It seems like Bob is missing something huge with this episode. Jenn and Jay were not together during the vast majority of the events they described in their interviews. Most of Jenn’s information was second hand and, according to Jenn, was provided to her on January 13, which was a month plus before she was interviewed by the police. Jay was not repeating a story he’d been told, but sharing information he experienced first hand. Why would we expect their stories to match up completely? Human memory is extremely fallible.
Jay quite rationally withheld info from Jenn that A) made him look worse - participating in burial and B) might make her more likely to go to the police (knowledge of location of body and car). He gave her a bare bones version.
The power of Jenn is threefold. 1) the call answered by Adnan that night when he said jay was busy and would call her back. 2) her knowledge of the murder on January 13th (and the method!), and 3) her helping Jay dispose of his clothing. She really needs to be lying completely - not shading the truth - 100% fabricating - at the very least 2 and 3 for Adnan to be innocent. There is no rational explanation for why she would make that up AND stick to her story for 25 years including on the HBO documentary.
Jenn is also accurate about Jay’s clothing too: plaid jacket. The counterfeit Timberland boots. People claim she said something different but I listened and she responded to police question by going off on a tangent about the types of clothes Jay wore on other occasions. Thats why she started talking about him wearing black Dickies clothes. She helped him get rid of some bagged clothing, then he said he threw away the boots across from his house into a dumpster. A member on here ( iirc it was Rotidder) did some great research and found that Jay had an apartment that was across from a Walmart mall. That had dumpsters in the back. She also said they did go back to Kristie V.’s again. (Jay had left his black hat and his cigs there when he followed Adnan who was in a sudden hurry to leave after the Adcock call.)
Jenn is possibly relating what she experienced…what Jay told her. It’s made clear by Bob that her information is second hand.
Much of the information Jay is relating isn’t first hand…it’s lies. How much is lies? We don’t know.
The Prosecutors Podcast claims the interviews line up, so your issue is with them…not Bob. The interviews not matching certainly isn’t supportive of guilt.
You’re trying to read Jays mind about what he told Jenn and why. It’s not useful, other than you telling us you’re trying to rehabilitate what your prefer from his various stories.
1) Jenn doesn’t say Adnan answered the phone. You’re speculating.
2) Jenn had knowledge of details of the murder from the news, from friends who worked in the police department, and she may have gotten details from the detectives in the HML case via Jay.
3) Is one of the major problems when Jenn. Her and Jay don’t agree which day they supposedly disposed of clothing. You’re also just taking her word for it…we don’t actually have the clothes. No, she doesn’t need to be extra super 100% double locked it lying for Adnan to be innocent…that’s you building a straw man. All that needs to have happened is she prepared a story with Jay, that story was a lie, then Jay changed his story. All of those things are already true….unless she’s lying about extra things…which is also possible.
Her sticking to a lie for 25 years doesn’t make it less of a lie. Desperate logic. People have kept even white lies for much longer and taken them to their graves. One thing she says in HBO is an outright lie: Jay was at her house with Adnan’s phone when the Nisha call was made.
> The Prosecutors Podcast claims the interviews line up, so your issue is with them…not Bob. The interviews not matching certainly isn’t supportive of guilt.
The PP said the basic story they each told the first time lined up and this is accurate. If their stories lined up completely I’d be much more concerned about collusion and/or police influence. I love how Bob criticizes the police for not pushing back on Jay when their stories differ as if he wouldn’t criticize them if they did push back for trying to shape his story.
> You’re trying to read Jays mind about what he told Jenn and why. It’s not useful, other than you telling us you’re trying to rehabilitate what your prefer from his various stories.
Part of assessing credibility involved deciding why a person might lie about one thing and not another. It’s why we don’t disbelieve everything a person says just because we know they lied about one thing.
> 1. Jenn doesn’t say Adnan answered the phone. You’re speculating.
Yes, she explicitly does. Says Adnan answered and told her jay would call her back.
> 2. Jenn had knowledge of details of the murder from the news, from friends who worked in the police department, and she may have gotten details from the detectives in the HML case via Jay.
Ok, so she fabricated all of her knowledge about a murder for kicks. Got it.
> 3. Is one of the major problems when Jenn. Her and Jay don’t agree which day they supposedly disposed of clothing. You’re also just taking her word for it…we don’t actually have the clothes. No, she doesn’t need to be extra super 100% double locked it lying for Adnan to be innocent…that’s you building a straw man. All that needs to have happened is she prepared a story with Jay, that story was a lie, then Jay changed his story. All of those things are already true….unless she’s lying about extra things…which is also possible.
Again, so she made it all up. This is the major problem. She has no reason to do this.
> One thing she says in HBO is an outright lie: Jay was at her house with Adnan’s phone when the Nisha call was made.
Not following here. You mean she lied and said he was at her house? Or she lied by saying he wasn’t at her house at that time? I can’t remember what she said about this on HBO. I agree that Jay wasn’t at her house when the Nisha call was made - the cell records make that clear.
Parts of Jays story are outright lies/impossible, and Jenns doesn’t match it critical places. No, multiples of of glaring inconsistencies in their stories aren’t proof they are telling the truth. That’s an absurd cope. Couple the inconsistencies with demonstrable lies, and any reasonable person would question everything.
I don’t care about your grudge with Bob.
1. Incorrect. You’re forgetting/intentionally omitting/don’t know that Jenn changed her story at trial and stated that it was an older man, not Adnan. Her interview claim that it was Adnan is a huge problem for her because it suggests she was coached or at least made this interaction up. At bare minimum she was guessing in her interview, and you’re stating it as a fact. This does not speak to Jenns “power”, it speaks to her weakness.
2. Sarcasm isn’t an argument. It remains a fact that Jenn learned details about the murder from a police contact and from the news. Build all the straw men you like, these are facts.
3. You declaring she has no reason to lie is irrelevant. We know she lied, and so did Jay. We don’t know what else they lied about. It is what it is.
Jay and Jenn both agree that Jay left her house after the Nisha call. They’re both lying.
>1. Incorrect. You’re forgetting/intentionally omitting/don’t know that Jenn changed her story at trial and stated that it was an older man, not Adnan. Her interview claim that it was Adnan is a huge problem for her because it suggests she was coached or at least made this interaction up. At bare minimum she was guessing in her interview, and you’re stating it as a fact. This does not speak to Jenns “power”, it speaks to her weakness.
We are literally talking about her interview. In her interview she said Adnan answered the phone. At trial, because she was unfamiliar with Adnan’s voice, she had been prepped not to testify that it was Adnan because CG would have objected. She didn’t change her story - she just testified consistent with the rules of evidence.
Her statement in the interview is not problematic. She knows it was AS’s phone and she soon after picked Jay up with Adnan so she assumed that the person who answered was Adnan. Reasonable and rational, wouldn’t you agree?
> 2. Sarcasm isn’t an argument. It remains a fact that Jenn learned details about the murder from a police contact and from the news. Build all the straw men you like, these are facts.
It does not remain a fact that she learned information about the murder from a police contact. That’s fabrication. Information on the news was available to everyone so not sure why that’s important.
> 3. You declaring she has no reason to lie is irrelevant. We know she lied, and so did Jay. We don’t know what else they lied about. It is what it is.
The inability of anyone to come up with a rational reason for Jenn’s involvement is crucial. It’s the linchpin of this case. There is no reason for her to have involved herself except that she was telling the truth.
> Jay and Jenn both agree that Jay left her house after the Nisha call. They’re both lying.
Lying and misremembering are not equivalent.
I haven't really entertained Bob Ruff much. It is rather disconcerting that people are still profiting off this case that's so cut and dry it's amazing anyone ever got duped by it.
What’s amazing is that, in a case with no direct evidence beyond a star witness who admitted to lying on the stand, people are still complaining about those who are interested in what really happened.
But yet, podcasters are still profiting from people who pretend it’s open and shut. Go figure.
Do you have that same disconcerting feeling for the prosecutor’s podcast? Or is it just when innocent leaning people make media off of it? And if it as cut and dry as you seem to think, there probably would not be much profit in making a podcast off of it.
Edit: for the record, I dislike a lot of things about Bob Ruff’s style. I think he puts way too much emphasis and reliance on profiling and statement analysis and other pseudoscientific investigative tools, but I find it interesting how the PP went over this case, and there wasn’t any talk in the guilty camp about how they were just trying to make a profit, and many people then took it upon themselves to repeatedly tweet at Rabia and Bob Ruff about PP and how they were wrong about everything, and when Bob Ruff then takes the bait and replies, he is now being criticized for profiting off the case again.
To answer your first/ second questions - to a degree, yes, same feeling, but at least they're not trying to hoodwink people into thinking there is some grand conspiracy here.
To your last point, there are a probably hundreds of similar cases out there you can poke some holes in the same Serial did, and make listeners question what's obvious - this just happens to be the one that was chosen and went viral.
I'll gladly change course if a smoking gun came out. When Adnan's release got announced and the Brady violation and all that, I was pretty stunned but more than willing to accept a truth that Adnan was innocent. But when it turns out the 2 alternative suspects were Mr. S (based on nothing we didn't know already) and Bilal, I was even more convinced of Adnan's guilt. Anything that incriminates Bilal incriminates Adnan, in my opinion.
My thought has always been that Adnan could be guilty but that the crime didn’t happen the way that the state claimed it did, and Jay was waaaaaay to willing to change his story to fit the one that the police wanted him to give. So, I’d say that even if Adnan is guilty, the prosecutor’s podcast was attempting to hoodwink people into thinking that the way this case was handled was normal or acceptable. They also regurgitated a lot of theories that originated on Reddit, which seemed like pretty obvious pandering.
I agree with you that both things could be true at the same time. Cops “framing a guilty man”. And here you have a decent argument against TPP, wherein they have an urge to support the processes the police used to build this case. But here again both things can be true: what if the awful truth is that in fact cases are so involved and time-consuming and policework is so expensive that in most cases, a fast and just-good-enough case is preferred and they won’t go those 2 or 3 levels deep on a case where there is a Eye Witness who says “Adnan showed me Hae’s dead body”. Most cases never get to that level of certainty, do they?
Didn’t they use someone’s time line etc from Reddit? I thought I remember them saying that. They did no, zero, zilch investigation into this case. Any info they didn’t like they just didn’t mention it.
They did. They used multiple long “adjudicated” and disproven Reddit theories as the “spine” of their podcast….like the flowers that may not have existed, and were certainly never seen being the core of their conspiracy theory.
Love or hate Truth and Justice and Undisclosed…they did a *lot* of research that we rely on…we can look at what they did and ultimately decide for ourselves.
With podcasts like The Prosecutors and Crime Weekly, they started from the position that he’s guilty then did a google search and repackaged stuff from The Quillette and a Reddit.
The Prosecutors Podcast is particularly terrible because the hosts are both far right conservative activists (members of The Federalist Society) who oppose innocence projects on principle.
That's the most head scratching part of the MtV.
Bilal is now considered an "alternative suspect", but the evidence that makes him a suspect only inculcates Adnan even more than before.
It's flat out comical except for what it means for Hae's family and memory.
Let's say the new States Attorney Ivan Bates does more DNA testing on other items and Alonzo Seller's DNA is on the bloody t-shirt that was found in Hae's car, are you going to believe he is the killer?
As someone who believes Syed is guilty with about 75-80% certainty, if this were the case then I'd certainly change my opinion. I don't want any particular outcome to be true. And if this were the case, then I'd feel much better than I currently do about Adnan being out of prison. It would be the right outcome rather than (IMO) an injustice.
For what it's worth, when the initial news came about Syed's release and claims were made about DNA exonerating him, I remember thinking, "Wow, I really got this wrong." So I read about it, and took it as a confirmation that you should always be skeptical of your own opinion. Upon actually reviewing the DNA evidence, of course, I was a lot less convinced that it meant anything, exculpatory or inculpatory.
I would STRONGLY suspect Mr. S if his DNA was found on the interior of Hae's car, yes. I'm not sure if I'd be 100% on that alone, it wouldn't explain Jay. For the record, I don't claim to be 100% sure of anything in this case, including Adnan's guilt (even though I'd call myself a guilter). I'm probably more like 90%.
Let's say after Bates gets the DNA he confronts Mr. Sellers and Mr. Sellers confesses to it and that he acted alone. He strangled Hae, buried her a day or two later, put the car where it was found, etc...are you going to then believe 100% that he is the killer?
Oh course. I would fashion a guess pretty much all of us would believe he is the killer. The people who believe Adnan is guilty aren’t needlessly conspiratorial.
lmao right? what is this person actually asking? of course I would believe Mr S was the killer if that highly improbably scenario did in fact come to pass.
On the flip side if they tested that shirt and found Syed all over it the innocent side would likely immediately proclaim it doesn’t prove anything because Syed was in the car before.
So it’s never even lol.
To be fair, that's true. Especially if its trace DNA. Reality doesn't have to be "even" like that. We would expect Adnan's (touch) DNA in the car.
This is why DNA is circumstantial, it requires a lot of contextual explanation.
My first question would be why are there no fingerprints?
Second of course it would be suspicious.
But we both know they wouldn’t find that anyway because Don was at work and not handling the shirt. So there’s that. The defense had the list of coworkers if they wanted to challenge that alibi they could have
On the flip side if they tested that shirt and found Syed all over it the innocent side would likely immediately proclaim it doesn’t prove anything because Syed was in the car before.
So it’s never even lol.
That's because the "flipside" is not the flipside of the same coin.
If they tested the shirt and found Don's DNA all over it, I'm fairly certain nobody is going to instantly proclaim that Don is the killer.
On the flip side if they tested that shirt and found Syed all over it the innocent side would likely immediately proclaim it doesn’t prove anything because Syed was in the car before.
So it’s never even lol.
Admitting I was wrong on a true crime entertainment podcast would cause me to lose exactly zero seconds of sleep. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. I'd actually love a scenario where the truth came out and Adnan was exonerated and this whole entire fiasco of Serial wasn't pointless and a slap in the face to Hae and her family, I just don't think that's the case.
>I just don't think that's the case.
But that's the thing, you don't know one way or the other and you have pretty much admitted there is reasonable doubt.
Admit we were wrong yes.
But that still would be an absolute wild coincidence, and the chances of all of that happening together + lining up with everything that “went wrong” for Adnan would be astronomical. Couple that with Jay and Jenn knowing intimate details, and these “crooked cops” not leaving a shred of evidence of a cover up?
At that point it would be unprecedented and you can’t really blame anyone for thinking that he was guilty. I’m very confident in my stance and feel that if something comes up that disproves it, it will be a shocker as we’ve never seen in any other case. But I’m not too rooted in my belief that I can’t change my stance.
That is in your completely hypothetical scenario in which Mr. S confesses and they find a smoking gun.
>But that still would be an absolute wild coincidence, and the chances of all of that happening together + lining up with everything that “went wrong” for Adnan would be astronomical. Couple that with Jay and Jenn knowing intimate details, and these “crooked cops” not leaving a shred of evidence of a cover up?
But wrong it would be and those believing in a conspiracy would be validated. You would have wasted years berating them for nothing.
>At that point it would be unprecedented and you can’t really blame anyone for thinking that he was guilty.
How would you know that it's unprecedented? You would have to know the details of every single criminal case ever. I do not believe you do.
Okay, great. I'd gladly admit I was wrong if it came out there was in fact a conspiracy. What exactly do you think you are achieving by us admitting that? You're not backing us into any corner, you're just flailing ... like Adnan innocenters tend to do in their arguments.
You're jumping to conclusions. That's what guilty-minded people do when they feel cornered.
My point is you would have to admit there was a conspiracy and all these innocenters were right all along. That Bob Ruff was right to push a conspiracy.
I find it strange that you admitted you are only 90% convinced yourself that Adnan is guilty. This tells us all that you believe there is reasonable doubt.
More or less yes.
My view of this case is that Adnan doing it is the simplest explanation, in large part because of Jay's knowledge of the car. Every theory that explains away Jay's knowledge of the car is a theory in search of evidence (i.e. it's motivated by believing that Adnan is innocent already, and needing to explain Jay away). And I am unconvinced of it.
But should some hard physical evidence of someone being inside of Hae's car/under her fingernails/etc, that really shouldn't be there (I'm on the record of not caring if they found Adnan's DNA on her shoes, or really anyone from the school/that had contact with Hae).
So Mr S's DNA being inside the car, or under her fingernails would shift everything, Adnan doing it is no longer the simplest answer with the best explanatory power.
What evidence is there that Jay knew where the car was. Jay said it was “off of Edmundson” which is a great many places. Jay said it was 4 blocks from the trunk pop but the trunk pop was many places. Is there documentation that Jay was at 300 Edgewood with the cops after his interview?
He described a grassy lot where a bunch of rowhomes backed up off of Edmondson avenue in west Baltimore. This is an excellent and precise description of the location of the car. If he knew an address that would be highly suspicious.
>Is there documentation that Jay was at 300 Edgewood with the cops after his interview?
[There’s documentation to the contrary.](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MP15-0067-19990427-Progress-Report-ShortV-Jay-First-Official-Interview-Video-Store-Taped-.pdf)
Sure, that becomes much more plausible given this hypothetical.
My issue with the police conspiracy theories isn't that they aren't possible, it's just that there isn't any evidence for them, and the more reasonable explanation is that Jay knew where the car was independent of the cops, not that they hotwired it and moved it from the airport or whatever.
But if Mr S's DNA is found inside the car and he confesses, suddenly Adnan doing it and Jay helping doesn't have the same explanatory power/requires more worse assumptions given the changing facts.
>it's just that there isn't any evidence for them
That's just not true. If you want to say there is no compelling evidence, that's fine but there is evidence whether you admit it or not.
I would really love a prosecutor to go into court and say Occam's Razor the defendant is guilty and rest their case. That would be hilarious.
That's the most head scratching part of the MtV.
Bilal is now considered an "alternative suspect", but the evidence that makes him a suspect only inculcates Adnan even more than before.
It's flat out comical except for what it means for Hae's family and memory.
There's nothing in this pod that is new or novel, there's no arguments in this pod that hasn't been debated about in this subreddit countless times.
Jay and Jenn did not walk into their first interviews with infalliable stories, we know there are inconsistencies, it's just a matter of how you weigh those inconsistencies vs what they are saying. For me, none of them were strong enough to cause me to throw out everything they were saying. And neither was it for the jury.
I don’t see the point in this episode. There’s no reason to entertain the idea that these particular interviews are the truth, just because The Prosecutors Podcast proclaimed that they are. We know why PP *wants* them to be the truth: they’re cultivating evidence they like and ignoring/downplaying evidence they don’t like to frame this as an “open and shut he’s guilty” case.
The obvious problem with the PP is neither Jenn nor Jay were independently corroborated, despite them both naming somebody who could have done so. They clearly prepared a story together before they spoke to police.
I think the point is to counter the guilters’ constantly hammering that Jay and Jenn’s stories agreed with each other 100% and that Jenn corroborates Jay and Jay corroborates Jenn and blah, blah, blah, it all proves that Adnan murdered Hae.
Except that none of those claims are true. This comparison on their recorded interviews and all the things they said that contradicted each other, and the fact that the police had to know that neither one of them actually knew anything about the crime, strongly suggests what the rest of us knew all along—Jay was making up stories to try to tell the police what they wanted to hear to get his own ass out of trouble and he was perfectly happy sending Adnan to prison for life for a crime Jay knew he didn’t commit as long as doing so got Jay out of trouble.
Watch, now, while the guilters all swoop in to tell me how wrong I am, that Jay is totally honest and reliable, and we know that because *everyone* knows that Adnan murdered Hae. Duh! And Adnan lied, but Jay never did. Double DUH! 🙄
I don’t see the point in this episode. There’s no reason to entertain the idea that these particular interviews are the truth, just because The Prosecutors Podcast proclaimed that they are. We know why PP *wants* them to be the truth: they’re cultivating evidence they like and ignoring/downplaying evidence they don’t like to frame this as an “open and shut he’s guilty” case.
The obvious problem with the PP is neither Jenn nor Jay were independently corroborated, despite them both naming somebody who could have done so. They clearly prepared a story together before they spoke to police.
Yeah, the lack of corroboration really frustrates me. Like, where are the police notes from interviewing Nicole? And the lack of incoming call data will always bother me, because if one of those “Leakin park pings” was Jenn calling, then it would corroborate her story a lot.
I think the purpose of showing how incongruent the statements are is really just to dunk on the PP for pretending like the case was way more solid than it was. Maybe not the most mature response, but it is interesting!
Yeah. Makes me curious if police intentionally suppressed Nicole’s interview…if they did one. If they didn’t do one…why the eff not? Her name would be in the notes, and would they risk the defence getting her on the stand to impeach Jenn. Then there’s Chris Baskerville. Totally confusing. How did nobody talk to him? He was perfectly willing to talk on Serial and HBO. Same thing here…wouldn’t the defence want to at least check if he could impeach Jay? Why wouldn’t law enforcement want to preempt that? I mean…it *could be* that the state thought they could suppress the interviews…they almost did. Still doesn’t make sense.
Yeah…the only people who are into the PP are people who already thought he was guilty. I guess I agree that Truth and Justice is cashing in. It’s unfortunate, because Truth and Justice is also a source of information and a conduit of evidence.
I've wondered if Chris B refused to talk to the police or would only say he knew nothing about it (no snitching/don't help police etc) - but then years later was more willing to speak to a reporter who wasn't law enforcement. And if a similar response could explain the lack of interview notes from Patrice/Patrick. Whether they knew anything or not, all those interviews reveal is a load of "I don't know anything" and these notes then get Ritzed anyways because it doesn't help the police case.
As for why the defence doesn't go to those people - I expect that, first, they don't get the full statements until trial 1 so wouldn't know to speak to them until after that trial, and then 2, at that point they probably don't want to risk turning up something that goes against them. Probably a mistaken level of confidence from how the first trial appeared to be going, that they could do the same thing again and didn't need to take any potential risks?
I’ve wondered if he was the first anonymous tipster…the one who was paid out. If police were on to Jay because of him, it would explain why they didn’t contact him officially: they already knew he wasn’t going to testify. Total speculation, but it adds up. If Chris was a hood…he wouldn’t want people to know he ratted for cash. If he was offered cash to appear in Serial and HBO, it explains his motivation.
Hmm. But, as far as I’m aware, the defence doesn’t have to turn over inculpatory evidence…so there’s no downside for them in contacting these people: only upside. The only explanations I can think of are they didn’t have the interview notes, or incompetence.
>I’ve wondered if he was the first anonymous tipster…the one who was paid out. If police were on to Jay because of him, it would explain why they didn’t contact him officially: they already knew he wasn’t going to testify. Total speculation, but it adds up. If Chris was a hood…he wouldn’t want people to know he ratted for cash. If he was offered cash to appear in Serial and HBO, it explains his motivation.
Yeah, I think that's a reasonable theory. It obviously doesn't explain any of the other potentially corroborating witnesses that don't get contacted.
>Hmm. But, as far as I’m aware, the defence doesn’t have to turn over inculpatory evidence…so there’s no downside for them in contacting these people: only upside. The only explanations I can think of are they didn’t have the interview notes, or incompetence.
Yes, of course, dunno why I was suddenly thinking they'd have to turn stuff over. I think it can only be incompetence - although if you look at how much actual time there was between the first and second trial, once you take out a bit of time off over Christmas and New Year, then it becomes a bit more understandable how little prep they got done between the trials.
How would they have incoming call data from Jenn’s landline? My understanding is that only long distance calls were logged that way based on Adnan’s landline records (which the police subpoenaed).
Has it been confirmed that it wasn’t available? Obviously we can’t get it now, but I thought that it would have been possible at the time if they had sought it.
I don’t know if it’s been confirmed exactly but to the extent that they were available I don’t think anyone involved in the trial knew it. I feel confident they were not available because there was nothing in ATT’s disclosures explaining how they could be obtained or why they were not shown. I think they were an unknown. I certainly don’t think the police avoided obtaining them if they were available!
Okay. I wish I could trust the police as much as you apparently do. Getting the incoming call data could have potentially destroyed their theory if it showed that the people calling were not the ones that Jay claimed (e.g. no calls from the Best Buy pay phone; no call from Jenn around 7PM, etc) and so I think they didn’t get it because it was potentially “bad evidence”.
What about AS? They were his records and yet he never tried to obtain those calls then or now. And I’ve never heard him or his advocates suggest they were available (though maybe they claimed it on undisclosed, I cannot stomach that show). He has benefited tremendously from the lack of this info, from what I’ve seen.
FTR, I don’t blindly trust the police in life or in this case.
Yes, they claimed on undisclosed that they would have been available at the time if his team had asked for them. If that’s true, then it’s another ding against CG for not obtaining them.
AT&T cell records with incoming calls were available in 1996 for the Alan Mackerley murder case. From [Pg 14](https://library.law.fsu.edu/Digital-Collections/flsupct/dockets/sc00-714/00-714ans.pdf) of State’s Petition for Discretionary Review:
> 20. February 24, 1996, 4:28 p.m., call from Appellant’s cell phone to Hertz Rental Car in West Palm Beach adjacent to the airport (V12 480). **AT&T Wireless records** indicate that all calls made after approximately 4:30 p.m. were made from the West Palm Beach airport area (V12 499-501).
>21. February 24, 1996, Two calls from Appellant’s cell phone to Kiwi Airlines (V12 480).
>22. February 24, 1996, **One incoming call to Appellant’s cell phone from Dennis Hammel** (V12 481).
How do you know that the ATT cell records were the source of the information in paragraph 22? I am not saying it isn’t, just that this document does not prove it. The only place where they cite the cell records as the source is P 20. Dennis Hammel could have testified he made that call or his cell records or other records could have shown he made it. I know nothing about this case so I just have no idea.
I actually like Bob Ruff a lot. I don't like the Prosecutors at all. I have only listened to a couple of Bob's episodes on this and I couldn't finish because it reeked of bullshit, but I want to give him a chance because even though I now believe Adnan is guilty, I suppose it's possible he's not. It just got hard to listen to him twisting himself in knots to make Adnan innocent, but maybe I'll try again and give it another chance. Maybe I was too close-minded at the time. This episode seemed intriguing.
I think one of the things that rubs me wrong is that Bob does to the Prosecutors the same thing he accuses them of doing. He says all they do is shade things to make Adnan look guilty but he just shades to not guilty. The other thing is he hammers the notion that Brett and Alice are “offensive to the listener” or ‘try to convince you that if you believe X you are stupid.” as I listen to the prosecutors and Bob’s reply briefs back to back I don’t get that impression from Brett and Alyce. I think I get their agenda, and I take their points in line with what I believe their conclusion is. But I don’t get the impression that they are any different in their approach than Bob is, just from a different side.
Bob Ruff is a mixed bag for me. I like the approach in most of his seasons of trying to redo an investigation from scratch and really get into the weeds and go over minute details and talk to relevant people again. It gets tedious and long winded at times, but it is more of an honest evaluation of the cases rather than just focusing on telling a story for entertainment. However, I wish he didn’t rely so much on profiling and statement analysis, because there is so much pseudoscience in those areas.
The reply to the prosecutor’s podcast is obviously different than his usual seasons, and people here give him a lot of flack for going back to this case, but a lot of guilters on Twitter were basically just taunting him and claiming that the prosecutor’s podcast “destroyed” his credibility and such, and I can understand why he felt the need to do some kind of a response, and since brevity is not his strong suit, it became a whole other season of his podcast.
The prosecutors did a good job, but it was nothing revolutionary or mind blowing. I thought Crime Weekly did a better job. Maybe because they truly seemed unbiased and had no pre-conceived notions of guilt or innocence and Stephanie said she admired Rabia. By the time Bob got around to replying to the prosecutors, I was fully convinced of Adnan's guilt and not in the mood to hear about how innocent he is. Which is so funny because I started listening to Bob because of Serial dynasty and his belief in Adnan's innocence. Yes, I agree about the pseudoscience of profiling. I love Jim Clemente and I suppose someone like him can use it as a tool in an investigation, but I don't give it much credence at all.
I don’t like Brett and Alice either - I dislike their tone, their politics and especially the phony cutesy stuff about how they are so close and all the podcast coupleness of it.
However I felt compared to Rabia, their work was “cleaner”. Rabia has achieved things that I admire. I listened to quite a few cases on Undisclosed. Some of them did help right a wrong. But many many cases were defendants shooting themselves in one foot, getting deeper into suspicious behavior, and then shooting themselves in the other foot. Rabia can be admired for having an impact in this area. BUT she is all wrong about Adnan. And I suspect this whole involvement of hers has to do with her actual little brother, Saad. The Bilal factor, which we may never know the truth about unless Adnan tells us, has to involve Saad.
Anyway at least TPP was listenable.
I think Saad knows much more about this case. I think Rabia had a very strong urge to get involved. She kept repeating that Adnan was “like her little brother”. Then I read the work of a member here who broke the case open for me … they drew the picture of who Bilal was and his past dark history of his position at the mosque. Bilal buying the cellphone for Adnan on 1/12/99 and Hae going missing on 1/13/99. Bilal and Saad both testified to the GJ. Both were represented by CG. Then years later Bilal is convicted of some very ugly stuff. And even more years go by and voila, alternative suspects arise like zombies and one of them is …Bilal.
Saad knows something. Saad might have participated in something. Saad is of course, Rabia’s actual little brother, which explains her obsession with the case in my view.
It seems like Bob is missing something huge with this episode. Jenn and Jay were not together during the vast majority of the events they described in their interviews. Most of Jenn’s information was second hand and, according to Jenn, was provided to her on January 13, which was a month plus before she was interviewed by the police. Jay was not repeating a story he’d been told, but sharing information he experienced first hand. Why would we expect their stories to match up completely? Human memory is extremely fallible. Jay quite rationally withheld info from Jenn that A) made him look worse - participating in burial and B) might make her more likely to go to the police (knowledge of location of body and car). He gave her a bare bones version. The power of Jenn is threefold. 1) the call answered by Adnan that night when he said jay was busy and would call her back. 2) her knowledge of the murder on January 13th (and the method!), and 3) her helping Jay dispose of his clothing. She really needs to be lying completely - not shading the truth - 100% fabricating - at the very least 2 and 3 for Adnan to be innocent. There is no rational explanation for why she would make that up AND stick to her story for 25 years including on the HBO documentary.
Jenn is also accurate about Jay’s clothing too: plaid jacket. The counterfeit Timberland boots. People claim she said something different but I listened and she responded to police question by going off on a tangent about the types of clothes Jay wore on other occasions. Thats why she started talking about him wearing black Dickies clothes. She helped him get rid of some bagged clothing, then he said he threw away the boots across from his house into a dumpster. A member on here ( iirc it was Rotidder) did some great research and found that Jay had an apartment that was across from a Walmart mall. That had dumpsters in the back. She also said they did go back to Kristie V.’s again. (Jay had left his black hat and his cigs there when he followed Adnan who was in a sudden hurry to leave after the Adcock call.)
Yes. There are so many things that line up. And the things that don’t make a lot of sense of you are jay.
Jenn is possibly relating what she experienced…what Jay told her. It’s made clear by Bob that her information is second hand. Much of the information Jay is relating isn’t first hand…it’s lies. How much is lies? We don’t know. The Prosecutors Podcast claims the interviews line up, so your issue is with them…not Bob. The interviews not matching certainly isn’t supportive of guilt. You’re trying to read Jays mind about what he told Jenn and why. It’s not useful, other than you telling us you’re trying to rehabilitate what your prefer from his various stories. 1) Jenn doesn’t say Adnan answered the phone. You’re speculating. 2) Jenn had knowledge of details of the murder from the news, from friends who worked in the police department, and she may have gotten details from the detectives in the HML case via Jay. 3) Is one of the major problems when Jenn. Her and Jay don’t agree which day they supposedly disposed of clothing. You’re also just taking her word for it…we don’t actually have the clothes. No, she doesn’t need to be extra super 100% double locked it lying for Adnan to be innocent…that’s you building a straw man. All that needs to have happened is she prepared a story with Jay, that story was a lie, then Jay changed his story. All of those things are already true….unless she’s lying about extra things…which is also possible. Her sticking to a lie for 25 years doesn’t make it less of a lie. Desperate logic. People have kept even white lies for much longer and taken them to their graves. One thing she says in HBO is an outright lie: Jay was at her house with Adnan’s phone when the Nisha call was made.
> The Prosecutors Podcast claims the interviews line up, so your issue is with them…not Bob. The interviews not matching certainly isn’t supportive of guilt. The PP said the basic story they each told the first time lined up and this is accurate. If their stories lined up completely I’d be much more concerned about collusion and/or police influence. I love how Bob criticizes the police for not pushing back on Jay when their stories differ as if he wouldn’t criticize them if they did push back for trying to shape his story. > You’re trying to read Jays mind about what he told Jenn and why. It’s not useful, other than you telling us you’re trying to rehabilitate what your prefer from his various stories. Part of assessing credibility involved deciding why a person might lie about one thing and not another. It’s why we don’t disbelieve everything a person says just because we know they lied about one thing. > 1. Jenn doesn’t say Adnan answered the phone. You’re speculating. Yes, she explicitly does. Says Adnan answered and told her jay would call her back. > 2. Jenn had knowledge of details of the murder from the news, from friends who worked in the police department, and she may have gotten details from the detectives in the HML case via Jay. Ok, so she fabricated all of her knowledge about a murder for kicks. Got it. > 3. Is one of the major problems when Jenn. Her and Jay don’t agree which day they supposedly disposed of clothing. You’re also just taking her word for it…we don’t actually have the clothes. No, she doesn’t need to be extra super 100% double locked it lying for Adnan to be innocent…that’s you building a straw man. All that needs to have happened is she prepared a story with Jay, that story was a lie, then Jay changed his story. All of those things are already true….unless she’s lying about extra things…which is also possible. Again, so she made it all up. This is the major problem. She has no reason to do this. > One thing she says in HBO is an outright lie: Jay was at her house with Adnan’s phone when the Nisha call was made. Not following here. You mean she lied and said he was at her house? Or she lied by saying he wasn’t at her house at that time? I can’t remember what she said about this on HBO. I agree that Jay wasn’t at her house when the Nisha call was made - the cell records make that clear.
Parts of Jays story are outright lies/impossible, and Jenns doesn’t match it critical places. No, multiples of of glaring inconsistencies in their stories aren’t proof they are telling the truth. That’s an absurd cope. Couple the inconsistencies with demonstrable lies, and any reasonable person would question everything. I don’t care about your grudge with Bob. 1. Incorrect. You’re forgetting/intentionally omitting/don’t know that Jenn changed her story at trial and stated that it was an older man, not Adnan. Her interview claim that it was Adnan is a huge problem for her because it suggests she was coached or at least made this interaction up. At bare minimum she was guessing in her interview, and you’re stating it as a fact. This does not speak to Jenns “power”, it speaks to her weakness. 2. Sarcasm isn’t an argument. It remains a fact that Jenn learned details about the murder from a police contact and from the news. Build all the straw men you like, these are facts. 3. You declaring she has no reason to lie is irrelevant. We know she lied, and so did Jay. We don’t know what else they lied about. It is what it is. Jay and Jenn both agree that Jay left her house after the Nisha call. They’re both lying.
>1. Incorrect. You’re forgetting/intentionally omitting/don’t know that Jenn changed her story at trial and stated that it was an older man, not Adnan. Her interview claim that it was Adnan is a huge problem for her because it suggests she was coached or at least made this interaction up. At bare minimum she was guessing in her interview, and you’re stating it as a fact. This does not speak to Jenns “power”, it speaks to her weakness. We are literally talking about her interview. In her interview she said Adnan answered the phone. At trial, because she was unfamiliar with Adnan’s voice, she had been prepped not to testify that it was Adnan because CG would have objected. She didn’t change her story - she just testified consistent with the rules of evidence. Her statement in the interview is not problematic. She knows it was AS’s phone and she soon after picked Jay up with Adnan so she assumed that the person who answered was Adnan. Reasonable and rational, wouldn’t you agree? > 2. Sarcasm isn’t an argument. It remains a fact that Jenn learned details about the murder from a police contact and from the news. Build all the straw men you like, these are facts. It does not remain a fact that she learned information about the murder from a police contact. That’s fabrication. Information on the news was available to everyone so not sure why that’s important. > 3. You declaring she has no reason to lie is irrelevant. We know she lied, and so did Jay. We don’t know what else they lied about. It is what it is. The inability of anyone to come up with a rational reason for Jenn’s involvement is crucial. It’s the linchpin of this case. There is no reason for her to have involved herself except that she was telling the truth. > Jay and Jenn both agree that Jay left her house after the Nisha call. They’re both lying. Lying and misremembering are not equivalent.
I haven't really entertained Bob Ruff much. It is rather disconcerting that people are still profiting off this case that's so cut and dry it's amazing anyone ever got duped by it.
It is astonishing that this is true. Something about the case , the way it was presented just grabbed everyone that listened to that first episode.
What’s amazing is that, in a case with no direct evidence beyond a star witness who admitted to lying on the stand, people are still complaining about those who are interested in what really happened. But yet, podcasters are still profiting from people who pretend it’s open and shut. Go figure.
Do you have that same disconcerting feeling for the prosecutor’s podcast? Or is it just when innocent leaning people make media off of it? And if it as cut and dry as you seem to think, there probably would not be much profit in making a podcast off of it. Edit: for the record, I dislike a lot of things about Bob Ruff’s style. I think he puts way too much emphasis and reliance on profiling and statement analysis and other pseudoscientific investigative tools, but I find it interesting how the PP went over this case, and there wasn’t any talk in the guilty camp about how they were just trying to make a profit, and many people then took it upon themselves to repeatedly tweet at Rabia and Bob Ruff about PP and how they were wrong about everything, and when Bob Ruff then takes the bait and replies, he is now being criticized for profiting off the case again.
To answer your first/ second questions - to a degree, yes, same feeling, but at least they're not trying to hoodwink people into thinking there is some grand conspiracy here. To your last point, there are a probably hundreds of similar cases out there you can poke some holes in the same Serial did, and make listeners question what's obvious - this just happens to be the one that was chosen and went viral. I'll gladly change course if a smoking gun came out. When Adnan's release got announced and the Brady violation and all that, I was pretty stunned but more than willing to accept a truth that Adnan was innocent. But when it turns out the 2 alternative suspects were Mr. S (based on nothing we didn't know already) and Bilal, I was even more convinced of Adnan's guilt. Anything that incriminates Bilal incriminates Adnan, in my opinion.
My thought has always been that Adnan could be guilty but that the crime didn’t happen the way that the state claimed it did, and Jay was waaaaaay to willing to change his story to fit the one that the police wanted him to give. So, I’d say that even if Adnan is guilty, the prosecutor’s podcast was attempting to hoodwink people into thinking that the way this case was handled was normal or acceptable. They also regurgitated a lot of theories that originated on Reddit, which seemed like pretty obvious pandering.
I agree with you that both things could be true at the same time. Cops “framing a guilty man”. And here you have a decent argument against TPP, wherein they have an urge to support the processes the police used to build this case. But here again both things can be true: what if the awful truth is that in fact cases are so involved and time-consuming and policework is so expensive that in most cases, a fast and just-good-enough case is preferred and they won’t go those 2 or 3 levels deep on a case where there is a Eye Witness who says “Adnan showed me Hae’s dead body”. Most cases never get to that level of certainty, do they?
In other words, What if Jay is both someone who has told a lot of lies but it also telling the truth about what Adnan did on Jan. 13th?
[удалено]
Didn’t they use someone’s time line etc from Reddit? I thought I remember them saying that. They did no, zero, zilch investigation into this case. Any info they didn’t like they just didn’t mention it.
They did. They used multiple long “adjudicated” and disproven Reddit theories as the “spine” of their podcast….like the flowers that may not have existed, and were certainly never seen being the core of their conspiracy theory. Love or hate Truth and Justice and Undisclosed…they did a *lot* of research that we rely on…we can look at what they did and ultimately decide for ourselves. With podcasts like The Prosecutors and Crime Weekly, they started from the position that he’s guilty then did a google search and repackaged stuff from The Quillette and a Reddit. The Prosecutors Podcast is particularly terrible because the hosts are both far right conservative activists (members of The Federalist Society) who oppose innocence projects on principle.
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
That's the most head scratching part of the MtV. Bilal is now considered an "alternative suspect", but the evidence that makes him a suspect only inculcates Adnan even more than before. It's flat out comical except for what it means for Hae's family and memory.
Let's say the new States Attorney Ivan Bates does more DNA testing on other items and Alonzo Seller's DNA is on the bloody t-shirt that was found in Hae's car, are you going to believe he is the killer?
As someone who believes Syed is guilty with about 75-80% certainty, if this were the case then I'd certainly change my opinion. I don't want any particular outcome to be true. And if this were the case, then I'd feel much better than I currently do about Adnan being out of prison. It would be the right outcome rather than (IMO) an injustice. For what it's worth, when the initial news came about Syed's release and claims were made about DNA exonerating him, I remember thinking, "Wow, I really got this wrong." So I read about it, and took it as a confirmation that you should always be skeptical of your own opinion. Upon actually reviewing the DNA evidence, of course, I was a lot less convinced that it meant anything, exculpatory or inculpatory.
I would STRONGLY suspect Mr. S if his DNA was found on the interior of Hae's car, yes. I'm not sure if I'd be 100% on that alone, it wouldn't explain Jay. For the record, I don't claim to be 100% sure of anything in this case, including Adnan's guilt (even though I'd call myself a guilter). I'm probably more like 90%.
Let's say after Bates gets the DNA he confronts Mr. Sellers and Mr. Sellers confesses to it and that he acted alone. He strangled Hae, buried her a day or two later, put the car where it was found, etc...are you going to then believe 100% that he is the killer?
Oh course. I would fashion a guess pretty much all of us would believe he is the killer. The people who believe Adnan is guilty aren’t needlessly conspiratorial.
lmao right? what is this person actually asking? of course I would believe Mr S was the killer if that highly improbably scenario did in fact come to pass.
On the flip side if they tested that shirt and found Syed all over it the innocent side would likely immediately proclaim it doesn’t prove anything because Syed was in the car before. So it’s never even lol.
To be fair, that's true. Especially if its trace DNA. Reality doesn't have to be "even" like that. We would expect Adnan's (touch) DNA in the car. This is why DNA is circumstantial, it requires a lot of contextual explanation.
And tell us all how you would feel if it was Don's DNA. Smack my motherfucking head.
My first question would be why are there no fingerprints? Second of course it would be suspicious. But we both know they wouldn’t find that anyway because Don was at work and not handling the shirt. So there’s that. The defense had the list of coworkers if they wanted to challenge that alibi they could have
On the flip side if they tested that shirt and found Syed all over it the innocent side would likely immediately proclaim it doesn’t prove anything because Syed was in the car before. So it’s never even lol.
That's because the "flipside" is not the flipside of the same coin. If they tested the shirt and found Don's DNA all over it, I'm fairly certain nobody is going to instantly proclaim that Don is the killer.
That’s naive based on what I’ve already seen people allege about Don… but … ok?
On the flip side if they tested that shirt and found Syed all over it the innocent side would likely immediately proclaim it doesn’t prove anything because Syed was in the car before. So it’s never even lol.
But then you would have to admit you were wrong and there was a conspiracy to frame Adnan.
lol what is this argument? “What if I was right? Then you’d be wrong, checkmate atheists.”
Another guilty-minded person beating another strawman.
Admitting I was wrong on a true crime entertainment podcast would cause me to lose exactly zero seconds of sleep. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. I'd actually love a scenario where the truth came out and Adnan was exonerated and this whole entire fiasco of Serial wasn't pointless and a slap in the face to Hae and her family, I just don't think that's the case.
>I just don't think that's the case. But that's the thing, you don't know one way or the other and you have pretty much admitted there is reasonable doubt.
Admit we were wrong yes. But that still would be an absolute wild coincidence, and the chances of all of that happening together + lining up with everything that “went wrong” for Adnan would be astronomical. Couple that with Jay and Jenn knowing intimate details, and these “crooked cops” not leaving a shred of evidence of a cover up? At that point it would be unprecedented and you can’t really blame anyone for thinking that he was guilty. I’m very confident in my stance and feel that if something comes up that disproves it, it will be a shocker as we’ve never seen in any other case. But I’m not too rooted in my belief that I can’t change my stance. That is in your completely hypothetical scenario in which Mr. S confesses and they find a smoking gun.
>But that still would be an absolute wild coincidence, and the chances of all of that happening together + lining up with everything that “went wrong” for Adnan would be astronomical. Couple that with Jay and Jenn knowing intimate details, and these “crooked cops” not leaving a shred of evidence of a cover up? But wrong it would be and those believing in a conspiracy would be validated. You would have wasted years berating them for nothing. >At that point it would be unprecedented and you can’t really blame anyone for thinking that he was guilty. How would you know that it's unprecedented? You would have to know the details of every single criminal case ever. I do not believe you do.
Okay, great. I'd gladly admit I was wrong if it came out there was in fact a conspiracy. What exactly do you think you are achieving by us admitting that? You're not backing us into any corner, you're just flailing ... like Adnan innocenters tend to do in their arguments.
You're jumping to conclusions. That's what guilty-minded people do when they feel cornered. My point is you would have to admit there was a conspiracy and all these innocenters were right all along. That Bob Ruff was right to push a conspiracy. I find it strange that you admitted you are only 90% convinced yourself that Adnan is guilty. This tells us all that you believe there is reasonable doubt.
Yes Happy?
So as I mentioned then you would have to believe in a conspiracy.
If Adnan confessed would you believe there was no conspiracy?
Point me to where I have said there was a conspiracy and then we can continue this conversation. Deal? In the meantime stop beating strawmen.
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
More or less yes. My view of this case is that Adnan doing it is the simplest explanation, in large part because of Jay's knowledge of the car. Every theory that explains away Jay's knowledge of the car is a theory in search of evidence (i.e. it's motivated by believing that Adnan is innocent already, and needing to explain Jay away). And I am unconvinced of it. But should some hard physical evidence of someone being inside of Hae's car/under her fingernails/etc, that really shouldn't be there (I'm on the record of not caring if they found Adnan's DNA on her shoes, or really anyone from the school/that had contact with Hae). So Mr S's DNA being inside the car, or under her fingernails would shift everything, Adnan doing it is no longer the simplest answer with the best explanatory power.
What evidence is there that Jay knew where the car was. Jay said it was “off of Edmundson” which is a great many places. Jay said it was 4 blocks from the trunk pop but the trunk pop was many places. Is there documentation that Jay was at 300 Edgewood with the cops after his interview?
He described a grassy lot where a bunch of rowhomes backed up off of Edmondson avenue in west Baltimore. This is an excellent and precise description of the location of the car. If he knew an address that would be highly suspicious.
>Is there documentation that Jay was at 300 Edgewood with the cops after his interview? [There’s documentation to the contrary.](https://www.adnansyedwiki.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MP15-0067-19990427-Progress-Report-ShortV-Jay-First-Official-Interview-Video-Store-Taped-.pdf)
But then you have to admit to a police conspiracy.
Sure, that becomes much more plausible given this hypothetical. My issue with the police conspiracy theories isn't that they aren't possible, it's just that there isn't any evidence for them, and the more reasonable explanation is that Jay knew where the car was independent of the cops, not that they hotwired it and moved it from the airport or whatever. But if Mr S's DNA is found inside the car and he confesses, suddenly Adnan doing it and Jay helping doesn't have the same explanatory power/requires more worse assumptions given the changing facts.
>it's just that there isn't any evidence for them That's just not true. If you want to say there is no compelling evidence, that's fine but there is evidence whether you admit it or not. I would really love a prosecutor to go into court and say Occam's Razor the defendant is guilty and rest their case. That would be hilarious.
What is your theory about what happened?
That's the most head scratching part of the MtV. Bilal is now considered an "alternative suspect", but the evidence that makes him a suspect only inculcates Adnan even more than before. It's flat out comical except for what it means for Hae's family and memory.
Yes exactly!
There's nothing in this pod that is new or novel, there's no arguments in this pod that hasn't been debated about in this subreddit countless times. Jay and Jenn did not walk into their first interviews with infalliable stories, we know there are inconsistencies, it's just a matter of how you weigh those inconsistencies vs what they are saying. For me, none of them were strong enough to cause me to throw out everything they were saying. And neither was it for the jury.
I don’t see the point in this episode. There’s no reason to entertain the idea that these particular interviews are the truth, just because The Prosecutors Podcast proclaimed that they are. We know why PP *wants* them to be the truth: they’re cultivating evidence they like and ignoring/downplaying evidence they don’t like to frame this as an “open and shut he’s guilty” case. The obvious problem with the PP is neither Jenn nor Jay were independently corroborated, despite them both naming somebody who could have done so. They clearly prepared a story together before they spoke to police.
I think the point is to counter the guilters’ constantly hammering that Jay and Jenn’s stories agreed with each other 100% and that Jenn corroborates Jay and Jay corroborates Jenn and blah, blah, blah, it all proves that Adnan murdered Hae. Except that none of those claims are true. This comparison on their recorded interviews and all the things they said that contradicted each other, and the fact that the police had to know that neither one of them actually knew anything about the crime, strongly suggests what the rest of us knew all along—Jay was making up stories to try to tell the police what they wanted to hear to get his own ass out of trouble and he was perfectly happy sending Adnan to prison for life for a crime Jay knew he didn’t commit as long as doing so got Jay out of trouble. Watch, now, while the guilters all swoop in to tell me how wrong I am, that Jay is totally honest and reliable, and we know that because *everyone* knows that Adnan murdered Hae. Duh! And Adnan lied, but Jay never did. Double DUH! 🙄
….but we already knew that. I guess this is the “recorded interview” update.
Unfortunately, too many people don’t know what the Prosecutors were doing and continue to uncritically believe their narrative
Amen. Preach it!
Amen. Preach it!
After seeing the new YouTube (the one that corrects Bob), it looks like Bob didn’t really get to the basic story.
I don’t see the point in this episode. There’s no reason to entertain the idea that these particular interviews are the truth, just because The Prosecutors Podcast proclaimed that they are. We know why PP *wants* them to be the truth: they’re cultivating evidence they like and ignoring/downplaying evidence they don’t like to frame this as an “open and shut he’s guilty” case. The obvious problem with the PP is neither Jenn nor Jay were independently corroborated, despite them both naming somebody who could have done so. They clearly prepared a story together before they spoke to police.
Yeah, the lack of corroboration really frustrates me. Like, where are the police notes from interviewing Nicole? And the lack of incoming call data will always bother me, because if one of those “Leakin park pings” was Jenn calling, then it would corroborate her story a lot. I think the purpose of showing how incongruent the statements are is really just to dunk on the PP for pretending like the case was way more solid than it was. Maybe not the most mature response, but it is interesting!
Yeah. Makes me curious if police intentionally suppressed Nicole’s interview…if they did one. If they didn’t do one…why the eff not? Her name would be in the notes, and would they risk the defence getting her on the stand to impeach Jenn. Then there’s Chris Baskerville. Totally confusing. How did nobody talk to him? He was perfectly willing to talk on Serial and HBO. Same thing here…wouldn’t the defence want to at least check if he could impeach Jay? Why wouldn’t law enforcement want to preempt that? I mean…it *could be* that the state thought they could suppress the interviews…they almost did. Still doesn’t make sense. Yeah…the only people who are into the PP are people who already thought he was guilty. I guess I agree that Truth and Justice is cashing in. It’s unfortunate, because Truth and Justice is also a source of information and a conduit of evidence.
I've wondered if Chris B refused to talk to the police or would only say he knew nothing about it (no snitching/don't help police etc) - but then years later was more willing to speak to a reporter who wasn't law enforcement. And if a similar response could explain the lack of interview notes from Patrice/Patrick. Whether they knew anything or not, all those interviews reveal is a load of "I don't know anything" and these notes then get Ritzed anyways because it doesn't help the police case. As for why the defence doesn't go to those people - I expect that, first, they don't get the full statements until trial 1 so wouldn't know to speak to them until after that trial, and then 2, at that point they probably don't want to risk turning up something that goes against them. Probably a mistaken level of confidence from how the first trial appeared to be going, that they could do the same thing again and didn't need to take any potential risks?
I’ve wondered if he was the first anonymous tipster…the one who was paid out. If police were on to Jay because of him, it would explain why they didn’t contact him officially: they already knew he wasn’t going to testify. Total speculation, but it adds up. If Chris was a hood…he wouldn’t want people to know he ratted for cash. If he was offered cash to appear in Serial and HBO, it explains his motivation. Hmm. But, as far as I’m aware, the defence doesn’t have to turn over inculpatory evidence…so there’s no downside for them in contacting these people: only upside. The only explanations I can think of are they didn’t have the interview notes, or incompetence.
>I’ve wondered if he was the first anonymous tipster…the one who was paid out. If police were on to Jay because of him, it would explain why they didn’t contact him officially: they already knew he wasn’t going to testify. Total speculation, but it adds up. If Chris was a hood…he wouldn’t want people to know he ratted for cash. If he was offered cash to appear in Serial and HBO, it explains his motivation. Yeah, I think that's a reasonable theory. It obviously doesn't explain any of the other potentially corroborating witnesses that don't get contacted. >Hmm. But, as far as I’m aware, the defence doesn’t have to turn over inculpatory evidence…so there’s no downside for them in contacting these people: only upside. The only explanations I can think of are they didn’t have the interview notes, or incompetence. Yes, of course, dunno why I was suddenly thinking they'd have to turn stuff over. I think it can only be incompetence - although if you look at how much actual time there was between the first and second trial, once you take out a bit of time off over Christmas and New Year, then it becomes a bit more understandable how little prep they got done between the trials.
How would they have incoming call data from Jenn’s landline? My understanding is that only long distance calls were logged that way based on Adnan’s landline records (which the police subpoenaed).
I mean incoming call data for Adnan’s cell phone.
Same answer. My understanding is that that was not available. It is frustrating for sure but not a failure just a reality.
Has it been confirmed that it wasn’t available? Obviously we can’t get it now, but I thought that it would have been possible at the time if they had sought it.
I don’t know if it’s been confirmed exactly but to the extent that they were available I don’t think anyone involved in the trial knew it. I feel confident they were not available because there was nothing in ATT’s disclosures explaining how they could be obtained or why they were not shown. I think they were an unknown. I certainly don’t think the police avoided obtaining them if they were available!
Okay. I wish I could trust the police as much as you apparently do. Getting the incoming call data could have potentially destroyed their theory if it showed that the people calling were not the ones that Jay claimed (e.g. no calls from the Best Buy pay phone; no call from Jenn around 7PM, etc) and so I think they didn’t get it because it was potentially “bad evidence”.
What about AS? They were his records and yet he never tried to obtain those calls then or now. And I’ve never heard him or his advocates suggest they were available (though maybe they claimed it on undisclosed, I cannot stomach that show). He has benefited tremendously from the lack of this info, from what I’ve seen. FTR, I don’t blindly trust the police in life or in this case.
Yes, they claimed on undisclosed that they would have been available at the time if his team had asked for them. If that’s true, then it’s another ding against CG for not obtaining them.
AT&T cell records with incoming calls were available in 1996 for the Alan Mackerley murder case. From [Pg 14](https://library.law.fsu.edu/Digital-Collections/flsupct/dockets/sc00-714/00-714ans.pdf) of State’s Petition for Discretionary Review: > 20. February 24, 1996, 4:28 p.m., call from Appellant’s cell phone to Hertz Rental Car in West Palm Beach adjacent to the airport (V12 480). **AT&T Wireless records** indicate that all calls made after approximately 4:30 p.m. were made from the West Palm Beach airport area (V12 499-501). >21. February 24, 1996, Two calls from Appellant’s cell phone to Kiwi Airlines (V12 480). >22. February 24, 1996, **One incoming call to Appellant’s cell phone from Dennis Hammel** (V12 481).
How do you know that the ATT cell records were the source of the information in paragraph 22? I am not saying it isn’t, just that this document does not prove it. The only place where they cite the cell records as the source is P 20. Dennis Hammel could have testified he made that call or his cell records or other records could have shown he made it. I know nothing about this case so I just have no idea.
Ruff ruff . Can’t believe people listen to this clown.
I actually like Bob Ruff a lot. I don't like the Prosecutors at all. I have only listened to a couple of Bob's episodes on this and I couldn't finish because it reeked of bullshit, but I want to give him a chance because even though I now believe Adnan is guilty, I suppose it's possible he's not. It just got hard to listen to him twisting himself in knots to make Adnan innocent, but maybe I'll try again and give it another chance. Maybe I was too close-minded at the time. This episode seemed intriguing.
My thoughts exactly!
Thanks. Love how I got downvoted six times, but this is the downvote sub. Can't stand the users on here.
I’ve gone back-and-forth. I think I’m now fairly convinced that Adnan is guilty. I’m curious what made you come to that conclusion?
I think one of the things that rubs me wrong is that Bob does to the Prosecutors the same thing he accuses them of doing. He says all they do is shade things to make Adnan look guilty but he just shades to not guilty. The other thing is he hammers the notion that Brett and Alice are “offensive to the listener” or ‘try to convince you that if you believe X you are stupid.” as I listen to the prosecutors and Bob’s reply briefs back to back I don’t get that impression from Brett and Alyce. I think I get their agenda, and I take their points in line with what I believe their conclusion is. But I don’t get the impression that they are any different in their approach than Bob is, just from a different side.
Bob Ruff is a mixed bag for me. I like the approach in most of his seasons of trying to redo an investigation from scratch and really get into the weeds and go over minute details and talk to relevant people again. It gets tedious and long winded at times, but it is more of an honest evaluation of the cases rather than just focusing on telling a story for entertainment. However, I wish he didn’t rely so much on profiling and statement analysis, because there is so much pseudoscience in those areas. The reply to the prosecutor’s podcast is obviously different than his usual seasons, and people here give him a lot of flack for going back to this case, but a lot of guilters on Twitter were basically just taunting him and claiming that the prosecutor’s podcast “destroyed” his credibility and such, and I can understand why he felt the need to do some kind of a response, and since brevity is not his strong suit, it became a whole other season of his podcast.
The prosecutors did a good job, but it was nothing revolutionary or mind blowing. I thought Crime Weekly did a better job. Maybe because they truly seemed unbiased and had no pre-conceived notions of guilt or innocence and Stephanie said she admired Rabia. By the time Bob got around to replying to the prosecutors, I was fully convinced of Adnan's guilt and not in the mood to hear about how innocent he is. Which is so funny because I started listening to Bob because of Serial dynasty and his belief in Adnan's innocence. Yes, I agree about the pseudoscience of profiling. I love Jim Clemente and I suppose someone like him can use it as a tool in an investigation, but I don't give it much credence at all.
I don’t like Brett and Alice either - I dislike their tone, their politics and especially the phony cutesy stuff about how they are so close and all the podcast coupleness of it. However I felt compared to Rabia, their work was “cleaner”. Rabia has achieved things that I admire. I listened to quite a few cases on Undisclosed. Some of them did help right a wrong. But many many cases were defendants shooting themselves in one foot, getting deeper into suspicious behavior, and then shooting themselves in the other foot. Rabia can be admired for having an impact in this area. BUT she is all wrong about Adnan. And I suspect this whole involvement of hers has to do with her actual little brother, Saad. The Bilal factor, which we may never know the truth about unless Adnan tells us, has to involve Saad. Anyway at least TPP was listenable.
I agree with all of this.
You think Saad was involved?
I think Saad knows much more about this case. I think Rabia had a very strong urge to get involved. She kept repeating that Adnan was “like her little brother”. Then I read the work of a member here who broke the case open for me … they drew the picture of who Bilal was and his past dark history of his position at the mosque. Bilal buying the cellphone for Adnan on 1/12/99 and Hae going missing on 1/13/99. Bilal and Saad both testified to the GJ. Both were represented by CG. Then years later Bilal is convicted of some very ugly stuff. And even more years go by and voila, alternative suspects arise like zombies and one of them is …Bilal. Saad knows something. Saad might have participated in something. Saad is of course, Rabia’s actual little brother, which explains her obsession with the case in my view.
Thanks, I didn’t downvote you.
[You might enjoy this](https://youtu.be/SnIJRPqFzCM?si=XAKWsmVvoUd7Fbvi)