obviously there (such as a fight between two people where they were arrested on the scene), I ask for their side of the story. In a case where identity is an issue, I will ask if they have alibi witnesses and stuff like that, but I won't ask for "their side of the story." If they were a party to the crime, I don't want to know about it.

I can't say for sure whether Adnan told his attorney whether he did it, but I think it is extremely unlikely that he did so. The atty didn't put him on the stand for the reasons I stated above, not because he told her anything horrible.

The attorney's case notes are confidential and privileged. You are not going to see them.

Beyond a reasonable doubt does not even mean unequivocally and even that is not a standard that is required to form or express an opinion outside of a court of law. Nobody uses this standard to draw conclusions and shouldn't anywhere except the jury box. Thinking that someone should is naive, imo.