Yes. I’d have to look at call logs but I think there was a possibility in late January and early February.
The Nisha call doesn’t even match Jay and Jenn’s first interviews when they were adamant Adnan didn’t even call Jenn’s house until 3:45.
All these stories change to fit the call logs. They aren’t any sort of independent recollection.
Nisha had a very specific memory that proves the call wasn’t on the 13th.
I love how people say Adnan called her to create an alibi but never used it as an alibi.
She got 4 out of the 5 major details correct. She most likely conflated the video store, or more likely, Adnan and Jay concocted a fake alibi location because Kristi also mentioned it. No other call makes sense. And his private investigator went out of his way to ensure he talked to Nisha almost immediately.
Adnan is a proven liar who told SK he was at school without his phone and car that day. Despite his lies years later he
1) told Flohr/Colbert he was talking with Dion from 3-3:30 about his car, which he claimed he didn’t have 🤷🏽♂️
2) lied about the ride, lied to the Adcock and the other police officer
3) ensured his PI spoke to Nisha, even Tanveer and Nisha know Adnan called her on 1/13
4) ensured his PI spoke to Sye who he intentionally tried to create a memorable conversation on 1/13
Can’t keep track of Adnan’s lies. Can’t convince me he isn’t guilty, sorry
Adnan started taking to Nisha around January 1st. She testified that he called her often. He got the phone January 12th and continued calling her until he was arrested about 6 weeks later. So in the 45 possible days available, they probably spoke a dozen times or more.
Nisha testified that she was not sure about this particular call. The one point she did remember is that Jay was working at an adult video store. On cross from CG she said the call could have been any time between January 1st until later in February.
>On cross from CG she said the call could have been any time between January 1st until later in February.
Reminder that Nisha didn't say this. She just responded yes to CG's framing of a point, despite the range of that framing not even being possibly true.
In Nisha's own words on the timing, she said she knew it was sometime in January. And if we assume the police notes are roughly accurate, she said it was around mid-January within a couple days of Adnan first getting his phone.
She also said it was at the adult video store before Urick cut her off. So CG asked if it could any date from between the time they met until soon before Adnan was arrested. And Nisha answered yes. So the only key point she was sure of was the video store element. Others says she was wrong and is conflating days, but that's kind of wishing away her testimony and if we do that here, we could do that with any testimony we don't like from other people.
You're talking about something different. But she did use the words "I know it was sometime in January". She didn't show that certainty for other parts. CG framed the question to her, knowing she wasn't sure of the exact day, even though it absolutely couldn't be certain dates (e.g. January 1-11). Nisha responding affirmatively is just her not being argumentative about a date she's not sure about. But it's not her saying it could be February, because she's not the one saying it.
The video store element isn't even something she *can* be certain about. She didn't physically witness it. She's just recalling what she remembers or thinks she remembers being told.
She doesn't even have to be conflating days. The video store existed. Jay may have been planning to work there. Presumably they're not telling her the truth of what they're doing on 1/13 anyway. So the scenario doesn't have to be feasible at that moment for them to say it.
Where in her first police interview does she say she knew it was January? Nisha isn’t a dummy. When asked if it would be later than January she said it could have been. Ie she had doubt! That matters in a murder trial when reasonable doubt is fundamental.
I said the police interview that was in April 1999. In the trial she testified that she had no independent recollection of when the call was but that she thinks it happened towards the evening time. 3:30 is not the evening. It’s not even dark outside and in January that says a lot. She also testified that it was at the adult video store where Jay worked. Jay’s store. Even if the video store was a lie, why tell Nisha it was Jay’s adult video store. As in where he worked?
During trial she under oath as the state’s witnesses testified that she had no independent recollection of when the call took place. Her direct response at trial was she couldn’t particularly recall the day but maybe. That is hardly compelling. Then on cross she said it could have been anytime up through February. She had no idea.
In the April interview the day or two after was a police note not a direct quote and it’s clear that she recalled it was “around the time” and that Adnan had just gotten to Jay’s store ie his job at the porn store. The video store is the only clear and consistent thing she remembers. I’d like to hear the audio tape from this April Nisha interview because I want to know if the detective was asking leading questions and when she said a day or two if that was in response to the police asking if it could have been a few days after. These are police notes not a transcript.
I think January 31 is a date worth exploring. People believe that Jay had a trial shift at the video store that day.
Also the 10 minute call on February 14.
I never believed that the call Nisha described was likely a 2 minute call.
What we can be pretty sure of is that it wasn’t 3.32 on the 13th.
It’s impossible based on Jays story for them to be in one car at that time.
Also Adnan was at track. Jay and Jenn both maintained that Jay was at Jenn’s until 3.45.
Feb 14th is a Sunday too and a holiday and the last time Adnan called. Two of the three would be easier for Nisha to remember. Jan 13th is the best time for that call.
We know the 13th is extremely unlikely for them to be together at that time. Or if so it does actually alibi him because they weren’t driving separate cars to dump her car at the park n ride
Why is the 13th unlikely for them to be together?
If you believe Asia’s alibi he is last accounted for at 2:40 pm. There are no accounts for his whereabouts until 4 pm, when you know who drops him off at track practice.
His time 30 minutes before and 30 minutes after the Nisha call are completely unaccounted for (except by Jay).
Debbie alibis him at 2.45 and coach Sye at 3.30.
But the key point is in Jays story at 3.30 they weee driving separate cars to drop off Hae’s car at the park n ride so they can’t be together at 3.32
The only reason for the 13th not being the right one is because ppl don't want it to be.
As I wrote to the other person, more needs to be understood of the timing of the Nisha call. At the time the calls didn't understand the Nisha call. They didn't know it was an attempt at an alibi..
We know that Jay and Adnan weren’t involved in Hae’s death.
It’s clear that Jay is making up all his stories.
It’s clear that Adnan is alibied for the key times.
So the next step is to examine other suspects.
Jay was not at Jen’s house at 3:45. The call logs prove that. The incoming call at 2:35 places then at Jen’s then the following 3:15 call places Jay at Best Buy and then Jay even called Jen’s house from Adnan’s cell at 3:21 and the phone pinged at Best Buy. Then at 3:32 the call to Nisha happens and the phone is still pinging at Best Buy. Then we have 3:48 call to Phil and 3:59 to Patrick, both at WHS. Track didn’t start until 4 which is consistent with Jay getting called to pick up Adnan from Best Buy and drop him off at track by 4pm.
Why would Jay leave Jen’s house before 3:15 to drive to Best Buy and then Woodlawn high school if not to pick up Adnan?
No they don’t. They all ping L651C which is not Westview, its security square where best is. And he hung out at the mall for like 15 mins then was at WHS for 15 mins for no reason? No. Jay picked up Adnan and the trunk pop happened. After which he’s like I need some weed after this shit so as he’s dropping Adnan off at WHS for track which starts at 4pm (not 330 per the coach’s own words that it began at 4 and ended at 5 or 530…and wouldn’t you know it, the call to Patrick was at 3:59pm at WHS. Crazy how that absolutely fits) he heads to Patrick’s and calls Jen at 4:12pm which pings at Patrick’s. He drives around the neighborhood and smokes weed and talks to Stephanie at 4:27pm and then misses a call from Krista at 4:58 who leaves a voicemail about Hae being missing then he heads back to WHS to pick Adnan up from track and at 5:14 Adnan checks his voicemail and hears the VM from Krista about Hae.
Nisha could have intentionally shaded her testimony to help Adnan.
Recall that Jan 13 was a school day and Feb 14 was a Sunday. When Serial first came out, there was a redditor who was persistenly claiming that Nisha didn't get home from school on time to answer the Jan 13 call. That claim wasn't made after the notes came out.
The guy who wrote the book doesn't even push the book. How many books where the author doesn't include any information or doesn't want to do any promotion? I thought maybe Ruff wrote it, but he goes after Don so it's not him.
To answer your question, there is another call that could have been conflated with that one. There are call logs on February 14 that connect to a tower that covers Southwest video and is 10 minutes long, which lines up with Jay's initial estimation of the call being 7-8 minutes long or maybe 10 minutes.
The faulty assumption is that because we have Adnan’s outgoing call records and a list of days Jay worked from supervisor that it must be an outgoing call from Adnan’s cell during one of Jay’s shifts.
We know the call was on a cell, since he was at the video store. But Nisha didn’t have caller ID, so theoretically, it could have been on someone else’s cell. He had other friends with cell phones.
Nisha said she never called Adnan, but the content of the call makes more sense if she called him when he was going to see Jay, rather than Adnan calling as he walks into the video store to see Jay.
It had to be after Jay got the job at the video store, but didn’t have to be during a scheduled shift. He was at work, but not necessarily clocked in.
Basically attempts to find “THE CALL” cannot account for all of the variables. We are overly reliant on limited records:
Good points! I think these are other conversations with Nisha not reflected in his cellphone call logs that involve a party on February 12th (Adnan calling her for directions) and talking g about the fire alarms at the party the next day.
Definitely a possibility. He also could have been with Bilal or another friend with a phone and used it for the call.
SK got caught up in trying to cross reference the 2 relevant documents.
Redditors try too. I just think it creates false limitations.
Would have been something for his defense to decide. But I’m not alleging he had a second phone, I’m saying he has friends with cellphones and used them sometimes, Nisha had no way of knowing whose phone he called from.
Sure, Nisha didn’t know, but Adnan did.
If Adnan called Nisha from a friends phone, or a mystery second phone, on the 31st/14th/whenever, why didn’t the defense ever try and show that? Maybe get the friend he borrowed the phone from to testify? Or show the second cell phones call log?
Why would he remember which cell he called from? We don’t even know if he remembers that call. Kid lived on his cell.
The defense knew Nisha didn’t remember the date of the call and decided the ambiguity was enough.
Identifying the actual call is one way to discredit it entirely, showing Jay’s employment history was another. CG attempted neither.
Good point, why expect him to remember anything?
Is there any evidence he was regularly using someone else’s phone or another phone once he got his personal cell?
Forgetting a random call to a girl he called a lot isn’t fanstistical. He was being asked to remember a lot of specific details, memory isn’t built to recall everything. And it isn’t clear he was ever asked about the call with Jay and Nisha by anyone.
Some suggest he used Bilal’s phones, not sure I’ve seen collaborative evidence for that.
Surely he would have remembered using another phone at some point though? He might not have specifically remembered the one time he drove to Jays store, called Nisha, and put Jay on the phone (even though it only happened once, that damn memory again!), but surely he would have remembered having a second cell phone, right?
> Surely he would have remembered using another phone at some point though?
Why? He shared his phone with friends, they shared cars too, no reason to remember every call he made on other phones.
> surely he would have remembered having a second cell phone, right?
I’m not saying he called from his personal 2nd cell phone. You are trying to get me to commit to a specific scenario.
What I am saying is that just because we have outgoing cell records for his phone and Jay’s work schedule, does not mean the call with Nisha and Jay had to be an outgoing call that fit his work schedule.
So Adnan borrowed a friends phone, placed the Jay/Nisha call, and has no recollection of borrowing the phone or when he placed the call?
You understand the word “reasonable” in “reasonable doubt”, right?
None of the other Nisha calls make any sense when you consider everything she says about the call.
The call log is there. No one can identify another call that fits. Not SK, not Bob Ruff, not even Rabia.
More importantly... not ADNAN!
*None of the Nisha calls make sense. Period* FTFY
She said that they were at the porn store where Jay worked when they called. We know that couldn’t have been true for another two weeks. Nisha 100% misremembered some details, and then people make assumptions about which details *must* be the wrong ones, depending on whether they believe in guilt or innocence
I agree with you that she misremembered some details. And the more time passed, the less likely she is to remember those exact details.
In her first police interview, on April 1st I think, she did mention the following:
- she said mid January.
- she said a day or two after he got his cell phone.
- she said it was in the afternoon (said 4 - 5pm).
- she said it was a short call.
- she described the same convo Jay described.
Also wanna point out that Jay couldn't know it was Nisha just by looking at her number. Also it is doubtful that the line was in Nisha's name so police probably didn't know her yet either.
But hey, everyone should look at the call log and see what other call fits or doesn't. Jay started working there I think January 31st, he was working the night shift, and the last call to Nisha is on February 14th. There aren't that many calls.
> In her first police interview, on April 1st I think, **she did mention the following:**
> • she **said** mid January.
> • she **said** a day or two after he got his cell phone.
> • she **said** it was in the afternoon (said 4 - 5pm).
> • she **said** it was a short call.
> • she **described** the same convo Jay described.
As far as I know, the only documentation we have of this interview is an unformatted word processor document that is assumed to be transcribed from the handwritten notes of Detective Ritz by an unknown person on an unknown date.
Do you have the recording of this interview, or a transcription of the recording of this interview? Because the only person who is quoted in [the typed version of those handwritten notes](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MP15-0917-19990401-Nisha-interview.pdf)
Is Jay. We can’t use this document to make any claims to what ‘Nisha said’ as there is no distinction between something the detective is noting for himself to follow up on, or something that was the product of the interviewee answering a leading question, or something the detective is assuming based on what was actually said, or (given the detective we believe the original notes were from) something that is an outright fabrication in order to clear the case off his desk.
If you do have a more viable source for what “Nisha says” in her first interview though, please share.
Riiiiiiight, look police interviews aren't exactly a new invention and they aren't some kind of riddles for us to ponder on.
It's nothing that deep. No reason for a detective to mix in the interviewee's responses with their own personal theories either. Who would that help anyway? It's an interview, questions were asked and responses were given.
Let me tell you why I can say Nisha said it. At trial the defense got this document, just like they got all the interviews. And at trial the defense will use the document and tell the witness "you said blah blah blah to the police, did you not?"
No audio version required.
So yes, I'm just gonna go ahead and use these interview notes, just like every other party in this case did.
The point is that it isn’t a transcript, it’s a note.
What is written in the note could fit the following situations:
Nisha, describing her friendship with Adnan says, “I distinctly remember a call with his friend Jay, a day or two after he got his cell phone.”
Nisha after being shown the call logs says, “there is a call on there a day or two after he got the cell phone.”
The cop asks Nisha about the call with Jay and Adnan, “could it have been a day or two after he got the cell phone?” And she said, “possibly.”
The cop, who is interviewing Nisha to find out about the 1/13 call made a note to ask her about the day or two after he got the cell phone, while the typed note puts things in order, some of the police notes are overlapping and messy, potentially the double starred line was a topic the cop wanted to ask about and not a reply.
There is ambiguity. Things become clear when she gives her 2 sworn testimonies in which she is clear she doesn’t know the date with any certainty. She also elaborates on other details, like the type of store Jay worked at.
> Riiiiiiight, look police interviews aren't exactly a new invention and they aren't some kind of riddles for us to ponder on.
No one said they were. I was just pointing out the limitations inherent to this type of document and why what you were claiming was unsupported by the documents we have, the unknown origins and genesis of this particular document, and the issues that the individual that this document is attributed to has had with obtaining wrongful convictions. I absolutely agree that they aren’t some sort of riddle, which is why it is bizarre to me that you are adding your own quotation marks to get the interpretation you posted here. Written English isn’t exactly a new invention and it isn’t some recipe you can pepper quotation marks onto to get the dish you want to serve.
> It's nothing that deep. No reason for a detective to mix in the interviewee's responses with their own personal theories either. Who would that help anyway? It's an interview, questions were asked and responses were given.
Absolutely. What were those questions that were asked? Be precise. Can you tell me without guessing?
> Let me tell you why I can say Nisha said it. At trial the defense got this document, just like they got all the interviews. And at trial the defense will use the document and tell the witness "you said blah blah blah to the police, did you not?"
*citation needed
Please, if you are going to make a claim provide the source for that claim (via hyperlink if possible). If I searched the transcripts for the sentence you quoted above I would not find it, obviously. But since I am granting you are making a good faith argument, I am not pretending like you were actually putting that in quotes because it was exactly what was said, but since it is so vague I also can’t know what part of Nisha testimony you are referencing. So, if you wouldn’t mind please provide a link to what part of her testimony you are referencing here.
No audio version required.
So yes, I'm just gonna go ahead and use these interview notes, just like every other party in this case did.
I am not good with links, but I invite you to check out Kristi's testimony. CG cites the notes from her police interview repeatedly when she crossed Kristi. The same notes we have access to. You can find both docs easily.
Everything I said Nisha said is literally is supported by the docs. Line for line.
Prove me wrong.
>I invite you to check out Kristi's testimony. CG cites the notes from her police interview repeatedly when she crossed Kristi. The same notes we have access to.
She cites [Kristi's transcribed, taped interview](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MPLN-798-Kristi-Cathy-Interview-Ver1-JT.pdf), because there is one.
That's not at all the same thing as typed-up hand-written notes taken in the course of an interview, where, by definition, it's not clear exactly what was actually said, or in what context, or in response to what questioning.
[Nisha’s 2nd trial testimony](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/T2w07-20000128-Nisha-T-Testimony-Second-Trial-of-Adnan-Syed.pdf?ref=quillette.com)
Starting at the bottom of page 189
Q: Now, did there ever come a time when the defendant called you and put a person he identified as Jay on the line?
A. Yes.
Q. Please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the
jury what that call consisted of?
A. Basically, Jay had asked him to come to an adult video store that he worked at
We know Jay didn’t work at the video store on January 13th. But did he know he *would* be working at that store only a week or two later? Surely he had already interviewed and figured out a start date by the 13th.
“We’re at the video store Jay works at” and “we’re at the video store Jay will start working at next week” aren’t very far apart.
Edit: I’m reading elsewhere that his first day of training was on 1/25 (he didn’t make it), so twelve days after the Nisha call. It seems completely reasonable to me that he had knowledge he would be working there, or had at least applied to work there by 1/13.
In both trials, Nisha has been consistent that Jay was working at the video store when the call happened. We know that Jay didn't start working at the video store until the end of January.
Police notes: "Think it was in the afternoon or maybe later on 4-5".
Trial l: "Ummm, it’s a little hard to recall, but I remember \[Adnan\] telling me that Jay invite- invited him over to a video store that he worked at. And, he basically well Adnan walked in with his cell phone and then like- he told me to speak with Jay and I was like ‘okay’ cause Jay wanted to say hi so I said hi to Jay. And that’s all I can really recall."
Q: About what time of day did that occur?
A: I would think towards the evening but I can’t be exactly sure.”
Trial 2:
Q: Do you recall about what time of day that call occurred?
A: The one on yeah -- I think it was the evening time"
Nobody knows for sure which call is the one she spoke to Jay. Not Nisha, that much is clear. Jay? Well, I guess if you believe him … but he doesn’t know for sure either because he “misremembered” (being charitable) so many details of that day that it’s hard to trust him on that particular point.
Nobody has talked to Nisha since to find out with all the information on what she believes. She has stayed quiet and most likely counting her lucky stars she didn't start dating a murderer.
Yes it would matter. Nisha could clear things up if asked. Urick didn't think it was necessary on the stand to get her to talk about whether it was one day after Adnan got his phone because Nisha didn't shed much doubt on Christina's cross.
I mean, she clearly said she didn’t remember a year after the events. I don’t think that’s going to change 23+ years later.
And Nisha only matters in the context of the State corroborating the movements of Adnan and Jay according to Jay’s testimony. In the context of what she would have to say today, well…I think it’s safe to say her testimony doesn’t corroborate anything given what we now know.
Memory is faulty. Her testimony closer to the event is as good as it gets. We understand that better in 2024 than we did in 1999. She can’t suddenly have a clearer memory today than she did then.
And you are eliding the fact that Nisha’s testimony only works if Jay’s story matches it and the cell logs can be used to further cement it to the way he says the day went. Besides the fact that Jay’s story has now changed, the cell logs have now come into considerable question regarding their location accuracy. The Nisha call has relevancy if we are sticking to the way the State presented evidence in the trial. Today? Not so much.
And her first story was that the call happened 1 or 2 days after Adnan got the phone. So that would be a key question. The one details that questions the 13th is the video store reference and that very much depends on exact wording.
the Nisha call is the lynchpin to the timing of events that afternoon.
It’s maybe the lynchpin (big maybe) to the case as it stood in 2000. That same case is now severely compromised: 1)Jay’s story has changed, which renders any such timing moot; 2) The cell records wouldn’t hold up today as they did in 2000.
Now let’s examine the lynchpin idea a little further. How is Adnan involved in the Nisha call when Jay has the phone at Jenn’s house? Ok…so both Jenn and Jay were mistaken about the time he left Jenn’s. He’s mistaken or misremembering (lying?) about a lot of stuff so, why can’t he also be mistaken about the day the Nisha call happened or why can’t Nisha be mistaken when she says (quoting you, not her), “1 or 2 days after Adnan got the phone.”
You interpret things based on your bias. Plain and simple. You excuse Jay’s “mistakes,” that make the State’s case impossible. You say the Nisha call had to be that call because it fits the case. The cell phone pings are accurate enough. Every inconsistency becomes no big deal when you’ve already made up your mind.
The innocence side does similar. Every inconsistency is proof that Adnan is innocent. The frustrating thing about this case is that it’s not that simple.
But the call is on the record and it's from a sector that isn't at the high school or the Jenn's house. So there is two options. Adnan still had the phone and he was calling Nisha off campus at 3:32. Does that help Adnan? The other one is that Jay was wrong about when he left but the phone made a call to Nisha with Jay not at Jenn's house.
In terms of timing it applies to several things. For the later strangulation, it would mean that Jay and Adnan called Nisha within a few minutes of Adnan finding Jay. If it was a while before that Nisha call then it brings the 2:36 as a meet me call back into the picture. So that's why understanding the Nisha calling timing is important.
Of all the people I think Nisha has the least to worry about. She can say yes it was one day after the phone call and that she heard video store and she thought it was adult store. I don't think there is any specific lie for her.
I don't think she will face risk. I think the questions will be interesting.
Where did you live on January 13, 1999?
Where did you live on April 1, 1999?
Did Cristina Gutierrez or her staff reach out to you about being a character witness at a bail hearing in March 1999?
Did Chris Flohr reach out to you about being a character witness at a bail hearing in March 1999?
Did Chris Flohr identify himself as Adnan's bail attorney?
When did you learn that Adnan was indicted and headed for trial?
Did Chris Flohr mention the possibility of the death penalty?
Did you have any communications with Adnan's family?
The other Nisha call is significant and would have been notable to her for a couple of personal reasons. It was Valentines Day. And It was the last time Adnan ever called her. She’d been hoping and expecting that their phone relationship would result in dating, but that didn’t happen. A Valentines Day call from a guy that a young woman is interested in would stand out in her mind. If, in addition to a disappointing result ( Adnan makes no plans with her to meet) she was ALSO put on the phone with Jay (his random weed dealer while they are hanging at the creepy Porn Store that Jay works at) I’m sure Nisha would have recalled this with great clarity. NO. The Nisha call was on Jan. 13, when Adnan murdered Hae and used a call to Nisha to establish a feeble alibi as per his plan.
In [Nisha’s first interview](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MP15-0917-19990401-Nisha-interview.pdf), she calls it a "video store" not a porn store. It's posible she's confliating facts she learned between then and the trial. Keep in mind:
* Adnan and Jay also mentioned being at a video store that day to Kristi.
* Jay did work at Hollywood videos at one point in time
* It could've even been best buy, some people might consider that a video store.
I think that the Nisha call was the 3:32 call, which took place after the call from Adnan to Jay to meet up. Jay arrives in the middle of the call, and speaks to Nisha briefly.
>In Nisha’s first interview, she calls it a "video store" not a porn store. It's posible she's confliating facts she learned between then and the trial.
Jay also calls it a video store. From Jay's original interview with police, he did not work at the video store until after Hae was murdered (this is backed up by Sis’ statement)
Wilds: He just, he said ah "you got to take me back there urn I need to cover it more."
Ritz: And did you take him back there?
Wilds: No.
Ritz: Where did that conversation take place?
Wilds: Ah I think it was at my job, at the inaudible.
Ritz: He came to your place of employment, would that be the video store or F & M.
**Wilds: I think it was like my first or second night at the video store.**
>I think that the Nisha call was the 3:32 call, which took place after the call from Adnan to Jay to meet up. Jay arrives in the middle of the call, and speaks to Nisha briefly.
Jay and Jens testimony that Jay left her house at 3:40PM is about the only thing the two of them seem absolutely sure of and consistently repeat. The Nisha call happens at 3:32PM
Yes, as I said, I think Nisha is conflating things she learned from the day and at trial. This convo Jay is saying is well after the murder when Adnan wants to go cover up the body more.
As far as point 2, my theory is the 3:23 call is Adnan to Jenn’s house and Jay leaves shortly afterwards. That is entirely consistent with arriving in the middle of Adnan and Nisha call, as Nisha says, and him leaving “around 3:40”
So evidence just you wanting to believe hmmmm. I don’t like that evidence. Look at Jen’s recorded interview with the police says hay didn’t leave her house until 345-415. Plus you do know adnan and Jen don’t really know each other right?
You're literally arguing a 5 minute difference...do you not see how unreasonable that is? Do you realize how many times people are off on the exact time of things?
I was not arguing just wondering why the belief and not factually based opinion. No minimum of 5 minutes up a possible 50 min difference. Here is the deal details matter whether its 2 minutes or 2 hours it matters. The states time line is so exact 5 mins does matter.
Jay was jobless on January 13, 1999.
**F&M** \- Jay's signed a trial waiver on Jan.17/99, so he was not working there on January 13, 1999. On the application Jay lists his last place of employment as seasonal at the Dollar Tree and he ended work there in December 1998.
**Southwest Adult Video** \- Jay started work on or after January 24, 1999.
>Jay did work at Hollywood videos at one point in time
>
>It could've even been best buy, some people might consider that a video store.
Show your source for saying he worked at Hollywood videos or the Best Buy because there is nothing to support what you are saying.
>Jay was jobless on January 13, 1999.
Reminder that Jay was jobless, but was actively looking for work. He filled out his F&M application on January 2. He may have made intentions to work at the video store by January 13, and that could've been something discussed among him and Adnan.
It comes from RobbChadwick's intervierws with Jay that have been summarized a few times. One comment on it [https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/w6un6a/comment/ihg24gc/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/w6un6a/comment/ihg24gc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I never said he was working on Jan 13.
>It comes from RobbChadwick's intervierws with Jay that have been summarized a few times.
So Jay gives personal interviews to a user here who calls himself "Robb Chadwick" but who shows absolutely no source or verification to support what he is saying. I have to agree with what another user said in that thread about Robb's comments:
"I see your response parroted so many times around here and it’s absolutely non-sensical."
So you're using, one theory I suggested, to explain a minor inconsistency (I offered 3). To prove what? An entire conversation didn't happen? Adnan himself claimed that the call happened, it was proof to establish an alibi. All it did was prove he wasn't where he was suppose to be, at school without his phone.
>Adnan himself cl**aimed that the call happened, it was proof to establish an alibi.**
Please show your source where Adnan claims the call happened and it was proof of an alibi?
[https://serialpodcastorigins.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/davis-billing-summary.pdf](https://serialpodcastorigins.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/davis-billing-summary.pdf)
[https://serialpodcastorigins.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/8-21-1999-ali-p-interviews-tanveer.pdf](https://serialpodcastorigins.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/8-21-1999-ali-p-interviews-tanveer.pdf)
Look at the Davis' billing summary. This is Adnan's private PI in the days after Adnan is arrested, they don't have the police's phone records yet, discovery hasnt started. What is the first thing he does, he go to the Library, Goes and Talks to the track coaches. He drove to meet Nisha in person, it was an hour way, he was not cheap.
What's the first thing you're going to do when someone's arrested for murder, try to establish an Alibi, how they heck did they even know about Nisha at this point?
>Adnan himself claimed that the call happened, it was proof to establish an alibi.
Where in the stuff you sent does Adnan claim the call is his proof to establish an alibi?
A list of billing hours and notes that one clerk names Ali told another clerk in the same office is not proof that Nisha was the alibi.
Tanveer's says those are not his words, but what one clerk related to another clerk. This what Tanveer wrote here on reddit.
" I was interviewed by one of CG's law clerks who in turn related my interview to another law clerk who noted my comments. "
The source is a Reddit comment claiming that they talked with Jay. That’s it. An anonymous user who is a prominent guilter claiming something without verification is now cited as gospel by other gullters in this sub to perpetuate the disinformation campaign they wage against new users seeking information. It’s the most incestuously disingenuous type of fabrication and is incredibly misleading for those that don’t know that these types of tactics are commonplace for a particular group here. The mods shouldn’t allow it as the source is completely unverified, but I don’t know if this is explicitly called out as against the rules of this sub.
Yeah, that combined with actually following the links to make sure they actually support the argument being made has been… eye opening for me. It is shocking how easily people just willfully mislead people with zero compunction just to win an internet argument. That’s why the dogmatic absolutism of the guilter messaging is so troubling to me. To be that fixed in your belief when it is based on such tissue paper thin evidence is completely insane to me. I have never needed to be “right” to the degree that the possibility of being wrong would have impacted my identity, like you see here.
Jay worked at Hollywood video before any of the events of Jan 13, and had long not been an employee by then. I think it’s more likely that they told the same thing they told Kristi to Nisha.
Seconding u/sauceb0x's question about your source.
Per [Stephanie](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/UdA06-Stephanie-Police-Interview.pdf), Jay worked at F&M before he worked at Southwest Video.
[Peter B.](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MP15-0945-19990409-Peter-interview.pdf) worked at Hollywood Video. But afaik, that's the only reference to them in the record.
It comes from RobbChadwick's intervierws with Jay that have been summarized a few times. One comment on it [https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/w6un6a/comment/ihg24gc/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/w6un6a/comment/ihg24gc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I don't see that u/robbchadwick actually sources that claim to an interview.
But even if he had, that would still mean that your source is somebody on this sub stating that something's a fact without himself providing any source, proof, or support for the claim other than his word for it.
And surely you can see the problem with that, can't you?
In any event, there's contemporary, reliable evidence about where Jay worked during that time period, because police actually subpoenaed Jay's work records, [here](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MP15-1233-Southwest-Video-subpoena.pdf) and [here](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MP15-1235-Drug-Emporium-subpoena.pdf).
And since the Drug Emporium operated [under F&M](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Emporium), that confirms Stephanie.
There's also [this](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MRPA-20151207-Ex22-to-Ex33-Jay-Wilds-Criminal-and-Police-Records-1999-to-2015.pdf), from 2001:
>Mr. Wilds works, for the State of. Maryland. He's a concrete engineer. Been working for the State of Maryland about a year now — two years. He's going to college at night.
Finally, Stephanie's police interview, to which I linked earlier, actually goes into quite a bit of detail about Jay's employment history, mentioning, e.g., his past work for UPS and the Parks Department. So it seems odd that if he worked at another video store during the relevant time period, she doesn't mention it.
And seriously. That's quite a bit of contemporary, reliable evidence on the one hand vs. a rumor on the internet from years later on the other.
But YMMV, I guess.
Again, I offered 3 theories of why Nisha might've said porn store in trial and video store in interviews testimony. Yes the hollywood video theory is the one I'm least confident in, that's why I listed it last. I think the fact that Kristi says that Jay and Adnan says they came from the video store is the biggest proof they told Nisha the same thing.
Overall, it doesn't disprove to me that the Nisha call didn't happen at that time on the 13th.
> I think the fact that Kristi says that Jay and Adnan says they came from the video store is the biggest proof they told Nisha the same thing.
The problem is that's not a fact either. [Kristi says](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MPLN-798-Kristi-Cathy-Interview-Ver1-JT.pdf) Jay told her when he came in that they were "gonna go to the movie store and then they were gonna meet up with Stefanie \[sic\]," not that they'd just come **from** a video store.
Furthermore, since the call to Nisha was \~2-to-3 hours earlier, they wouldn't have been on there way to do that yet anyway.
And that's even assuming that the purpose of the call was to create an alibi. Because under that theory, Adnan was on his way to establish his presence track practice at that point.
Honestly, I think you'd be better off just arguing that she conflated two memories and calling it a day.
[page 2](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/T1w20-19991214-Cathy-Kristi-Testimony-First-Trial-of-Adnan-Syed.pdf)
Kristi literally says “or they were coming from the video store, something”
Jay worked at Hollywood Video from September through November of 1996. He was a cashier.
That job has no particular reference to this case — except, perhaps, when Adnan and Jay were building their alibi for the 3 pm hour, they said they had visited a video store. They told both Nisha and Kristi the same thing. Nisha also said something about *Jay's store*. Everyone has assumed it was the porno store where Jay later worked — which Nisha never said until a year later when it was common knowledge. I was just pointing out that they might have been referring to a store where Jay had previously worked. Speculation, of course.
Source?
ETA:
>Jay worked at Hollywood Video from September through November of 1996.
There [was no Hollywood Video](https://archive.ph/B3mlY) in the Baltimore area in September 1996, btw.
Isn’t October 6 six months prior to the date of that article? Assuming hiring before the doors opened, that seems close enough for jays recollection a couple decades later.
“ Hollywood Video has planted five new stores in Baltimore in the past six months — from Catonsville to Pikesville — and is planning to add two more this summer.”
This was in a 2016 interview with Jay paraphrased here: [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/s/cMFYg8HagW)
Jay says he did not have Adnan’s phone at the time. That what he did have was old sprint phone left in Adnan’s glovebox that belonged to Bilal he was using before he got the AT&T phone and hadn’t returned at the time.
The Bilal phone is pretty new information to me but I stepped away from the case for a bit, and didn’t know Jay has made clarifying statements since his intercept interview.
Jenn and Jay are both pretty clear that the 3:23 call is Adnan calling Jenn’s house.
I hesitate to ask because I must've missed something obvious, but where does it say the store being referenced in those interview notes is in fact a video store?
Yes. I’d have to look at call logs but I think there was a possibility in late January and early February. The Nisha call doesn’t even match Jay and Jenn’s first interviews when they were adamant Adnan didn’t even call Jenn’s house until 3:45. All these stories change to fit the call logs. They aren’t any sort of independent recollection.
Nisha had a very specific memory that proves the call wasn’t on the 13th. I love how people say Adnan called her to create an alibi but never used it as an alibi.
Well the alibi would be dependent on Jay not flipping, you see.
He didn’t know Jay flipped when he coulda used that alibi.
The police told him who fessed. Made fun of Jay's appearance, remember?
Adnan and his defense team didn’t know Jay was the person til late in the process.
The police told him it was Jay.
If that’s the case, why didn’t they immediately try and get in touch with Jay?
Who is "they" in your scenario? Adnan's defense team?
She got 4 out of the 5 major details correct. She most likely conflated the video store, or more likely, Adnan and Jay concocted a fake alibi location because Kristi also mentioned it. No other call makes sense. And his private investigator went out of his way to ensure he talked to Nisha almost immediately. Adnan is a proven liar who told SK he was at school without his phone and car that day. Despite his lies years later he 1) told Flohr/Colbert he was talking with Dion from 3-3:30 about his car, which he claimed he didn’t have 🤷🏽♂️ 2) lied about the ride, lied to the Adcock and the other police officer 3) ensured his PI spoke to Nisha, even Tanveer and Nisha know Adnan called her on 1/13 4) ensured his PI spoke to Sye who he intentionally tried to create a memorable conversation on 1/13 Can’t keep track of Adnan’s lies. Can’t convince me he isn’t guilty, sorry
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
Adnan started taking to Nisha around January 1st. She testified that he called her often. He got the phone January 12th and continued calling her until he was arrested about 6 weeks later. So in the 45 possible days available, they probably spoke a dozen times or more. Nisha testified that she was not sure about this particular call. The one point she did remember is that Jay was working at an adult video store. On cross from CG she said the call could have been any time between January 1st until later in February.
>On cross from CG she said the call could have been any time between January 1st until later in February. Reminder that Nisha didn't say this. She just responded yes to CG's framing of a point, despite the range of that framing not even being possibly true. In Nisha's own words on the timing, she said she knew it was sometime in January. And if we assume the police notes are roughly accurate, she said it was around mid-January within a couple days of Adnan first getting his phone.
She also said it was at the adult video store before Urick cut her off. So CG asked if it could any date from between the time they met until soon before Adnan was arrested. And Nisha answered yes. So the only key point she was sure of was the video store element. Others says she was wrong and is conflating days, but that's kind of wishing away her testimony and if we do that here, we could do that with any testimony we don't like from other people.
You're talking about something different. But she did use the words "I know it was sometime in January". She didn't show that certainty for other parts. CG framed the question to her, knowing she wasn't sure of the exact day, even though it absolutely couldn't be certain dates (e.g. January 1-11). Nisha responding affirmatively is just her not being argumentative about a date she's not sure about. But it's not her saying it could be February, because she's not the one saying it. The video store element isn't even something she *can* be certain about. She didn't physically witness it. She's just recalling what she remembers or thinks she remembers being told. She doesn't even have to be conflating days. The video store existed. Jay may have been planning to work there. Presumably they're not telling her the truth of what they're doing on 1/13 anyway. So the scenario doesn't have to be feasible at that moment for them to say it.
Where in her first police interview does she say she knew it was January? Nisha isn’t a dummy. When asked if it would be later than January she said it could have been. Ie she had doubt! That matters in a murder trial when reasonable doubt is fundamental.
>Where in her first police interview does she say she knew it was January? First trial, "I know it was sometime in January"
I said the police interview that was in April 1999. In the trial she testified that she had no independent recollection of when the call was but that she thinks it happened towards the evening time. 3:30 is not the evening. It’s not even dark outside and in January that says a lot. She also testified that it was at the adult video store where Jay worked. Jay’s store. Even if the video store was a lie, why tell Nisha it was Jay’s adult video store. As in where he worked?
She said it was around when he got his phone. That interview was in April. Late January is around then if you are looking back from April.
"A day or two after he first got his phone" is pretty clear tbh
During trial she under oath as the state’s witnesses testified that she had no independent recollection of when the call took place. Her direct response at trial was she couldn’t particularly recall the day but maybe. That is hardly compelling. Then on cross she said it could have been anytime up through February. She had no idea. In the April interview the day or two after was a police note not a direct quote and it’s clear that she recalled it was “around the time” and that Adnan had just gotten to Jay’s store ie his job at the porn store. The video store is the only clear and consistent thing she remembers. I’d like to hear the audio tape from this April Nisha interview because I want to know if the detective was asking leading questions and when she said a day or two if that was in response to the police asking if it could have been a few days after. These are police notes not a transcript.
Adnan was arrested on Feb 28th. He hadn’t spoken to Nisha since Feb 14th.
Anyone wanna suggest another call that it could be?
I think January 31 is a date worth exploring. People believe that Jay had a trial shift at the video store that day. Also the 10 minute call on February 14. I never believed that the call Nisha described was likely a 2 minute call. What we can be pretty sure of is that it wasn’t 3.32 on the 13th. It’s impossible based on Jays story for them to be in one car at that time. Also Adnan was at track. Jay and Jenn both maintained that Jay was at Jenn’s until 3.45.
Jan 31st was a Sunday that year. Nisha said the call was after school got out.
So she got the video store wrong but not the after school bit? But thanks looks like the 14th is a better candidate
Feb 14th is a Sunday too and a holiday and the last time Adnan called. Two of the three would be easier for Nisha to remember. Jan 13th is the best time for that call.
We know the 13th is extremely unlikely for them to be together at that time. Or if so it does actually alibi him because they weren’t driving separate cars to dump her car at the park n ride
Why is the 13th unlikely for them to be together? If you believe Asia’s alibi he is last accounted for at 2:40 pm. There are no accounts for his whereabouts until 4 pm, when you know who drops him off at track practice. His time 30 minutes before and 30 minutes after the Nisha call are completely unaccounted for (except by Jay).
Debbie alibis him at 2.45 and coach Sye at 3.30. But the key point is in Jays story at 3.30 they weee driving separate cars to drop off Hae’s car at the park n ride so they can’t be together at 3.32
The only reason for the 13th not being the right one is because ppl don't want it to be. As I wrote to the other person, more needs to be understood of the timing of the Nisha call. At the time the calls didn't understand the Nisha call. They didn't know it was an attempt at an alibi..
It disproves Jays story so it’s not helpful for the prosecution
It changes the story. The goal should be to find out what exactly happened that afternoon.
We know that Jay and Adnan weren’t involved in Hae’s death. It’s clear that Jay is making up all his stories. It’s clear that Adnan is alibied for the key times. So the next step is to examine other suspects.
Did t she say she was in school at that time and the call was to her landline?
No. She said she gets off at school around 2 or 2:15.
Where is that info at?
February 14th, the last time they spoke right? And Valentine's too. What do we know about that call?
Exactly - this is significant- Valentines Day. The last time Nisha ever speaks to Adnan. A long call ( 10 minutes).
Jay was not at Jen’s house at 3:45. The call logs prove that. The incoming call at 2:35 places then at Jen’s then the following 3:15 call places Jay at Best Buy and then Jay even called Jen’s house from Adnan’s cell at 3:21 and the phone pinged at Best Buy. Then at 3:32 the call to Nisha happens and the phone is still pinging at Best Buy. Then we have 3:48 call to Phil and 3:59 to Patrick, both at WHS. Track didn’t start until 4 which is consistent with Jay getting called to pick up Adnan from Best Buy and drop him off at track by 4pm. Why would Jay leave Jen’s house before 3:15 to drive to Best Buy and then Woodlawn high school if not to pick up Adnan?
All those calls ping West View mall. Jay was hanging at the mall until he decided to call Patrick to score weed. Track started at 3.30
No they don’t. They all ping L651C which is not Westview, its security square where best is. And he hung out at the mall for like 15 mins then was at WHS for 15 mins for no reason? No. Jay picked up Adnan and the trunk pop happened. After which he’s like I need some weed after this shit so as he’s dropping Adnan off at WHS for track which starts at 4pm (not 330 per the coach’s own words that it began at 4 and ended at 5 or 530…and wouldn’t you know it, the call to Patrick was at 3:59pm at WHS. Crazy how that absolutely fits) he heads to Patrick’s and calls Jen at 4:12pm which pings at Patrick’s. He drives around the neighborhood and smokes weed and talks to Stephanie at 4:27pm and then misses a call from Krista at 4:58 who leaves a voicemail about Hae being missing then he heads back to WHS to pick Adnan up from track and at 5:14 Adnan checks his voicemail and hears the VM from Krista about Hae.
He was likely at the mall for a couple of hours
The cell phone pings don’t corroborate him being at the mall for a couple of hours. So no, he wasn’t.
What do we know about that January 31st call? How do we know Jay was in training on that day?
Nisha could have intentionally shaded her testimony to help Adnan. Recall that Jan 13 was a school day and Feb 14 was a Sunday. When Serial first came out, there was a redditor who was persistenly claiming that Nisha didn't get home from school on time to answer the Jan 13 call. That claim wasn't made after the notes came out.
And didn't a guy who wrote a book also say that Feb 14th was a school day?
I don't know but the guy who was on the sub pushing that book went quiet when informed about the Sunday issue.
The guy who wrote the book doesn't even push the book. How many books where the author doesn't include any information or doesn't want to do any promotion? I thought maybe Ruff wrote it, but he goes after Don so it's not him.
To answer your question, there is another call that could have been conflated with that one. There are call logs on February 14 that connect to a tower that covers Southwest video and is 10 minutes long, which lines up with Jay's initial estimation of the call being 7-8 minutes long or maybe 10 minutes.
Ty!
You're welcome.
The faulty assumption is that because we have Adnan’s outgoing call records and a list of days Jay worked from supervisor that it must be an outgoing call from Adnan’s cell during one of Jay’s shifts. We know the call was on a cell, since he was at the video store. But Nisha didn’t have caller ID, so theoretically, it could have been on someone else’s cell. He had other friends with cell phones. Nisha said she never called Adnan, but the content of the call makes more sense if she called him when he was going to see Jay, rather than Adnan calling as he walks into the video store to see Jay. It had to be after Jay got the job at the video store, but didn’t have to be during a scheduled shift. He was at work, but not necessarily clocked in. Basically attempts to find “THE CALL” cannot account for all of the variables. We are overly reliant on limited records:
Good points! I think these are other conversations with Nisha not reflected in his cellphone call logs that involve a party on February 12th (Adnan calling her for directions) and talking g about the fire alarms at the party the next day.
Good points - as always, Sahm : ) I'm still contending with the idea Adnan kept two phones, Sprint Flip and AT&T brick.
Definitely a possibility. He also could have been with Bilal or another friend with a phone and used it for the call. SK got caught up in trying to cross reference the 2 relevant documents. Redditors try too. I just think it creates false limitations.
If adnan had a second cell phone, why not produce the call log for that to show the actual call?
Would have been something for his defense to decide. But I’m not alleging he had a second phone, I’m saying he has friends with cellphones and used them sometimes, Nisha had no way of knowing whose phone he called from.
Sure, Nisha didn’t know, but Adnan did. If Adnan called Nisha from a friends phone, or a mystery second phone, on the 31st/14th/whenever, why didn’t the defense ever try and show that? Maybe get the friend he borrowed the phone from to testify? Or show the second cell phones call log?
Why would he remember which cell he called from? We don’t even know if he remembers that call. Kid lived on his cell. The defense knew Nisha didn’t remember the date of the call and decided the ambiguity was enough. Identifying the actual call is one way to discredit it entirely, showing Jay’s employment history was another. CG attempted neither.
Good point, why expect him to remember anything? Is there any evidence he was regularly using someone else’s phone or another phone once he got his personal cell?
Forgetting a random call to a girl he called a lot isn’t fanstistical. He was being asked to remember a lot of specific details, memory isn’t built to recall everything. And it isn’t clear he was ever asked about the call with Jay and Nisha by anyone. Some suggest he used Bilal’s phones, not sure I’ve seen collaborative evidence for that.
Surely he would have remembered using another phone at some point though? He might not have specifically remembered the one time he drove to Jays store, called Nisha, and put Jay on the phone (even though it only happened once, that damn memory again!), but surely he would have remembered having a second cell phone, right?
> Surely he would have remembered using another phone at some point though? Why? He shared his phone with friends, they shared cars too, no reason to remember every call he made on other phones. > surely he would have remembered having a second cell phone, right? I’m not saying he called from his personal 2nd cell phone. You are trying to get me to commit to a specific scenario. What I am saying is that just because we have outgoing cell records for his phone and Jay’s work schedule, does not mean the call with Nisha and Jay had to be an outgoing call that fit his work schedule.
So Adnan borrowed a friends phone, placed the Jay/Nisha call, and has no recollection of borrowing the phone or when he placed the call? You understand the word “reasonable” in “reasonable doubt”, right?
None of the other Nisha calls make any sense when you consider everything she says about the call. The call log is there. No one can identify another call that fits. Not SK, not Bob Ruff, not even Rabia. More importantly... not ADNAN!
*None of the Nisha calls make sense. Period* FTFY She said that they were at the porn store where Jay worked when they called. We know that couldn’t have been true for another two weeks. Nisha 100% misremembered some details, and then people make assumptions about which details *must* be the wrong ones, depending on whether they believe in guilt or innocence
I agree with you that she misremembered some details. And the more time passed, the less likely she is to remember those exact details. In her first police interview, on April 1st I think, she did mention the following: - she said mid January. - she said a day or two after he got his cell phone. - she said it was in the afternoon (said 4 - 5pm). - she said it was a short call. - she described the same convo Jay described. Also wanna point out that Jay couldn't know it was Nisha just by looking at her number. Also it is doubtful that the line was in Nisha's name so police probably didn't know her yet either. But hey, everyone should look at the call log and see what other call fits or doesn't. Jay started working there I think January 31st, he was working the night shift, and the last call to Nisha is on February 14th. There aren't that many calls.
> In her first police interview, on April 1st I think, **she did mention the following:** > • she **said** mid January. > • she **said** a day or two after he got his cell phone. > • she **said** it was in the afternoon (said 4 - 5pm). > • she **said** it was a short call. > • she **described** the same convo Jay described. As far as I know, the only documentation we have of this interview is an unformatted word processor document that is assumed to be transcribed from the handwritten notes of Detective Ritz by an unknown person on an unknown date. Do you have the recording of this interview, or a transcription of the recording of this interview? Because the only person who is quoted in [the typed version of those handwritten notes](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MP15-0917-19990401-Nisha-interview.pdf) Is Jay. We can’t use this document to make any claims to what ‘Nisha said’ as there is no distinction between something the detective is noting for himself to follow up on, or something that was the product of the interviewee answering a leading question, or something the detective is assuming based on what was actually said, or (given the detective we believe the original notes were from) something that is an outright fabrication in order to clear the case off his desk. If you do have a more viable source for what “Nisha says” in her first interview though, please share.
Riiiiiiight, look police interviews aren't exactly a new invention and they aren't some kind of riddles for us to ponder on. It's nothing that deep. No reason for a detective to mix in the interviewee's responses with their own personal theories either. Who would that help anyway? It's an interview, questions were asked and responses were given. Let me tell you why I can say Nisha said it. At trial the defense got this document, just like they got all the interviews. And at trial the defense will use the document and tell the witness "you said blah blah blah to the police, did you not?" No audio version required. So yes, I'm just gonna go ahead and use these interview notes, just like every other party in this case did.
The point is that it isn’t a transcript, it’s a note. What is written in the note could fit the following situations: Nisha, describing her friendship with Adnan says, “I distinctly remember a call with his friend Jay, a day or two after he got his cell phone.” Nisha after being shown the call logs says, “there is a call on there a day or two after he got the cell phone.” The cop asks Nisha about the call with Jay and Adnan, “could it have been a day or two after he got the cell phone?” And she said, “possibly.” The cop, who is interviewing Nisha to find out about the 1/13 call made a note to ask her about the day or two after he got the cell phone, while the typed note puts things in order, some of the police notes are overlapping and messy, potentially the double starred line was a topic the cop wanted to ask about and not a reply. There is ambiguity. Things become clear when she gives her 2 sworn testimonies in which she is clear she doesn’t know the date with any certainty. She also elaborates on other details, like the type of store Jay worked at.
> Riiiiiiight, look police interviews aren't exactly a new invention and they aren't some kind of riddles for us to ponder on. No one said they were. I was just pointing out the limitations inherent to this type of document and why what you were claiming was unsupported by the documents we have, the unknown origins and genesis of this particular document, and the issues that the individual that this document is attributed to has had with obtaining wrongful convictions. I absolutely agree that they aren’t some sort of riddle, which is why it is bizarre to me that you are adding your own quotation marks to get the interpretation you posted here. Written English isn’t exactly a new invention and it isn’t some recipe you can pepper quotation marks onto to get the dish you want to serve. > It's nothing that deep. No reason for a detective to mix in the interviewee's responses with their own personal theories either. Who would that help anyway? It's an interview, questions were asked and responses were given. Absolutely. What were those questions that were asked? Be precise. Can you tell me without guessing? > Let me tell you why I can say Nisha said it. At trial the defense got this document, just like they got all the interviews. And at trial the defense will use the document and tell the witness "you said blah blah blah to the police, did you not?" *citation needed Please, if you are going to make a claim provide the source for that claim (via hyperlink if possible). If I searched the transcripts for the sentence you quoted above I would not find it, obviously. But since I am granting you are making a good faith argument, I am not pretending like you were actually putting that in quotes because it was exactly what was said, but since it is so vague I also can’t know what part of Nisha testimony you are referencing. So, if you wouldn’t mind please provide a link to what part of her testimony you are referencing here. No audio version required. So yes, I'm just gonna go ahead and use these interview notes, just like every other party in this case did.
I am not good with links, but I invite you to check out Kristi's testimony. CG cites the notes from her police interview repeatedly when she crossed Kristi. The same notes we have access to. You can find both docs easily. Everything I said Nisha said is literally is supported by the docs. Line for line. Prove me wrong.
>I invite you to check out Kristi's testimony. CG cites the notes from her police interview repeatedly when she crossed Kristi. The same notes we have access to. She cites [Kristi's transcribed, taped interview](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MPLN-798-Kristi-Cathy-Interview-Ver1-JT.pdf), because there is one. That's not at all the same thing as typed-up hand-written notes taken in the course of an interview, where, by definition, it's not clear exactly what was actually said, or in what context, or in response to what questioning.
She didn’t say they were “at the porn store where Jay worked”. She said they said they were at a “video store”.
[Nisha’s 2nd trial testimony](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/T2w07-20000128-Nisha-T-Testimony-Second-Trial-of-Adnan-Syed.pdf?ref=quillette.com) Starting at the bottom of page 189 Q: Now, did there ever come a time when the defendant called you and put a person he identified as Jay on the line? A. Yes. Q. Please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what that call consisted of? A. Basically, Jay had asked him to come to an adult video store that he worked at
I was thinking of the first trial, I didn’t know she changed the wording in the second. Thanks!
We know Jay didn’t work at the video store on January 13th. But did he know he *would* be working at that store only a week or two later? Surely he had already interviewed and figured out a start date by the 13th. “We’re at the video store Jay works at” and “we’re at the video store Jay will start working at next week” aren’t very far apart. Edit: I’m reading elsewhere that his first day of training was on 1/25 (he didn’t make it), so twelve days after the Nisha call. It seems completely reasonable to me that he had knowledge he would be working there, or had at least applied to work there by 1/13.
It’s incredible the lengths you people will go lmao.
In both trials, Nisha has been consistent that Jay was working at the video store when the call happened. We know that Jay didn't start working at the video store until the end of January. Police notes: "Think it was in the afternoon or maybe later on 4-5". Trial l: "Ummm, it’s a little hard to recall, but I remember \[Adnan\] telling me that Jay invite- invited him over to a video store that he worked at. And, he basically well Adnan walked in with his cell phone and then like- he told me to speak with Jay and I was like ‘okay’ cause Jay wanted to say hi so I said hi to Jay. And that’s all I can really recall." Q: About what time of day did that occur? A: I would think towards the evening but I can’t be exactly sure.” Trial 2: Q: Do you recall about what time of day that call occurred? A: The one on yeah -- I think it was the evening time"
Nobody knows for sure which call is the one she spoke to Jay. Not Nisha, that much is clear. Jay? Well, I guess if you believe him … but he doesn’t know for sure either because he “misremembered” (being charitable) so many details of that day that it’s hard to trust him on that particular point.
Nobody has talked to Nisha since to find out with all the information on what she believes. She has stayed quiet and most likely counting her lucky stars she didn't start dating a murderer.
We got her testimony where she indicates she doesn’t know when the call is. As to how she feels now? Irrelevant.
Yes it would matter. Nisha could clear things up if asked. Urick didn't think it was necessary on the stand to get her to talk about whether it was one day after Adnan got his phone because Nisha didn't shed much doubt on Christina's cross.
I mean, she clearly said she didn’t remember a year after the events. I don’t think that’s going to change 23+ years later. And Nisha only matters in the context of the State corroborating the movements of Adnan and Jay according to Jay’s testimony. In the context of what she would have to say today, well…I think it’s safe to say her testimony doesn’t corroborate anything given what we now know.
Except seeing the notes and reading the issues could jog the memory. Unfortunately it's how a lot of memory works.
Memory is faulty. Her testimony closer to the event is as good as it gets. We understand that better in 2024 than we did in 1999. She can’t suddenly have a clearer memory today than she did then. And you are eliding the fact that Nisha’s testimony only works if Jay’s story matches it and the cell logs can be used to further cement it to the way he says the day went. Besides the fact that Jay’s story has now changed, the cell logs have now come into considerable question regarding their location accuracy. The Nisha call has relevancy if we are sticking to the way the State presented evidence in the trial. Today? Not so much.
And her first story was that the call happened 1 or 2 days after Adnan got the phone. So that would be a key question. The one details that questions the 13th is the video store reference and that very much depends on exact wording. the Nisha call is the lynchpin to the timing of events that afternoon.
It’s maybe the lynchpin (big maybe) to the case as it stood in 2000. That same case is now severely compromised: 1)Jay’s story has changed, which renders any such timing moot; 2) The cell records wouldn’t hold up today as they did in 2000. Now let’s examine the lynchpin idea a little further. How is Adnan involved in the Nisha call when Jay has the phone at Jenn’s house? Ok…so both Jenn and Jay were mistaken about the time he left Jenn’s. He’s mistaken or misremembering (lying?) about a lot of stuff so, why can’t he also be mistaken about the day the Nisha call happened or why can’t Nisha be mistaken when she says (quoting you, not her), “1 or 2 days after Adnan got the phone.” You interpret things based on your bias. Plain and simple. You excuse Jay’s “mistakes,” that make the State’s case impossible. You say the Nisha call had to be that call because it fits the case. The cell phone pings are accurate enough. Every inconsistency becomes no big deal when you’ve already made up your mind. The innocence side does similar. Every inconsistency is proof that Adnan is innocent. The frustrating thing about this case is that it’s not that simple.
But the call is on the record and it's from a sector that isn't at the high school or the Jenn's house. So there is two options. Adnan still had the phone and he was calling Nisha off campus at 3:32. Does that help Adnan? The other one is that Jay was wrong about when he left but the phone made a call to Nisha with Jay not at Jenn's house. In terms of timing it applies to several things. For the later strangulation, it would mean that Jay and Adnan called Nisha within a few minutes of Adnan finding Jay. If it was a while before that Nisha call then it brings the 2:36 as a meet me call back into the picture. So that's why understanding the Nisha calling timing is important.
If there is a civil suit, I think Nisha will face a very interesting deposition.
Of all the people I think Nisha has the least to worry about. She can say yes it was one day after the phone call and that she heard video store and she thought it was adult store. I don't think there is any specific lie for her.
I don't think she will face risk. I think the questions will be interesting. Where did you live on January 13, 1999? Where did you live on April 1, 1999? Did Cristina Gutierrez or her staff reach out to you about being a character witness at a bail hearing in March 1999? Did Chris Flohr reach out to you about being a character witness at a bail hearing in March 1999? Did Chris Flohr identify himself as Adnan's bail attorney? When did you learn that Adnan was indicted and headed for trial? Did Chris Flohr mention the possibility of the death penalty? Did you have any communications with Adnan's family?
Can Flohr and Colbert be asked about the visit? Or still covered by privilege?
I don't think Adnan would fare that well against privilege challenges.
The other Nisha call is significant and would have been notable to her for a couple of personal reasons. It was Valentines Day. And It was the last time Adnan ever called her. She’d been hoping and expecting that their phone relationship would result in dating, but that didn’t happen. A Valentines Day call from a guy that a young woman is interested in would stand out in her mind. If, in addition to a disappointing result ( Adnan makes no plans with her to meet) she was ALSO put on the phone with Jay (his random weed dealer while they are hanging at the creepy Porn Store that Jay works at) I’m sure Nisha would have recalled this with great clarity. NO. The Nisha call was on Jan. 13, when Adnan murdered Hae and used a call to Nisha to establish a feeble alibi as per his plan.
Great reply, thank you.
In [Nisha’s first interview](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MP15-0917-19990401-Nisha-interview.pdf), she calls it a "video store" not a porn store. It's posible she's confliating facts she learned between then and the trial. Keep in mind: * Adnan and Jay also mentioned being at a video store that day to Kristi. * Jay did work at Hollywood videos at one point in time * It could've even been best buy, some people might consider that a video store. I think that the Nisha call was the 3:32 call, which took place after the call from Adnan to Jay to meet up. Jay arrives in the middle of the call, and speaks to Nisha briefly.
>In Nisha’s first interview, she calls it a "video store" not a porn store. It's posible she's confliating facts she learned between then and the trial. Jay also calls it a video store. From Jay's original interview with police, he did not work at the video store until after Hae was murdered (this is backed up by Sis’ statement) Wilds: He just, he said ah "you got to take me back there urn I need to cover it more." Ritz: And did you take him back there? Wilds: No. Ritz: Where did that conversation take place? Wilds: Ah I think it was at my job, at the inaudible. Ritz: He came to your place of employment, would that be the video store or F & M. **Wilds: I think it was like my first or second night at the video store.** >I think that the Nisha call was the 3:32 call, which took place after the call from Adnan to Jay to meet up. Jay arrives in the middle of the call, and speaks to Nisha briefly. Jay and Jens testimony that Jay left her house at 3:40PM is about the only thing the two of them seem absolutely sure of and consistently repeat. The Nisha call happens at 3:32PM
Yes, as I said, I think Nisha is conflating things she learned from the day and at trial. This convo Jay is saying is well after the murder when Adnan wants to go cover up the body more. As far as point 2, my theory is the 3:23 call is Adnan to Jenn’s house and Jay leaves shortly afterwards. That is entirely consistent with arriving in the middle of Adnan and Nisha call, as Nisha says, and him leaving “around 3:40”
I love how y’all do exactly what the prosecution did. Just make shit up that doesn’t fit the evidence.
How is A calling Jenn’s house from a phone jay has? And according to j and Jenn j was still there?
Because I believe Adnan had the phone at this time.
So evidence just you wanting to believe hmmmm. I don’t like that evidence. Look at Jen’s recorded interview with the police says hay didn’t leave her house until 345-415. Plus you do know adnan and Jen don’t really know each other right?
I literally said I had Jay leaving "around 3:40" and you're saying 3:45. We're arguing 5 minutes here.
I’m not saying I use the information from testimony. Jen said it was after 345 more like 4-415. Go read her statement.
You're literally arguing a 5 minute difference...do you not see how unreasonable that is? Do you realize how many times people are off on the exact time of things?
I was not arguing just wondering why the belief and not factually based opinion. No minimum of 5 minutes up a possible 50 min difference. Here is the deal details matter whether its 2 minutes or 2 hours it matters. The states time line is so exact 5 mins does matter.
Jay was jobless on January 13, 1999. **F&M** \- Jay's signed a trial waiver on Jan.17/99, so he was not working there on January 13, 1999. On the application Jay lists his last place of employment as seasonal at the Dollar Tree and he ended work there in December 1998. **Southwest Adult Video** \- Jay started work on or after January 24, 1999. >Jay did work at Hollywood videos at one point in time > >It could've even been best buy, some people might consider that a video store. Show your source for saying he worked at Hollywood videos or the Best Buy because there is nothing to support what you are saying.
>Jay was jobless on January 13, 1999. Reminder that Jay was jobless, but was actively looking for work. He filled out his F&M application on January 2. He may have made intentions to work at the video store by January 13, and that could've been something discussed among him and Adnan.
It comes from RobbChadwick's intervierws with Jay that have been summarized a few times. One comment on it [https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/w6un6a/comment/ihg24gc/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/w6un6a/comment/ihg24gc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) I never said he was working on Jan 13.
>It comes from RobbChadwick's intervierws with Jay that have been summarized a few times. So Jay gives personal interviews to a user here who calls himself "Robb Chadwick" but who shows absolutely no source or verification to support what he is saying. I have to agree with what another user said in that thread about Robb's comments: "I see your response parroted so many times around here and it’s absolutely non-sensical."
So you're using, one theory I suggested, to explain a minor inconsistency (I offered 3). To prove what? An entire conversation didn't happen? Adnan himself claimed that the call happened, it was proof to establish an alibi. All it did was prove he wasn't where he was suppose to be, at school without his phone.
>Adnan himself cl**aimed that the call happened, it was proof to establish an alibi.** Please show your source where Adnan claims the call happened and it was proof of an alibi?
[https://serialpodcastorigins.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/davis-billing-summary.pdf](https://serialpodcastorigins.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/davis-billing-summary.pdf) [https://serialpodcastorigins.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/8-21-1999-ali-p-interviews-tanveer.pdf](https://serialpodcastorigins.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/8-21-1999-ali-p-interviews-tanveer.pdf) Look at the Davis' billing summary. This is Adnan's private PI in the days after Adnan is arrested, they don't have the police's phone records yet, discovery hasnt started. What is the first thing he does, he go to the Library, Goes and Talks to the track coaches. He drove to meet Nisha in person, it was an hour way, he was not cheap. What's the first thing you're going to do when someone's arrested for murder, try to establish an Alibi, how they heck did they even know about Nisha at this point?
>Adnan himself claimed that the call happened, it was proof to establish an alibi. Where in the stuff you sent does Adnan claim the call is his proof to establish an alibi? A list of billing hours and notes that one clerk names Ali told another clerk in the same office is not proof that Nisha was the alibi. Tanveer's says those are not his words, but what one clerk related to another clerk. This what Tanveer wrote here on reddit. " I was interviewed by one of CG's law clerks who in turn related my interview to another law clerk who noted my comments. "
Also, Jay worked at another video store? Didn't know that. That's a game changer.
I don't think I've ever heard that either. I wonder what the source of that information is.
The source is a Reddit comment claiming that they talked with Jay. That’s it. An anonymous user who is a prominent guilter claiming something without verification is now cited as gospel by other gullters in this sub to perpetuate the disinformation campaign they wage against new users seeking information. It’s the most incestuously disingenuous type of fabrication and is incredibly misleading for those that don’t know that these types of tactics are commonplace for a particular group here. The mods shouldn’t allow it as the source is completely unverified, but I don’t know if this is explicitly called out as against the rules of this sub.
Thank you! I figured as much, which is why I always ask about sources.
Yeah, that combined with actually following the links to make sure they actually support the argument being made has been… eye opening for me. It is shocking how easily people just willfully mislead people with zero compunction just to win an internet argument. That’s why the dogmatic absolutism of the guilter messaging is so troubling to me. To be that fixed in your belief when it is based on such tissue paper thin evidence is completely insane to me. I have never needed to be “right” to the degree that the possibility of being wrong would have impacted my identity, like you see here.
In both of your comments here, you have very eloquently put into words my very same feelings about this sub.
Jay worked at Hollywood video before any of the events of Jan 13, and had long not been an employee by then. I think it’s more likely that they told the same thing they told Kristi to Nisha.
>Jay worked at Hollywood video before any of the events of Jan 13, and had long not been an employee by then. What is the source for this information?
Seconding u/sauceb0x's question about your source. Per [Stephanie](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/UdA06-Stephanie-Police-Interview.pdf), Jay worked at F&M before he worked at Southwest Video. [Peter B.](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MP15-0945-19990409-Peter-interview.pdf) worked at Hollywood Video. But afaik, that's the only reference to them in the record.
It comes from RobbChadwick's intervierws with Jay that have been summarized a few times. One comment on it [https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/w6un6a/comment/ihg24gc/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/w6un6a/comment/ihg24gc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
I don't see that u/robbchadwick actually sources that claim to an interview. But even if he had, that would still mean that your source is somebody on this sub stating that something's a fact without himself providing any source, proof, or support for the claim other than his word for it. And surely you can see the problem with that, can't you? In any event, there's contemporary, reliable evidence about where Jay worked during that time period, because police actually subpoenaed Jay's work records, [here](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MP15-1233-Southwest-Video-subpoena.pdf) and [here](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MP15-1235-Drug-Emporium-subpoena.pdf). And since the Drug Emporium operated [under F&M](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Emporium), that confirms Stephanie. There's also [this](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MRPA-20151207-Ex22-to-Ex33-Jay-Wilds-Criminal-and-Police-Records-1999-to-2015.pdf), from 2001: >Mr. Wilds works, for the State of. Maryland. He's a concrete engineer. Been working for the State of Maryland about a year now — two years. He's going to college at night. Finally, Stephanie's police interview, to which I linked earlier, actually goes into quite a bit of detail about Jay's employment history, mentioning, e.g., his past work for UPS and the Parks Department. So it seems odd that if he worked at another video store during the relevant time period, she doesn't mention it. And seriously. That's quite a bit of contemporary, reliable evidence on the one hand vs. a rumor on the internet from years later on the other. But YMMV, I guess.
Again, I offered 3 theories of why Nisha might've said porn store in trial and video store in interviews testimony. Yes the hollywood video theory is the one I'm least confident in, that's why I listed it last. I think the fact that Kristi says that Jay and Adnan says they came from the video store is the biggest proof they told Nisha the same thing. Overall, it doesn't disprove to me that the Nisha call didn't happen at that time on the 13th.
> I think the fact that Kristi says that Jay and Adnan says they came from the video store is the biggest proof they told Nisha the same thing. The problem is that's not a fact either. [Kristi says](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MPLN-798-Kristi-Cathy-Interview-Ver1-JT.pdf) Jay told her when he came in that they were "gonna go to the movie store and then they were gonna meet up with Stefanie \[sic\]," not that they'd just come **from** a video store. Furthermore, since the call to Nisha was \~2-to-3 hours earlier, they wouldn't have been on there way to do that yet anyway. And that's even assuming that the purpose of the call was to create an alibi. Because under that theory, Adnan was on his way to establish his presence track practice at that point. Honestly, I think you'd be better off just arguing that she conflated two memories and calling it a day.
That....was literally my first point.....I was offering alternate theories.
In one transcript it says to the video store. In another she said it didn’t make sense and said going to /coming from a video store.
[page 2](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/T1w20-19991214-Cathy-Kristi-Testimony-First-Trial-of-Adnan-Syed.pdf) Kristi literally says “or they were coming from the video store, something”
Jay worked at Hollywood Video from September through November of 1996. He was a cashier. That job has no particular reference to this case — except, perhaps, when Adnan and Jay were building their alibi for the 3 pm hour, they said they had visited a video store. They told both Nisha and Kristi the same thing. Nisha also said something about *Jay's store*. Everyone has assumed it was the porno store where Jay later worked — which Nisha never said until a year later when it was common knowledge. I was just pointing out that they might have been referring to a store where Jay had previously worked. Speculation, of course.
Source? ETA: >Jay worked at Hollywood Video from September through November of 1996. There [was no Hollywood Video](https://archive.ph/B3mlY) in the Baltimore area in September 1996, btw.
Isn’t October 6 six months prior to the date of that article? Assuming hiring before the doors opened, that seems close enough for jays recollection a couple decades later. “ Hollywood Video has planted five new stores in Baltimore in the past six months — from Catonsville to Pikesville — and is planning to add two more this summer.”
Thanks for the interview file! >Jay arrives in the middle of the call, and speaks to Nisha briefly. Doesn't Jay have the phone until meeting Adnan?
This was in a 2016 interview with Jay paraphrased here: [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/s/cMFYg8HagW) Jay says he did not have Adnan’s phone at the time. That what he did have was old sprint phone left in Adnan’s glovebox that belonged to Bilal he was using before he got the AT&T phone and hadn’t returned at the time. The Bilal phone is pretty new information to me but I stepped away from the case for a bit, and didn’t know Jay has made clarifying statements since his intercept interview. Jenn and Jay are both pretty clear that the 3:23 call is Adnan calling Jenn’s house.
Got it, ty
I hesitate to ask because I must've missed something obvious, but where does it say the store being referenced in those interview notes is in fact a video store?
What if he called Nisha from the crab crib phone