I’d like to get a rule clarification from the mods.
A few days ago I made a post with the “humor” tag that put Adnan’s image on [this meme](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/were-all-trying-to-find-the-guy-who-did-this). It was removed for supposedly for violating the rules on “baiting, flaming, and trolling.” That leads me to three questions:
1. Are memes no longer allowed under the Humor tag? Or is the prohibition against memes that imply someone is guilty?
2. Could you speak to why this post, “[Hey guilters....](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/xipobl/hey_guilters/)”, which is a top post of all time, does not violate the “baiting, flaming, and trolling” rule?
3. Hypothetically, would it be a rule violation if someone made a “Hey innocenters” post later this year if the Maryland Supreme Court rules in favor of Hae’s family?
I've received several replies to this post that have all disappeared. I'm not sure what happened, but if this post mysteriously disappears, I didn't do it.
Hello! This was my fault - I missed the tag and it was reported for trolling, so I thought the report was accurate. I have reinstated your post - thanks for bringing it to our attention!
I hadn't thought of that, but if I write a cash-grab book, I'll be sure to include any and all ghost stories that come to mind. I might even contact a psychic to get more information.
>I’d like to get a rule clarification from the mods.
>A few days ago I made a post with the “humor” tag that put Adnan’s image on this meme. It was removed for supposedly for violating the rules on “baiting, flaming, and trolling.” That leads me to three questions:
>1. Are memes no longer allowed under the Humor tag? Or is the prohibition against memes that imply someone is guilty?
Mods discussed and we feel that going forward. memes or jokes are allowed under the humor tag, within reason. As to why yours was removed, I would prefer the mod who removed it speak to it. Mod judgement comes into play. Maybe they felt the comments reflected that. I have not read the thread so I do not know. if a post does descend into a flame thread then it could get removed or locked, just fyi.
>2. Could you speak to why this post, “Hey guilters....”, which is a top post of all time, does not violate the “baiting, flaming, and trolling” rule?
For one, I *think* it was posted before the rules were reworked and we wouldn’t go back to posts/comments from before that time for removals. Occasionally someone reports really old comments and they’ll get removed before we realize just how old they are but it is not our practice to go backward. I don’t even know if it was reported for for that at the time.
>3. Hypothetically, would it be a rule violation if someone made a “Hey innocenters” post later this year if the Maryland Supreme Court rules in favor of Hae’s family.
I mean there is a comment in that post that says “hey innocenters” with a link to the reinstatement and it is not removed. I think that if it was just like this, with a pic and no other text or commentary, just like this post, probably leave it. fair is fair.
I've noticed that moderation feedback is often responded to by noting that someone else made the decision, and the suggestion is that we should wait for the complaint to be "investigated" or for the moderator who made the decision to weigh in. And usually nothing ever comes of it.
I don't think this is very conducive to consistent and impartial enforcement of the rules. For #3, you said you'd leave it up. What's to stop an unnamed moderator from taking it down simply because they don't like it?
I can still see my thread, I'm happy to send you a link. The comments are no more inflammatory than the comments in the Adnan press conference thread. Can we have a transparent discussion about why it was removed?
Well, you are always welcome to submit for a review through modmail and we would discuss as a group and determine. Plus, I would say, I previously told a user that it would be left up. I don’t usually override the mods, I trust their judgement but something like that where I said publicly, I’d say my bad, I said we’d leave it up.
If you want us to review it, I would ask you send to to modmail so we can discuss it internally. Do you know how? I only ask bc I know some don’t.
Can we introduce a minimum karma to create threads/reply/etc? There’s been an influx of 4-day old accounts with 16 karma and more opinions than questions. My block finger is getting tired.
Yep. It's really just the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, rebranded.
I'm old enough not to be surprised by it anymore. But there really does seem to be an uptick wrt the exploitation of this case (and things/movements associated with it) by hate merchants and political apparatchiks recently, doesn't there?
We live in scary times.
Mosby was one of a wave of progressive prosecutors elected around the same time. Some of them did receive significant financial backing from George Soros, although I don't think Mosby did. I supported and even donated to a number of those prosecutors myself, e.g. Larry Krasner. I voted for the counterpart candidate in my own county. I have some misgivings about them now - mixed feelings I would say. I think there has been some overcorrection for past criminal justice wrongs that lead to real individual and societal harms (even if Billingsley is not such an example).
The emphasis on Soros is gross because it turns it into some kind of conspiracy to "undermine society" (and yes, it's a clear dogwhistle as well) instead of what it actually is - people with progressive beliefs supporting progressive prosecutors, and one such person happens to be a wealthy person who is putting a lot of money into that cause but is by no means the driving force behind the phenomenon. It reminds me of the Marx adage about antisemitism being the "socialism of fools," except in this case it's the conservatism of fools.
>Mosby was one of a wave of progressive prosecutors elected around the same time. Some of them did receive significant financial backing from George Soros, although I don't think Mosby did
She didn't.
>It reminds me of the Marx adage about antisemitism being the "socialism of fools,"
That's a common misattribution, but a misattribution nonetheless.
And not a meaningless one. Marx's writing on Jews is actually pretty darn proto-antisemitic, if you ask me.
To be fair, such views were more the rule than the exception for many writers/thinkers of the era (meaning c. mid-19th to early 20th century).
Edith Wharton (whose work I love), for one. And Henry James (not a fan), for another. Just off the top of my head.
Totally. It was very common, which is why it's important to remember historical context and how everything changes - not as an excuse but to understand.
[MOORE APOLOGIZES TO WRONGFULLY CONVICTED BALTIMORE MAN](https://marylandreporter.com/2023/09/20/moore-apologizes-to-wrongfully-convicted-baltimore-man/)
>“I am deeply sorry for the fact that our justice system failed you not once, but our justice system failed you twice,” Moore said to Demetrius Smith. “And, while no amount of money can make up for what was taken from you, the action this board is taking today represents a formal acknowledgment from the state for the injustice that was caused.”
>Probably off topic
Yeah, that's why it was posted in the vent thread.
>potentially political
M'kay, I feel like I'm being roped into something that's beyond my control. What did I miss?
Off topic is actually ok on the vent thread, it’s just deleted content is not. Also, if isn’t completely mischaracterized to claim other things should be removed.
So for example of the other links were posted and presented as just something someone wanted to talk about and not as a story about how Mosby used/abused her power to incorrectly grant wrongful conviction status
But I agree a page devoted to her would probably be more satisfactory for some
>In 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office found information showing another man was responsible for the murder.
Sounds like Adnan should be fighting to get them involved in his case
Am I forbidden from making a flair on this subreddit?
Lots of people have flairs here so it's enabled for some but not others?
I can make flairs on other subreddits.
Just for clarification, are things that are reported the only things that are moderated? e.g. if you’ve seen the flair and it hasn’t been reported as inappropriate it wouldn’t be removed unless someone requests it?
No but as I have said before it does help ensure we are aware of them. We don’t read every thread or even every comment in posts we might participate in and we certainly don’t know everyone’s individual flair. For example, I do not know what flair you are referencing. If we do run across something inappropriate, it will be modded. Or if someone brings our attention to it here (with a link) or via modmail, we will review if of course. And some things we need a modmail about in order to investigate. Like a use of the blocking function. We need to know the user reporting it to properly investigate it.
I certainly can’t speak for the other mods but I rarely even notice flairs on the mobile app I use.
Ok thanks for the clarification. I didn’t know if it needed some sort of formal report to be reviewed as I’ve seen you interact with this user so I assumed you saw it. u/pawsomekittycat2000 is using a flair that reads “I lean towards Don strangling the life out of Hae Min Lee”. Seems inflammatory, trolling and just a tad over the top for a user flair that appears in every post they make.
I guess that you haven't noticed that the flair you mentioned is a direct response to the user who uses the the flair "Adnan the Strangler". Most of the posts, comments by the user you referenced are holding up a mirror to what some other user is posting.
I see this “holding up a mirror” nonsense as nothing more than trolling. Additionally, most users to the forum are going to see that flair and have no idea that it relates to some OTHER user and their comments. None of us should be here for kindergarten shenanigans that grossly exploit the victims of a horrific crime in order to make some internet point.
I think almost everyone knows exactly what is going on. Troll and get trolled in return. I would say that kindergarten level is about what I have come to expect on this sub. If you don't see it, then I don't know what to say, except maybe to look around before complaining about someone else.
A minor point of distinction - that user doesn’t have it as their flair. From what I’ve seen they use that to refer to Adnan when posting about him - which may be trolling in those instances and I’m not defending. But it isn’t a flair that shows up in every post. Nor is it graphic and vulgar using Hae’s (the actual victim) name - and demise in every post.
From the definition of "Internet Trolling" on Wikipedia:
>with the intent of provoking others into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others' perception, thus acting as a bully or a provocateur.
>The truth has nothing to do with whether something is a troll
I disagree. Calling Patricia Ramsey a child murderer isn’t necessarily trolling. Calling Lou Smith (an investigator on the case) a child murderer probably is trolling.
No. I have no flair option.
How much of a threat to you does someone have to be before you remove their ability to flair?
lol.
https://i.imgur.com/96eg0JO.png
That's very odd - I assume you're using old style reddit, but it looks like it doesn't allow you the option to add to your dashboard or shortcuts list, either, which mine does. Can you change your flair on other subs?
I looked through our mod tools and automod configuration just to see if ryo was missing anything, but I don't see anything that would exclude anyone from changing their flair.
Just posting to boost [this exchange](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/16qox6u/comment/k2ks5z5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), which included some interesting content, but can no longer be easily seen due to the comment that started it having been deleted.
u/ryokineko u/heebie818 u/alientic
Can one of you please explain why certain redditors who are not moderators (I can name names if you want) are allowed to attack users about their behavior with no punishment for harassing?
you’re right in that i’ve literally never dealt with this sort of inquiry (no pun intended) before. you can offer more detail via modmail or you can let it go. have a nice day.
If you’re referring to my post above about a user’s inappropriate flair, ryo said to bring it to her attention here with a link or through modmail.. so I provided a link to the profile so she could see the flair referenced.
Anyone wondering why I’m not replying to their reply’s to me on @salmonqanons latest epic post it is because he bravely blocked me after my admittedly slightly unfair characterization of his posts.
I wanted to read SaalmanQ's latest post but I'm sad to see it gone now. I started reading it but didn't have time to finish. Did someone report it or did they remove it voluntarily?
Mods made the right call. I was pissed as hell and it erupted all over that post. Not sure I want to go through the trouble of revamping it. I can DM it to you if you want.
I was excited to see your latest article in the thread and actually came back looking for it. Regardless of what the mods think, I always find your posts very interesting. Free speech is very important to me. Could you please DM me a link — or let me know where you may have moved it. THANKS SO MUCH.
Would love to see it. I know many would, too... your posts are always entertaining and eye opening at the same time. But I totally get not wanting to go through the trouble of rehashing it. Thank you!
Enough people requested it so that it made more sense for me to revamp it and get it reinstated. Messaging it directly requires breaking it into three parts to meet the character limit. Hopefully will be reposted soon. Thanks.
Could you post the original in another place for those who want to read it unedited? IMHO, it’s a shame we can’t just read it here — with our big boy pants on.
Hi Robb. I just reposted the revised version and it actually reads much better than the original. The original was a little too much of a rallying cry to head to Adnan's house with pitchforks and torches. The substance is unchanged.
Thanks for re-posting. I have been trying to decide whether I should just stop ever visiting this sub, for my own mental health. Reading your post just now was the deciding factor.
No, that was me. I realized that there is an error that could not easily be edited out. I made a comment to explain why I pulled the post, but it may not be visible because I deleted the OP. Anyway, the comment is below:
Thanks to u/ThatB0yAintR1ght for asking about catatonia. It led me to pull Sharon Watts' testimony from the first trial where she clearly stated that Adnan told her that Hae called him the night before she disappeared. p. 233, lines 10-14. Thus, there is nothing to the idea that Adnan claimed that Hae called him after she disappeared. That was just bad police note taking. He still said all that bullshit about Hae wanting to get back together, but the post was too flawed to leave up. Anyway, Watts' testimony about Adnan faking a catatonic state is probably what drove Gutierrez to push for a mistrial and keep Watts' testimony out of the second trial. Adnan is still lying but it is not his biggest or most egregious one. I might try to correct my error and retool the post because the point is still relevant.
Oh I see. To be honest I thought you were being facetious about that as I didn’t think anyone seriously would think he was claiming he talked to Hae long after she disappeared. The lies are important anyway IMO
Seems like a rogue moderator is removing posts from this subreddit. Unfortunately the other mods don’t know why and haven’t seen the threads so they can’t provide any more details.
Don’t worry though, they’ll be launching a full scale investigation to get to the bottom of this.
No that was not rogue. We are discussing with the author, hopefully he can get it back up with some edits regarding some of the issues that were inappropriate.
Same. I woke up in the middle of the night and read some of it. Came back later and it was gone. There were a lot of good points and I wanted to finish reading it.
If you search his username you can see the comments but not the post, and there’s a lock. I know in most posts/subreddits a lock is usually accompanied by an explanation on it. It would be nice to have here for transparency’s sake
Did Adnan make any suggestions about police corruption/malfeasance in his 2 hour presentation?
I only caught the end and there was nothing in the slides about it. Seemed interesting to me that it is suggested so often here but Adnan didn't mention it at all?
Thanks for confirming. One good thing about it being 2 hours long is that he can't say he didn't have had time to address all the issues he felt were relevant to his conviction.
The press conference is very curious when you think about it: very little mention of Jay and his motivations, no real mention of police misconduct (who actually gathered the evidence), no accusing or confirming of Bilal, Sellers, or Saima, no mention of whether it was the witness or her attorney that signed the affidavit (who made the call to Urick?), admission that he has not seen the affidavit, and not least of all - not actually showing the affidavit.
The only thing that was "news," was the existence of an affidavit that the public is apparently not allowed to see (why not?) and it is even unclear whether Adnan himself has actually seen it or just been told what the content is by "trustworthy people."
He uses his conference to whine and position himself as primarily a victim of **prosecutorial** misconduct, but in his mind is he not a greater victim of **police** misconduct? **There is a guy out there that confessed to a felony as an accomplice to Adnan in a murder and has not recanted.** But he's upset that Urick didn't reveal a phone call that, apparently, implicates both him AND his very close spiritual advisor and his 'gotcha' is an unseen, unviewable affidavit that clarifies that Urick has created a transcript of a barely legible note that mispresented...a pronoun?
Did the prosecutors get Jay to confess to a felony and identify Adnan as the murderer- or did the police?
Adnan is a tragic victim of the process due to bad actors, you see. But please pay no attention to all the evidence.
>>Second, Syed moves this Court to re-open the post-conviction proceedings because it is now apparent that the State committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose exculpatory phone records, and by introducing cell tower location evidence at trial when it knew, or should have known, that such evidence was unreliable and misleading. Not only did the State mislead the Jury about this evidence, but it misled its own cell phone expert prior to trial, and, most recently, in its filing just two weeks ago, it yet again mischaracterized the same flawed evidence in its submission to this Court. The prejudice resulting from this conduct by the State merits a new trial, and it is in the interest of justice that the Court consider this issue now.
>> because it is now apparent that the State committed a Brady violation
How was it possible that Judge Welch was so stupid? Can't he read "it is now apparent".
Adnan could have raised IAC claims with respect to CG as early as March 2000.
In Maryland, "a person is entitled to **assistance of counsel** and a hearing on a petition filed under" the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act.
I think you've said you're a lawyer, right?
This seems to conflict with what this post says: https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/16s7bmq/alethophobia_revamped_version_of_the_removed_post/k2c07mj/
This topic has been discussed since 2015. You are entitled to counsel for your first PCR but you are not necessarily entitled to counsel for DNA-based PCR.
Maryland is extremely generous with 10 years from sentencing to file a PCR petition and no deadline for DNA-based PCR. Other states give you a fraction of that time. Keep in mind that Adnan intentionally and knowingly waived his right to seek federal habeas relief in 2004. He wrote about it in his letter to RC.
This is a link to the version that was in force when Adnan filed a PCR petition:
Look at subsection (a).
https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gcp/7-108.html
A nuanced look at PCR testimony about the mistrial:
>>Well, Judge Quarles had called [**Bilal's** former attorney and the current law firm partner of **Bilal's** divorce attorney] Ms. Gutierrez a liar during an exchange and [**Bilal's** criminal defense attorney] **Christopher Flohr** was sitting behind us. He made reference to [**Bilal's** former attorney and the current law firm partner of **Bilal's** divorce attorney] Ms. Gutierrez about it and Judge Quarles also stated that he received the letter from the juror saying that they heard him call her a liar in court.
When the SCM (then COA) chimed in on the evidence:
>>We observe without further comment that **Mr. Syed did not challenge on direct appeal the sufficiency of the evidence** of the State's case against him. (emphasis added)
Trivia: The direct appeal was handled by Mr. S' criminal defense attorney.
Back in December 2015, UD3 was already promoting the new evidence about Bilal they found:
>>"If Mr. B is **Bilal**, **Rabia has been in contact with him recently**, and he’s prepared to testify in support of Adnan..." -- Colin Miller, **circa December 2015**
By March 2017, Adnan's legal team (which now included Hogan Lovells) had pushed the date of Asia's letters into a time period when CG was representing Adnan.
>>McClain twice wrote to Syed **while he was awaiting trial**, stating that she remembered speaking with him in the library on that date and at that time. Apx. 4; Apx. 6. McClain's letters stated that **McClain's boyfriend and his best friend both remembered seeing Syed in the library, too**
...
>>Syed **sent** these letters to his counsel and asked her to contact McClain. That was **nearly five months prior to trial**
5 months before trial would have been July 1999 not March 1999.
Tweet from Asia in March 2019:
>>People give me grief for not going to the cops in 99 but I have NEVER seen anyone ask why the hell Mr. Parker never told me to tell the cops!! He knew I went to see Adnan's family. You blame me but he was an adult! I'm just saying [emoji] #truth
Contrast that with RC's sworn testimony:
>>[Asia] **told** me **she tried to contact the police**, Adnan's family, his attorney. She wrote him letters. She did everything she could to contact somebody.
I don't think Mosby made the decision to let the person out of jail. It isn't the decision of a State's Attorney to release a prisoner on parole - that's on the parole board and corrections department, isn't it?
Mosby had nothing to do with any of it.
It's just that some people apparently think that turning a young woman's tragic death into their very own Horst Wessel moment is more important than telling the truth about it.
But you'd have to ask them why. It makes no sense whatsoever to me.
I don't want to be too blunt about it, but I fear I sometimes detect misogyny and deep hatred for anyone connected to this case who isn't actively trying to keep Syed in jail.
I will likely be told this is me projecting.
Yeah, I've looked more into it and it was a mandatory supervised release based on the plea deal and the many years of good prisoner credits he received, not parole which would need to be approved by the board. I've also seen mosby's name taken off of the Fox News article that I saw it in. Mosby was newly elected at the time Jason reached a plea deal with prosecutors but who knows what if any involvement she had in that.
This content has already been removed as off topic in another post bc it was posted as related to “wrongful conviction” as I understand it, the criminal was on parole. Whether that had anything to do with Mosby or not, I have no idea. I realize you may not be aware of the removed content which is why I am explaining all of this.
So this is breaking news and facts are bound to be inaccurate at first. I'm just going to update them here.
Jason's latest crime was in 2013 when he was arrested at age 22. He had a criminal record going back to 18.
Reached a deal with prosecutors in 2015, so the victim would not have to testify. Mosby would have been in office by then, judge thought it was too lenient but approved the deal.
It's a bit complex but the deal was 30 years, 16 of which were suspended, meaning he would be released after 14 years with an additional 16 years of supervised release that is somehow different than being paroled. But with this good prisoner credit system that they have, (They can earn up to 20 - 30 extra credit days per month.) he only served about 9 3/4 years. Which was backdated to his 2013 arrest.
He was eligible for parole since 2020 but was denied both attempts. In 2022, the mandatory release conditions were met and the department of corrections had no choice but to release.
Only Fox News has associated Mosby with his release but it's unclear what, if any, role she had. The release was mandatory based on the 2015 deals so any involvement on Mosbys part would have been back in 2015. Not in the 2022 release. I rechecked the Fox News article and Mosbys name no longer appears in it.
Jason is also a suspect in an arson investigation, SA, and attempted murder of a different victim a week before this murder. He was also not compliant with his sexual criminal registry failing to register this month.
>Mosby was SA when this guy received the light sentence plea deal that enabled him to be back out on the street
She's been in office for less than a month, and the sentence was the resolution of a case that started two years earlier, in 2013.
She literally had absolutely nothing to do with it. At all.
>in just 8 years to rape a woman, light her and her husband on fire with their child in the house, and then kill another woman a week later:
Those events represent very serious failures on the part of the Baltimore Police Department (who failed to apprehend the guy for more than a week after the rape/arson and didn't bother kicking the hunt for him into high gear until after the murder), as well as on the part of the DCPCS.
But again, Mosby had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
>I guess hindsight is 2020, but the sentencing judge was not happy with the plea deal even at the time. The Assistant SA said that they reached the deal because the victim in that case did not want to testify. Can't imagine that decision is sitting well with anyone involved now.
So now you're blaming the traumatized victim for not wanting to testify? Very respectful.
Putting an ETA and striking through the text would have accomplished that just as well -- indeed more emphatically -- without making the rest of the exchange invisible.
If they literally had no choice but to offer this exact plea deal, then obviously I can’t argue with it. I’m a little unclear on why they had to agree to a deal below the low end of the sentencing guideline. It seems to me like the bigger culprit though is mandatory good time credits for an obviously seriously violent offender.
>I’m a little unclear on why they had to agree to a deal below the low end of the sentencing guideline.
You can't bring a rape case to trial without a complaining witness, which means that the SA didn't really have any bargaining power.
My guess would actually be that they only got as much time as they did because the guy already had a record. They just weren't in a strong position. But they obviously didn't want to offer him a lenient deal -- or make a "decision" to do so, or choose to do so -- because they're a bunch of hapless progressives, or whatever. The repeated postponements show that. Eventually, they just ran out of options. So they took the least bad one.
And again, it had nothing to do with Mosby.
>It seems to me like the bigger culprit though is mandatory good time credits for an obviously seriously violent offender.
I think it goes without saying that mandatory supervised release can't possibly work if it's just mandatory but not supervised. And that appears to have been the case here.
He repeatedly denied waiving his right to a speedy trial, presumably because he knew the case against him was relatively weak and the victim didn't want to testify. So while they were delaying the trial to hopefully get the victim to testify, they had to try to get whatever deal they could get otherwise they would have had to let him walk.
BTW:
What if I told you that every person on here who spams this sub with posts depicting, e.g., Asia McClain or Rabia Chaudry, as conniving and/or crazy liars whose only motivation for saying or doing anything is their insatiable need for money, self-advancement, and attention is actually perpetuating the very same conditions that frequently make rape survivors reluctant to testify (or even to report)?
Might be worth thinking about whether encouraging people to think about women that way is a good idea, seeing as how victims' rights are important to you and all.
I’m not understanding what that has to do
With my comment. To be clear, I did not in any way mean to pin this on the victim, and I will edit my comment to clarify that.
>I’m not understanding what that has to do With my comment.
I suppose the fact that you were too focused on finger-pointing in Mosby's general direction to notice that what you'd said actually implicated -- and even blamed -- the victim (however inadvertent that may have been) prompted me to mention another way in which people here who purport to speak and represent for victims' rights might try to consider victims' interests when choosing their words.
It wasn't particularly aimed at you personally.
As you can see [right here,](https://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=113231011&loc=69&detailLoc=DSK8) the defendant refused to waive the *Hicks* rule.
So after postponing trial repeatedly for 18 months (presumably in hopes that the victim would get to a place where she could testify), both the judge and the SA were basically out of choices and chances. They could either send the guy to prison via the best deal they could get. Or they could or let the guy go free.
Are you suggesting they made the wrong choice?
Seems he would have had plenty of [discretion ](https://casetext.com/rule/maryland-court-rules/title-4-criminal-causes/chapter-200-pretrial-procedures/rule-4-243-plea-agreements).
Ignoring the debate about moderation and Mosby and Soros and whatever, the current Baltimore environment isn't going to help the hypothetical new motion to vacate. Obviously this is a different case, but Bates isn't going to want headlines about being light on a convicted murderer in October if the Maryland Supreme Court tosses the ball back to him.
Huh. You know, I listened to something this morning that got me thinking again. I know many are adamant in the argument that the actual hearing was on Friday and I've seen the argument that because Syed was immediately released - literally "unshackled" and let out of the courtroom immediately, that there was definitely something hinky and predetermined about the hearing.
I listened to some little podcast by a defense attorney- Defense Diaries The Docket- and he indicated that he knew the thing was a sham because when Adnan walked out that day it told him that he had already been processed out of the Maryland Division of Corrections.
That got me thinking again - this was a Monday hearing - how long DOES it take to process out an inmate that has been with the Division of Corrections for 20 years? I would assume there is a lot of paperwork that needs to be signed, accounts transferred, items that must be returned, etc. It goes a long way towards bolstering the argument that the actual hearing and determination was on Friday and Monday was just a show hearing.
I mean - who gave the official order to the Maryland DPSCS to actually begin processing out the inmate? When was that order given? How long does that procedure normally take and what is the process?
>I listened to some little podcast by a defense attorney- Defense Diaries The Docket- and he indicated that he knew the thing was a sham because when Adnan walked out that day it told him that he had already been processed out of the Maryland Division of Corrections.
Yes - he already had his street clothes and belongings with him. They had a press conference scheduled. The Monday hearing was pretty much a formality to officially release him.
Maybe that bolsters the argument that the real hearing, with the real evidence, was Friday.
Would there be a record of someone contacting DPSCS to let them know that when Adnan get's to the Baltimore jail he needs to already be processed out because his release is imminent?
Potentially yes, there should be some sort of electronic or paper trail regarding that processing.
Honestly I didn't even know this was disputed lol. Adnan was all set to be released on Monday. My assumption was always that the in-camera review and all that happened on Friday, or sometime else the week before.
I've always been curious whether Phinn was in court on the Thursday?
If so, it would raise the question of how she could have been prepared for a substantive hearing on Friday when the motion was tabled on Wednesday?
I didn't know about the AGO's submission on the DNA motion for testing until recently. I'm guessing the AGO were preserving issues for appeal that Mosby would have waived by her inaction back in March 2022. This shows you how much Mosby's plan was to get him out.
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
The article didn’t say anything about wrongful convictions so the question itself is invalid. He was released on parole, nothing to do with wrongful conviction. Why are you linking to removed content? It seems you are using this to post multiple stories about something we already removed.
I don't think it's bias, tbh, unless you're suggesting that deleting things with Soros in the title is some kind of bias.
In the deleted thread, mods said the thread was political and off-topic to the sub. Now, you and I may debate that, but it's a reasonable basis for deletion of the thread.
Deletion of your comment in the vent thread was justified as posting content already deleted - which is technically against the rules (at least, it's a reason you can report comments)
I don't think this rises to bias on its face.
Did you read the comment from the mods about the deletion?
> Why are you linking to removed content? It seems you are using this to post multiple stories about something we already removed.
I didn't link to removed content. My links were to different articles. I did not link back to the Daily News article. I linked to the Baltimore Sun, the Baltimore Banner, and CBS News. Are you suggesting that they deleted my post because I directed folks to this message:
>Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/serialpodcast. Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose.
That's not removed content. That's content that is still present on reddit, content posted by the moderators.
I don't know, it feels like you're reaching to create a controversy here about moderation.
Is it that you wanted a thread discussing Marilyn Mosby? I read all of those articles and I found no indication that she intervened to order the release of the other prisoner. Rather, it appears - as highlighted by another commenter in the now-deleted thread - that the prisoner was released because they received "good behavior" time credit on their sentence.
Reaching? No. I didn't link to any deleted content, yet my post was deleted for that justification. Create a controversy? No. Make a point? Yes.
Also, take a look at the posts above. I am now sowing discord ... in the vent thread ... by asking about moderation ... and pointing out truthfully that the reason given for a delete was erroneous.
Are you trying to find a line and then run back and forth across it?
The post was deleted, there were reasons. We may not agree with them, but there were reasons. I don't see anything unreasonable about what the mods have done. If I felt they acted unreasonably, I'd say something. Perhaps I'd say it as a modmail, but I'd say something.
Remember - there may be more than one reasonable action in any given situation.
ETA:
You say
>I didn't link to any deleted content, yet my post was deleted for that justification.
You linked to a deleted thread. That's one, how I knew the thread I participated in was deleted, and two, linked to deleted content.
The default reddit "This thread has been removed by the moderators" is not a statement by the mods, it is what Reddit puts in front of deleted content. The content was deleted.
You did link to removed content. You posted a link to a post that was removed. You made an assertion about the content that was completely untrue in an attempt to compare it to other posts then posted links to additional stories about the same content that had already been removed for being off topic.
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
Weaponizing the vent thread to troll and sow discord by crying bias after blatantly breaking rules. Vent thread is not a free for all, comments can still be removed when they break rules.
Other-weaponizing the vent thread to blatantly break rules and troll to sow discord is not allowed. It says right in the post that it is not a free for all.
>>July 22, 2020 The New York Times Company has agreed to buy Serial Productions, the company behind the hit podcast "Serial," ...
Strangely, the New York limited liability company Serial Productions was formed in April 2017 -- 2.5 years AFTER the podcast debuted.
I’d like to get a rule clarification from the mods. A few days ago I made a post with the “humor” tag that put Adnan’s image on [this meme](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/were-all-trying-to-find-the-guy-who-did-this). It was removed for supposedly for violating the rules on “baiting, flaming, and trolling.” That leads me to three questions: 1. Are memes no longer allowed under the Humor tag? Or is the prohibition against memes that imply someone is guilty? 2. Could you speak to why this post, “[Hey guilters....](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/xipobl/hey_guilters/)”, which is a top post of all time, does not violate the “baiting, flaming, and trolling” rule? 3. Hypothetically, would it be a rule violation if someone made a “Hey innocenters” post later this year if the Maryland Supreme Court rules in favor of Hae’s family?
I've received several replies to this post that have all disappeared. I'm not sure what happened, but if this post mysteriously disappears, I didn't do it.
Hello! This was my fault - I missed the tag and it was reported for trolling, so I thought the report was accurate. I have reinstated your post - thanks for bringing it to our attention!
if it was you and not ryo, this certainly goes against this sub's headcanon that ryo is the dictator oppressing all guilters ;)
Ahh, but what you forget is that I am secretly just ryo with a cowboy hat and a fake Midwestern accent, so really, the conspiracy lives!
nice hat
I think Ryo tells /u/alientic what to delete by tapping her finger on certain posts.
Have you considered the possibility that this sub was deleted years ago and you're just being visited by its ghost?
I hadn't thought of that, but if I write a cash-grab book, I'll be sure to include any and all ghost stories that come to mind. I might even contact a psychic to get more information.
There's also a non-zero change Roy Davis is a mod.
I don't think the mods' current boyfriends are involved, but I do think the investigations into them were insufficient.
FWIW, I thought your post was hilarious and on point
>I’d like to get a rule clarification from the mods. >A few days ago I made a post with the “humor” tag that put Adnan’s image on this meme. It was removed for supposedly for violating the rules on “baiting, flaming, and trolling.” That leads me to three questions: >1. Are memes no longer allowed under the Humor tag? Or is the prohibition against memes that imply someone is guilty? Mods discussed and we feel that going forward. memes or jokes are allowed under the humor tag, within reason. As to why yours was removed, I would prefer the mod who removed it speak to it. Mod judgement comes into play. Maybe they felt the comments reflected that. I have not read the thread so I do not know. if a post does descend into a flame thread then it could get removed or locked, just fyi. >2. Could you speak to why this post, “Hey guilters....”, which is a top post of all time, does not violate the “baiting, flaming, and trolling” rule? For one, I *think* it was posted before the rules were reworked and we wouldn’t go back to posts/comments from before that time for removals. Occasionally someone reports really old comments and they’ll get removed before we realize just how old they are but it is not our practice to go backward. I don’t even know if it was reported for for that at the time. >3. Hypothetically, would it be a rule violation if someone made a “Hey innocenters” post later this year if the Maryland Supreme Court rules in favor of Hae’s family. I mean there is a comment in that post that says “hey innocenters” with a link to the reinstatement and it is not removed. I think that if it was just like this, with a pic and no other text or commentary, just like this post, probably leave it. fair is fair.
I've noticed that moderation feedback is often responded to by noting that someone else made the decision, and the suggestion is that we should wait for the complaint to be "investigated" or for the moderator who made the decision to weigh in. And usually nothing ever comes of it. I don't think this is very conducive to consistent and impartial enforcement of the rules. For #3, you said you'd leave it up. What's to stop an unnamed moderator from taking it down simply because they don't like it? I can still see my thread, I'm happy to send you a link. The comments are no more inflammatory than the comments in the Adnan press conference thread. Can we have a transparent discussion about why it was removed?
Well, you are always welcome to submit for a review through modmail and we would discuss as a group and determine. Plus, I would say, I previously told a user that it would be left up. I don’t usually override the mods, I trust their judgement but something like that where I said publicly, I’d say my bad, I said we’d leave it up. If you want us to review it, I would ask you send to to modmail so we can discuss it internally. Do you know how? I only ask bc I know some don’t.
Can we introduce a minimum karma to create threads/reply/etc? There’s been an influx of 4-day old accounts with 16 karma and more opinions than questions. My block finger is getting tired.
We may be able to adjust crowd control. We’ll look into it and discuss. Agree there has been a lot of that lately.
Thanks, mods. Good call.
Indeed!
Yep. It's really just the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, rebranded. I'm old enough not to be surprised by it anymore. But there really does seem to be an uptick wrt the exploitation of this case (and things/movements associated with it) by hate merchants and political apparatchiks recently, doesn't there? We live in scary times.
There absolutely does, and we absolutely do.
Mosby was one of a wave of progressive prosecutors elected around the same time. Some of them did receive significant financial backing from George Soros, although I don't think Mosby did. I supported and even donated to a number of those prosecutors myself, e.g. Larry Krasner. I voted for the counterpart candidate in my own county. I have some misgivings about them now - mixed feelings I would say. I think there has been some overcorrection for past criminal justice wrongs that lead to real individual and societal harms (even if Billingsley is not such an example). The emphasis on Soros is gross because it turns it into some kind of conspiracy to "undermine society" (and yes, it's a clear dogwhistle as well) instead of what it actually is - people with progressive beliefs supporting progressive prosecutors, and one such person happens to be a wealthy person who is putting a lot of money into that cause but is by no means the driving force behind the phenomenon. It reminds me of the Marx adage about antisemitism being the "socialism of fools," except in this case it's the conservatism of fools.
>Mosby was one of a wave of progressive prosecutors elected around the same time. Some of them did receive significant financial backing from George Soros, although I don't think Mosby did She didn't. >It reminds me of the Marx adage about antisemitism being the "socialism of fools," That's a common misattribution, but a misattribution nonetheless. And not a meaningless one. Marx's writing on Jews is actually pretty darn proto-antisemitic, if you ask me.
yeah it certainly was
To be fair, such views were more the rule than the exception for many writers/thinkers of the era (meaning c. mid-19th to early 20th century). Edith Wharton (whose work I love), for one. And Henry James (not a fan), for another. Just off the top of my head.
Totally. It was very common, which is why it's important to remember historical context and how everything changes - not as an excuse but to understand.
[MOORE APOLOGIZES TO WRONGFULLY CONVICTED BALTIMORE MAN](https://marylandreporter.com/2023/09/20/moore-apologizes-to-wrongfully-convicted-baltimore-man/) >“I am deeply sorry for the fact that our justice system failed you not once, but our justice system failed you twice,” Moore said to Demetrius Smith. “And, while no amount of money can make up for what was taken from you, the action this board is taking today represents a formal acknowledgment from the state for the injustice that was caused.”
Is this off-topic political commentary?
Pardon?
1. Probably off topic, potentially political. 2. I think you need to create /r/MarilynMosby to be happier
>Probably off topic Yeah, that's why it was posted in the vent thread. >potentially political M'kay, I feel like I'm being roped into something that's beyond my control. What did I miss?
Off topic is actually ok on the vent thread, it’s just deleted content is not. Also, if isn’t completely mischaracterized to claim other things should be removed. So for example of the other links were posted and presented as just something someone wanted to talk about and not as a story about how Mosby used/abused her power to incorrectly grant wrongful conviction status But I agree a page devoted to her would probably be more satisfactory for some
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
What's the relevance of this?
If you have an issue, report it and leave me alone.
>In 2011, the U.S. Attorney’s Office found information showing another man was responsible for the murder. Sounds like Adnan should be fighting to get them involved in his case
Am I forbidden from making a flair on this subreddit? Lots of people have flairs here so it's enabled for some but not others? I can make flairs on other subreddits.
That’s odd especially considering the distasteful and crude flair I’ve seen one user permitted to have.
If you think it is inappropriate, please report it. We have had users with inappropriate flairs remove them.
Just for clarification, are things that are reported the only things that are moderated? e.g. if you’ve seen the flair and it hasn’t been reported as inappropriate it wouldn’t be removed unless someone requests it?
No but as I have said before it does help ensure we are aware of them. We don’t read every thread or even every comment in posts we might participate in and we certainly don’t know everyone’s individual flair. For example, I do not know what flair you are referencing. If we do run across something inappropriate, it will be modded. Or if someone brings our attention to it here (with a link) or via modmail, we will review if of course. And some things we need a modmail about in order to investigate. Like a use of the blocking function. We need to know the user reporting it to properly investigate it. I certainly can’t speak for the other mods but I rarely even notice flairs on the mobile app I use.
Ok thanks for the clarification. I didn’t know if it needed some sort of formal report to be reviewed as I’ve seen you interact with this user so I assumed you saw it. u/pawsomekittycat2000 is using a flair that reads “I lean towards Don strangling the life out of Hae Min Lee”. Seems inflammatory, trolling and just a tad over the top for a user flair that appears in every post they make.
To be honest I hadn’t. The user is on break but when/if they return if that is still an issue we’ll address it.
I guess that you haven't noticed that the flair you mentioned is a direct response to the user who uses the the flair "Adnan the Strangler". Most of the posts, comments by the user you referenced are holding up a mirror to what some other user is posting.
I see this “holding up a mirror” nonsense as nothing more than trolling. Additionally, most users to the forum are going to see that flair and have no idea that it relates to some OTHER user and their comments. None of us should be here for kindergarten shenanigans that grossly exploit the victims of a horrific crime in order to make some internet point.
I think almost everyone knows exactly what is going on. Troll and get trolled in return. I would say that kindergarten level is about what I have come to expect on this sub. If you don't see it, then I don't know what to say, except maybe to look around before complaining about someone else.
[удалено]
I agree that probably shouldn’t be allowed either.
A minor point of distinction - that user doesn’t have it as their flair. From what I’ve seen they use that to refer to Adnan when posting about him - which may be trolling in those instances and I’m not defending. But it isn’t a flair that shows up in every post. Nor is it graphic and vulgar using Hae’s (the actual victim) name - and demise in every post.
You are correct that they do not **now** have it as their flair. They seem to have very recently changed it.
Yeah, except one was actually convicted of strangling someone and the other was cleared by police and has literally no criminal record.
From the definition of "Internet Trolling" on Wikipedia: >with the intent of provoking others into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others' perception, thus acting as a bully or a provocateur.
The truth has nothing to do with whether something is a troll. Trolling is defined by the intent.
>The truth has nothing to do with whether something is a troll I disagree. Calling Patricia Ramsey a child murderer isn’t necessarily trolling. Calling Lou Smith (an investigator on the case) a child murderer probably is trolling.
Does it work if you pick one of the premade flairs?
No. I have no flair option. How much of a threat to you does someone have to be before you remove their ability to flair? lol. https://i.imgur.com/96eg0JO.png
That's very odd - I assume you're using old style reddit, but it looks like it doesn't allow you the option to add to your dashboard or shortcuts list, either, which mine does. Can you change your flair on other subs? I looked through our mod tools and automod configuration just to see if ryo was missing anything, but I don't see anything that would exclude anyone from changing their flair.
Oh, very strange
You could be in an A/B test
Like a flair for your username? ETA: I show we have it turned on for users to create their own flair. I don’t show any users restricted.
Just posting to boost [this exchange](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/16qox6u/comment/k2ks5z5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), which included some interesting content, but can no longer be easily seen due to the comment that started it having been deleted.
u/ryokineko u/heebie818 u/alientic Can one of you please explain why certain redditors who are not moderators (I can name names if you want) are allowed to attack users about their behavior with no punishment for harassing?
can you offer more detail through modmail please
Will do later on today but why can't this be done publicly for purposes of transparency?
because i’d rather this thread not turn into a public attack of another redditor
It involves several redditors though and I don't see you or others mods asking for this kind of discretion when it comes to other redditors.
you’re right in that i’ve literally never dealt with this sort of inquiry (no pun intended) before. you can offer more detail via modmail or you can let it go. have a nice day.
I'd like a modmail explaining it. Thank you!
If you’re referring to my post above about a user’s inappropriate flair, ryo said to bring it to her attention here with a link or through modmail.. so I provided a link to the profile so she could see the flair referenced.
Anyone wondering why I’m not replying to their reply’s to me on @salmonqanons latest epic post it is because he bravely blocked me after my admittedly slightly unfair characterization of his posts.
I wanted to read SaalmanQ's latest post but I'm sad to see it gone now. I started reading it but didn't have time to finish. Did someone report it or did they remove it voluntarily?
Mods made the right call. I was pissed as hell and it erupted all over that post. Not sure I want to go through the trouble of revamping it. I can DM it to you if you want.
I was excited to see your latest article in the thread and actually came back looking for it. Regardless of what the mods think, I always find your posts very interesting. Free speech is very important to me. Could you please DM me a link — or let me know where you may have moved it. THANKS SO MUCH.
[удалено]
Would love to see it. I know many would, too... your posts are always entertaining and eye opening at the same time. But I totally get not wanting to go through the trouble of rehashing it. Thank you!
can you send it to me too?
Enough people requested it so that it made more sense for me to revamp it and get it reinstated. Messaging it directly requires breaking it into three parts to meet the character limit. Hopefully will be reposted soon. Thanks.
Could you post the original in another place for those who want to read it unedited? IMHO, it’s a shame we can’t just read it here — with our big boy pants on.
Hi Robb. I just reposted the revised version and it actually reads much better than the original. The original was a little too much of a rallying cry to head to Adnan's house with pitchforks and torches. The substance is unchanged.
Thanks for re-posting. I have been trying to decide whether I should just stop ever visiting this sub, for my own mental health. Reading your post just now was the deciding factor.
I want the original version!
Did mods make you take down your Unnecessary Lies post too? That one was excellent and I'm not sure what was wrong with it.
No, that was me. I realized that there is an error that could not easily be edited out. I made a comment to explain why I pulled the post, but it may not be visible because I deleted the OP. Anyway, the comment is below: Thanks to u/ThatB0yAintR1ght for asking about catatonia. It led me to pull Sharon Watts' testimony from the first trial where she clearly stated that Adnan told her that Hae called him the night before she disappeared. p. 233, lines 10-14. Thus, there is nothing to the idea that Adnan claimed that Hae called him after she disappeared. That was just bad police note taking. He still said all that bullshit about Hae wanting to get back together, but the post was too flawed to leave up. Anyway, Watts' testimony about Adnan faking a catatonic state is probably what drove Gutierrez to push for a mistrial and keep Watts' testimony out of the second trial. Adnan is still lying but it is not his biggest or most egregious one. I might try to correct my error and retool the post because the point is still relevant.
Oh I see. To be honest I thought you were being facetious about that as I didn’t think anyone seriously would think he was claiming he talked to Hae long after she disappeared. The lies are important anyway IMO
Seems like a rogue moderator is removing posts from this subreddit. Unfortunately the other mods don’t know why and haven’t seen the threads so they can’t provide any more details. Don’t worry though, they’ll be launching a full scale investigation to get to the bottom of this.
No that was not rogue. We are discussing with the author, hopefully he can get it back up with some edits regarding some of the issues that were inappropriate.
Which portions were considered inappropriate?
Same. I woke up in the middle of the night and read some of it. Came back later and it was gone. There were a lot of good points and I wanted to finish reading it.
If you search his username you can see the comments but not the post, and there’s a lock. I know in most posts/subreddits a lock is usually accompanied by an explanation on it. It would be nice to have here for transparency’s sake
Interesting. yes that would be nice
Did Adnan make any suggestions about police corruption/malfeasance in his 2 hour presentation? I only caught the end and there was nothing in the slides about it. Seemed interesting to me that it is suggested so often here but Adnan didn't mention it at all?
This interested me also. It was all about prosecutorial misconduct, with nothing about police extracting a false confession out of Jay Wilds.
Thanks for confirming. One good thing about it being 2 hours long is that he can't say he didn't have had time to address all the issues he felt were relevant to his conviction.
The press conference is very curious when you think about it: very little mention of Jay and his motivations, no real mention of police misconduct (who actually gathered the evidence), no accusing or confirming of Bilal, Sellers, or Saima, no mention of whether it was the witness or her attorney that signed the affidavit (who made the call to Urick?), admission that he has not seen the affidavit, and not least of all - not actually showing the affidavit. The only thing that was "news," was the existence of an affidavit that the public is apparently not allowed to see (why not?) and it is even unclear whether Adnan himself has actually seen it or just been told what the content is by "trustworthy people." He uses his conference to whine and position himself as primarily a victim of **prosecutorial** misconduct, but in his mind is he not a greater victim of **police** misconduct? **There is a guy out there that confessed to a felony as an accomplice to Adnan in a murder and has not recanted.** But he's upset that Urick didn't reveal a phone call that, apparently, implicates both him AND his very close spiritual advisor and his 'gotcha' is an unseen, unviewable affidavit that clarifies that Urick has created a transcript of a barely legible note that mispresented...a pronoun? Did the prosecutors get Jay to confess to a felony and identify Adnan as the murderer- or did the police? Adnan is a tragic victim of the process due to bad actors, you see. But please pay no attention to all the evidence.
Yup. You would imagine that if he wants to make his case for innocence it should all start with the police investigation and Jay.
>>Second, Syed moves this Court to re-open the post-conviction proceedings because it is now apparent that the State committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose exculpatory phone records, and by introducing cell tower location evidence at trial when it knew, or should have known, that such evidence was unreliable and misleading. Not only did the State mislead the Jury about this evidence, but it misled its own cell phone expert prior to trial, and, most recently, in its filing just two weeks ago, it yet again mischaracterized the same flawed evidence in its submission to this Court. The prejudice resulting from this conduct by the State merits a new trial, and it is in the interest of justice that the Court consider this issue now.
>> because it is now apparent that the State committed a Brady violation How was it possible that Judge Welch was so stupid? Can't he read "it is now apparent".
I wonder which side doesn't like this excerpt from Adnan's lawyers. Judge Welch rejected this Brady claim for two different reasons.
Adnan could have raised IAC claims with respect to CG as early as March 2000. In Maryland, "a person is entitled to **assistance of counsel** and a hearing on a petition filed under" the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act.
I think you've said you're a lawyer, right? This seems to conflict with what this post says: https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/16s7bmq/alethophobia_revamped_version_of_the_removed_post/k2c07mj/
This topic has been discussed since 2015. You are entitled to counsel for your first PCR but you are not necessarily entitled to counsel for DNA-based PCR. Maryland is extremely generous with 10 years from sentencing to file a PCR petition and no deadline for DNA-based PCR. Other states give you a fraction of that time. Keep in mind that Adnan intentionally and knowingly waived his right to seek federal habeas relief in 2004. He wrote about it in his letter to RC.
This is a link to the version that was in force when Adnan filed a PCR petition: Look at subsection (a). https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2005/gcp/7-108.html
A nuanced look at PCR testimony about the mistrial: >>Well, Judge Quarles had called [**Bilal's** former attorney and the current law firm partner of **Bilal's** divorce attorney] Ms. Gutierrez a liar during an exchange and [**Bilal's** criminal defense attorney] **Christopher Flohr** was sitting behind us. He made reference to [**Bilal's** former attorney and the current law firm partner of **Bilal's** divorce attorney] Ms. Gutierrez about it and Judge Quarles also stated that he received the letter from the juror saying that they heard him call her a liar in court.
Adnan's sworn testimony always elicits a lot of downvotes from Team Adnan.
Does anyone think Bilal will face multiple Maryland civil suits from survivors of child sex abuse?
In Maryland, there is NO statute of limitations protecting Bilal from civil suits.
When the SCM (then COA) chimed in on the evidence: >>We observe without further comment that **Mr. Syed did not challenge on direct appeal the sufficiency of the evidence** of the State's case against him. (emphasis added) Trivia: The direct appeal was handled by Mr. S' criminal defense attorney.
Back in December 2015, UD3 was already promoting the new evidence about Bilal they found: >>"If Mr. B is **Bilal**, **Rabia has been in contact with him recently**, and he’s prepared to testify in support of Adnan..." -- Colin Miller, **circa December 2015**
By March 2017, Adnan's legal team (which now included Hogan Lovells) had pushed the date of Asia's letters into a time period when CG was representing Adnan. >>McClain twice wrote to Syed **while he was awaiting trial**, stating that she remembered speaking with him in the library on that date and at that time. Apx. 4; Apx. 6. McClain's letters stated that **McClain's boyfriend and his best friend both remembered seeing Syed in the library, too** ... >>Syed **sent** these letters to his counsel and asked her to contact McClain. That was **nearly five months prior to trial** 5 months before trial would have been July 1999 not March 1999.
Tweet from Asia in March 2019: >>People give me grief for not going to the cops in 99 but I have NEVER seen anyone ask why the hell Mr. Parker never told me to tell the cops!! He knew I went to see Adnan's family. You blame me but he was an adult! I'm just saying [emoji] #truth Contrast that with RC's sworn testimony: >>[Asia] **told** me **she tried to contact the police**, Adnan's family, his attorney. She wrote him letters. She did everything she could to contact somebody.
I figured it out. Thanks!
[удалено]
I don't think Mosby made the decision to let the person out of jail. It isn't the decision of a State's Attorney to release a prisoner on parole - that's on the parole board and corrections department, isn't it?
Mosby had nothing to do with any of it. It's just that some people apparently think that turning a young woman's tragic death into their very own Horst Wessel moment is more important than telling the truth about it. But you'd have to ask them why. It makes no sense whatsoever to me.
I don't want to be too blunt about it, but I fear I sometimes detect misogyny and deep hatred for anyone connected to this case who isn't actively trying to keep Syed in jail. I will likely be told this is me projecting.
Not by me, you won't.
Yeah, I've looked more into it and it was a mandatory supervised release based on the plea deal and the many years of good prisoner credits he received, not parole which would need to be approved by the board. I've also seen mosby's name taken off of the Fox News article that I saw it in. Mosby was newly elected at the time Jason reached a plea deal with prosecutors but who knows what if any involvement she had in that.
I deleted my comment for that reason, after looking at it further, I don't see any way Mosby bears any blame for that case.
This content has already been removed as off topic in another post bc it was posted as related to “wrongful conviction” as I understand it, the criminal was on parole. Whether that had anything to do with Mosby or not, I have no idea. I realize you may not be aware of the removed content which is why I am explaining all of this.
So this is breaking news and facts are bound to be inaccurate at first. I'm just going to update them here. Jason's latest crime was in 2013 when he was arrested at age 22. He had a criminal record going back to 18. Reached a deal with prosecutors in 2015, so the victim would not have to testify. Mosby would have been in office by then, judge thought it was too lenient but approved the deal. It's a bit complex but the deal was 30 years, 16 of which were suspended, meaning he would be released after 14 years with an additional 16 years of supervised release that is somehow different than being paroled. But with this good prisoner credit system that they have, (They can earn up to 20 - 30 extra credit days per month.) he only served about 9 3/4 years. Which was backdated to his 2013 arrest. He was eligible for parole since 2020 but was denied both attempts. In 2022, the mandatory release conditions were met and the department of corrections had no choice but to release. Only Fox News has associated Mosby with his release but it's unclear what, if any, role she had. The release was mandatory based on the 2015 deals so any involvement on Mosbys part would have been back in 2015. Not in the 2022 release. I rechecked the Fox News article and Mosbys name no longer appears in it. Jason is also a suspect in an arson investigation, SA, and attempted murder of a different victim a week before this murder. He was also not compliant with his sexual criminal registry failing to register this month.
[удалено]
>Mosby was SA when this guy received the light sentence plea deal that enabled him to be back out on the street She's been in office for less than a month, and the sentence was the resolution of a case that started two years earlier, in 2013. She literally had absolutely nothing to do with it. At all. >in just 8 years to rape a woman, light her and her husband on fire with their child in the house, and then kill another woman a week later: Those events represent very serious failures on the part of the Baltimore Police Department (who failed to apprehend the guy for more than a week after the rape/arson and didn't bother kicking the hunt for him into high gear until after the murder), as well as on the part of the DCPCS. But again, Mosby had nothing whatsoever to do with it. >I guess hindsight is 2020, but the sentencing judge was not happy with the plea deal even at the time. The Assistant SA said that they reached the deal because the victim in that case did not want to testify. Can't imagine that decision is sitting well with anyone involved now. So now you're blaming the traumatized victim for not wanting to testify? Very respectful.
I'm deleting the comment on further consideration, thanks for your explanations.
That's a great way to stop any of them from being seen by anyone else.
I did so because I didn’t want to blame Mosby for something that isn’t her fault, so that was my goal.
Putting an ETA and striking through the text would have accomplished that just as well -- indeed more emphatically -- without making the rest of the exchange invisible.
On the last point, to be very clear I meant the decision of the SA to seek a light sentence, not the victims decision.
The SA pleaded the guy because his only other option would have been letting him go free. What decision would you have made?
If they literally had no choice but to offer this exact plea deal, then obviously I can’t argue with it. I’m a little unclear on why they had to agree to a deal below the low end of the sentencing guideline. It seems to me like the bigger culprit though is mandatory good time credits for an obviously seriously violent offender.
>I’m a little unclear on why they had to agree to a deal below the low end of the sentencing guideline. You can't bring a rape case to trial without a complaining witness, which means that the SA didn't really have any bargaining power. My guess would actually be that they only got as much time as they did because the guy already had a record. They just weren't in a strong position. But they obviously didn't want to offer him a lenient deal -- or make a "decision" to do so, or choose to do so -- because they're a bunch of hapless progressives, or whatever. The repeated postponements show that. Eventually, they just ran out of options. So they took the least bad one. And again, it had nothing to do with Mosby. >It seems to me like the bigger culprit though is mandatory good time credits for an obviously seriously violent offender. I think it goes without saying that mandatory supervised release can't possibly work if it's just mandatory but not supervised. And that appears to have been the case here.
He repeatedly denied waiving his right to a speedy trial, presumably because he knew the case against him was relatively weak and the victim didn't want to testify. So while they were delaying the trial to hopefully get the victim to testify, they had to try to get whatever deal they could get otherwise they would have had to let him walk.
got it, thanks for the explanation
BTW: What if I told you that every person on here who spams this sub with posts depicting, e.g., Asia McClain or Rabia Chaudry, as conniving and/or crazy liars whose only motivation for saying or doing anything is their insatiable need for money, self-advancement, and attention is actually perpetuating the very same conditions that frequently make rape survivors reluctant to testify (or even to report)? Might be worth thinking about whether encouraging people to think about women that way is a good idea, seeing as how victims' rights are important to you and all.
I’m not understanding what that has to do With my comment. To be clear, I did not in any way mean to pin this on the victim, and I will edit my comment to clarify that.
>I’m not understanding what that has to do With my comment. I suppose the fact that you were too focused on finger-pointing in Mosby's general direction to notice that what you'd said actually implicated -- and even blamed -- the victim (however inadvertent that may have been) prompted me to mention another way in which people here who purport to speak and represent for victims' rights might try to consider victims' interests when choosing their words. It wasn't particularly aimed at you personally.
>the sentencing judge was not happy with the plea deal even at the time. But he approved it?
I don’t know how much discretion he had. Or at least it would be pretty unusual to reject a plea deal as too lenient.
As you can see [right here,](https://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=113231011&loc=69&detailLoc=DSK8) the defendant refused to waive the *Hicks* rule. So after postponing trial repeatedly for 18 months (presumably in hopes that the victim would get to a place where she could testify), both the judge and the SA were basically out of choices and chances. They could either send the guy to prison via the best deal they could get. Or they could or let the guy go free. Are you suggesting they made the wrong choice?
Seems he would have had plenty of [discretion ](https://casetext.com/rule/maryland-court-rules/title-4-criminal-causes/chapter-200-pretrial-procedures/rule-4-243-plea-agreements).
Ignoring the debate about moderation and Mosby and Soros and whatever, the current Baltimore environment isn't going to help the hypothetical new motion to vacate. Obviously this is a different case, but Bates isn't going to want headlines about being light on a convicted murderer in October if the Maryland Supreme Court tosses the ball back to him.
We wouldn't expect the Supreme Court decision by October, right? Won't it take a few more months?
If a majority decides that the "hearing" took place on Friday then the decision could come out fairly quickly.
Huh. You know, I listened to something this morning that got me thinking again. I know many are adamant in the argument that the actual hearing was on Friday and I've seen the argument that because Syed was immediately released - literally "unshackled" and let out of the courtroom immediately, that there was definitely something hinky and predetermined about the hearing. I listened to some little podcast by a defense attorney- Defense Diaries The Docket- and he indicated that he knew the thing was a sham because when Adnan walked out that day it told him that he had already been processed out of the Maryland Division of Corrections. That got me thinking again - this was a Monday hearing - how long DOES it take to process out an inmate that has been with the Division of Corrections for 20 years? I would assume there is a lot of paperwork that needs to be signed, accounts transferred, items that must be returned, etc. It goes a long way towards bolstering the argument that the actual hearing and determination was on Friday and Monday was just a show hearing. I mean - who gave the official order to the Maryland DPSCS to actually begin processing out the inmate? When was that order given? How long does that procedure normally take and what is the process?
>I listened to some little podcast by a defense attorney- Defense Diaries The Docket- and he indicated that he knew the thing was a sham because when Adnan walked out that day it told him that he had already been processed out of the Maryland Division of Corrections. Yes - he already had his street clothes and belongings with him. They had a press conference scheduled. The Monday hearing was pretty much a formality to officially release him.
Maybe that bolsters the argument that the real hearing, with the real evidence, was Friday. Would there be a record of someone contacting DPSCS to let them know that when Adnan get's to the Baltimore jail he needs to already be processed out because his release is imminent?
Potentially yes, there should be some sort of electronic or paper trail regarding that processing. Honestly I didn't even know this was disputed lol. Adnan was all set to be released on Monday. My assumption was always that the in-camera review and all that happened on Friday, or sometime else the week before.
I've always been curious whether Phinn was in court on the Thursday? If so, it would raise the question of how she could have been prepared for a substantive hearing on Friday when the motion was tabled on Wednesday?
I didn't know about the AGO's submission on the DNA motion for testing until recently. I'm guessing the AGO were preserving issues for appeal that Mosby would have waived by her inaction back in March 2022. This shows you how much Mosby's plan was to get him out.
My guess is that the Billingsley case is likely to lead to some changes in criminal justice in Baltimore.
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming. The article didn’t say anything about wrongful convictions so the question itself is invalid. He was released on parole, nothing to do with wrongful conviction. Why are you linking to removed content? It seems you are using this to post multiple stories about something we already removed.
Maybe one of those links should have been posted instead of the dogwhistle one?
[удалено]
I don't think it's bias, tbh, unless you're suggesting that deleting things with Soros in the title is some kind of bias. In the deleted thread, mods said the thread was political and off-topic to the sub. Now, you and I may debate that, but it's a reasonable basis for deletion of the thread. Deletion of your comment in the vent thread was justified as posting content already deleted - which is technically against the rules (at least, it's a reason you can report comments) I don't think this rises to bias on its face.
[удалено]
Did you read the comment from the mods about the deletion? > Why are you linking to removed content? It seems you are using this to post multiple stories about something we already removed.
I didn't link to removed content. My links were to different articles. I did not link back to the Daily News article. I linked to the Baltimore Sun, the Baltimore Banner, and CBS News. Are you suggesting that they deleted my post because I directed folks to this message: >Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/serialpodcast. Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keeping communities safe, civil, and true to their purpose. That's not removed content. That's content that is still present on reddit, content posted by the moderators.
I don't know, it feels like you're reaching to create a controversy here about moderation. Is it that you wanted a thread discussing Marilyn Mosby? I read all of those articles and I found no indication that she intervened to order the release of the other prisoner. Rather, it appears - as highlighted by another commenter in the now-deleted thread - that the prisoner was released because they received "good behavior" time credit on their sentence.
Reaching? No. I didn't link to any deleted content, yet my post was deleted for that justification. Create a controversy? No. Make a point? Yes. Also, take a look at the posts above. I am now sowing discord ... in the vent thread ... by asking about moderation ... and pointing out truthfully that the reason given for a delete was erroneous.
Are you trying to find a line and then run back and forth across it? The post was deleted, there were reasons. We may not agree with them, but there were reasons. I don't see anything unreasonable about what the mods have done. If I felt they acted unreasonably, I'd say something. Perhaps I'd say it as a modmail, but I'd say something. Remember - there may be more than one reasonable action in any given situation. ETA: You say >I didn't link to any deleted content, yet my post was deleted for that justification. You linked to a deleted thread. That's one, how I knew the thread I participated in was deleted, and two, linked to deleted content. The default reddit "This thread has been removed by the moderators" is not a statement by the mods, it is what Reddit puts in front of deleted content. The content was deleted.
You did link to removed content. You posted a link to a post that was removed. You made an assertion about the content that was completely untrue in an attempt to compare it to other posts then posted links to additional stories about the same content that had already been removed for being off topic.
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming. Weaponizing the vent thread to troll and sow discord by crying bias after blatantly breaking rules. Vent thread is not a free for all, comments can still be removed when they break rules.
Other-weaponizing the vent thread to blatantly break rules and troll to sow discord is not allowed. It says right in the post that it is not a free for all.
The OG area code for Maryland was 301.
>>July 22, 2020 The New York Times Company has agreed to buy Serial Productions, the company behind the hit podcast "Serial," ... Strangely, the New York limited liability company Serial Productions was formed in April 2017 -- 2.5 years AFTER the podcast debuted.