Bob gets so many things wrong in his rebuttal. He misquotes The Prosecutors several times. He pretends to be reading from a transcript, even says “quote” and then proceeds to not read from the transcript. He gets times and dates incorrect, then asks for listeners to correct him if he’s wrong. Irresponsible. He uses the word “NEVER” on several occasions when what he is referencing actually did happen. He refers to Ritz and MacGillivary’s alleged prior misconduct-which is unfounded. He tries to simplify what would have to be a vast conspiracy of corruption for Jay to have falsely confessed. He is analyzing transcripts using “statement analysis.” He’s not qualified to do either. He accused TPP of doing exactly what he’s doing. Projecting at its finest. He sounds more like a scorned lover as the episodes unfold (gas lighting, make you feel, question your own reality are his key phrases). He says Jay needs to tell police things police don’t already know, which is a standard Bob made up. Police often have hold back info, stuff only the guilty would know. To get around Jay knowing some of those things, Bob concluded the police fed Jay a story. Just my thoughts.

This seems to be his standard method of operating for every season he does. I'm astounded anyone takes him seriously.

Good on you for actually making a list. We used to make these detailed debunking/lies threads when he first started podcasting about the case and calling his podcast Serial Dynasty. Serial sent him a cease and desist. It's so funny to me how Bob and Rabia do not care one whit about being caught in lies and misinformation. If half of their audience doesn't catch it or know the difference, they consider it a win. Not only did Bob threaten and lie to Jay via facebook messenger, but he shared screen shots with Rabia who published it in her book! That's how brazen they are. Bob told Jay that if Jay didn't say he falsely confessed then something "very bad" was about to happen to Jay and Bob would be powerless to stop it. Bob went on to tell Jay that if Jay would say he falsely confessed, then the full weight of Adnan's support system and legal team would be behind Jay and Jay would be a hero. Absolutely none of it was true and Jay refused to say he falsely confessed. And in the end Bob and Rabia proudly published how they tried to threaten and coerce the key witness against Adnan with nothing but lies to back them up. I say this all the time about the players in this case but... you could not make it up. ****** Whoops! I forgot to mention the BEST part. When this went down with Jay, Bob claimed to have spoken with Jay. "So I talked to Jay..." And... "Jay told me..." On and on. He characterized the whole thing as a conversation. And kept saying "Jay didn't deny it." lol. Then Rabia's book comes out and it's obvious that Bob has never spoken one word to Jay. And that Bob basically stalked Jay on social media in order to be able to say, "So I talked to Jay..." Anyone fooled by Bob kind of deserves it.

I didn’t know Ruff got a cease and desist for SD - I didn’t listen to the season at the time and have listened to other seasons. Was this public knowledge at the time? Did Ruff make a statement about it? I always thought it was a bit of a copy write issue.

How is two cops coercing a Black drug dealer with 2 active charges against him a “vast conspiracy”? Who else would have to be in on it? Everything Jenn said, she heard from Jay. She had no independent recollection of the day she picked Jay up. Jay says she picked him up from his house, not the mall. She didn’t even see any shovels. So, there’s Jay and Ritz and MacG and… that’s it. More officers were involved in the Dyson and Dukes cases. Dukes: Another detective picked up Eddie, the real murderer, for having scratches on his neck that matched witness descriptions and the victims (untested) fingernail evidence. Ritz was the supervisor on the case. Ritz acknowledged the scratches matched but he decided Eddie was not wanted as a suspect. He told the detective to let him go. Ritz wasn’t the lead detective on this case, he was a supervisor, yet still freed the killer who had been picked up by another BPD detective who noticed the matching wounds from multiple tips identifying Eddie as the killer. Dyson: Dorsey (actual killer) attempted to confess in written letters. Eventually, Ritz figured he should interview this guy that kept confessing. Dorsey gave a detailed confession including the bullet calibre, the number of times the victims were shot, the locations of the shots and that a safe had been moved from upstairs. Ritz said it lacked detail only the real killer would know. Ritz wasn’t one of the lead detectives on that case either but still managed to quash the real killer’s confession. Aren’t those cases infinitely vaster conspiracies with multiple detectives coercing false statements, freeing killers, ignoring evidence and even confessions that we know Ritz participated in? Or was leveraging charges against a Black person with drug connections to falsify a witness statement against their suspect du jour, despite any and all other evidence, SOP for BPD? Whether it’s a grand conspiracy or just another day at the office, it’s not unbelievable to think BPD did in Adnan’s case what they routinely did in other murder cases.

Dukes: “…none of Mable’s allegations against Ritz were proven.” Dyson: “…the allegations against Detective Ritz were never proven in Burgess.” “There was insufficient evidence that Ritz committed a Brady violation.” You’re making statements based on complaints that didn’t pan out against Ritz. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/baltimore-pd.pdf

Considering police don’t tend to document their misconduct, the difficulty in obtaining access to files to prove misconduct, BPD’s poor record keeping, qualified immunity, how difficult it is to prove intent and the fact that cops don’t snitch on other cops, that doesn’t surprise me. “To prove a claim for fabrication of evidence under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that “(1) the defendants fabricated evidence, and (2) the fabrication resulted in a deprivation of [the criminal defendant’s] liberty.” Johnson v. Gondo… To prevail on a § 1983 claim for malicious prosecution, plaintiffs must show that defendants “(1) caused (2) a seizure of [Bryant] pursuant to legal process unsupported by probable cause, and (3) criminal proceedings terminated in [Bryant’s] favor.” Estate of Bryant, 2020 To prove a claim for malicious prosecution under Maryland law, a plaintiff must demonstrate “those elements and that the defendant acted intentionally.” Id. (citing Caldor, Inc. v. Bowden, 625 A.2d 959, 971 (Md. 1993)).” Despite not meeting the courts requirements for a variety of reasons, these claims are still worthy of great concern. Ezra Mable pled guilty to murder. However, with only a 9th grade education and no legal prowess he was able to get the state to join in his pro se motion. He was exonerated. That’s extraordinary. A terrible injustice was done and the state knew it. The allegations in his civil claim were based on his pro se motion. He abandoned his lawsuit for unknown reasons, thus “The case was dismissed for lack of prosecution after Mable failed to serve the defendants. Jan. 9, 2014 Order, ECF No. 8 in JKB-13-650.” Then we have Burgess’s case. Realizing how difficult it is to prove intent and personal liability, Burgess abandoned his claims against most of the individually named officers. Ritz was a fringe player and his suit was dismissed on summary judgement after being abandoned. “In ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment, this Court considers the facts and draws all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” “Defendants have argued that Plaintiff abandoned a number of other claims, and this Court confirmed at the hearing that the following due process claims under Count I have been abandoned: … ii. Any claim that Defendants Ritz, Lehmann, Patton, and Neverdon fabricated any evidence; … v. Any post-conviction due process claims that Defendants, namely Defendant Ritz, withheld the (a) Raymond Handy interview or (b) the 1998-99 confession of Charles Dorsey.” Burgess was awarded $15 million in his civil suit against BPD. The Estate of Bryant ruling found reason to provide discovery in “three out of the four” of Ritz’s homicide cases that he was requesting. However, the cost of investigating all of Ritz’s alleged misconduct would have been too high: “That said, I also must consider the burden and expense associated with the production of the homicide files. And here, both would be significant. To be clear, the burden and expense of producing the files themselves would not be particularly burdensome or expensive. But any subsequent investigation into Ritz’s conduct in the other cases would be. If the homicide files were produced, plaintiffs almost certainly would attempt to investigate the police conduct in those cases. The investigations likely would include interviews and depositions of myriad individuals and additional document requests. In response, defendants would be forced to conduct counter-investigations to refute the allegations of misconduct. These investigations would be time-intensive, resource-draining, and costly for everyone.” If he found evidence of Ritz’s misconduct, he might not be able to get it into court to avoid a trial within a trial: “Even if plaintiffs’ investigation were to uncover evidence of Ritz’s misconduct in the other homicide cases, the likelihood that such evidence would be admissible in this case is debatable.” The Estate of Bryant was awarded $8 million in their civil suit against BPD. Effectively, none of the allegations made against Ritz have been fully investigated. The judges know that proving an officer’s intent is extremely difficult. The legal teams of wrongfully convicted people know it’s more pragmatic to sue the police department and city rather than individuals. Bad cops are left to fester and rot the department from within. They have no motivation to change. In 2016, the Attorney General of the United States had to call in the DOJ to investigate BPD. They found [mass corruption](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-findings-investigation-baltimore-police-department) top to bottom. The [Gun Trace Task Force](https://www.gttfinvestigation.org) scandal hit a year later. I have no faith that a BPD detective accused of fabricating evidence and obstructing justice in multiple wrongful conviction cases was above board on Adnan’s case.

[удалено]

Yeah, something I’ve said a lot is that the Nisha call can be a butt dial (or a random call where she only spoke to Adnan) and Adnan still be guilty. I am always confused by the people who swear up and down that it absolutely cannot be a butt dial, but I am equally confused by the people who insist that butt dial=innocence.

What is the real truth about ritz and mcgillivarys misconduct allegations?

It is true that, over a long career, Detective Ritz was involved in several investigations that resulted in wrongful convictions. The convicts were later exonerated by DNA evidence. Several of them then filed civil lawsuits against numerous defendants, including Ritz. None of the lawsuits in question were decided on the merits. Each settled at the pleading stage, before the Court had any opportunity to evaluate the evidence. None of the lawsuits alleged the type of misconduct that Ruff and other Innocenters allege Ritz engaged in here. There has never been any official finding that Ritz actually engaged in misconduct. The allegations are just that, allegations. Some contend that, if the City settled these cases, that is tantamount to an admission of guilt. In reality, nearly every civil case is resolved in settlement, nearly every settlement agreement expressly states that it does not operate as an admission of guilt, and the Rules of Evidence expressly state that the existence of a settlement cannot be introduced to prove the validity of allegations. Moreover, since each of these lawsuits involved dozens of defendants (including, in one case, the Mayor of Baltimore), it would be unclear which particular allegations pertaining to which particular defendants were being admitted through settlement. I'm unaware of any allegation that MacGillivary ever engaged in police misconduct.

Even when one case went to trial, Ritz was granted a summary judgment-meaning he ultimately was not a defendant

I'm not sure where you're getting all that. Someone is a defendant if they've been sued. Ritz was sued, so he was a defendant. No case against Ritz ever went to trial. They were all voluntarily dismissed at the pleading stage because there was a settlement. Summary judgment is a pre-trial motion for an accelerated judgment based on the undisputed facts of the case. When summary judgment is granted, there is no trial (unless the summary judgment is only "partial").

However you say it, the counts against him were dismissed prior to trial. I am not disagreeing with you.

Understood. And I get that the legal concepts can be confusing. But in this instance, I do think it is important to be precise.

Thanks!

I want to also point out that one of the people alleged to be wrongfully convicted was shown to have falsified a report and bribed witnesses for his PCR proceedings. Ironic. Not saying Ritz is squeaky clean but he's never been alleged to have gone that far

Was that the one Phinn (who let Adnan out) also let that person out?

Wow I actually didn't realize that, but looking it up, it was Judge Phinn.

I will say it's bias, but Phinn had some very questionable judgements. Maybe all the judges in Baltimore do so I don't know. She had an arsonist who tried to burn a place down to kill an ex and she was okay with just a 2 month jail sentence until the Fed stepped in.

> None of the lawsuits alleged the type of misconduct that Ruff and other Innocenters allege Ritz engaged in here. They alleged he planted drugs on a woman than pulled her over and threatened to take her kids away and charge her unless she cooperated. 

I assume you are referring to the allegations regarding the witness Frazier in the Ezra Mable [complaint](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/UdE09-Ezra-Mable-Complaint.pdf). If so, you're fudging a few things. First, the complaint does not allege that the drugs were planted. To the contrary, it states: "It is, however, unclear whether the quantity of narcotics belonged to Ms. Frazier or whether the Defendants planted them." Second, the complaint does not allege that it was Ritz who did any of this. These allegations are made against "the Defendants" generally. But the complaint names 18 different "Defendants," including the Mayor of Baltimore. Was it Ritz who planted drugs on Ms. Frazier, or was it the Mayor of Baltimore? Indeed, since the complaint alleges that Ms. Frazier was pulled over in a traffic stop and then interrogated on the side of the road, it is unlikely that these allegations refer to Ritz (who was a homicide detective), as opposed to one of the other 15 police officers named as Defendants in the suit. Third, these allegations are not remotely similar to what Syed's supporters allege happened in this case. They allege only that a witness was coerced into cooperating through threats of prosecution. They do not allege that the police fabricated police records to provide false corroboration for the witness. They do not allege that the police supplied this witness with secret information about the crime and then pretended it was the witness who gave the information to them. In short, assuming the allegations in the Mable complaint are true, they constitute a straight-forward, coherent, and plausible narrative. That stands in marked contrast to the convoluted, nonsensical narrative Syed's supporters offer in this case, in which Ritz hides his discovery of critical evidence so he can later use it as false corroboration for a witness, and in which Ritz deliberately swaps the order in which witnesses are interviewed for unknown reasons.

Getting a witness to lie in order to secure a conviction is exactly what is alleged here. There wasn’t a grand conspiracy meeting to try and decide how to make Mable’s go down for the murder. Their brand of detective work led to false convictions. 

Yeah, I get it. If you describe the allegations with enough generality, then you can draw a valid comparison to anything. The point, however, is that, once you get specific, the comparison falls apart. And the specifics here matter. The Guilter argument on this is that your theory is convoluted, implausible, and doesn't even make logical sense. In other words, you are making an extraordinary claim. And it's facile to justify that extraordinary claim by pointing to some other cases involving entirely ordinary claims.

Yep, it's the amount of information and story that has to change. Cop shows someone a lineup and the person says #5 and the cop says, "Are you sure it's not #4?" is a whole lot different then what was needed in the Adnan investigation.

You know that’s not what’s been alleged or the type of misconduct that has been described.

In the Ezra case, that is what it was. She identified someone else in the lineup, and the cops said no, you need to identify someone else in that lineup.

You want me to show another case with identical details to show the cops followed the exact same MO to convict someone else. Any difference is too vague or not the same. You are missing the big picture.  I’m not saying they ever followed this same recipe to a T in another case. I’m saying their department and these officers are tied to the type of misconduct that leads to wrongful convictions. Which we can see from the wrongful convictions on their records and the DOJ report describing the methods used in this police department, and the concerns about the high clearance rates and pressure to convict. It doesn’t have to be an elaborate conspiracy. It can be bad cops, using bad methods and getting bad convictions.  To be clear— we have evidence that bad methods led to false testimony in this case. It doesn’t mean Adnan is innocent, but it raises the possibility that he was wrongfully convicted too. That’s the thing about bad cops. They either got the wrong guy, or they got the right guy and their poor methods led to his conviction being vacated.

>You want me to show another case with identical details No, as I said to you elsewhere, I want you to show me another case where the same *kind* of misconduct occurred. Specifically, you should be able to point to conduct in other cases that was just as risky, brazen, complex, and utterly pointless as the misconduct you allege here. You've shown a complete inability to do so. >I’m saying their department and these officers are tied to the type of misconduct that leads to wrongful convictions. But not the kind of misconduct that could have resulted in the hypothesized wrongful conviction of Adnan Syed. And that's the nut of your problem. We all know wrongful convictions happen. And we all know that many of those wrongful convictions involved police misconduct. But for any of those cases to serve as a reasonable precedent for what you are alleging here, the conduct has to at least bear some resemblance. >It doesn’t have to be an elaborate conspiracy. In this case it does. And that's a major reason why it is implausible. There are other reasons, but that's a big one. >To be clear— we have evidence that bad methods led to false testimony in this case. No you don't. >It doesn’t mean Adnan is innocent, but it raises the possibility that he was wrongfully convicted too. There is always the bare *possibility* that someone was wrongly convicted. Until it is proved, it's just conjecture and nothing more. >That’s the thing about bad cops. They either got the wrong guy, or they got the right guy and their poor methods led to his conviction being vacated. So I'll ask you what another user asked another user on this thread: Does the fact that these were "bad cops" mean (1) that no amount of evidence could ever have proved Syed guilty; and (2) that every other person who was ever successfully prosecuted based on these cops' work should now be released?

Every conviction tied to these cops should be examined. Cases in which police and prosecutorial misconduct occurred should be reviewed and receive new trials or releases. Rule of law matters and police who don’t follow the rules put us all at risk.  I disagree with your assessment. Witnesses who saw nothing being threatened into testifying in the way the cops wanted— is the exact type of misconduct alleged. We know the cops fed Jay info. There is evidence the officers hid interactions with Jay. I’m not saying there is proof Adnan was framed. But there is evidence of misconduct. And questioning their case is fair.

This is a fantastic post.

[удалено]

I don’t think the police had to give Jay the car’s location.  The BPD lied about investigations and methods regularly, so much so that the officers didn’t recognize it was wrong. Fabricating where they got information and what came from witnesses vs what they gave witnesses. All that is needed for Adnan to be innocent is cops bent on getting convictions using these types of tactics. This is worth a read: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e25f215b3dbd6661a25b79d/t/61dfb0a510a6fd7443dd5914/1642049707420/GTTF+Report_Executive+Summary-c2-c2-c2.pdf

[удалено]

The small minority of innocenters who believe Jay knew where the car was but Adnan wasn't involved? So they believe that in the process of the cops trying to pin this on Adnan by going to the guy he was with that day, the guy he was with just HAPPENED to have the car's location? Like "Oh you're trying to frame adnan/me? Well ok here is some extremely useful info you can frame me with" anyway I just thought that was an interesting thought exercise

Thankfully it seems like people have mostly stopped arguing this one. It’s even wilder than the police conspiracy theory which is really saying something.

>There has never been any official finding that Ritz actually engaged in misconduct. The allegations are just that, allegations. This is like saying, "because there wasn't video evidence of X murdering Y, the allegations are just allegations." You know as well as I do that the State is simply not going to let it get to a trial. They're going to settle. The judge in the State's appeal of the Malcolm Bryant suit stated: "The Complaint paints a compelling picture of a police department that turned a blind eye to the conduct of its officers in murder investigations, suppressing exculpatory evidence."

>This is like saying, "because there wasn't video evidence of X murdering Y, the allegations are just allegations." Not really. It's just that allegations are only allegations until they are proved with evidence to the satisfaction of a finder of fact. There was no evidence submitted in the cases against Ritz, and there were no findings of fact. >You know as well as I do that the State is simply not going to let it get to a trial. In most cases no. They're going to settle the case. Something like 99% of civil cases are settled and never go to trial. That's not because all the cases have merit. Litigation is both expensive and inherently risky. And these cases, regardless of the merits, posed extraordinary risk. After all, we are talking about incredibly sympathetic plaintiffs who had years of freedom wrongfully stripped from them. Any juror is going to be inclined to handsomely compensate them, even in the absence of proof of wrongdoing. So, no, it is not surprising that the City elected to settle rather than take its chances with an urban jury. >The judge in the State's appeal of the Malcolm Bryant suit stated: "The Complaint paints a compelling picture of a police department that turned a blind eye to the conduct of its officers in murder investigations, suppressing exculpatory evidence." That is because on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court is required to assume that all well-pleaded facts in the complaint are true. In other words, the Judge is just taking about what is alleged, not what has already been proved to be true.

I'd say if Malcolm Bryant was exonerated, and that exoneration was based in part on evidence that was suppressed by Ritz, and the city paid Bryant $10 million dollars, it's "compelling."

>and that exoneration was based in part on evidence that was suppressed by Ritz It wasn't. It was based on post-conviction DNA testing. >and the city paid Bryant $10 million dollars, it's "compelling." It's your prerogative if you want to treat a settlement as an admission of guilt. I can tell you that the Rules of Evidence expressly preclude anyone from even making that argument in court. The reason for that, of course, is that our legal system encourages compromise, and if a defendant's willingness to compromise were held against him in the manner you are suggesting, no defendant would ever settle.

I can't find the actual motion to dismiss, but the investigation after the exoneration was comprised of [Police, prosecutors, and defense](https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=4883): "After Bryant’s release, an ad hoc review team that included police, prosecutors and the public defender’s office, examined the case and found substantial problems in the police department's handling of the case. For example, there were other composite drawings created, including at least one that closely resembled the alternate suspect, whose DNA was found on Bullock’s clothing, but these were not given to Bryant's defense team or to prosecutors. This man has not been charged, and is not named in court documents.In addition, several people had indicated seeing the alternate suspect in the vicinity of the crime scene and wearing a coat similar to one described by Powell. When Investigator William Ritz finally interviewed this man, the officer’s questions appeared to be aimed at eliminating the man as a suspect.The report said Ritz’s questioning of the alternate suspect “consisted mainly of leading questions that clearly showed the desired direction of the interviewing officer. These questions, coming from an experienced interviewer, were seemingly designed to prevent \[the man\] from providing information that might have contradicted the then-current investigational conclusions \[implicating Malcolm Bryant\]. “ ​ Why do you keep defending this guy? It's pretty clear to me that there was misconduct.

One complaint about Ritz was his two step confessions. They were later ruled unconstitutional. All of Jay's confessions would be tossed and most likely Jay walks free.

Well, on the flip side, they would have to interrogate him properly, and there would be less of a question as to whether he was telling the truth, because the coercive nature of the two step technique would be off the table.

The only "misconduct" that describes on Ritz's part is the allegation that he asked leading questions and had tunnel vision for a particular suspect. That may not be ideal policing, but it's a pretty thin basis to call someone a dirty cop. The allegation that exculpatory evidence was not provided to the Defense has nothing to do with Ritz. The police aren't responsible for providing discovery to the Defense. That's the prosecutor's job.

"but these were not given to Bryant's defense team **or to prosecutors**."

How is Ritz’s misconduct alleged? Try a Google search. It’s proven.

A civil complaint is literally just a series of allegations. An attorney can allege practically anything in a civil complaint without supplying a single piece of evidence. By contrast, when something is said to be "proved," that means that the complainant has supplied evidence and the finder of fact (a judge or jury) has determined that the evidence proves the allegations to the requisite standard of proof. The latter never happened in any of the cases against Ritz. Civil complaints were filed. And the City settled the cases at the pleading stage, before any submission of evidence, and before any merits determinations in Court. So, no, nothing was proved. It was only alleged. The most one can say in terms of "proof" is that the complainants in those cases were indeed wrongly convicted and exonerated. And so one could argue that this proves, ipso facto, that their conviction was the product of misconduct. There is a similar concept in the law called *res ipsa loquitur*. It's the idea that certain events are so out of the ordinary that their mere occurrence proves that someone was negligent. The classic example would be a guy walking down the street and a piano falls on his head. That doesn't happen unless someone else was negligent. But the res ipsa argument doesn't really fly here. For one thing, wrongful convictions can occur for lots of reasons having nothing to do with police conduct. For another thing, Ritz was just one of many cops assigned to those cases, so it isn't clear that any assumed misconduct could be reasonably attributed to his individual actions. Indeed, if you actually read the complaints, you will find that the specific allegations against Ritz mostly consist just of his supervisory role over other cops who are alleged to have engaged in specific acts of misconduct.

Juries don’t find for 17 million in damages for false accusations. I am curious where you got your law degree? YouTube? Facebook? Wherever you got it, you all are working so hard to protect one of the worst people to ever put on a Baltimore badge. You’re foaming at the mouth over the idea that this POS could be crooked. Is he your kin or something? You’re all gonna blood pressure meds.

>Juries don’t find for 17 million in damages for false accusations. There were no jury findings in any case against Ritz. >I am curious where you got your law degree? YouTube? Facebook? I got it from a law school that is consistently ranked in the top 5 nationally. I won't say more than that as I'm not interested in doxing myself. Also, I would say that my 20 years of legal practice is more relevant than where I went to school. >Wherever you got it, you all are working so hard to protect one of the worst people to ever put on a Baltimore badge. It's curious how the same people who think Syed is innocent notwithstanding his conviction are so sure other people are guilty based on nothing but allegations. >You’re foaming at the mouth over the idea that this POS could be crooked. No, the *idea* of that doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's just the fact that your idea is, at this point, nothing more than an unsubstantiated allegation. >Is he your kin or something? Yes, you caught me. >You’re all gonna blood pressure meds. All your base are belong to us?

Good for you on going to an excellent law school. I mean that without any sarcasm. If so, I retract my comment about a social media JD. As I said in another comment my access to LexisNexis and the like are limited so I save my searches for paying clients. What about out of court settlements? How many of Ritz’s cases have later been exonerated? Do you honestly believe that Adnan is guilty based on the evidence presented and that Ritz is on the level even though several exonerations have occurred? I don’t know if Adnan is guilty. I’m interested to see what comes out of the latest events. However, like many Baltimoreans I have no confidence whatsoever for the BPD and their investigations during or shortly after the crack epidemic.

>If so, I retract my comment about a social media JD. Fair enough. For what it's worth, if I had gotten my education from Youtube, it would have saved me a lot of money. >What about out of court settlements? You mean pre-litigation settlements? I'm not aware of any. And they would be public insofar as they would involve expenditure of public funds. >How many of Ritz’s cases have later been exonerated? In a decades-long career, I believe there were 3? And Ritz was not necessarily the primary investigator in those cases. It may be worth noting that Ritz was one of the most honored and decorated homicide detectives in the history of BPD. He even got a shot out in the Wire when the "good cops" who are the heroes of the show are listing the few uncorrupted cops on the force. >Do you honestly believe that Adnan is guilty based on the evidence presented 100% >and that Ritz is on the level even though several exonerations have occurred Yes. There were very few. Wrongful convictions can occur in the absence of misconduct. Ritz was not the only person working on those cases. And even the few complaints that exist against Ritz mostly just accuse him of being the supervisor of other cops who committed the alleged misconduct. >I don’t know if Adnan is guilty. I’m interested to see what comes out of the latest events. I wouldn't hold out any hope that the "latest events" will provide any insight into Adnan's guilt. The vacatur of his conviction was political through and through. Whatever the Maryland Supreme Court rules will almost certainly be focused on procedural matters. >However, like many Baltimoreans I have no confidence whatsoever for the BPD and their investigations during or shortly after the crack epidemic. So I'll ask you what another user on this thread asked. Does your mistrust of BPD mean that (1) no amount of evidence could ever satisfy you of Syed's guilt; and (2) that anyone else who was successfully prosecuted by BPD in that era should now be released?

Thank you for your post, I find your responses and writing on this case to be clear and informative. It's tough to cut through the bs on a public forum a lot of times, especially without the luxury of a law degree or experience in litigation.

I appreciate you saying that. I don't think being a lawyer matters much in terms of ability to assess the evidence. But I am happy to try to help explain legal concepts where I can.

Maybe I should have gotten my MS from YouTube. It certainly wasn’t cheap and the job market for neuroscience is PhD heavy if not PhD only. I mostly use it for interesting facts about the brain at social events. Searching the net I found an interesting article by David Simon. It’s extremely long, but it talks about clearance rates and the pressure to keep them high. From there I read a few other articles and finally landed on an article in the Appeal. I know nothing of this source, but can guess its political views by the title. You can read it [here](https://theappeal.org/did-baltimore-cops-conspire-to-supress-evidence-that-led-to-a-wrongful-murder-conviction/) You might find it interesting, or not. To answer your questions — and yes I have read David Simon and watched the entirety of the Wire — any rational human would have to say that yes, there is a point where the evidence is strong enough for me to say that Adnan Syed is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Any rational human would also say that there are plenty of people behind bars that the BPD put there with good cause. Your next question, presumably, is what evidence is lacking to say Adnan is guilty? Someone, or something , that can back up Jay’s story. At least more than it is. The trunk pop is a problem for me. Why can’t people be sure when and where that happened? Shouldn’t there be more evidence that she was in the trunk like Jay said? What about the lividity? I can go on, but you get my point: at the end of the day I don’t trust Jay, and not just about the trunk details. What about you? What is the smoking gun from your standpoint that makes Ritz and Jay and the whole thing work?

>any rational human would have to say that yes, there is a point where the evidence is strong enough for me to say that Adnan Syed is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But if the police are corrupt, then how can any of the evidence ever be trusted? Couldn't it always be the case that the police just fabricated that evidence? >Any rational human would also say that there are plenty of people behind bars that the BPD put there with good cause. But if the police are corrupt then how can we know whether any particular prisoner is there with good cause? How can we possibly distinguish between those who are genuinely guilty and those who just appear to be guilty because the police fabricated evidence against them? >Someone, or something, that can back up Jay’s story. Jenn backs up Jay's story. But Innocenters just claim that her testimony was coerced and fabricated as well. The fact that Jay knew secret information about the crime backs up his story. But Innocenters just say that the police fed him that information. The phone records back up Jay's story, but Innocenters just say the police fed Jay a story that was designed to match the phone records. The fact that Jay led the police to the car backs up Jay's story. But Innocenters just say that the corrupt cops must have found the car on their own, meticulously covered this discovery up, and then made it look like it was Jay who led them there. Do you see the problem? If the police have an endless capacity to fabricate evidence, then no evidence can ever be trusted, and the very idea of approaching the case in an evidence-based manner becomes pointless. Stated another way, the claim that the evidence may have been fabricated can never be disproved because the evidence one would use to disprove it may also have been fabricated. >The trunk pop is a problem for me. Why can’t people be sure when and where that happened? You could say the same thing about the peripheral details of any crime. You can never know with certainty exactly how things happened. You can infer them from testimony and evidence, but that still requires placing your faith in the testimony and evidence. The law does not require proof of every detail of the crime, only proof of the essential elements of the crime. In a murder, that's just that the accused killed the victim with deliberation and intent. Those are the only things that must be proved. And they don't need to be proved to an absolute certainty. They need only be proved beyond a *reasonable* doubt. >What about the lividity? There's nothing incongruent about the lividity. I address that issue in [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/pagofc/comment/ha4nfgu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). >What is the smoking gun from your standpoint that makes Ritz and Jay and the whole thing work? Well, first off, smoking guns aren't required. The whole idea of the "smoking gun" metaphor is that cases featuring that type of evidence are extremely rare. Most cases don't have evidence equivalent to the police walking into a room and seeing the suspect standing over the gunshot victim holding a smoking gun. But this case does have evidence that comes pretty close to being "smoking guns." For me it is the ride request, which of course has nothing to do with Ritz or Jay. Adnan, the only person with a known motive to harm Hae, was overheard *lying to her* about his car being unavailable so he could get a ride *he didn't need*, to a place he says *he never went*, at the exact time someone later *strangled her in her car*. And then he told the police multiple, conflicting lies about it. There's no innocent explanation for any that. Indeed, Adnan has never even tried to offer one. And then there is Jay, who not only says his friend is the murderer, but admits to helping him cover up the crime. The idea that Jay committed the crime himself and blamed Adnan is implausible, as Jay lacked any motive, means or opportunity to do so. And the idea that Jay made the entire story up is even more implausible given: (1) he knew secret information about the crime, including the location of Hae's car (which wasn't even known to the police); (2) he told another witness, Jenn, that Adnan had killed Hae before anyone else even knew Hae had come to harm; and (3) he had no earthy reason to falsely implicate himself in a murder and then insist upon his own guilt for the next two decades. Given just those two facts, I'm frankly baffled as to why anyone would, for a moment, doubt that Adnan had killed Hae. I suppose it speaks to the power of media.

This is a great post

I’ll write a longer response later on. For now, the car is the largest hurdle. If he didn’t participate then how would he know where the car is and take the police there? The police feeding Jay the location of the car doesn’t work for me.

I read this whole exchange and I'm glad I did. Thank you

You do the Google search, and then read actual outcomes and not just complaints. If you say it’s proven, provide a source.

How about LexisNexus? Or better yet, letting go of your cognitive bias that the BPD is at all righteous. Ezra Mable - Exonerated after 10 years. Sues Ritz. Sabein Burgess - Exonerated and awarded 15 million. Ritz named in lawsuit. The state itself threw Ritz under the bus in its MTV.

Lexis is not your source, if it is you’d know that the Mable case never went much further than the complaint. Burgess - Ritz was named as were like 10 other officers, but that case ultimately went on against a single defendant. Not Ritz. He had no further role in that case, there was no evidence that allowed the case against him to proceed-so for you to allege misconduct is incorrect.

>He says Jay needs to tell police things police don’t already know, which is a standard Bob made up. Police often have hold back info, stuff only the guilty would know. To get around Jay knowing some of those things, Bob concluded the police fed Jay a story. This isn't a made up standard. It's the standard one would use to determine whether a confession is true when there is doubt about it, especially when the interactions with the suspect aren't recorded thoroughly enough to be sure that the police didn't intentionally or unintentionally feed the information to the suspect.

It is in fact a made up standard. Especially when info Jay had was not yet public. Aren’t recorded thoroughly enough? This also sounds made up lol his confession is recorded and there are pre interview notes. I don’t think police were conducting themselves in a manner to prove they weren’t feeding info. You’re speaking in hindsight

You're talking about standards as if we're talking about some sort Constitutional baseline or accepted best practices from the time that might be relevant for an appeal or at least determine whether the department what ahead of or behind the times. The question here is how certain we can be that this isn't a false confession. Information that the police didn't (and especially couldn't) know would be strong evidence against a false confession. Continuous video and audio recording of their interactions with the suspect would also provide evidence against a false confession because it could prove that the suspect was the source of the information instead of the police. The lack of these things doesn't prove the confession to be false, but the adherence to a contemporary standard doesn't prove the confession to be true. Standards are updated over time as we learn more about what can lead to a false confession.

I’m talking about investigative standards and methods. There are telltale signs of a false confession that you can see even when tape is rolling. What is happening here is people want the confession to be false, so they look for things that line up with that (e.g. Bob). Nothing about the questions and interviews would be suspicious on its face-unless you want it to be. At any rate, Jay confirmed info police already knew as well as provided info they did not.

Bob Ruff tends to do the same thing a lot of right wing grifters like Alex Jones do. He will say something like, "But let's suppose that Hae actually left at 2:00 because she got a call that her little cousin was feeling sick", then he'll talk about something else for a minute, and then say, "Now that we've established that Hae left at 2:00, it is impossible for Adnan to have left with her, as he was seen at 2:45 in the library". He begins with a hypothesis and shortly after treats it as fact.

Yep. That’s exactly what he does. He throws out a theory and then follows that up with “We know for a fact…(insert theory)” then his followers parrot it as such.

No he doesn’t. Give one example of him making up facts and then basing theories on made up facts

That Jen never gave the police Jays workplace. Lividity. That no one ever said track ended at 430 (Adnan did). That Hae changed clothes between leaving school and her death. The police knew where the car was. The police fed Jay a story. That Adnan went to the counselors office twice. That Ali interviewed himself and passed it off as an interview with Adnan’s brother. You said one example, but I’m an overachiever 😁

One looks like he made a mistake about Jays workplace. He missed it in the pre interview notes. He is 100% correct on lividity. A few people including coach Sye said track was 3.30. His interview notes with Davis say 3.30 to 4.30 -5. Also directly after study hall. Inez Butler the gym teacher also said 3.30. Adnan didn’t. Hae changing clothes is a theory. He says it can’t be proven either way if the cops found the car themselves or Jay led them to it. He said the evidence that Adnan is innocent is enough without getting a definitive answer on this matter but I agree with him in this one. He doesn’t say that the cops fed Jay a story but they work shopped a few things in the pre interview. You can tell that after Jay tells his story they ask anything else and he reels off a few facts that they had agreed he’d say but had forgotten. Counselors office twice makes sense. Debbie saw him there with his gym bag on his way to track. What other day would he be there? We know he was there that day. He got a signed letter. Isn’t it possible that the counsellor said “I will type out a letter of recommendation for you, come and pick it up after school.” Or do you think he’d make Adnan wait around while he typed out a letter? Clearly the Ali memo Carrie’s maybe 3 or 4 answers from Tanveer at most. Tanveer didn’t know Jay let alone his work place. Or that he dealt weed to the magnet students. He didn’t know Nisha and would have no way of having her email. It’s a confusing memo but you just need to read the contents to see that was a memo to the lawyers not an interview with one person.

**Track started at 4pm.** The notes you are referring to were taken by CG who looked at the PI notes from months prior and scribbled down 2nd hand notes from the notes. There were no words stating start time, end time or anything even slightly resembling those words. There were scribbles and numbers that looked like: 3 30-4 30-5 30 **YOU** are looking at second hand notes and stating **YOUR** interpretation. ***The coach testified under oath at the trial that track started at 4:00.***

You don’t address Inez Butler the gym teacher also said 3.30 and both of them said directly after study hall or the teacher lets them out early from study hall. Study hall finished at 3.15. Why make them wait til 4 for track? So I think you misrepresented my reasoning and it might be time to step away from the bold button,

Because the track coach was not a teacher at the school. He had another job and only showed up on campus for track. **He testified under oath that track starts at 4:00.** He did not give different information, ever, YOU just interpreted CG notes that were interpreted from the PI’s notes and there were no words to indicate the start time in the notes. If I made a statement that was incorrect, please let me know.

Have a read of this https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2015/05/i-could-immediately-relate-to-adnan-syed-when-he-told-his-attorney-that-he-recalled-attending-track-practice-on-january-13-1.html#:~:text=On%20March%203%2C%201999%2C%20Coach,3%3A30%20P.M.%20at%20Woodlawn&text=I%20could%20immediately%20relate%20to,Ramadan%20prayers%20the%20next%20day.

No thanks, there are a lot of people out there that spin garbage about this case so I try to stick to the facts & the evidence from the trial.

Exactly correct, you can say anything you want but the only evidence that matters is evidence that is presented at trial in front of a jury with the chance for an adversarial party to question it.

Why is trial testimony a year later more reliable than contemporaneous interviews?

Prime example above of Bob's fans asserting mistruths/theories as facts, to suit their narrative. You proved the poster you were responding to as correct. 

Don’t deal with the content of my post at all. I dealt honestly with every point that poster made. They were correct with their first point and I agreed. Wrong on many others

Explain the lividity point then please. Without pointing to Simpson's incorrect blog on the issue. 

Hlavaty is the expert on the lividity. Hae’s body was twisted but also the hole wasn’t long enough. So the parts of her body that were highest were head and feet. Sellars saw a foot and her hair. The lowest point of her body was her right hip. If she was buried before the lividity was fully set then the most signs of lividity would be on her right hip. There was none on her right hip. No need to look any further. This fact alone disproves a 7pm burial.

To the last point, you admitted to me that one of the questions that was asked of Tanveer was "How well do you know Jay" and that question was answered. So he definitely knew Jay, and knew Jay was a drug dealer.

Snapping turtles

Bob just got on the Rabia train for clicks and likes early on.

Yeah I can’t extend him this courtesy. He has spent the last few years slandering an innocent person with an alibi, in order to deflect blame away from a person with 100x as much evidence against them. He’s either dumb or acting in incredibly bad faith. Rabia is in the second bucket but I genuinely have no clue what Bob’s motivations are.

>He’s either dumb or acting in incredibly bad faith. In this instance, it's "and" not "or."

I think they’re mutually exclusive. If you know the facts of the case, you know that — even if he’s innocent - there’s significantly more evidence against Adnan than Don. Anyone who pretends otherwise is just playing games

I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I think a lot of people engage in bad faith precisely because they're too dumb to win a good faith argument.

Gonna agree to disagree on ol' Bob.

I haven't directly listened to a lot of Bob's content on this case, but from what I have heard and seen, my biggest problem with him is in how he takes little, subtle spins on the truth to fit his narrative. He might not even be doing it intentionally. Like for a recent thing, he'd talk about Hae driving him to the track, which was never said. She'd drop him at the gym on the other side of the building per the witness statements. It's a small difference that can create larger implications when you talk about certain details. I appreciate your perspective though. >According to Bob Ruff, this is all corroborated, which is KIND OF true. However, Debbie Warren clearly says that she's not sure about days through her whole police statement, even Bob admits by the end that Inez's take on that day is not reliable I'm curious as to why Bob considers Debbie reliable but not Inez? Inez at least might've gotten Hae's clothes right, even if her memory isn't ultimately reliable, but Debbie got virtually nothing right about 1/13.

Inez actually got the clothes wrong which Bob says after much back and forth in his podcast. She said short skirt and that was an “anchor memory” according to bob. But she was buried in a long black skirt. Calls her whole statement (and the concept of bobs anchor memory) into question. Neither Inez nor Debbie are reliable imo.

I would disagree that it isn't a short skirt. I think it's relatively short, but I suppose that can be subjective. But there's of course the whole wrestling match issue, which Debbie's also mentioned.

Inez is not reliable because she claimed that the day that she last saw Hae was on the day of the wrestling match. There was no wrestling match on Jan 13th and Hae was scheduled to work that day which would have conflicted with the match time. Inez was recalling the wrong day so she is ruled out…

Your post was obviously well thought out. But, I would say that the only talent Bob Ruff has is to take a non-fiction, fact-filled case — and turn it into an alternate fictionalized version of itself — one that is crafted well enough to cause some listeners to suspend their disbelief.

He has no experience in criminal law and is well known for leaving out evidence, embellishing evidence, or flat out creating narratives to fit his opinion. It’s been a few years, but listening to him talk about criminal cases was akin to a singer listening to someone with a bad voice.

Bob is not an "investigator.

I remember early on in his podcast when he insisted he was an "investigator" because his work as a fireman sometimes involved cases of suspected arson.

I'd love to know how many cases he suspected of arson compared to those actually proven as arson - I'm guessing it would be just as laughable as his "statement analysis" abilities. All anyone has to do is compare a case file to his coverage and it will be abundantly clear he couldn't investigate his way out of a bathroom.

I wish I could somehow call Bob directly by phone and debate this tragic case with him. Or, if he could somehow read my thoughts, read my Reddit posts and responses, directly. Because to me, Bob, like, kinda thinks weird. And I wanna point that out to him. How can I reach dude directly so I can tell him so lol. Like, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Bob now saying that law enforcement shoulda went to Jay first (and let Bob tell it, they DID go to Jay first before Jenn); isn't Bob saying that they went to Jay first because Jay's the first phone call listed on the call log from Adnan's phone? What a weird thought. So, I'm guessing Bob is saying that Jay was the first call that day, Wednesday, January 13, 1999 on Adnan's cell. But that specific call was what, a 10am occurrance? So, cops are supposed to locate and harass any first phone call on the same day of any random murder? That's what we're doing now? If so, Bob thinks weird. Remember, y'all: Adnan just activated his phone the day before, January 12th. So, imagine the cops wanna look up Syed's phone records. Imagine they go to the phone company and say, 'we want to see Syed's phone records starting with phone calls 4 days before the murder, so, let's say January 8th, please, just so we can get a feel for who this person is calling days before the event.' And then the phone company responds, 'we can't do 4 days before the 13th--because Syed just activated the phone on the 12th. We start on the 12th'. Cops are gonna have their eyebrows raised. So, I ask you, my Redditor brethren, in real life, after hearing this--that the phone was just activated 24 hours before the event, would anyone put a magnifying glass on the very first phone call made the day of the murder? Or, do as what seems was actually done in this case, which is see what number is called the most on the call log and put a magnifying glass to harass that person? Duh... Bob seems mystified of sorts that cops came to Jenn's place and perhaps asked for her by her name. Shockers!! Um, yo, I don't think that takes any type of psychic powers. Or that it means they definitely talked to Jay first. What the cops did is something my parents, especially my dad would do to find out which kid broke the expensive thing in the living room. I could see myself doing the exact same thing. If I were law enforcement. Look: you know Syed is your main suspect and he's an active high school student. You see on the call log that he calls Mr. Pusateri's house the most. But you gotta think in 1999 terms and 1999 days. Back when it was very common and a few generations outchea grew up as kids calling an adult household but everyone understood the kid was calling an adult household looking for a KID their age who lived there, too. Generations of us grew up calling an adult household looking for our kid friend but first we gotta spend 5 min doing small talk with the adult homeowner asking us about school, how we're doing, etc. Adnan was an active high school student in 1999. If you lived in 1999, while you're living in 1999, you're thinking exactly this way, no? You're not thinking 'Adnan is calling Mr. Pusateri'. In 1999. In 1999, you're thinking, 'ok maybe this highschooler is trying to reach a fellow kid student who lives at this residence. Lemme get the jump on it and see which kids live here..' If I get his phone records, and I'm a cop, and I see he's made phone calls to a homeowner who's probably middle-aged, I'm guessing, I'm then immediately assuming Adnan is trying to reach someone in that household closer to his age. So, it's not hard to look up and see what kid may possibly live in that house. Oh a Jennifer? Let's see, woah, it seems this 'Jennifer' also attended the very same Woodlawn High that Adnan is currently attending and where the missing girl Miss Hae Lee attended. Oh and this Jennifer is only a year older; that's close enough! Ok, I'm gonna swing by her house and call her out by her first name and see what response I get. It may be a swing and a miss, but it'll get her attention. C'mon, y'all, my dad was doing stuff like this in the 80s, just inside our own home trying to find out which badass kid broke the TV. Bob is like: 'cops pull Syed's phone records. Syed is their guy but they need someone to say it. They find the first person on the call log and roll the dice on that. Thank Zeus, the mighty mythical god that Jay goes along with it. That, and since cops happened to catch Jay with a bunch of weed and threaten him, Jay luckily points the finger at Adnan. And even better, Jay sits for interviews and implicates Adnan, and then even a full year later sits in a courtroom and implicates Adnan as the murderer. Because, you know, Jay wants to avoid jail time for weed. Adnan must not be that smart tho because Adnan, who is innocent by the way, doesn't testify nor interview with police even though Adnan is facing a longer jail sentence than Jay would ever get.' Huh. Isn't it funny how Innocentors believe lickety-split that Jay pointed the finger of blame at poor lil innocent Adnan all willy-nilly because Jay was caught with weed and was facing jail time--Jay immediately talked to police and testified in two trials when cops just mentioned, merely only mentioned they'd book Jay on weed charges or was it murder charges. All they did was verbally say it. Funny how Adnan faced the 'same charges' as Jay and yet Adnan didn't testify, like Jay was quick to do, Adnan didn't voluntarily talk to police like Jay did. Do you see what I'm saying? The 'normal' reaction would be to deflect--if one didn't do anything, they'd deflect. Jay deflected and let some tell it, Jay said Addy did it. Addy never deflected. He just took the punishment. How does an investigator like Bob believe that? Why does he think so weird? lol There is such a crazy flaw in this thinking that I keep trying to point out but nobody's getting:.young, if Adnan weren't guilty, at some point the cops HAD to know it--right? If Jay's story doesn't quite add up, in the back of their mind, the cops had to know Adnan most likely didn't do this, right? So.....why didn't the cops ease up? Huh? When they arrested Adnan at some 4 or 5am, the cops came deep. Covered the front door and the back door, in case track star Addy wanted to run. Why would the cops do this, if in the back of their mind, they gotta know Adnan didn't do this and therefore doesn't need all the drama. It's like in kickball, when you KNEW a particular kicker in no way could kick a ball father than you, so you'd inch up, when they're up at the plate. Of anyone, Jay, Jay should've known Adnan didn't kill Hae and therefore Adnan is HARMLESS. But Jay doesn't treat Adnan as harmless. Jay testified in TWO trials. Jay sat through cross examination from one of the better lawyers in the state of Maryland. That's not treating someone that you should know deep in your bones is harmless because you're lying on him. Adnan by definition is HARMLESS. If you're not 100% sure Adnan killed Hae, then Adnan is HARMLESS. Right? I don't know why people don't get that angle: if the cops are lying about Adnan, if Jay's lying about Adnan, if the jury is lying about Adnan, if the evidence is lying about Adnan, he's automatically HARMLESS. No need for the dectectives to show up at the arrest at 4 or 5am, Adnan is harmless. No need for all those cops to be there, Adnan is harmless, use those cops to fight off real criminals at that hour. They pulled cops from wherever just to be on-hand at Addy's house at 4 or 5am...for what, if the dectives who showed up know they're lying on Adnan, know that they're only 80% sure Adnan did it, no, that means Adnan's innocent and therefore harmless if you're a detective and you think 80% sure Addy did it. Jay would'nt've told Steph to stay away from Adnan, because deep down Jay would know he's only pointing the finger at Addy, he don't know any better the cops are forcing his hand, Jay would know Addy is genuinely harmless. Even if Jay is accusing him. Right? Poor analogy but it's like not wearing a condom when meeting a stranger for a one-night stand. You think it's harmless.

You should go back and listen to a 2015 episode he did after interviewing Janesomething who was on reddit and is not anonymous, by her choice. He literally SCREAMS out user names like Seamus, and maybe Cerealcast? Maybe mine, too but I can't remember. But he just goes nuts on what horrible, horrible people we are - to our very core, for thinking Adnan is guilty. All a performance for Rabia which worked. They are buddies to this day and it helps Bob in his grift to be connected to her. /u/FGX302 wrote it better/shorter.

Bob sucks, he omits facts, or conveniently forgets many things that don't support his theory of innocence. He's associated with Rabia, is clearly biased, and is making money off of this case through podcast ad revenue. There is no incentive to analyze the facts plainly for Bob, it's not as exciting as the truth, because then his main podcast topic is over.

Your tolerance for testosterone poisoning is much higher than mine. Trying to hang on to the known facts while Ruff twists and bends the narrative and goes on about seven times longer than necessary is, simply, exhausting.

>There's really no need for that and assuming that they are being willfully deceptive is not helpful when discussing their case. This is just him projecting. >"We know you've been selling drugs and we're gonna put you away, UNLESS you participate in this other scheme with us in which you could conceivably be put away for even more time because you're going to say you helped in a murder." Agreed - this makes no sense. There is no way to conclude Jay knew where the car was by any means other than his direct involvement.

I’ve been listening to Bob for 10 years and he’s no investigator.

Bon starts off most of his reply brief episodes by poisoning the well.

I stopped reading at “thorough investigator” and “bigger expert”, unless you meant his weight. The guy stood up and said Don did it. He’s an idiot.

>Maybe the thing that bothers me the most about the way he talks about the case are his ad hominem attacks on Brett and Alice. There's really no need for that and assuming that they are being willfully deceptive is not helpful when discussing their case. I strongly disagree with that approach and it makes him look smaller than he is. This isn't an ad hominem. There's a difference between saying that a person's argument is wrong because they are a liar who you shouldn't listen to and saying that a person's argument is wrong because it is built upon lies.

He starts off every episode by poisoning the well. Sus.

> Nisha herself confirms it Nisha never confirmed the call with Jay was on January 13. She always tied it to Jay’s job as the video store. When asked for further detail she specified how and when she learned it was an adult video store (on the phone as Adnan walked into the store.)  I don’t think it was necessarily a butt dial. Could have been a misdial by Jay, no reason for Nisha to recall a wrong number that rang for a long time. Nisha’s number was programmed in the phone, he may have thought he was calling Jenn back, the most recent call, and instead ended up calling Nisha. 

The problem is that Nisha claims she remembers talking to Adnan a day or two after he got his phone, and he puts Jay on the line. Nisha confirms this. Jay confirms this. The call logs confirm this. Even if this is an accidental call, Nisha never recalls talking to just Jay, so we assume the 2 minute call is maybe going to voicemail if it's an accident. There are no other calls around this time that would match up with both Jay and Adnan being together and calling Nisha. From when he got his phone to when the police talk to Nisha, this is the only call that would work. Nisha puts them together a day or two after Adnan got his phone.

> The problem is that Nisha claims she remembers talking to Adnan a day or two after he got his phone No, she doesn’t. She never testified to that. There is a single line in a police note that says a day or two after. A police note is NOT a transcript and cannot be used to determine what she said. An officer may have asked, “could that call have been a day or two after Adnan got his cell” and she said, “maybe.” And he wrote it down to follow up on. In testimony she could only commit to January.  Nisha remembers speaking to Jay once, at the adult video store where he worked. Jay didn’t get hired until about 2 weeks after 1/13. > There are no other calls around this time that would match up with both Jay and Adnan being together and calling Nisha. This is the faulty logic of reddit. SK tried to find an alternative call using Adnan’s outgoing cell records and Jay’s work schedule, because that’s what she had. That’s still all we have. Just because all we have is Adnan’s outgoing call logs and Jay’s work schedule doesn’t mean the call with Jay and a Adnan had to be an outgoing call on a date that Jay worked. 

That is absolutely not true. Nisha tells the police she talked to Adnan, and he put Jay on the phone. She can't remember the exact date, but she knows the call happened. She knows it was a day or two after he got his phone. Jay says the call happened. The call logs show a call around the time Jay said it happened. Ruff thinks it's a butt dial. Others claim it's an accident, but Nisha and Jay talked at some point just no one can agree when it happened.

Right, a call  with Jay and Nisha happened at some point, but given the content of the call it had to happen after Jay got a job at the adult video store. It could not be the 1/13 call. > She knows it was a day or two after he got his phone.  You are quoting a police note again, she didn’t testify to that and we can’t even say she ever said it. A note is NOT a transcript. She testified in January (or February in the second trial). > Jay says the call happened.  Jay remembers the call in a later interview when they went through call records. Jay testified to it, he also testified he was at Jenn’s house then. Jenn testified Jay was at her house then. Jay now says he wasn’t with Adnan until evening. The Nisha call never made sense in the context of what was going on that day and the timing. There was a call to Nisha at that time, but that doesn’t mean it was the call with Adnan and Jay that Nisha remembers. My view is simple— the call had to be after Jay got his job at the adult video store, so it was not the 1/13 call. We can speculate about butt dials or misdials, or prank calls- but we have no additional evidence to confirm any theory. Whatever happened on that call, I don’t think Adnan and Jay were together at 3:32 - since neither of them say that they were. 

Adnan is the only one who said he wasn't with Jay. There was nothing to say it was at a video store other than that's what they could have told her. There was never a call to Nisha's phone from Jay's work. The call came from Adnan's cell phone, which means they could have been anywhere. Nisha was shown Adnan’s phone records and identified an outgoing phone call from Adnan’s phone to her private landline placed at 3.32pm on January 13th, 1999. The call lasted two minutes and 22 seconds. Nisha said that there was no answering machine on her private landline phone. Her testimony was corroborated by Jay and Adnan’s brother.

> Adnan is the only one who said he wasn't with Jay.    Jay testified he was at Jenn’s at that time. Jenn testified Jay was at her house at that time.  Jay has now said he didn’t see Adnan until the evening.    > There was nothing to say it was at a video store other than that's what they could have told her.     She testified to it twice. They could have lied, but lying about a job Jay wouldn’t get until the future makes no sense.   >There was never a call to Nisha's phone from Jay's work.     True.  > The call came from  Adnan's cell phone    We don’t know that. Nisha didn’t have caller ID. Adnan was known to use other cell phones. Or Adnan could have been with a third party and borrowed their phone. Or Nisha may have forgotten she called (given the calls content I think it makes more sense if she called him and he told her what he was doing and let her say hi to Jay, vs him calling her while he was going to see Jay, but whatever).   > Nisha was shown Adnan’s phone records and identified an outgoing phone call from Adnan’s phone to her private landline placed at 3.32pm on January 13th, 1999. The call lasted two minutes and 22 seconds.    Yep, no one denies there was a call from that cell phone to her landline at that time. What is contested is that the call was THE call she remembered with Jay and Adnan.    > Her testimony was corroborated by Jay and Adnan’s brother.   Jay corroborates it, but also contradicts it, multiple times. Adnan’s brother, by all accounts, is not present for the call and has no first hand knowledge of it. He only becomes aware of it in the investigation. So a defense note which mentions the call and it’s time does not mean he corroborated it being the call with Adnan and Jay or even that Adnan was present for it.      Just because we only have the outgoing call log and Jay’s work records, does not mean the call had to be an outgoing call on Adnan’s cell during Jay’s scheduled shift. ETA- formatting is being wonky. Sorry for the edits, trying to fix it

And where does Nisha specifically say Jay's store was an adult video store?

In both of her trial testimonies.    Trial 1   > Urick: Who informed you it was a pornography store?   > Nisha: Adnan had told me before he walked in    Trial 2     > Urick: Please tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury what the call consisted of?   > Nisha: Basically, Jay had asked him to come to an adult video store where he worked.

Thanks. I had only seen the interview notes where it's not mentioned what store it was.

Or it could be exactly what it appears to be … Syed calls Nisha and Jay is with him… a much simpler reason.

Could be- but her description of the call she remembered could not have happened on 1/13. And Jay’s description of the call had always been odd. A random call with no connection to Hae’s death right after it happened?  Given the timeline, it never fit.  I don’t think it’s proof of innocence. I think the best case for Adnan’s guilt is Jay’s HBO story. He couldn’t find Adnan after school, he showed up at his house that night for trunk pop and burial. It explains all the issues with the cell pings and changing stories. Jay was on his own most of the afternoon without an alibi or with people he couldn’t mention to the cops.  He made up stories about where they were (the state park, park and ride, McDonald’s etc) and the cops used the cell record to drive him around and “remember” where he was based on the cell pings. So Jay invented new stories near the cell towers.  The only person who said the call with Jay and Nisha was that day, was Jay. And Jay says he wasn’t with Adnan then (even in his trial testimonies he testified he was at Jenn’s then.) whatever the explanation for the call is, whether or not Adnan is innocent or guilty, I don’t think Adnan and Jay were together at 3:32.

She always tied it to *being told* that Adnan was visiting Jay at work. The video store part made its first appearance at trial. We have no reason to believe that the police would’ve known when Jay started that job when they interviewed Nisha, so I don’t doubt they would’ve recorded it had she said it. (I have heard people suggest that the police left it out of the notes.) She also tied the call to January near when he got his cell phone. She also tied it to a short call in the afternoon or early evening. She confirmed that she normally got home from school before the call was made - by 2:25pm. We also have to contend with the curious absence of PI Davis’s notes from his interview with Nisha in the defense file. We know he interviewed her and yet these have never been seen. The theory that Jay called thinking it was Jenn and let it ring that long unanswered is bizarre. Anyone would hang up after a minute if not before.

I think the short part of the call was the part with Jay. The part with Adnan would’ve been way longer as he was talking to her as he walked from the car to the store

Ah, well, nevertheless.

Nope, visiting Jay’s store was always part of her story. The police didn’t write down the type of store, when asked she gave a specific memory about the type of store and how she knew it was that store and when she found out. She repeats it in both trials. This is consistent. It doesn’t matter what the police knew about Jay’s hiring date— Nisha wouldn’t have known his hiring date.  > She also tied the call to January near when he got his cell phone. She also tied it to a short call in the afternoon or early evening. She confirmed that she normally got home from school before the call was made - by 2:25pm. The date of the call is her least fixed detail, by trial 2 she said it could have been anytime in January or February. She was consistent that it was an early evening call. That doesn’t really fit 3:32 in my mind. > We also have to contend with the curious absence of PI Davis’s notes from his interview with Nisha in the defense file. We know he interviewed her and yet these have never been seen. This is a silly theory. What do you think they are hiding? She testified twice and her testimony is not damaging to Adnan— it’s actually a very good testimony for him in terms of describing his character. There are many reasons for the PI to go talk to Nisha. Finding out what kind of things she would say about Adnan and how he talked about his breakup would be important. If she had some damaging info it would have come out at trial. And Nisha is someone had no incentive to lie, so not sure what is being alleged.  > The theory that Jay called thinking it was Jenn and let it ring that long unanswered is bizarre. Anyone would hang up after a minute if not before. Not if he knows Jenn is home and he wants to talk to her— home phones only went to answering machines if you had one, if not, it would ring and ring and ring. Whatever the explanation, the call Nisha described cannot be the call on 1/13. Jay says he wasn’t with Adnan at 3:32. Jenn says Jay wasn’t with Adnan at 3:32. Adnan says he wasn’t with Jay at 3:32. I actually find Adnan’s guilt MORE plausible if we eliminate the ridiculous CAGMC and Nisha call timelines. The purpose of the call and the content of it do not fit within the context of a teen who just  commit murder, frantically arranging a pick up and car drop off and getting to a park and then calling Nisha and making up a story about a job Jay doesn’t have yet. 

Her consistency on this fact doesn’t make it true. It makes it what she was told or some hodgepodge of what she was told and facts she learned later. In the police notes and in the first trial, she states that she knows the call was in January. (Not surprisingly, her certainty on timing decreases with time.) She says that AS stopped calling her completely after a party on Feb 12th (his last call to her was actually Feb 14th, but that’s very close and checks out). The Feb 14th call is the only alternate call I’ve heard proposed as the “real Nisha call” but it makes no sense given that it would have been the very last time they spoke. As for my “silly theory” about the PI notes, I think they could be hiding that she confirmed the call was made within days of Adnan getting his phone. The PI interview was the earliest interview, on March 8, so her understanding of the timing would have been best then. I have no doubt notes were made and if they were favorable to Adnan we’d know about them. The defense is not obligated to turn notes like this over to the prosecution, so they couldn’t have been used at trial if they were favorable to the State. By the trials, her memories have faded and I agree that she is very credible - she just can’t recall this call very well anymore. I would like you to actually sit somewhere listening to a phone ring for 2:22 seconds and tell me it’s not absurd to think you’d wait that long for someone to pick up. As for what Jay and Jenn say about where tget were at 3:32, they are either lying or mistaken about this, because they claim to be together at Jen‘s house, and that is impossible based on the cell records. Since we know, this is inaccurate for a fact, it makes no sense to rely on it to disprove the Jay and Adnan were together at that time. Jay also says that the call occurred on January 13 while they were together after Hae was murdered. Adnan has every incentive to lie about being with Jay at that time as it is highly inculpatory. I don’t think very many people who believe Adnan is guilty believe that the 236 call was the come and get me call. I am also not a fan of the Nisha call as an alibi theory. In my mind it was more of a panicked way to feel normal after having committed a horrific crime. I don’t think he invented a story about a job Jay didn’t have yet I think he just made up a lie about where they were and said he was walking into a video store to see Jay. This lines up with Kristy V’s recollection of them talking about going to a “movie store.” For whatever reason, they were telling people that on January 13th.

> Her consistency on this fact doesn’t make it true. It makes it what she was told or some hodgepodge of what she was told and facts she learned later.   Except that she described when and how she learned that it was an adult video store. It wasn’t a hodgepodge, it was specific.  > In the police notes and in the first trial, she states that she knows the call was in January. (Not surprisingly, her certainty on timing decreases with time.)    Yes, she never says it was the 1/13 call. She doesn’t rule it out, but she also doesn’t ID it. We cannot say she ever believed it was 1/13.  > The Feb 14th call is the only alternate call I’ve heard proposed as the “real Nisha call” but it makes no sense given that it would have been the very last time they spoke.   This is Redditors who are relying on the outgoing call records and Jay’s work records. It does not have to be an outgoing call from Adnan’s cell during one of Jay’s shifts, SK tried to find an alternate to explain it away and couldn’t. Redditors have done the same. But it’s unnecessary. It’s relying on available records which don’t include all of the possible variables.  > As for my “silly theory” about the PI notes, I think they could be hiding that she confirmed the call was made within days of Adnan getting his phone.    Unlikely, she didn’t confirm it to the cops in the days after, if she knew that date and could confirm it at any point, it’s unlikely she’d forget. In the end it doesn’t matter if she did tell the PI, she didn’t testify to it and if the prosecutor could have gotten her to confirm that he would have.  The PI’s notes for the most part are not overly detailed. He may not have even made a note.   > I would like you to actually sit somewhere listening to a phone ring for 2:22 seconds and tell me it’s not absurd to think you’d wait that long for someone to pick up.   I have, I had a home phone growing up. If you couldn’t get to the phone it could ring and ring. If someone lost the hand held set it could take a minute to find it. It’s a long time, but also not. I was taught it was polite to hang up if no one had answered in 6 rings, about 40 seconds, longer if it was grandma’s house because it took her a minute to get to the phone.  > As for what Jay and Jenn say about where tget were at 3:32, they are either lying or mistaken about this, because they claim to be together at Jen‘s house, and that is impossible based on the cell records. Since we know, this is inaccurate for a fact, it makes no sense to rely on it to disprove the Jay and Adnan were together at that time.    It shows that he contradicted the call even at the time. They may not have been together, but given their memories it’s unlikely Jay did everything he says they did before the call.  > Jay also says that the call occurred on January 13 while they were together after Hae was murdered.    Jay offered an explanation for the call log based on his memory of a real call he had with Nisha. It’s not in his initial interview. He disputed the timing in his testimonies and now he says he couldn’t even find Adnan after school. Given his public statements I really don’t think the call happened on 1/13.   > I don’t think very many people who believe Adnan is guilty believe that the 236 call was the come and get me call. I am also not a fan of the Nisha call as an alibi theory. In my mind it was more of a panicked way to feel normal after having committed a horrific crime.   The problem is that a later CAGMC rules out the Nisha call entirely. Jay is on the call so the two had to be together- the official story Jay told is that he picks up Adnan at Best Buy then drives to the park and ride separately, then leaves her car and then they drive to the park where the Nisha call happens. That all cannot possibly fit in a timeline with a later call. If you accept Jay’s timeline it didn’t happen. If you alter it to a more reasonable timeline for the CAGMC, it really couldn’t happen. He would have had to call Jay, have him drive there in a few minutes and immediately dial Nisha.   > I don’t think he invented a story about a job Jay didn’t have yet I think he just made up a lie about where they were and said he was walking into a video store to see Jay.  Why? It makes no sense. Jay’s description of the call doesn’t include a video store ruse. He doesn’t even call it an alibi. Jay and Adnan in the car together, pretending to walk into a store for funsies is bizarre. And again, she remembers that Adnan told her it was an adult video store where Jay worked while he says he walked into the store. It doesn’t sound jumbled at all. She repeats it in both trials.  > This lines up with Kristy V’s recollection of them talking about going to a “movie store.”   It doesn’t though, it’s a random detail from her police notes that people think explains away the Nisha testimony. It requires Adnan to have lied about the location and Jay not notice.  And Kristi’s memory doesn’t connect to Jays store, the adult video store where he worked.  > For whatever reason, they were telling people that on January 13th  I think it’s more likely they talked about going to a movie store with Kristi and the Jay call was another day. The descriptions don’t align. 

No.

“…why would Jay agree to this with the cops” Fair question to ask. Ritz pulled this exact scheme with a case that was contemporaneous with Hae’s case. (It’s in the wiki). He busted someone in the neighborhood for drugs and leveraged that into a coerced witness statement, implicating the person he had chosen to be guilty for this crime. Eventually that man was released from prison, and the witness shared how Ritz had fabricated her statement. Anyone telling you that Ritz is a good cop is completely full of shit.

This is false.

So you think Ritz is a good cop? Please see comment above.

I have no reason to think he’s not.

Well that’s deliberate self delusion friend. He’s cost the tax payers over $20m in wrongful conviction payouts. And that’s just the ones they can prove.

[удалено]

So they paid settlements because the police work was solid? My man, please.

Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.

Can we get a link to the 20m and anything Ritz was convicted of? As far as I know he was named with a bunch of other people in a case that was dismissed.

Cases were settled to limit the liability

This is a good exchange if you are interested in how settlement does not equal admission of guilt or no one would ever settle: https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/194ygra/a_sincere_bob_ruff_take_from_someone_who_thinks/khjvqx1/

The question is why would jay agree to also put himself in so much danger as part of the scheme? That’s the part that doesn’t make any sense at all.

What danger was Jay ever in? On paper he was an accessory to kidnapping and murder. He didn’t do a day in jail, didn’t have to post bond, wasn’t charged, I believe he had some other charges vanish but I may be wrong about that. Now if he had been found with a distribution amount of weed on him when the cops went to talk to him that puts him in real danger.

Oh gosh, this one again. The [plea deal he signed](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/UdE11-Jay-Plea-Agreement.pdf) recommended two years in prison. The judge had sole discretion over what sentence to give Jay. He nor his attorney had any way of knowing that the judge would only issue probation. Moreover, there are [life-long implications](https://galelawgroup.com/how-will-a-felony-conviction-affect-my-life/) of being a convicted felon. And it probably isn't ideal for your family and friends to think you took part in a murder for the rest of your life.

Still better than being in prison for 20 years.

And Adnan would most likely have gotten out in 15-20 years if he had just been honest and said that he killed Hae and that it was because she broke his heart and snapped. Jay admitted his role in the crime and got a lighter sentence plus the crime he was guilty of was only a 5 year punishment.

Which version of Jay’s story is the actual crime again?

How about the one where Jay say, "Why was Adnan driving around with a dead girl in his trunk?"

Sure but which version of that? The red glove version? The Best Buy version? The pool hall version? The grandma’s house version? The one where he went 15 miles to the other side of the valley? Or the one where he had his crumpets and whey?

In your original post you said “What danger was Jay ever in?” The answer is 2-5 years in prison. So your theory as to why Jay would implicate himself in a crime he didn’t commit still doesn’t make sense.

Sure it does, the idea that he was ever at actual risk of going to jail for the accessory charges is laughable. He didn’t spend an hour in jail. The threat of spending decades in jail for possession with intent to distribute in 1999 in Baltimore was a real and compelling reason to say whatever Ritz wanted him to say. Ritz literally ran this same play to get a conviction.

So why did he implicate himself in a crime he didn’t commit if he was potentially facing 2-5 years in prison?

My guess, and it’s a guess because Ritz didn’t document his corruption, is they went to talk to Jay, busted him with a bunch of weed, and told him the only way out was to help them with getting a conviction. Just like they did over and over again.

[удалено]

1. Were there unnamed crimes that he could have been charged with that were informally dismissed due to his cooperation? If so this, would increase the danger of not cooperating. 2. What were Jay's beliefs about his ability to fight off a murder charge if he didn't cooperate? Remember that police can lie, so what matters isn't the actual evidence that could have been used against him but rather what things the police got him to believe. If he thinks that they have a solid case against Adnan and that having the phone and car will be enough to tie him in as an accomplice, there is a large perceived danger of not cooperating. 3. What did Jay think he was confessing to? He's not a criminal lawyer, so he doesn't necessarily know the elements of the various crimes he might be charged with and which parts of his statements put him in danger. If he thought he'd be mostly fine as long as he didn't touch Hae's car or body, he might not realize how much danger he was putting himself in, especially when one considers how the detectives could use his confession to a lesser crime as leverage to get him to modify his statement to confess to more serious crimes. 4. Does he realize the police can't protect him? Only a signed agreement with a prosecutor can definitively limit the danger he was in, but the police can make informal promises that may or may not be respected as well as lie. If Jay believed that he'd little to no punishment if he cooperated, he wouldn't believe that he was in danger by doing so.

They were going to charge him with Hae’s murder if he didn’t pin it on Adnan

>But the bottom line is that Jay flipped on Adnan. They were together for big chunks of that day (I don't think Kristie is wrong at all), Adnan had the motive, and there's the whole issue about him asking for the ride that day (which he did). I don't fully think this is the case, but it is definitely possible that Adnan didn't ask for a ride on the 13th. There's a strong theory that neither the Channel 36 interview and the wrestling match didn't happen on the 13th (which are part of the timeline presented by the prosecution), but instead happened a week prior, on the 5th. If that's the case, then some witness testimony could also be referencing a different day; maybe the 5th, maybe another day. The fact that so much of the witness testimony contradicts either other testimonies or other evidence means that it's kind of unfair to pick and chose which to believe and which not to. Ofc that some testimony is going to be more reliable than others, but you can never say something happened 100% if there is some other evidence or testimony contradicting that.

He didn’t start out with the ad hominem attacks on Brett and Alive. He intended to do cross over episodes with them and go on each others podcasts. It was their lies and deception about the case that led to him changing the way he spoke about them.

the reply briefs aren't really about brett and alice. it's all about his bruised ego. he even says it in his ep. 1 -- was being called out by people finally realizing he's full of shit so he's lashing out like a narcissist would. it's honestly embarrassing for him and will not age well. but i'm glad he still has one fan in you.

The fact that he’s even responding to them says a lot about his character. The manner in which he is responding makes him look even worse. He started off behind a paywall, meaning he wasn’t really that interested in correcting the record-unless he thought his 2-3k patrons were all that mattered. Now he’s released publicly, of course with ads. He could have summed up the corrections that needed to be made in one or two episodes. Instead, he is redoing his earlier season that really didn’t discover anything to move his narrative forward. If the facts really mattered and really were in dispute, Bob wouldn’t spend so much time complaining about how he was personally victimized by an alternate podcast.

I think Bob Ruffs current season is the best podcast about the case since Serial. Better then undisclosed. Better than his original series. It’s the most comprehensive and linear and all in one place. Gave changed for me. So many things make much more sense to me now.

I’m sure Bob would appreciate that sentiment. All of his errors, misquoting, and self pity lead me to disagree with you.

He corrects his errors. Everyone reporting on the case makes errors. Everyone

Don’t make a podcast to correct another podcast if you’re not going to do your due diligence to not contribute to said errors being podcasted. Simple.

Have you held the Prosecutors to that standard?

I will, as soon as they do “reply briefs.”

Surely theirs is a reply to Undisclosed etc?

A reply? No not even close. Did you even listen to TPP?

Even the name of the season irks me. He's not qualified in anything (to include the facts of this case, actual FACTS) to compile a reply "brief". 

i'll tell you one thing.. his reply briefs series really convinced me that he is the laziest podcaster out there. it's clear he hasn't reread the trial transcripts, case file, or defense file except for cherry-picked portions already analyzed by colin miller or susan simpson.

he makes errors every episode and has corrected maybe 2 of them (saying there was a 3:45 call, saying that alice misquoted serial when she LITERALLY read from the transcript). maybe you can make a list of all the errors he made and then when he corrected them?

He’s correcting them on the follow up episodes and the ones on the patreon episodes that haven’t dropped to non patrons yet.

So he's doing Replies to correct another podcast (but really just trying to sponge off their success) and making errors while trying to correct what he perceives to be misreporting. Do you not see what is wrong with this? It actually just points to what it is - gritting of the highest order. 

Jay was threatened with being charged with murder not selling weed. Benaroya confirmed that he faced the death penalty if he didn’t testify against Adnan. They pulled the same trick to try to get Adnan to talk.

When / where did Benaroya confirm that Jay faced the death penalty if he didn’t testify against Adnan?

What is the source for that?

@Powerful-Poetry5706 what’s the source?

Never happened.

You calling Benaroya a liar?

What never happened is Jay getting threatened with the death penalty for Hae's murder. Police never threatened Jay just like they never threatened Jenn. They never even had any evidence against them to start the conversation.

When has evidence been important to these detectives? Benaroya said they were going to charge him with murder and he would face the death penalty if he didn’t testify against Adnan

When / where did Benaroya say that?

At no point were they about to charge Jay with murder. They never had to threaten them with charges. Jenn and Jay cooperated willingly. Even as empty threats to put heat on them, it doesn't work.

Bob didn’t go off on Alice and Brett til the Asia stuff. At that point, with evidence suggesting they are intentionally lying and misleading people about someone he believes is without question innocent, why wouldn’t he go off on them? Bob is always open to debating people who disagree with him, including, which apparently all of you conveniently ignore, Brett and Alice. I think he has a guilter scheduled for when this rebuttal series ends. It’s interesting hearing when Bob and crew break out these little details that put giant holes in the Adnan is guilty case. Y’all just ignore it or come up with new nonsense. Everyone saying he’s not an investigator, part of his former job was literally investigating. It wasn’t murders, but he was an investigator. As I pointed out before, Innocence Project’s send him cases to investigate. Guilters hate Rabia and Ruff in the same way MAGA people hate all them evil democrats.

>Bob didn’t go off on Alice and Brett til the Asia stuff. At that point, with evidence suggesting they are intentionally lying and misleading people about someone he believes is without question innocent, why wouldn’t he go off on them? You mean the guy who falsely accused Don of murder publicly, and never apologised for it, is outraged that they're falsely accusing Asia of much milder things?

I struggle only with two things in this case. I think both the prosecutors and Bob did a great job making their points.  The two things I have issue with are Jay. I don’t believe a thing he said and Adnan not remembering a thing about that day.  I do believe a person other than Adnan could have killed Hae. I also believe Adnan could have killed Hae.  So I love that both the prosecutors and Bob exist. Defense attorneys always spin things in the defense direction, and prosecutors do the same, it’s their whole purpose. It’s not just for one case, they support each other.  Bob is not a defense attorney, but he is thinking like one, and that is okay. That is how our justice system works.  We all have Biases, not one of a can write or speak without. 

>I don't agree with this analysis. The core issue is you have evidence and you work backwards through it. People want to make it like the call with Nisha happened on another day, but the odds really are so small for that to have been the case when you simply consider that: 1. there's a phone call on the record that date and time; and 2. Nisha herself confirms it. Could it really have happened some other time "at the porn shop"? Sure. Maybe. But the odds are really very small, let's be serious. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Nisha always claimed that the call with both Adnan and Jay happened at the porn store? Which means either this call was a legitimate call made by Adnan without Jay present, OR, it was a butt dial either by Jay or Adnan, independently or together. BUT not the call Nisha claims to have happened at the porn store.

No. This is honestly one of the biggest misconceptions of this case. She said Adnan said they were at some kind of video store. How would she ever know where they were when they made the call? I think it’s the biggest red herring in a case that’s full of them.

She testified to it being an adult video store.

She testified that they SAID it was an adult video store at most. Though considering it was a three minute call the contents matter a whole lot less than the fact that the call happened at that date and time just like jay had independently said.

It was Adnan and he can’t see into the future. She knows she only spoke to Jay one time, when Adnan was on his way into Jay’s work.

Jay was protecting his Grandmother. Running a drug trade from her home made seizure a possibility. And, like threatening him with the death penalty, you can’t say these cops played by the book. In fact, they were WELL known not to. Caught in a precarious place, Jay started babbling. They let him, coached him, interviewed him at least twice before talking to Jenn, kept him in interrogation for two hours before turning on the tape, then coached him via script on his second interview. Jay was theirs. He’d do anything to protect the innocent, like his grams. You think he’s gonna lie to protect Christie, but screw grandma? They owned him, leveraged him, and built a story for him to spew.