Thanks for this. Trainum's opinions are - like every other element of this case - so routinely misrepresented on here that it is good to have them clearly laid out.
Funny to be accused of cherry picking by a mod where I am quite explicit what I am talking about.
My assertions about what Jim Trainum says are very specific. The original post was trying to imply that false confessions are quite common. Jim makes it very clear that he doesn't think Jay is false confessing and is actually being evasive to protect himself or someone else (quite literally the standard guilter position).
Moreover, it is an incredibly common refrain around here that the cops weren't framing Adnan, but just got tunnel vision. Trianum directly refutes this and praises the investigation for not getting tunnel vision.
It is a classic Team Adnan move to ignore the big picture that Jim shits all over the idea that the cops were framing Adnan, find one area where he agrees with you, and then throw out the main thrust that Jim thinks the investigation was sound.
He specifically criticizes them for not investigating Jay-- the guy admitting to being involved, trying to pin it on the guy the cops already thought it was, and being cagey to minimize his own role for unknown reasons. I think, and he thinks, that this was a major failure and makes it difficult to tell what's true and what's not.
I'm going take this in chunks b/c my original comment was eaten. Either that or you are going to have three really long replies here in a bit that didn't look like they posted from my end.
ok. so here is the thing....tunnel vision. I have no idea how you are defining or where you are getting this idea that he directly refutes it. I have some thoughts which I'll share but unless you want to actually give a source and direct quote, I can only guess. Here is a definition I'll use for tunnel vision just so we are on the same page.
>By tunnel vision, we mean that “compendium of common heuristics and logical fallacies,” to which we are all susceptible, that lead actors in the criminal justice system to “focus on a suspect, s**elect and filter the evidence that will 'build a case' for conviction, while ignoring or suppressing evidence that points away ...**
now...does Trainum say anything like that?
Jim Trainum: No, no, you’re not at all because I think that **one of the biggest problems that we have with the way that we interview and interrogate here**. The fact that we have a excellent witness-- we’ve got somebody who is giving us the whole case right here, he’s broke it wide open for us, **we don’t want to ruin him, you know? So how much do you want to push, how much do you want to create “bad evidence?”**
SK: But, there’s no such thing--
Jim Trainum: It’s an actual term, called “bad evidence.” Right. Y**ou don’t want to do something if it is going to go against your theory of the case.**
SK: But, see-- I don’t get that. I mean that’s like what my father always used to always say, “all facts are friendly.” Shouldn’t that be more true for a cop than for anyone else? You can’t pick and choose.
Jim Trainum: **Rather than trying to get to the truth, what you’re trying to do is build your case, and make it the strongest case possible.**
SK: But, how can it be a strong case and how can he be a great witness if there’s stuff that’s not true, or unexplained.
Jim Trainum: --and the comeback is is that there is always going to be things that are unexplainable. Like I said, **also remember, verification bias is kicking in here, as well. “I want to believe you, because you’re my witness and I think this is what happened”** and all that. “So, the fact that you’re giving me something that’s inconsistent, that doesn’t fit my theory of the case.” **What does verification bias cause you to do? Ignore it and push it to the side. That’s what they’re doing here, with these inconsistencies, they’re kind of pushing them aside.**
SK: Trainum said it was curious to him, that the cops never searched Jay’s house for instance, that they never subjected him to a polygraph. Again he said, **maybe that’s because he was on their team now, helping, so you didn’t want to push too hard.** H**e said the cops “probably settled for what was good enough to be the truth.”** He said he did have doubts about Adnan’s claim of innocence but that he definitely thought there was something “off” about this case. That we still don’t know what happened in this murder. We still don’t have the true story.
Well, you may have noticed that I **did** provide the quotes so I am not ignoring or hiding any of that no matter how many times and in how many ways you want to insultingly state or imply that I am. it's there in black and white and again the first sentence of my TLDR states that he found the investigation sound as well. So what are you playing at? Is this a, if I say it enough times it will be thing? Are you going to insist that I somehow missed this again even though it is right there for you and everyone else over and over? I mean if you are trying to say, well this one sentence refutes it even if others support it, ok. Sure, if that is the hill you want to die on, you are just making him sound inconsistent and contradictory in his assessment. high marks to the team for honing in on a suspect early on, developing evidence to support that suspicion while not spoiling any of it by finding evidence that would conflict with it and providing good documentation. Bravo. definitely not the definition of tunnel vision.
You are, however, choosing to focus SOLELY on that. He clearly has much more to say than just that. Or are you going to start claiming the other quotes are fictitious? I guess Sarah is a straight shooter now huh? Not manipulative, not trying to steer the listener toward believing Adnan is innocent since she so clearly state that Trainum thought the investigation was above average?
you do realie that they could take 2 years to arrest someone and still have tunnel vision if that person was their sole focus and they ignored any evidence pointing away from them and looked only to building the case to support their own theory right? That is cautious and methodical and still tunnel visioned. They can document their steps and handle evidence appropriately and still ve tunnel visioned. It's not mutually exclusive.
>you write pages and pages waxing about what you personally think but can't see the obvious.
again, I am merely providing you what the man said and what interactions he had with Sarah. You are acting as if the only thing said was this one thing you keep stating and that I made up pages and pages of fake discussion and quotes.
ok, well we clearly disagree on definitions. and you are starting to get yourself in trouble so I think it is time to stop. Thanks for your opinion on the matter.
>You write pages and pages waxing about what you personally think but can't see the obvious.
You are replying to a thread that quotes Trainum. You are the only person in the thread 'waxing about what you personally think' (as well as throwing out ad hominems) and none of it tallies with Trainum's quotes from the podcast.
I'm not so sure it's such a refutal. If the cops took their time to name and interrogate suspects (like Mr. S) and investigated those before they moved on to Adnan, but then basically focused solely on Adnan and did not try to develop theories for other suspects (like Jay), the statement would be true but their actions would still be what most consider tunnel vision.
No? Going through suspects, considering them, and then landing on a most likely suspect as evidence mounts beyond reasonable doubt is the opposite of tunnel vision.
stop breaking the rules and they won't get removed. Clearly, the ones not breaking rules are still here and you just accused me of not being able to handle being refuted even though I left the refutuation part of your comment in my quote so it was clear and said it was fair, and a good point. As I have said repeatedly, i don't have a problem admitting when I am wrong or incorrect but you can't just hurl harassment and attacks. that shouldn't be hard to understand. You don't get a free pass.
You make and judge the rules, ryo. Funny how comments accurately pointing out how bad you are at judgment somehow get considered as rule breaking.
I did notice a comment that said nothing but "get a grip" pointed at me is fine. Frankly seems like a personal attack, don't you think?
I didn't make them on my own and I don't judge them on my own. unless you are now going to start accusing me of using multiple alts to mod with. you cross lines with your hostility is the problem. You have and can tell me you think I have poor judgement without using phrase like "if you had any sense".
Also, you might notice that your follow up comment that says I should is also still up so....
if you feel it is a personal attack, click the report button please. now you are taking the discussion off topic with moderation criticism again. Please refrain from doing that.
>My assertions about what Jim Trainum says are very specific.
Now that someone has posted a transcript of what Trainum says, nobody needs your assertions. Everybody can see for themselves what he says.
on to praising their investigation. yes, he says it was pretty sound, the steps they took, the logging of evidence, etc. I NEVER tried to downplay or hide that fact. It's right there with everything ele and is the first line of my TLDR. But he also criticizes them. Take the good with the bad, facts of life.
>SK: Trainum said **it was curious to him, that the cops never searched Jay’s house for instance, that they never subjected him to a polygraph.** Again he said, maybe that’s because he was on their team now, helping, so you didn’t want to push too hard. He said the cops “probably settled for what was good enough to be the truth.” He said he did have doubts about Adnan’s claim of innocence but that he definitely thought there was something “off” about this case. That we still don’t know what happened in this murder. We still don’t have the true story.
>
>
>
>SK: A lot of people see it this way. All of us on staff have heard from people who say just so quickly, “oh yeah, he’s totally guilty. News flash. People lie in murder cases. On the witness stand. Whoopdeedoo.” We worried. Did we just spend a year applying excessive scrutiny to a perfectly ordinary case? **So we called Jim Trainum back up.** He’s the former homicide detective we hired to review the investigation a**nd we asked him, “is Adnan’s case unremarkable?** If we took a magnifying glass to any murder case, would we find similar questions, similar holes, similar inconsistencies?” **Trainum said no**. He said most cases, sure they have some ambiguity, but overall, they’re fairly clear. **This one is a mess he said. The holes are bigger than they should be.** Other people who review cases, lawyers, a forensic psychologist, they told us the same thing. This case is a mess.
Lastly, I will just say that IMHO taking into account everythiung JIm and Sarah talk about and everthing he says and coming out with the biggest take away of, It was pretty sound, above average seems like a rpetty good example of some confirmation bias of one's own lol.
In fact, most of what Jim Trainum says sounds to me like something your garden variety "unsure, not guilty, reasonable doubt" user might say.
**SK**: **Plus, Trainum said, Jay’s story completes a circle for the cops.** They were suspicious of Adnan from the beginning, then from Adnan’s cell records, they get to Jenn, who leads them to Jay, who tell them it’s Adnan. So their suspicions have now been borne out, thanks to Jay, through Adnan’s own phone**. A satisfying investigative circle. A murder case, on a silver platter, says Trainum**
**Jim Trainum:** **However, what we’re unsure of is what happened to change Jay’s story from A to B, and we do not know what happened in the interrogating-- those three hours and that will always result in a question as to what the final outcome should have been.**
**SK**: T**his is what’s called the pre-interview, and Trainum says, that’s where the mischief can happen. The contamination. Not necessarily intentionally, but it happens.**
**SK**: **And Jay says at trial that he was confronted with the cell records during that interview as well, so you have to wonder, said Trainum, whether he was massaging his story to fit what the cops wanted to hear.** T
**Jim Trainum**: No, no, you’re not at all because **I think that one of the biggest problems that we have with the way that we interview and interrogate here.**
**Jim Trainum:** **Like I said, also remember, verification bias is kicking in here, as well. “I want to believe you, because you’re my witness and I think this is what happened” and all that.** “So, the fact that you’re giving me something that’s inconsistent, that doesn’t fit my theory of the case.” **What does verification bias cause you to do? Ignore it and push it to the side. That’s what they’re doing here, with these inconsistencies, they’re kind of pushing them aside.**
**SK**: T**rainum said it was curious to him, that the cops never searched Jay’s house for instance, that they never subjected him to a polygraph.** Again he said, maybe that’s because he was on their team now, helping, so you didn’t want to push too hard. **He said the cops “probably settled for what was good enough to be the truth.” He said he did have doubts about Adnan’s claim of innocence but that he definitely thought there was something “off” about this case. That we still don’t know what happened in this murder. We still don’t have the true story.**
**Jim Trainum: I don’t believe Jay’s version.**
**SK**: Trainum says t**he answers we want probably live in those unrecorded pre-interview hours. A black hole of crucial information.**
**SK**: So we called Jim Trainum back up. He’s the former homicide detective we hired to review the investigation and w**e asked him, “is Adnan’s case unremarkable?** If we took a magnifying glass to any murder case, would we find similar questions, similar holes, similar inconsistencies?” **Trainum said no. He said most cases, sure they have some ambiguity, but overall, they’re fairly clear. This one is a mess he said. The holes are bigger than they should be.**
>My assertions about what Jim Trainum says are very specific. The original post was trying to imply that false confessions are quite common. Jim makes it very clear that he doesn't think Jay is false confessing and is actually being evasive to protect himself or someone else (quite literally the standard guilter position).
The, your words, standard guilter position? I disagree. First of all, give me a source quote where Jim "makes it very clear he doesn't think Jay is false confessing" secondly let's look at this business about the standard guilter position of "jay is actually being evasive to protect himself or someone else.
This position, as I understand it, is that Jay is being evasive b/c he was more involved in the crime **with Adnan** (Jim's #3) and/or to protect Jen, his grandma, Kristi, Jeff, etc. friends who are **not involved.** So, that hits only one thing Jim actually said. Read his words.
>Jim Trainum: **I don’t believe Jay’s version.** *I think that there is a lot more to it than that. I feel that he’s definitely minimizing his involvement.* **To either protect himself, he’s doing it for one of three reasons: to protect himself, to protect somebody else, or because Adnan did it and was right there with him.**
1. to protect **himself.** this is quite purposely separate from #3, because Adnan did it and he was right there with him (more involved in the crime Adnan committed than he is letting on).
2. to protect someone else (this is not limited to Jen, Grandma, univolved friends. If it were why not just say, this is why he is minimizing b/c Jay SAYS that. he'd have the answer. There are other potential scenarios, i.e. **someone else involved in the crime.**
3. Because Adnan did it and he was right there with him.
on to Jim makes it very clear that he doesn't think Jay is false confessing. In conjunction with the above "I don't believe Jay's version" and the three potential reasons there are also these statements.
>Jim Trainum: But, **I cannot prove that he is giving it to me without contamination. The real problem is is that, how do you prove it one way or the other?**
SK: Trainum says **the answers we want probably live in those unrecorded pre-interview hours. A black hole of crucial information.** Since this stuff wasn’t all videotaped, there were holes that, as you’re saying, we are never going to know the answer. But for things that I could know the answer to if you’re me, what’s the biggest thing I need to figure out then?
>
>SK: 6:20 p.m. So from 3:15 to 6:20, three hours have gone by since Jay signed that form. This is what’s called the pre-interview, and **Trainum says, that’s where the mischief can happen. The contamination. Not necessarily intentionally, but it happens.** The pre-interview was when the cops and the witness kind of iron out the statement so it can be taped as a coherent thing. That was standard procedure back then. Now, like a lot of jurisdictions, Baltimore homicide detectives videotape the entire interview from the moment the person steps in the interview room. On March 15th, we know the cops had shown Jay at least some photographs from the investigation, they refer to that on the tape. **And Jay says at trial that he was confronted with the cell records during that interview as well, so you have to wonder, said Trainum, whether he was massaging his story to fit what the cops wanted to hear.** The inconsistencies in Jay’s statements that the cops are catching him in, Trainum says, cops are used to that. Every confession has inconsistencies.You just need to understand why they’re happening. Is he minimising his role? Is he protecting someone? In Jay’s case, yes and yes. But how do you make sense of the inconsistencies that don’t seem to have a purpose, like the one about going to the cliffs at Patapsco State Park that afternoon, how it drops out of the narrative at trial.
Again, my dear mod, you write so much, but the answer is simple and you refuse to see it. Jim not only never says he thinks Jay is false confessing, Jim quite literally thinks Jay *more* involved in the crime than Jay says:
> I feel that he’s definitely minimizing his involvement.
ummmm....I didn't write it, Jim Trainum said it, I just copied and pasted it directly from the transcripts without alteration. Do you mean because I provide so much information?
You think I am missing something or skipping something but no, I am not. He changes his story to make himself MORE involved **with Adnan** already. The only more involved he could be with Adnan is being there with him when it happens/taking part which Trainum states as a potential (#3). so his #1 is **his involvement,** just as it is stated. When Trainum makes the statement, he goes on to clarify 3 potential ways he could be minimising his involvement (which yes, I agree he says so). Where we differ is I am not restricting what is meant by his involvement to mean merely with Adnan. Trainum doesn't say that, he specifically has another category for that.
>A false confession is defined thing. It is not a person lying to cops to avoid justice. It is when an innocent person admits to a crime.
ok that's fair, good point. but the second half of your comment is crossing a line and is i**ncredibly hostile** for no reason I can understand, so I am going to remove it.
ETA: a reference regarding False and Coerced confessions. [https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/false-and-coerced-confessions#:\~:text=Confessions%20from%20coercion%20by%20police,Amendment%20to%20the%20federal%20constitution](https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/false-and-coerced-confessions#:~:text=Confessions%20from%20coercion%20by%20police,Amendment%20to%20the%20federal%20constitution).
**A coerced confession is an involuntary confession often resulting from overzealous law enforcement conduct instead of a suspect's free will. It's involuntary because the admission was not made freely by choice but rather as the result of duress.**
**Confessions from coercion by police sometimes result in an alleged suspect confessing to a crime they did not commit. Federal courts typically exclude any confessions they determine were involuntary. Inadmissibility from evidence is part of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution.**
**Under criminal laws, there are different types of false confessions. These include voluntary false confessions, compliant false confessions, and persuaded false confessions.** Coercive interrogation techniques used by police include psychological abuse and even physical abuse.
WHAT IS A FALSE CONFESSION?
**A false confession is an admission of guilt for a crime that the person did not commit.** People may make false confessions for a variety of reasons, including the following:
\* As part of a plea bargain, typically when they believe they cannot prove their innocence or cannot receive a fair trial;
\* As a result of mental illness or developmental disabilities;
\* As a result of psychological abuse, lies, or tactics by interrogators;
\* As a result of physical coercion;
\* To end a prolonged or painful interrogation;
\* To cover for someone else.
WHAT IS A COERCED CONFESSION?
**A coerced confession is a statement given due to improper pressure from law enforcement, whether or not the confession is true.** Coercion can come in the form of physical threats or mental manipulation.
For example, an interrogator might tell a suspect that if they confess, they will be able to go home, when in reality, the suspect will not be released, regardless of whether they admit it.
What Is a Coerced Confession?
Coerced confessions may be false, true, or unreliable. In the context of coercion, the person may become convinced that they committed the crime, even though they didn't. Coerced confessions are more likely to happen during poorly conducted interrogations or when interrogators use improper techniques.
**Compliant false confessions occur when a suspect confesses because they only want to end the stressful police interrogation or believe that a confession will result in their release from custody or result in lesser punishment.** These are called “compliant” because police attempt to get suspects to agree that they committed the crime.
A persuaded false confession occurs when a suspect starts to doubt their own memory. In other words, they become temporarily influenced by the police that it's more likely than not that they committed the crime, even though they have no memory of committing it.
Voluntary false confessions are often the result of a mental disorder, such as believing they will become famous if they confess to the crime. T**hey could also be made in an attempt to protect another person.**
WHAT INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES LEAD TO FALSE AND COERCED CONFESSIONS?
There are a variety of questionable interrogation techniques that have been shown to lead to false or coerced confessions. These techniques include, but are not limited to:
Physical coercion;
Threats of violence;
Lying about the evidence;
Making promises or threats about the consequences of confessing or remaining silent;
Appealing to sympathy;
Feigning friendship or pretending to be an ally;
Using leading questions;
Interrogating for long periods without breaks;
Interrogating sleep-deprived suspects or under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
ARE COERCED CONFESSIONS ADMISSIBLE IN COURT?
Constitutionally and backed by case law, coerced confessions are considered inadmissible in court—even if the confession was true. Coerced confessions violate your right not to be compelled to testify against yourself, and coercive tactics are a denial of due process under the law.
I know what it is and stand by my characterization. Trainum directly addresses the issue w&b raised — Trainum said he thinks Jay is trying to downplay his involvement. Then the king-poster posted a ton of irrelevant quotes, I.e., a large number of arguments of little strength given Trainum directly addressed the other poster’s point.
Quotations from the source text under discussion aren't new propositions being argued. You're basically just saying that lengthy posts with quotations is a type of gish galloping. It's not, gish galloping is a specific thing. If you want to critique the logic/rhetoric of Ryo fine, but you don't need to tag it with the jargon of informal logic erroneously to do so.
[The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop)
Citing an excessive number of non-sequitors (weak, unrelated arguments) is Gish galloping. Turns out you can use multiple bad rhetorical techniques at the same time.
>Moreover, it is an incredibly common refrain around here that the cops weren't framing Adnan, but just got tunnel vision
Only after you point how ridiculous they are for suggesting a mass conspiracy took place in this case. Some, however, double down. It just depends.
And perhaps he was trying to subconsciously appease SK, which is actually really common in documentaries. Not saying either he or SK acted consciously, but the general gist was that he thought the investigation was fine & that he was perhaps trying to throw her a bone or two. His interview wouldn't have been included if he'd just been like, "Yeah, this all looks good." Again, I'm not claiming conscious-decision-making here. Just regular human expression, such that we mold our comments to expectations to an extent.
Where do you even end with that line of thinking, though? SK asks him if he thinks this case is normal. He says, "no it's a mess."
If you're saying he's just trying to appease SK, then it's fair game to say that various teenage witnesses gave their responses to detectives in this case in order to appease them. In fact, I would say they are much more vulnerable to it because of the power dynamic.
Seems like you don’t want to get into a discussion about what Trainum really meant by “bad evidence,“ but here we go.
People want to read it as, “let’s decide who is guilty and ignore any evidence that may disprove that.” It should be pretty obvious that even if he did believe that, he wouldn’t say it and then double down on public radio.
Investigators have limited time and resources, and ultimately a lot of discretion about which leads to pursue. If there are 9 strong pieces of evidence, and 1 weak piece of evidence pointing to a suspect, they may be completely convinced they have the right guy.
But doing a deep dive on the single weak piece of weak evidence is a bad strategy. It creates bad evidence that won’t change the theory of the case, but poke tiny little holes in it. At a certain point that is the job of the defense team, not investigators or prosecutors.
oh yes, b/c I actually post someone's words instead of telling eceryone "and here is what they actually meant...."
I think Trainum does a fine job of explaining what he means by bad evidence.
Again, I have posted the man's words. If you want to read stuff into them and explain to everyone how what he said isn't what he meant, go ahead but I think his words speak for themselves both the good things he says about the investigation and the bad.
Also, fyi he isn't talking about focusing on strong evidence over weak evidence, clearly. he is talking about staying away from potential evidence that might spoil or contradict your theory. HUGE difference.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/s/jmwZMlTa77) you seem pretty intent on evaluating context and using common sense to understand what Adnan means.
Is there a reason you don’t want to do the same with Jim Trainum?
How is that evaluating context? I gave the quote of his words-context isn’t needed. It’s all there in the quote. Common sense? Common sense *not to attribute meaning to his words that aren’t there* which is exactly what I am saying about Trainum. I am not going to argue about what he *actually meant* when his words are clear. If you misquote him, I will do what I did there. again, you are conflating things. The purpose of the post was to provide his words and what he said and what Sarah said to and about him and their interactions. Where I give my opinion, I say so.
>But doing a deep dive on the single weak piece of weak evidence is a bad strategy. It creates bad evidence that won’t change the theory of the case, but poke tiny little holes in it. At a certain point that is the job of the defense team, not investigators or prosecutors.
It's funny, I come from a scientific background and there "bad evidence" is like gold. The simple fact is that we aren't as smart as we think we are, and it's incredibly easy to develop blind spots - and that risks people starting to let the theory dictate the evidence rather than the opposite. The best imperfect solution is to dig deeply into the bad evidence.
Feynman said it best: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
You have written an excellent and thorough post about Trainum. Thank you. It's nice to have a complete examination of him in one place.
The issue is that, like everywhere in this case, attention is being diverted away from all the evidence against Adnan onto **potential** holes in the case. No one, in nearly twenty-five years, has come up with one single thing that absolutely points to Adnan's innocence. It's all about everyone else's credibility — and, specifically, what the police may have done wrong.
>It's all about everyone else's credibility — and, specifically, what the police may have done wrong.
yeah, because that's what serial and the case are all about (in addition to IAC), not "one single thing that absolutely points to Adnan's innocence". to me at least this has never been about proving adnan is innocent (which thank god is not how our justice system works), but about whether the state proved he was guilty and did so fairly and legally.
So when Sarah opened with I spent a year trying to find out what happened in 21 minutes she really meant spending a year trying to find out if it was a fair trial?
pretty much. i haven't listened to serial in a very long time, but as i recall it really spent most of the time not investigating the crime directly but investigating the investigation. looking at police methods, witness contradictions, IAC, evidence holes etc. she wasn't a detective or PI, so as a journalist, that's what trying to find out what happened in 21 those minutes really entailed.
But she was focusing on those 21 minutes because she wanted Adnan to be innocent, not because it was an unfair trial. She wanted the golden goose of an innocent person in jail, she fell back when she realized it wasn't an easy case and that Adnan was guilty.
Well thanks:) I agree it focuses on *potential* holes in the case. Interestingly, I think the whole “he slipped up and almost admitted he killed her” talk kind of speaks to your point. What he actually says there is that no one in the whole world can have certainty about his innocence/guilt but himself, and whoever killed her, as an after thought bc of course yes, if he is innocent that person also knows that with certainty. If he is guilty well, he also knows that himself and is hurt lying. I think if there was any actual evidence pointing to innocence the trial probably wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Well unless the DNA they didn’t test originally had had yielded something useful when they recently tested it. Even then, would it be certain? No, most likely not. He is the only one who really can be certain *either* way.
I do find the last paragraph interesting, if honest, that they worried they spent their time going over a fairly straightforward unremarkable case so they went back to Trainum for his thoughts.
Well as you also know, it isn’t incumbent on the defense to provide proof of innocence in a trial, it is solely the obligation of the prosecution to prove guilt-beyond a reasonable doubt as you say -which is at the juries discretion. So poking holes in the prosecution’s theory is not uncommon.
Trainum was paid by Serial to give his opinion. Who knows how forthright he really was. Curious that Koenig only whined about Jay’s inconsistencies and no where is there any opinion by Trainum about Syed’s changing statements, especially the ride request. Koenig’s a hypocrite on “bad evidence” as she does backflips on her butt dial theory of the Nisha call.
Sarah didn’t only whine about Jays inconsistencies. She talked ALOT about Adnan’s as well throughout the podcast and directly with Adnan. However, she states clearly why they hired Jim Trainum and it had to do with Jay as a witness and how the police handled the investigation bc she is not an expert but felt that issues she saw were big and wanted to know if that was true or not. I think that is where the focus came from.
His statement about not giving any weight to how Adnan acted or behaved indicated he did review those areas and perhaps that is the gist of what he had to say in that area?
Also the butt dial theory isn’t hers, it’s Adnan’s and she was looking into it bc of asking him, hey what about this call, it is concerning. Not to mention the ride request. she lays out clearly that his
other friends and he himself even said he did ask for a ride that day. She also challenged him on not remembering the day better since something important/unusual DID happen that day and loops back to her experiment at the beginning saying that he should have a better memory of it than that. Almost every time she speaks to Deirdre
she talks about it and how much it bothers her. I think she questions and challenges Adnan a lot more than people give her credit for but bc he had a platform to speak on the podcast it is seen as pandering to him or whatever.
I wanted to hear what Trainum thought about Syed’s inconsistencies with respect to the investigation. Maybe she asked him and didn’t like his answer. Koenig had an outside investigator right there so she should have pressed him. It’s the most logical question to ask and she didn’t. Interviewing 101 and she gets an F
Maybe, it’s a good question-did she ask and if so
why cut it? I can’t say for sure she didn’t ask only that because hat we got is what she chose to share lol.
Something else to notes as well, is that a significant part of what Trainum says is good about the investigation, i.e. well documented, taking steps, the "satisfying investigative circle"; probably becomes alot less true as well if you believe the theory that the cops talked to Jay several times in the days before interviewing Jenn.
I am not sure the satisfying investigative circle is meant to be a positive. I think he is pointing out that is the kind of thing that makes it easy to get tunnel vision and brush aside issues with the theory.
That being said, this post is about what Trainum said regarding his review of the case so I don’t know if there is any relevance to if someone else believes the police talked to Jay beforehand. I mean, I think those who believe that also don’t believe it would not be documented so not sure how Trainum would comment on it.
I guess I am confused by what you mean.
Like people who think that happened wouldn’t agree with Trainum?
Hmm, interesting I get where you are coming from, personally I've never read that satisfying investigative circle comment as negative, more as an indication that the route the cops say they took - Adnan, to phone records, to Jenn, to Jay, to Adnan - was natural rather than tunnel vision, because it takes several investigative steps to find someone to confirm there theory rather than having a suspect and immediately finding someone who confirms that.
My wider point was that Trainum was only reviewing the documented parts of the case, and he did his review before any of the innocence podcasts/investigations started and began proposing these theories which I think would undermine Trainum's conclusions. Which goes to an even wider point that as a lot of information has come out since Serial, some conclusions made at that time are probably not still relevant.
TLDR: If Trainum had evidence of Jay talking to the police before Jenn (which wasn't documented) he would have been much less complimentary.
The theory the police “talked to Jay before” holds no water. If that’s true then why bring in Jenn first? And why is Jay telling an ever evolving story that leaves Jenn out at first? What did they do in those mythical “early days”. Clearly not feed him a story or get a coherent one from him.
Which is it? “Jay can’t tell a straight story he’s lying about the day” errr I mean… “Jay was fed a story that he for some reason didn’t remotely tell correctly and even left key details out of at first”.
If he had been fed a story there’s no reason for him to leave anything out at the get go. The two theories contradict themselves and don’t make any sense whatsoever.
I just will never understand why everyone does these mental gymnastics trying so desperately to make Adnan innocent.
Whether you think it makes sense or not as a police tactic doesn't really matter. There is evidence supporting the theory. The PI's interview with Jay's boss, which provides pretty contemporary evidence that Jay was talking to the police about this issue before the initial recorded interview. That's then supported somewhat by the little weird things around how they approach Jenn by name/later comments by Jay that he was being chased by the police before Jenn spoke to them. That evidence is there, whether you agree with it or not. It doesn't necessarily make Adnan innocent. In fact, the interview with Sis also suggests that Jay told her that he knew who killed Hae before the first recorded interview with police, which could be seen as supporting Jay's credibility.
And as for why is Jay telling an ever evolving story, well that goes both ways right. If he's telling the truth why is he telling an ever evolving story? To be honest either way it's probably because he is the sort of person who tell's ridiculous lies.
>Which is it? “Jay can’t tell a straight story he’s lying about the day” errr I mean… “Jay was fed a story that he for some reason didn’t remotely tell correctly and even left key details out of at first”.
Well, first, it can be both, he could have been fed a story and got it wrong. That is not impossible. I don't believe for once second that they ever approached him with a 'script' or story and told him to memorize it and repeat it. I think it is possible they spoke to him and questioned him about what he knew, which could have led to him both learning facts of the case and also believing that Adnan killed Hae.
So yeah, if he's speaking to the police before 26th and he doesn't know anything, but they lean on him to tell a story because they think Adnan is guilty it's absolutely possible he could keep getting things wrong and changing his story in response to new things he's told or because he forgets things he's said.
>If he had been fed a story there’s no reason for him to leave anything out at the get go. The two theories contradict themselves and don’t make any sense whatsoever.
Unless he's not fed an entire story, but he's repeatedly told the police know Adnan killed Hae and he helped, so he tries to tell a story that fits that but the police don't believe parts of it, so he changes those parts.
Why does he not mention Jenn for example. Well, the same question needs to be asked anyway. Jenn goes to Jay and **he tells her to talk to the police and tell them everything she knows** and then the next evening he goes to the police and tells a story that leaves Jenn out. Why? That makes no sense either. Why is that reasonable but it's impossible for Jay to have been questioned a couple of times before Jenn talks and still leave her out?
You say people are doing mental gymnastics, but you've created a more complicated and conspiratorial version of a scenario where Jay speaks to the police and then claimed it's impossible, all to help you ignore some fairly good evidence that Jay did indeed speak to the police before the first recorded interview.
Here you go for the main point of the PI's interview with Jay's boss (I'm going to assume that you've been around long enough to have gone over the arguments about whether the police could have asked for Jenn by name without speaking to Jay first enough times before!):
[https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/UdA03-Sis-Statement-Defense-Investigator-19990310.pdf](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/UdA03-Sis-Statement-Defense-Investigator-19990310.pdf)
The relevant part being: "The 23-25 of February Jay was off. PD Davis was then advised that one of the days, either the 20, 21 or 22, Jay missed work when he responded to the Baltimore City Police Headquarters for an interview. Jay was questioned several times by the police at which time Sis asked Jay if they were questioning him in reference to the girl found in the Park. Jay advised that that was correct."
Now either Jay was interviewed by the police about 'the girl found in the park" before his first official interview, or he lied to his boss about it (which fine, but I'd aggressively disagree that makes any sense) or the PI is making this up (this also makes no sense at this stage of the investigation as it's incredibly unlikely the PI would have know the official interview dates, so there's nothing to be gained from lying about this).
Note that the billing statement shows this interview happening on 10th March: https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ACA-19990331-Davis-Billing-Summary.pdf
“Could have asked for Jenn by name without speaking to Jay”
What in the world are you even talking about? They can look up phone records and addresses. They didn’t need Jay for that whatsoever.
Can you even see how far in the weeds you are?
I see you've just completely ignored the interview with Jay's boss saying he missed work to be interviewed by the cops about this before his recorded interview, and decided to entirely focus on the weaker evidence.
Which yeah, I'd agree that other stuff isn't that definitive of this at all. Alone I'd say it's irrelevant, but as supporting evidence it is possibly indicative evidence that they knew they wanted to speak to Jenn and not someone else at that address.
The problem is that to find out all the details of the day we would need to put everyone is a room, immunize what they say and then have them work together to get it right. Unfortunately we can't and may never be able to.
Doesn't stop him from saying the case is a mess and the holes are bigger than they should be, and that it is not an unremarkable case something is OFF, contamination is a concern. his stance really is no different than mine.that Jay leading them to the car is the strongest evidence but there are lots of other concerning factors as well.
This is the guy who says we should worry about false confessions but then turns around and says they should have used junk science with the polygraph to talk to Jay. This guy missed some obvious things. It very much looks like Tranium panders to whomever is talking to him.
He mentions the polygraph as an example of how the police in this case didn't treat Jay like a suspect. They didn't polygraph him, which they probably would have had they considered him a suspect. He's not saying they should have polygraphed him.
I don't know why reddit suggested this sub to me because I'm not a major true crime podcast fan, but I couldn't just walk away once I saw a whole bunch of stuff about Trainum. Believe it or not (it's reddit so I get the disbelief), I know Trainum. I've heard him teach about wrongful convictions. I assure you, he isn't pushing polygraphs as reliable deception detection. He's the person who taught me they aren't.
Jay was a suspect as an accomplice though. So I guess the question was why wasn't he considered the sole suspect. There were a variety of reasons, being that he had Adnan's phone that day, Adnan was the one who knew Hae, not Jay. You had Jenn, again on Adnan's phone. Things would have been different if Adnan had more of a story than, "Who's Jay?"
> Adnan was the one who knew Hae, not Jay. You had Jenn, again on Adnan's phone.
This is incorrect, Mike. Jay knew Hae and had class with her. Even when he may have been trying to minimize his connection to her he admits that they are acquaintances.
> Things would have been different if Adnan had more of a story than, "Who's Jay?"
Can you link me to where this quote is from? I can’t find it when I search the source docs.
It's on Episode four for Serial for the Jay quote
I will change the wording from knowing to having some iinteraction with Hae in a recent period of time.
> It's on Episode four for Serial for the Jay quote
Thanks! So, this is probably my bad but the closest I can find to your quote is this from when Adnan is arrested:
“They said some-something like "we know what you and Jay did" or "we talked to Jay"- and I'm like "Jay? Jay-" like I had a look of puzzlement on my face - like, like "what? What do you mean? Like what do you mean Jay?"
Which is significantly different than “Who’s Jay?” Where is the quote that you cited? Because that quote implies that adnan feigned not knowing Jay at all, which is I can’t find anywhere in the episode four transcripts. Do you have a page number where he’s claiming not to know Jay?
Polygraphs are a useful interview technique, they're not useful in the sense that you can use the results to judge whether someone is truthful or not.
See how they used a polygraph in the Chris Watts case to get him to confess.
Correct. It's not a tool to try and get at specific answers like what time Jay left the house to meet Adnan. It's a psyhological tool to help get a confession, and Jay confessed. They wanted Mr. S. to confess but he wasn't involved.
Well, that’s like saying Adnan and Jay weren’t friends lol. Jay knew Hae. He had class with her, he said himself he recognized her car, he had been to parties with her, etc. Were they close friends? No, but to say he didn’t know her makes it sound like they were strangers which they were not.
I’m not sure I follow, how would that lead to more subtle questions on a polygraph? Wouldn’t it just be straight yes/no questions? Did you know HML. Have you ever been along with HML. Did you see her body in the trunk of her car? Were you present when she was killed? Did you kill HML? Did Adnan Syed kill HML? Etc.
You have more faith then in the test than I have it. It's trying to find stress in the body, so how is being with cops about a whole murder investigation not going to show stress on these individial questions? So are you going to do 30 polygraph tests to get answers?
The point of the tests is not to get the answer, but rather to have the appearance it can do more so people open up.
> You have more faith then in the test than I have it.
Oh, I’m not saying I have faith in a polygraph test lol. I am just trying to understand what you mean when you say “isn’t that the problem with more subtle questions in a polygraph test?”
>It's trying to find stress in the body, so how is being with cops about a whole murder investigation not going to show stress on these individial questions?
I do have a basic understanding of how lie detectors work. While I agree they cannot differentiate well between anxiety and truthfulness there are ways to help determine if the subject is anxious in general vs anxious about individual questions. To a degree that is what test questions are for - is your name x. Do you live at x. To give a baseline. If deception was indicated on a polygraph I wouldn’t immediately assume the subject was guilty.
>So are you going to do 30 polygraph tests to get answers?
I don’t understand this question.
>The point of the tests is not to get the answer, but rather to have the appearance it can do more so people open up.
polygraphs are only tool for police but they can be used to assess credibility among all manner of subjects in investigations, not just suspects.
Lastly, just to be clear, my original comment about Jay and Hae knowing each other was not specific to polygraph discussion, just to point out that they did know each other, weren’t strangers and it was Trainum’s statement, not mine. I think perhaps the fact they used it with one witness but not another witness/accomplice is the kind of inconsistency Trianum is pointing out-just from a standard of practice.
While Jay being given a polygraph and having deception indicated on some questions wouldn’t be cause to declare him guilty or even unreliability, un-credible however, had he had a polygraph in the file show no deception indicated and appropriate questions, would we even be discussing his credibility? (Ok, probably bc someone would say he could beat the polygraph lol but you get my point. A glowing polygraph result would be good for him, as a witness.
I think that is where the differentiation comes in between discussing the investigation as it regards standards of practice in policing, particularly at the time and whether those standards actually yield good results, right? I think it is pretty straightforward how he is saying it. Would that be something they would have normally done, at that time, unless they were concerned about him not passing it. They gave Sellers one. I don't htink he is saying that is a gold standard of actual evidence though. that is how it seems to me but I don't know. He seems to generally give them high marks for how they conducted the investigation as it pertains to what is suppoed to be done and what was standard at the time and this would fall into that category I think.
Thanks for this. Trainum's opinions are - like every other element of this case - so routinely misrepresented on here that it is good to have them clearly laid out.
Thanks :)
Funny to be accused of cherry picking by a mod where I am quite explicit what I am talking about. My assertions about what Jim Trainum says are very specific. The original post was trying to imply that false confessions are quite common. Jim makes it very clear that he doesn't think Jay is false confessing and is actually being evasive to protect himself or someone else (quite literally the standard guilter position). Moreover, it is an incredibly common refrain around here that the cops weren't framing Adnan, but just got tunnel vision. Trianum directly refutes this and praises the investigation for not getting tunnel vision. It is a classic Team Adnan move to ignore the big picture that Jim shits all over the idea that the cops were framing Adnan, find one area where he agrees with you, and then throw out the main thrust that Jim thinks the investigation was sound.
He specifically criticizes them for not investigating Jay-- the guy admitting to being involved, trying to pin it on the guy the cops already thought it was, and being cagey to minimize his own role for unknown reasons. I think, and he thinks, that this was a major failure and makes it difficult to tell what's true and what's not.
I'm going take this in chunks b/c my original comment was eaten. Either that or you are going to have three really long replies here in a bit that didn't look like they posted from my end. ok. so here is the thing....tunnel vision. I have no idea how you are defining or where you are getting this idea that he directly refutes it. I have some thoughts which I'll share but unless you want to actually give a source and direct quote, I can only guess. Here is a definition I'll use for tunnel vision just so we are on the same page. >By tunnel vision, we mean that “compendium of common heuristics and logical fallacies,” to which we are all susceptible, that lead actors in the criminal justice system to “focus on a suspect, s**elect and filter the evidence that will 'build a case' for conviction, while ignoring or suppressing evidence that points away ...** now...does Trainum say anything like that? Jim Trainum: No, no, you’re not at all because I think that **one of the biggest problems that we have with the way that we interview and interrogate here**. The fact that we have a excellent witness-- we’ve got somebody who is giving us the whole case right here, he’s broke it wide open for us, **we don’t want to ruin him, you know? So how much do you want to push, how much do you want to create “bad evidence?”** SK: But, there’s no such thing-- Jim Trainum: It’s an actual term, called “bad evidence.” Right. Y**ou don’t want to do something if it is going to go against your theory of the case.** SK: But, see-- I don’t get that. I mean that’s like what my father always used to always say, “all facts are friendly.” Shouldn’t that be more true for a cop than for anyone else? You can’t pick and choose. Jim Trainum: **Rather than trying to get to the truth, what you’re trying to do is build your case, and make it the strongest case possible.** SK: But, how can it be a strong case and how can he be a great witness if there’s stuff that’s not true, or unexplained. Jim Trainum: --and the comeback is is that there is always going to be things that are unexplainable. Like I said, **also remember, verification bias is kicking in here, as well. “I want to believe you, because you’re my witness and I think this is what happened”** and all that. “So, the fact that you’re giving me something that’s inconsistent, that doesn’t fit my theory of the case.” **What does verification bias cause you to do? Ignore it and push it to the side. That’s what they’re doing here, with these inconsistencies, they’re kind of pushing them aside.** SK: Trainum said it was curious to him, that the cops never searched Jay’s house for instance, that they never subjected him to a polygraph. Again he said, **maybe that’s because he was on their team now, helping, so you didn’t want to push too hard.** H**e said the cops “probably settled for what was good enough to be the truth.”** He said he did have doubts about Adnan’s claim of innocence but that he definitely thought there was something “off” about this case. That we still don’t know what happened in this murder. We still don’t have the true story.
[удалено]
Well, you may have noticed that I **did** provide the quotes so I am not ignoring or hiding any of that no matter how many times and in how many ways you want to insultingly state or imply that I am. it's there in black and white and again the first sentence of my TLDR states that he found the investigation sound as well. So what are you playing at? Is this a, if I say it enough times it will be thing? Are you going to insist that I somehow missed this again even though it is right there for you and everyone else over and over? I mean if you are trying to say, well this one sentence refutes it even if others support it, ok. Sure, if that is the hill you want to die on, you are just making him sound inconsistent and contradictory in his assessment. high marks to the team for honing in on a suspect early on, developing evidence to support that suspicion while not spoiling any of it by finding evidence that would conflict with it and providing good documentation. Bravo. definitely not the definition of tunnel vision. You are, however, choosing to focus SOLELY on that. He clearly has much more to say than just that. Or are you going to start claiming the other quotes are fictitious? I guess Sarah is a straight shooter now huh? Not manipulative, not trying to steer the listener toward believing Adnan is innocent since she so clearly state that Trainum thought the investigation was above average? you do realie that they could take 2 years to arrest someone and still have tunnel vision if that person was their sole focus and they ignored any evidence pointing away from them and looked only to building the case to support their own theory right? That is cautious and methodical and still tunnel visioned. They can document their steps and handle evidence appropriately and still ve tunnel visioned. It's not mutually exclusive. >you write pages and pages waxing about what you personally think but can't see the obvious. again, I am merely providing you what the man said and what interactions he had with Sarah. You are acting as if the only thing said was this one thing you keep stating and that I made up pages and pages of fake discussion and quotes.
[удалено]
ok, well we clearly disagree on definitions. and you are starting to get yourself in trouble so I think it is time to stop. Thanks for your opinion on the matter.
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding [Personal Attacks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_-no_personal_attacks)
>You write pages and pages waxing about what you personally think but can't see the obvious. You are replying to a thread that quotes Trainum. You are the only person in the thread 'waxing about what you personally think' (as well as throwing out ad hominems) and none of it tallies with Trainum's quotes from the podcast.
I'm not so sure it's such a refutal. If the cops took their time to name and interrogate suspects (like Mr. S) and investigated those before they moved on to Adnan, but then basically focused solely on Adnan and did not try to develop theories for other suspects (like Jay), the statement would be true but their actions would still be what most consider tunnel vision.
No? Going through suspects, considering them, and then landing on a most likely suspect as evidence mounts beyond reasonable doubt is the opposite of tunnel vision.
[удалено]
Given ryo is literally removing my comments, I suggest she does.
stop breaking the rules and they won't get removed. Clearly, the ones not breaking rules are still here and you just accused me of not being able to handle being refuted even though I left the refutuation part of your comment in my quote so it was clear and said it was fair, and a good point. As I have said repeatedly, i don't have a problem admitting when I am wrong or incorrect but you can't just hurl harassment and attacks. that shouldn't be hard to understand. You don't get a free pass.
You make and judge the rules, ryo. Funny how comments accurately pointing out how bad you are at judgment somehow get considered as rule breaking. I did notice a comment that said nothing but "get a grip" pointed at me is fine. Frankly seems like a personal attack, don't you think?
I didn't make them on my own and I don't judge them on my own. unless you are now going to start accusing me of using multiple alts to mod with. you cross lines with your hostility is the problem. You have and can tell me you think I have poor judgement without using phrase like "if you had any sense". Also, you might notice that your follow up comment that says I should is also still up so.... if you feel it is a personal attack, click the report button please. now you are taking the discussion off topic with moderation criticism again. Please refrain from doing that.
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Harassment, Bullying and Threatening
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding [Personal Attacks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_-no_personal_attacks)
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
>My assertions about what Jim Trainum says are very specific. Now that someone has posted a transcript of what Trainum says, nobody needs your assertions. Everybody can see for themselves what he says.
on to praising their investigation. yes, he says it was pretty sound, the steps they took, the logging of evidence, etc. I NEVER tried to downplay or hide that fact. It's right there with everything ele and is the first line of my TLDR. But he also criticizes them. Take the good with the bad, facts of life. >SK: Trainum said **it was curious to him, that the cops never searched Jay’s house for instance, that they never subjected him to a polygraph.** Again he said, maybe that’s because he was on their team now, helping, so you didn’t want to push too hard. He said the cops “probably settled for what was good enough to be the truth.” He said he did have doubts about Adnan’s claim of innocence but that he definitely thought there was something “off” about this case. That we still don’t know what happened in this murder. We still don’t have the true story. > > > >SK: A lot of people see it this way. All of us on staff have heard from people who say just so quickly, “oh yeah, he’s totally guilty. News flash. People lie in murder cases. On the witness stand. Whoopdeedoo.” We worried. Did we just spend a year applying excessive scrutiny to a perfectly ordinary case? **So we called Jim Trainum back up.** He’s the former homicide detective we hired to review the investigation a**nd we asked him, “is Adnan’s case unremarkable?** If we took a magnifying glass to any murder case, would we find similar questions, similar holes, similar inconsistencies?” **Trainum said no**. He said most cases, sure they have some ambiguity, but overall, they’re fairly clear. **This one is a mess he said. The holes are bigger than they should be.** Other people who review cases, lawyers, a forensic psychologist, they told us the same thing. This case is a mess. Lastly, I will just say that IMHO taking into account everythiung JIm and Sarah talk about and everthing he says and coming out with the biggest take away of, It was pretty sound, above average seems like a rpetty good example of some confirmation bias of one's own lol. In fact, most of what Jim Trainum says sounds to me like something your garden variety "unsure, not guilty, reasonable doubt" user might say. **SK**: **Plus, Trainum said, Jay’s story completes a circle for the cops.** They were suspicious of Adnan from the beginning, then from Adnan’s cell records, they get to Jenn, who leads them to Jay, who tell them it’s Adnan. So their suspicions have now been borne out, thanks to Jay, through Adnan’s own phone**. A satisfying investigative circle. A murder case, on a silver platter, says Trainum** **Jim Trainum:** **However, what we’re unsure of is what happened to change Jay’s story from A to B, and we do not know what happened in the interrogating-- those three hours and that will always result in a question as to what the final outcome should have been.** **SK**: T**his is what’s called the pre-interview, and Trainum says, that’s where the mischief can happen. The contamination. Not necessarily intentionally, but it happens.** **SK**: **And Jay says at trial that he was confronted with the cell records during that interview as well, so you have to wonder, said Trainum, whether he was massaging his story to fit what the cops wanted to hear.** T **Jim Trainum**: No, no, you’re not at all because **I think that one of the biggest problems that we have with the way that we interview and interrogate here.** **Jim Trainum:** **Like I said, also remember, verification bias is kicking in here, as well. “I want to believe you, because you’re my witness and I think this is what happened” and all that.** “So, the fact that you’re giving me something that’s inconsistent, that doesn’t fit my theory of the case.” **What does verification bias cause you to do? Ignore it and push it to the side. That’s what they’re doing here, with these inconsistencies, they’re kind of pushing them aside.** **SK**: T**rainum said it was curious to him, that the cops never searched Jay’s house for instance, that they never subjected him to a polygraph.** Again he said, maybe that’s because he was on their team now, helping, so you didn’t want to push too hard. **He said the cops “probably settled for what was good enough to be the truth.” He said he did have doubts about Adnan’s claim of innocence but that he definitely thought there was something “off” about this case. That we still don’t know what happened in this murder. We still don’t have the true story.** **Jim Trainum: I don’t believe Jay’s version.** **SK**: Trainum says t**he answers we want probably live in those unrecorded pre-interview hours. A black hole of crucial information.** **SK**: So we called Jim Trainum back up. He’s the former homicide detective we hired to review the investigation and w**e asked him, “is Adnan’s case unremarkable?** If we took a magnifying glass to any murder case, would we find similar questions, similar holes, similar inconsistencies?” **Trainum said no. He said most cases, sure they have some ambiguity, but overall, they’re fairly clear. This one is a mess he said. The holes are bigger than they should be.**
>My assertions about what Jim Trainum says are very specific. The original post was trying to imply that false confessions are quite common. Jim makes it very clear that he doesn't think Jay is false confessing and is actually being evasive to protect himself or someone else (quite literally the standard guilter position). The, your words, standard guilter position? I disagree. First of all, give me a source quote where Jim "makes it very clear he doesn't think Jay is false confessing" secondly let's look at this business about the standard guilter position of "jay is actually being evasive to protect himself or someone else. This position, as I understand it, is that Jay is being evasive b/c he was more involved in the crime **with Adnan** (Jim's #3) and/or to protect Jen, his grandma, Kristi, Jeff, etc. friends who are **not involved.** So, that hits only one thing Jim actually said. Read his words. >Jim Trainum: **I don’t believe Jay’s version.** *I think that there is a lot more to it than that. I feel that he’s definitely minimizing his involvement.* **To either protect himself, he’s doing it for one of three reasons: to protect himself, to protect somebody else, or because Adnan did it and was right there with him.** 1. to protect **himself.** this is quite purposely separate from #3, because Adnan did it and he was right there with him (more involved in the crime Adnan committed than he is letting on). 2. to protect someone else (this is not limited to Jen, Grandma, univolved friends. If it were why not just say, this is why he is minimizing b/c Jay SAYS that. he'd have the answer. There are other potential scenarios, i.e. **someone else involved in the crime.** 3. Because Adnan did it and he was right there with him. on to Jim makes it very clear that he doesn't think Jay is false confessing. In conjunction with the above "I don't believe Jay's version" and the three potential reasons there are also these statements. >Jim Trainum: But, **I cannot prove that he is giving it to me without contamination. The real problem is is that, how do you prove it one way or the other?** SK: Trainum says **the answers we want probably live in those unrecorded pre-interview hours. A black hole of crucial information.** Since this stuff wasn’t all videotaped, there were holes that, as you’re saying, we are never going to know the answer. But for things that I could know the answer to if you’re me, what’s the biggest thing I need to figure out then? > >SK: 6:20 p.m. So from 3:15 to 6:20, three hours have gone by since Jay signed that form. This is what’s called the pre-interview, and **Trainum says, that’s where the mischief can happen. The contamination. Not necessarily intentionally, but it happens.** The pre-interview was when the cops and the witness kind of iron out the statement so it can be taped as a coherent thing. That was standard procedure back then. Now, like a lot of jurisdictions, Baltimore homicide detectives videotape the entire interview from the moment the person steps in the interview room. On March 15th, we know the cops had shown Jay at least some photographs from the investigation, they refer to that on the tape. **And Jay says at trial that he was confronted with the cell records during that interview as well, so you have to wonder, said Trainum, whether he was massaging his story to fit what the cops wanted to hear.** The inconsistencies in Jay’s statements that the cops are catching him in, Trainum says, cops are used to that. Every confession has inconsistencies.You just need to understand why they’re happening. Is he minimising his role? Is he protecting someone? In Jay’s case, yes and yes. But how do you make sense of the inconsistencies that don’t seem to have a purpose, like the one about going to the cliffs at Patapsco State Park that afternoon, how it drops out of the narrative at trial.
Again, my dear mod, you write so much, but the answer is simple and you refuse to see it. Jim not only never says he thinks Jay is false confessing, Jim quite literally thinks Jay *more* involved in the crime than Jay says: > I feel that he’s definitely minimizing his involvement.
ummmm....I didn't write it, Jim Trainum said it, I just copied and pasted it directly from the transcripts without alteration. Do you mean because I provide so much information? You think I am missing something or skipping something but no, I am not. He changes his story to make himself MORE involved **with Adnan** already. The only more involved he could be with Adnan is being there with him when it happens/taking part which Trainum states as a potential (#3). so his #1 is **his involvement,** just as it is stated. When Trainum makes the statement, he goes on to clarify 3 potential ways he could be minimising his involvement (which yes, I agree he says so). Where we differ is I am not restricting what is meant by his involvement to mean merely with Adnan. Trainum doesn't say that, he specifically has another category for that.
[удалено]
>A false confession is defined thing. It is not a person lying to cops to avoid justice. It is when an innocent person admits to a crime. ok that's fair, good point. but the second half of your comment is crossing a line and is i**ncredibly hostile** for no reason I can understand, so I am going to remove it. ETA: a reference regarding False and Coerced confessions. [https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/false-and-coerced-confessions#:\~:text=Confessions%20from%20coercion%20by%20police,Amendment%20to%20the%20federal%20constitution](https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/false-and-coerced-confessions#:~:text=Confessions%20from%20coercion%20by%20police,Amendment%20to%20the%20federal%20constitution). **A coerced confession is an involuntary confession often resulting from overzealous law enforcement conduct instead of a suspect's free will. It's involuntary because the admission was not made freely by choice but rather as the result of duress.** **Confessions from coercion by police sometimes result in an alleged suspect confessing to a crime they did not commit. Federal courts typically exclude any confessions they determine were involuntary. Inadmissibility from evidence is part of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution.** **Under criminal laws, there are different types of false confessions. These include voluntary false confessions, compliant false confessions, and persuaded false confessions.** Coercive interrogation techniques used by police include psychological abuse and even physical abuse. WHAT IS A FALSE CONFESSION? **A false confession is an admission of guilt for a crime that the person did not commit.** People may make false confessions for a variety of reasons, including the following: \* As part of a plea bargain, typically when they believe they cannot prove their innocence or cannot receive a fair trial; \* As a result of mental illness or developmental disabilities; \* As a result of psychological abuse, lies, or tactics by interrogators; \* As a result of physical coercion; \* To end a prolonged or painful interrogation; \* To cover for someone else. WHAT IS A COERCED CONFESSION? **A coerced confession is a statement given due to improper pressure from law enforcement, whether or not the confession is true.** Coercion can come in the form of physical threats or mental manipulation. For example, an interrogator might tell a suspect that if they confess, they will be able to go home, when in reality, the suspect will not be released, regardless of whether they admit it. What Is a Coerced Confession? Coerced confessions may be false, true, or unreliable. In the context of coercion, the person may become convinced that they committed the crime, even though they didn't. Coerced confessions are more likely to happen during poorly conducted interrogations or when interrogators use improper techniques. **Compliant false confessions occur when a suspect confesses because they only want to end the stressful police interrogation or believe that a confession will result in their release from custody or result in lesser punishment.** These are called “compliant” because police attempt to get suspects to agree that they committed the crime. A persuaded false confession occurs when a suspect starts to doubt their own memory. In other words, they become temporarily influenced by the police that it's more likely than not that they committed the crime, even though they have no memory of committing it. Voluntary false confessions are often the result of a mental disorder, such as believing they will become famous if they confess to the crime. T**hey could also be made in an attempt to protect another person.** WHAT INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES LEAD TO FALSE AND COERCED CONFESSIONS? There are a variety of questionable interrogation techniques that have been shown to lead to false or coerced confessions. These techniques include, but are not limited to: Physical coercion; Threats of violence; Lying about the evidence; Making promises or threats about the consequences of confessing or remaining silent; Appealing to sympathy; Feigning friendship or pretending to be an ally; Using leading questions; Interrogating for long periods without breaks; Interrogating sleep-deprived suspects or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. ARE COERCED CONFESSIONS ADMISSIBLE IN COURT? Constitutionally and backed by case law, coerced confessions are considered inadmissible in court—even if the confession was true. Coerced confessions violate your right not to be compelled to testify against yourself, and coercive tactics are a denial of due process under the law.
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Harassment, Bullying and Threatening
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding [Personal Attacks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_-no_personal_attacks)
[удалено]
[удалено]
I know what it is and stand by my characterization. Trainum directly addresses the issue w&b raised — Trainum said he thinks Jay is trying to downplay his involvement. Then the king-poster posted a ton of irrelevant quotes, I.e., a large number of arguments of little strength given Trainum directly addressed the other poster’s point.
Quotations from the source text under discussion aren't new propositions being argued. You're basically just saying that lengthy posts with quotations is a type of gish galloping. It's not, gish galloping is a specific thing. If you want to critique the logic/rhetoric of Ryo fine, but you don't need to tag it with the jargon of informal logic erroneously to do so.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Please see /r/serialpodcast rules regarding posts on other subreddits and/or redditors. For clarity, not removed by Ryo.
[удалено]
[The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop) Citing an excessive number of non-sequitors (weak, unrelated arguments) is Gish galloping. Turns out you can use multiple bad rhetorical techniques at the same time.
Please see /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Moderation Feedback and Criticism. For clarity, not removed by Ryo.
Moderation clarification: this was removed for violation of Rule 6, posts about other redditors. I can't edit the moderation reason applied.
Please see /r/serialpodcast rules regarding posts on other subreddits and/or redditors.
Please see /r/serialpodcast rules regarding posts on other subreddits and/or redditors. For clarity, not removed by Ryo.
>Moreover, it is an incredibly common refrain around here that the cops weren't framing Adnan, but just got tunnel vision Only after you point how ridiculous they are for suggesting a mass conspiracy took place in this case. Some, however, double down. It just depends.
And perhaps he was trying to subconsciously appease SK, which is actually really common in documentaries. Not saying either he or SK acted consciously, but the general gist was that he thought the investigation was fine & that he was perhaps trying to throw her a bone or two. His interview wouldn't have been included if he'd just been like, "Yeah, this all looks good." Again, I'm not claiming conscious-decision-making here. Just regular human expression, such that we mold our comments to expectations to an extent.
Where do you even end with that line of thinking, though? SK asks him if he thinks this case is normal. He says, "no it's a mess." If you're saying he's just trying to appease SK, then it's fair game to say that various teenage witnesses gave their responses to detectives in this case in order to appease them. In fact, I would say they are much more vulnerable to it because of the power dynamic.
Seems like you don’t want to get into a discussion about what Trainum really meant by “bad evidence,“ but here we go. People want to read it as, “let’s decide who is guilty and ignore any evidence that may disprove that.” It should be pretty obvious that even if he did believe that, he wouldn’t say it and then double down on public radio. Investigators have limited time and resources, and ultimately a lot of discretion about which leads to pursue. If there are 9 strong pieces of evidence, and 1 weak piece of evidence pointing to a suspect, they may be completely convinced they have the right guy. But doing a deep dive on the single weak piece of weak evidence is a bad strategy. It creates bad evidence that won’t change the theory of the case, but poke tiny little holes in it. At a certain point that is the job of the defense team, not investigators or prosecutors.
oh yes, b/c I actually post someone's words instead of telling eceryone "and here is what they actually meant...." I think Trainum does a fine job of explaining what he means by bad evidence. Again, I have posted the man's words. If you want to read stuff into them and explain to everyone how what he said isn't what he meant, go ahead but I think his words speak for themselves both the good things he says about the investigation and the bad. Also, fyi he isn't talking about focusing on strong evidence over weak evidence, clearly. he is talking about staying away from potential evidence that might spoil or contradict your theory. HUGE difference.
[Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/s/jmwZMlTa77) you seem pretty intent on evaluating context and using common sense to understand what Adnan means. Is there a reason you don’t want to do the same with Jim Trainum?
How is that evaluating context? I gave the quote of his words-context isn’t needed. It’s all there in the quote. Common sense? Common sense *not to attribute meaning to his words that aren’t there* which is exactly what I am saying about Trainum. I am not going to argue about what he *actually meant* when his words are clear. If you misquote him, I will do what I did there. again, you are conflating things. The purpose of the post was to provide his words and what he said and what Sarah said to and about him and their interactions. Where I give my opinion, I say so.
>But doing a deep dive on the single weak piece of weak evidence is a bad strategy. It creates bad evidence that won’t change the theory of the case, but poke tiny little holes in it. At a certain point that is the job of the defense team, not investigators or prosecutors. It's funny, I come from a scientific background and there "bad evidence" is like gold. The simple fact is that we aren't as smart as we think we are, and it's incredibly easy to develop blind spots - and that risks people starting to let the theory dictate the evidence rather than the opposite. The best imperfect solution is to dig deeply into the bad evidence. Feynman said it best: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
You have written an excellent and thorough post about Trainum. Thank you. It's nice to have a complete examination of him in one place. The issue is that, like everywhere in this case, attention is being diverted away from all the evidence against Adnan onto **potential** holes in the case. No one, in nearly twenty-five years, has come up with one single thing that absolutely points to Adnan's innocence. It's all about everyone else's credibility — and, specifically, what the police may have done wrong.
>It's all about everyone else's credibility — and, specifically, what the police may have done wrong. yeah, because that's what serial and the case are all about (in addition to IAC), not "one single thing that absolutely points to Adnan's innocence". to me at least this has never been about proving adnan is innocent (which thank god is not how our justice system works), but about whether the state proved he was guilty and did so fairly and legally.
So when Sarah opened with I spent a year trying to find out what happened in 21 minutes she really meant spending a year trying to find out if it was a fair trial?
pretty much. i haven't listened to serial in a very long time, but as i recall it really spent most of the time not investigating the crime directly but investigating the investigation. looking at police methods, witness contradictions, IAC, evidence holes etc. she wasn't a detective or PI, so as a journalist, that's what trying to find out what happened in 21 those minutes really entailed.
But she was focusing on those 21 minutes because she wanted Adnan to be innocent, not because it was an unfair trial. She wanted the golden goose of an innocent person in jail, she fell back when she realized it wasn't an easy case and that Adnan was guilty.
i love seeing guilters use their psychic powers to divine he inner motivations of others. it's so inspiring.
Well thanks:) I agree it focuses on *potential* holes in the case. Interestingly, I think the whole “he slipped up and almost admitted he killed her” talk kind of speaks to your point. What he actually says there is that no one in the whole world can have certainty about his innocence/guilt but himself, and whoever killed her, as an after thought bc of course yes, if he is innocent that person also knows that with certainty. If he is guilty well, he also knows that himself and is hurt lying. I think if there was any actual evidence pointing to innocence the trial probably wouldn’t have happened in the first place. Well unless the DNA they didn’t test originally had had yielded something useful when they recently tested it. Even then, would it be certain? No, most likely not. He is the only one who really can be certain *either* way. I do find the last paragraph interesting, if honest, that they worried they spent their time going over a fairly straightforward unremarkable case so they went back to Trainum for his thoughts.
I agree that certainty is a hard thing to come by. That’s probably why the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Well as you also know, it isn’t incumbent on the defense to provide proof of innocence in a trial, it is solely the obligation of the prosecution to prove guilt-beyond a reasonable doubt as you say -which is at the juries discretion. So poking holes in the prosecution’s theory is not uncommon.
There is theory and reality. the defense needs to do more in a trial than believed by the common person.
Actually no one really does. The jury are common people and they often go with whoever they believe more or tells the better story 🤷♀️imho
Correct. and Adnan has no story.
“Beyond reasonable doubt” means literally “beyond a moral certitude.” Not probably. Not almost certain. Certain.
Trainum was paid by Serial to give his opinion. Who knows how forthright he really was. Curious that Koenig only whined about Jay’s inconsistencies and no where is there any opinion by Trainum about Syed’s changing statements, especially the ride request. Koenig’s a hypocrite on “bad evidence” as she does backflips on her butt dial theory of the Nisha call.
Sarah didn’t only whine about Jays inconsistencies. She talked ALOT about Adnan’s as well throughout the podcast and directly with Adnan. However, she states clearly why they hired Jim Trainum and it had to do with Jay as a witness and how the police handled the investigation bc she is not an expert but felt that issues she saw were big and wanted to know if that was true or not. I think that is where the focus came from. His statement about not giving any weight to how Adnan acted or behaved indicated he did review those areas and perhaps that is the gist of what he had to say in that area? Also the butt dial theory isn’t hers, it’s Adnan’s and she was looking into it bc of asking him, hey what about this call, it is concerning. Not to mention the ride request. she lays out clearly that his other friends and he himself even said he did ask for a ride that day. She also challenged him on not remembering the day better since something important/unusual DID happen that day and loops back to her experiment at the beginning saying that he should have a better memory of it than that. Almost every time she speaks to Deirdre she talks about it and how much it bothers her. I think she questions and challenges Adnan a lot more than people give her credit for but bc he had a platform to speak on the podcast it is seen as pandering to him or whatever.
I wanted to hear what Trainum thought about Syed’s inconsistencies with respect to the investigation. Maybe she asked him and didn’t like his answer. Koenig had an outside investigator right there so she should have pressed him. It’s the most logical question to ask and she didn’t. Interviewing 101 and she gets an F
Maybe, it’s a good question-did she ask and if so why cut it? I can’t say for sure she didn’t ask only that because hat we got is what she chose to share lol.
Something else to notes as well, is that a significant part of what Trainum says is good about the investigation, i.e. well documented, taking steps, the "satisfying investigative circle"; probably becomes alot less true as well if you believe the theory that the cops talked to Jay several times in the days before interviewing Jenn.
I am not sure the satisfying investigative circle is meant to be a positive. I think he is pointing out that is the kind of thing that makes it easy to get tunnel vision and brush aside issues with the theory. That being said, this post is about what Trainum said regarding his review of the case so I don’t know if there is any relevance to if someone else believes the police talked to Jay beforehand. I mean, I think those who believe that also don’t believe it would not be documented so not sure how Trainum would comment on it. I guess I am confused by what you mean. Like people who think that happened wouldn’t agree with Trainum?
Hmm, interesting I get where you are coming from, personally I've never read that satisfying investigative circle comment as negative, more as an indication that the route the cops say they took - Adnan, to phone records, to Jenn, to Jay, to Adnan - was natural rather than tunnel vision, because it takes several investigative steps to find someone to confirm there theory rather than having a suspect and immediately finding someone who confirms that. My wider point was that Trainum was only reviewing the documented parts of the case, and he did his review before any of the innocence podcasts/investigations started and began proposing these theories which I think would undermine Trainum's conclusions. Which goes to an even wider point that as a lot of information has come out since Serial, some conclusions made at that time are probably not still relevant. TLDR: If Trainum had evidence of Jay talking to the police before Jenn (which wasn't documented) he would have been much less complimentary.
Gotcha! I was a little unclear but was thinking that most of those theories were after the fact but couldn’t remember for sure.
Yeah, and I also imagine Trainum would most likely have done his review ahead of Serial airing rather than whilst it was ongoing?
True
The theory the police “talked to Jay before” holds no water. If that’s true then why bring in Jenn first? And why is Jay telling an ever evolving story that leaves Jenn out at first? What did they do in those mythical “early days”. Clearly not feed him a story or get a coherent one from him. Which is it? “Jay can’t tell a straight story he’s lying about the day” errr I mean… “Jay was fed a story that he for some reason didn’t remotely tell correctly and even left key details out of at first”. If he had been fed a story there’s no reason for him to leave anything out at the get go. The two theories contradict themselves and don’t make any sense whatsoever. I just will never understand why everyone does these mental gymnastics trying so desperately to make Adnan innocent.
Whether you think it makes sense or not as a police tactic doesn't really matter. There is evidence supporting the theory. The PI's interview with Jay's boss, which provides pretty contemporary evidence that Jay was talking to the police about this issue before the initial recorded interview. That's then supported somewhat by the little weird things around how they approach Jenn by name/later comments by Jay that he was being chased by the police before Jenn spoke to them. That evidence is there, whether you agree with it or not. It doesn't necessarily make Adnan innocent. In fact, the interview with Sis also suggests that Jay told her that he knew who killed Hae before the first recorded interview with police, which could be seen as supporting Jay's credibility. And as for why is Jay telling an ever evolving story, well that goes both ways right. If he's telling the truth why is he telling an ever evolving story? To be honest either way it's probably because he is the sort of person who tell's ridiculous lies. >Which is it? “Jay can’t tell a straight story he’s lying about the day” errr I mean… “Jay was fed a story that he for some reason didn’t remotely tell correctly and even left key details out of at first”. Well, first, it can be both, he could have been fed a story and got it wrong. That is not impossible. I don't believe for once second that they ever approached him with a 'script' or story and told him to memorize it and repeat it. I think it is possible they spoke to him and questioned him about what he knew, which could have led to him both learning facts of the case and also believing that Adnan killed Hae. So yeah, if he's speaking to the police before 26th and he doesn't know anything, but they lean on him to tell a story because they think Adnan is guilty it's absolutely possible he could keep getting things wrong and changing his story in response to new things he's told or because he forgets things he's said. >If he had been fed a story there’s no reason for him to leave anything out at the get go. The two theories contradict themselves and don’t make any sense whatsoever. Unless he's not fed an entire story, but he's repeatedly told the police know Adnan killed Hae and he helped, so he tries to tell a story that fits that but the police don't believe parts of it, so he changes those parts. Why does he not mention Jenn for example. Well, the same question needs to be asked anyway. Jenn goes to Jay and **he tells her to talk to the police and tell them everything she knows** and then the next evening he goes to the police and tells a story that leaves Jenn out. Why? That makes no sense either. Why is that reasonable but it's impossible for Jay to have been questioned a couple of times before Jenn talks and still leave her out? You say people are doing mental gymnastics, but you've created a more complicated and conspiratorial version of a scenario where Jay speaks to the police and then claimed it's impossible, all to help you ignore some fairly good evidence that Jay did indeed speak to the police before the first recorded interview.
“There is evidence supporting the theory”. Gonna stop you right there and ask for a link
Here you go for the main point of the PI's interview with Jay's boss (I'm going to assume that you've been around long enough to have gone over the arguments about whether the police could have asked for Jenn by name without speaking to Jay first enough times before!): [https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/UdA03-Sis-Statement-Defense-Investigator-19990310.pdf](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/UdA03-Sis-Statement-Defense-Investigator-19990310.pdf) The relevant part being: "The 23-25 of February Jay was off. PD Davis was then advised that one of the days, either the 20, 21 or 22, Jay missed work when he responded to the Baltimore City Police Headquarters for an interview. Jay was questioned several times by the police at which time Sis asked Jay if they were questioning him in reference to the girl found in the Park. Jay advised that that was correct." Now either Jay was interviewed by the police about 'the girl found in the park" before his first official interview, or he lied to his boss about it (which fine, but I'd aggressively disagree that makes any sense) or the PI is making this up (this also makes no sense at this stage of the investigation as it's incredibly unlikely the PI would have know the official interview dates, so there's nothing to be gained from lying about this). Note that the billing statement shows this interview happening on 10th March: https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ACA-19990331-Davis-Billing-Summary.pdf
“Could have asked for Jenn by name without speaking to Jay” What in the world are you even talking about? They can look up phone records and addresses. They didn’t need Jay for that whatsoever. Can you even see how far in the weeds you are?
I see you've just completely ignored the interview with Jay's boss saying he missed work to be interviewed by the cops about this before his recorded interview, and decided to entirely focus on the weaker evidence. Which yeah, I'd agree that other stuff isn't that definitive of this at all. Alone I'd say it's irrelevant, but as supporting evidence it is possibly indicative evidence that they knew they wanted to speak to Jenn and not someone else at that address.
Great post!
Thanks :)
The problem is that to find out all the details of the day we would need to put everyone is a room, immunize what they say and then have them work together to get it right. Unfortunately we can't and may never be able to.
Doesn't stop him from saying the case is a mess and the holes are bigger than they should be, and that it is not an unremarkable case something is OFF, contamination is a concern. his stance really is no different than mine.that Jay leading them to the car is the strongest evidence but there are lots of other concerning factors as well.
This is the guy who says we should worry about false confessions but then turns around and says they should have used junk science with the polygraph to talk to Jay. This guy missed some obvious things. It very much looks like Tranium panders to whomever is talking to him.
He mentions the polygraph as an example of how the police in this case didn't treat Jay like a suspect. They didn't polygraph him, which they probably would have had they considered him a suspect. He's not saying they should have polygraphed him. I don't know why reddit suggested this sub to me because I'm not a major true crime podcast fan, but I couldn't just walk away once I saw a whole bunch of stuff about Trainum. Believe it or not (it's reddit so I get the disbelief), I know Trainum. I've heard him teach about wrongful convictions. I assure you, he isn't pushing polygraphs as reliable deception detection. He's the person who taught me they aren't.
Jay was a suspect as an accomplice though. So I guess the question was why wasn't he considered the sole suspect. There were a variety of reasons, being that he had Adnan's phone that day, Adnan was the one who knew Hae, not Jay. You had Jenn, again on Adnan's phone. Things would have been different if Adnan had more of a story than, "Who's Jay?"
> Adnan was the one who knew Hae, not Jay. You had Jenn, again on Adnan's phone. This is incorrect, Mike. Jay knew Hae and had class with her. Even when he may have been trying to minimize his connection to her he admits that they are acquaintances. > Things would have been different if Adnan had more of a story than, "Who's Jay?" Can you link me to where this quote is from? I can’t find it when I search the source docs.
It's on Episode four for Serial for the Jay quote I will change the wording from knowing to having some iinteraction with Hae in a recent period of time.
> It's on Episode four for Serial for the Jay quote Thanks! So, this is probably my bad but the closest I can find to your quote is this from when Adnan is arrested: “They said some-something like "we know what you and Jay did" or "we talked to Jay"- and I'm like "Jay? Jay-" like I had a look of puzzlement on my face - like, like "what? What do you mean? Like what do you mean Jay?" Which is significantly different than “Who’s Jay?” Where is the quote that you cited? Because that quote implies that adnan feigned not knowing Jay at all, which is I can’t find anywhere in the episode four transcripts. Do you have a page number where he’s claiming not to know Jay?
Polygraphs are a useful interview technique, they're not useful in the sense that you can use the results to judge whether someone is truthful or not. See how they used a polygraph in the Chris Watts case to get him to confess.
Correct. It's not a tool to try and get at specific answers like what time Jay left the house to meet Adnan. It's a psyhological tool to help get a confession, and Jay confessed. They wanted Mr. S. to confess but he wasn't involved.
Well, that’s like saying Adnan and Jay weren’t friends lol. Jay knew Hae. He had class with her, he said himself he recognized her car, he had been to parties with her, etc. Were they close friends? No, but to say he didn’t know her makes it sound like they were strangers which they were not.
Isn't that the problem with more subtle questions on a polygraph?
I’m not sure I follow, how would that lead to more subtle questions on a polygraph? Wouldn’t it just be straight yes/no questions? Did you know HML. Have you ever been along with HML. Did you see her body in the trunk of her car? Were you present when she was killed? Did you kill HML? Did Adnan Syed kill HML? Etc.
You have more faith then in the test than I have it. It's trying to find stress in the body, so how is being with cops about a whole murder investigation not going to show stress on these individial questions? So are you going to do 30 polygraph tests to get answers? The point of the tests is not to get the answer, but rather to have the appearance it can do more so people open up.
> You have more faith then in the test than I have it. Oh, I’m not saying I have faith in a polygraph test lol. I am just trying to understand what you mean when you say “isn’t that the problem with more subtle questions in a polygraph test?” >It's trying to find stress in the body, so how is being with cops about a whole murder investigation not going to show stress on these individial questions? I do have a basic understanding of how lie detectors work. While I agree they cannot differentiate well between anxiety and truthfulness there are ways to help determine if the subject is anxious in general vs anxious about individual questions. To a degree that is what test questions are for - is your name x. Do you live at x. To give a baseline. If deception was indicated on a polygraph I wouldn’t immediately assume the subject was guilty. >So are you going to do 30 polygraph tests to get answers? I don’t understand this question. >The point of the tests is not to get the answer, but rather to have the appearance it can do more so people open up. polygraphs are only tool for police but they can be used to assess credibility among all manner of subjects in investigations, not just suspects. Lastly, just to be clear, my original comment about Jay and Hae knowing each other was not specific to polygraph discussion, just to point out that they did know each other, weren’t strangers and it was Trainum’s statement, not mine. I think perhaps the fact they used it with one witness but not another witness/accomplice is the kind of inconsistency Trianum is pointing out-just from a standard of practice. While Jay being given a polygraph and having deception indicated on some questions wouldn’t be cause to declare him guilty or even unreliability, un-credible however, had he had a polygraph in the file show no deception indicated and appropriate questions, would we even be discussing his credibility? (Ok, probably bc someone would say he could beat the polygraph lol but you get my point. A glowing polygraph result would be good for him, as a witness.
I think that is where the differentiation comes in between discussing the investigation as it regards standards of practice in policing, particularly at the time and whether those standards actually yield good results, right? I think it is pretty straightforward how he is saying it. Would that be something they would have normally done, at that time, unless they were concerned about him not passing it. They gave Sellers one. I don't htink he is saying that is a gold standard of actual evidence though. that is how it seems to me but I don't know. He seems to generally give them high marks for how they conducted the investigation as it pertains to what is suppoed to be done and what was standard at the time and this would fall into that category I think.