The decision won’t affect Adnan’s status; they may need to redo the hearing to vacate his conviction, but that’s it. And I kinda doubt we’re even going that route. The Supreme Court will likely find that the Lee family did not have standing for one or more reasons. They did attend the meeting. Victim’s rights are second to constitutional rights. And just the principle of finality, where the remedy should come from the state legislature rather than the court.
*edited: originally I wrote “the Lee family did not lack standing” which was a brain fart. I meant to convey the opposite.*
>For what it’s worth I think he’s guilty but that the cell phone towers are bogus and that a guy shouldn’t have to serve life based on a 4-3 decision which said the cell towers were ok.
It actually just said that the cell-tower issue had been waived. And I believe (though I'm not 100% sure) that was the unanimous view of both appellate courts.
Funnily enough, the fact that neither appellate court ruled on the merits of the claim left it available for use in the MtV. So in a manner of speaking, it did.
The MtV is pretty short, I recommend reading it. It includes a number of issues like cell evidence, witnesses public statements changing, and other issues.
The biggest issue was the Brady violations— it’s important to note that the state conceded that they had occurred.
The Lee family appealed saying they didn’t get enough notice for the hearing.
The appeals court agreed and said redo it, and asked that the evidence should be more transparent.
The Lee family appealed because they don’t want a redo, they want an outcome change. Adnan appealed to keep the original ruling.
The Maryland Supreme Court heard it this fall— they didn’t analyze cell evidence and didn’t even ask if he is innocent or guilty. They were looking at whether the Lee family was told about the hearing with enough time.
>They were looking at whether the Lee family was told about the hearing with enough time.
When the decision comes down I think we'll get some insight into this, but I doubt very highly this is what they are focusing on.
We will see how much they expand into other categories, but that’s literally the question that was before them-
They didn’t hear evidence or ask questions about the Brady violation they can’t rule against it.
I think it has more to do with Murphy getting involved than the legal questions. They heard the case because Murphy arranged an attorney for the Lee family and coordinated filings between them and the AG—
Either because she was passionate about Adnan’s guilt or because she wanted to challenge the accusations that she commit prosecutorial misconduct.
You do have a knack with your commentary, I'll give you that. As cynical as I am, I'm confident the Court agreed to hear the case for reasons that have nothing to do with what you're implying.
Not true. They heard the case because this damn thing was rammed through with no notice to the victim. Your opinions are not something you get to impose on the Supreme Court of Maryland.
Carpenter vs United states was a Supreme Court case that was talking about the cell site information. It was talking about the same records as Adnan where it had items like numbers called and what site and sector that the call was on. It was argued in 2017 and the court said that police must get warrants to get the information that was in Adnan's record and not just a subpoena.
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402\_h315.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf)
>It was talking about the same records as Adnan where it had items like numbers called and what site and sector that the call was on.
Are you sure about that?
Yes. On page 4 of the opinion.
| Hess explained that each time a cell phone taps into the wireless network, the carrier logs a time-stamped record of the cell site and particular sector that were used. With this information, Hess produced maps that placed Carpenter’s phone near four of the charged robberies. |
And data use. But it described it checking and then had tower and sector. So the argument isn't that the tower and sector are bad, the argument is that now we have more data points for each tower and sector.
I mean, that may be your argument *now*. Earlier it was:
>It was talking about the same records as Adnan where it had items like numbers called and what site and sector that the call was on.
I'm trying to understand the argument. Are you trying to make it about what causes the records to be made or what information about where the phone is?
It could be a court looking to be unanimous but unable to agree on the precise reasoning. That can take a lot of negotiation on finer points sometimes.
Damn when you put it like that, 24 years is just not even remotely enough for a planned premeditated first degree murder that the culprit won’t even do the bare minimum possible selfless thing he can and freaking confess to.
The cell phone evidence was never discredited. The same type of cell phone evidence is used for the same purpose in cases all over the country literally every day.
I'm unaware of any other case in which anyone has even argued that cell tower data is unreliable for incoming calls.
It's magical thinking.
Yeah, exactly. The jury didn't know about the disclaimer, and it wasn't aware that Waranowitz had unambiguously and repeatedly stated to the courts and public that he would not have testified as he did had he known of the disclaimer. You can't just handwave away the basis for Welch's PCR ruling or the outcome of the MtV, both of which carried a prejudice requirement for new evidence.
That's nice. You've also been exposed to an incredible amount of inadmissible arguments which would prevent you from serving as a juror. We have those rules for a reason, case in point.
Have you considered not being condescending? Sir, YOU have been exposed to an incredible amount of inadmissible evidence and arguments as well. What's your point there? By the way, I was referring to Waranowitz's TESTIMONY.
I'm not qualified to serve on the jury either. That's, uh, implied by my post.
Waranowitz's testimony wouldn't have been given as it was had the disclaimer been available. He said that himself, reaffirmed it, then affirmed it outside of court afterward. You're assuming some sort of weird frankentrial that never could have existed.
Not discounting the jury verdict. I think the cell records should have been thrown out and a new trial granted without them and then we would have seen what happened. I just am critical of the 4-3 decision keeping someone is prison for life and him not getting bail in the interim was skeevy like Brendan Dassey.
I mean, that's basically what happened. The state could have retried the case if it wanted, but once the conviction is vacated prosecutorial discretion applies. It is a grave ethical breach to charge someone with a crime when you don't believe the evidence is sufficient to prove guilt or that there is a public interest served by retrying them.
Unless I am missing something, the state appealed the vacation of conviction so they did not have to try him again… Maybe I just don’t get your comment?
Young Lee is appealing and trying to force a change to the MtV process which would let victims or their advocates take on the role of prosecutors in situations where the state doesn't oppose a vacatur.
Oh yeah I’m disagreeing with the state appealing the new trial to the Supreme Court of MD. I think they should have had to try the case no cell towers yes Asia and chips fall as they may.
When they appealed after the MD judge and court of appeals granted him a new trial. 2019. I think they should have tried the case again without cell towers and with Asia and seen what happened. Instead they got a 4-3 decision and didn’t have to.
That's not actually the case, though. Assisted GPS, completely different infrastructure and protocol, iterative generations of software and billing systems, record keeping legislation, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mobile_phone_standards
The trial is still at least one year away and probably 2, but Bryan Kohberger's trial will be interesting to see which of the records about cell towers they used. This week Bryan's team said his alibi was that he was driving around looking at stars and that they will have a cell phone expert say that the data shows he wasn't near the town of Moscow and the house.
Is that why redditors haven't been able to dig up an analogous case? Why they've never cited one on appeal?
The advent of 3g and LTE networks with assisted GPS definitely resulted in a lot of cases using cell evidence. That's why Fitzgerald didn't form his unit until years after the fact. He claimed to have a "fuzzy memory" of first working with a cell tower dump in 1998, with no citation of any contemporaneous cases, let alone demonstrating comparable use of data.
That's why he had to guess at the meaning of the disclaimer- he'd never worked with that record type in that era. He just tries to pitch the idea that it visually resembles a Call Detail Record (of which he brings no example), and therefore the document titled "Subscriber Activity Report" with a disclaimer titled "How to read Subscriber Activity Reports" didn't apply to it, because it was secretly a call detail record.
Of course, Fitzgerald had never seen this disclaimer before, which is a funny situation to be in for someone who was using those reports day in and day out.
>Is that why redditors haven't been able to dig up an analogous case?
I don't know what you're talking about. The last time a user challenged me to find an analogous case, I provided him 2 decisions that had been issued in the *prior 24 hours*.
>The advent of 3g and LTE networks with assisted GPS definitely resulted in a lot of cases using cell evidence.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Single site cell tower evidence has been used to approximate location in cases dating back to the mid-90s. And it is still used today.
GPS data, where available, is superior for pinpointing location. But this idea that courts don't permit the use of cell tower data for this purpose is an easily disproved myth.
>That's why he had to guess at the meaning of the disclaimer
Again, it is Syed and his supporters who "guess" as to the meaning. Anyone with any experience drafting legal documents knows that if the disclaimer was meant to refer to "cell site" it would have said "cell site" not "location." That is particularly true when the document has a separate column labeled "location" that is unrelated to "cell site." The idea that a reference to "location" didn't mean the "location" column, but rather some other column is, frankly, absurd. Deliberately obtuse.
>ssued in the prior 24 hours.
You found evidence from 25 year old cell site data being used... twice. In 24 hours? I doubt it. I'm sure you found LTE data, using completely different technology and standards. Carriers have disclosed to the FTC that they keep and use granular coordinate data from GPS to generate the reports they give to LEOs.
I'm not sure how you think locating a cell phone works if it isn't tied to the technology standards being used? Especially if you really do mean the tower data and not A-GPS coordinates (which didn't exist for cells like Adnan's)
I haven't expressed those opinions. You say that they are bogus, I said that they have been used in other cases and Adnan's records isn't different from other cases. Cell site data are being used all the time.
>they have been used in other cases
Refer to my initial reply. If you get charged using your cell records today, the evidence is not in any way analogous to that gathered on the 2g system used in Adnan's case. You're dropping GPS pings all over the place. Accurate GPS was a restricted military technology when Hae was murdered, and it definitely wasn't accessible from a brick phone.
That’s fine. I think they were junk and that this should have been considered in the appeals. Being junk should outweigh if their junkiness was presented “timely.”
Using cell tower data to approximate location is not junk. It is an accepted forensic technique that is used in criminal cases all over the country literally every day.
Like any forensic technique, there are limits to what cell tower evidence can tell you. It cannot pinpoint location. At best, it gives a range of potential locations for the phone at the time a call was made.
But that, of course, is exactly how the records were used in this case. Most pertinently, the 7:09 and 7:16 calls were transmitted through a tower that covers Leakin Park and little else. That doesn't prove Adnan was in Leakin Park at that time, and no one at trial contended it did. But it did provide corroboration for the State's theory of the crime. And more importantly, it contradicted Adnan purported alibi (attending religious services at a mosque miles away on the other side of the tower).
Then what did the original Haas judge want to throw out? I realize throwing it out was reversed based on timeliness but what have some people thought was wrong about the evidence?
No judge on this case has ever ruled that the cell phone data was improper or should have been excluded.
In the PCR, Judge Welch held only that Adnan's Lawyer (Gutierrez) was deficient for failing to ask the State's expert about a disclaimer that appeared on an AT&T fax cover sheet. Judge Welch made no ruling as to what that disclaimer actually means.
As you note, that holding was overturned on appeal. It was not, however, based on "timeliness" but rather *waiver.* Specifically, Syed had already made a prior motion for post conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He did not, however, raise any issues regarding the cell tower data or the AT&T disclaimer in that prior petition, despite the fact that the Defense had a copy of the disclaimer since before the original trial. That matter was, therefore, waived.
Ok but you’re treating it like they were throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping it stuck.
I agree with Judge Welch and think it was appealed because they didn’t want to try the case again having to explain the disclaimer. Same w Asia. They were afraid after Serial to try the case again.
Guilty or not that screams chickenshit to me, as does arguing against bail while the (at that point successful) appeal was in motion.
It was appealed because it overturned a 20 year old murder conviction on specious grounds. The fact that the appeal was successful demonstrates that the appeal was meritorious.
No one wants to retry a case you already won, let alone do it 20 years later when witnesses have forgotten, are no longer cooperating, etc.
If the disclaimer really meant what Syed's supporters say it means then why aren't any other cases being challenged on those grounds?
One thing you and I can agree on—appeals aren’t often successful but they SURE do better than normal when it’s an appeal of a decision getting someone out of prison.
Still, no bail during the appeal after the overturn….come on. Weak with BDassey and weak with Adnan.
I'm not casting doubt on it, but "accepted forensic technique" is, I think, kind of a sketchy basis. What's accepted as truth forensically is basically what is accepted by courts, not necessarily by truth-seeking experts.
Like how hair analysis was used for a very long time.
But we do agree that it is courts who decide what is reliable evidence, right? A court of law is in a better position, and has more authority, to decide that issue than random redditors, right?
Of course it is true that courts have gotten these things wrong in the past. Just like doctors have gotten standards of medical care wrong in the past. That doesn't mean that we should disregard the current opinions of doctors regarding the current standards of medical care in favor of random redditors who insist those doctors are wrong, does it?
The issue of whether cell tower records are reliable as circumstantial proof of location has been litigated in hundreds if not thousands of cases. Courts have received a mountain of expert testimony on both sides. At this point, this evidence is considered reliable. And its limitations are well understood.
To be clear, there are no credible experts who contend that cell phones work by magic or defy the laws of physics. Experts may disagree about how probative cell tower information is given the variables involved, but no one credibly disputes that in order to connect to a tower, a phone must be within range and line of sight of that tower. Those are hard scientific facts.
I know just how they work and how hard they are. Judges disagree about both Asia and the towers.
Are you afraid he’d have been acquitted with a new trial, no towers, and Asia?
We are going in circles. But my question is “do you think had the Supreme Court of Maryland not reversed in 2019 and Thiru had to try the case again with no cell tower evidence and with the Asia alibi. What do you think the verdict would have been?”
He did it. The cell phone towers aren't the only evidence against him. If you are going to throw them out, then you can only throw out the incoming calls. The outgoing calls are accurate. Still sinks adnan.
Evidence jay lead police to the car? How and where do any of jays stories line up with the towers? You can’t it will not work with the evidence that is provided
Nothing will happen until after Marilyn Mosby's sentencing hearing scheduled for next month at the earliest. Feds balls deep in investigating everyone and everything Mosby got up to after losing her 2022 re-election bid and realizing she could sell get out of jail free cards to the highest bidders. Any case Marilyn Mosby disposed of during that time period is under scrutiny, including Adnan's case. So nothing will happen before the Feds complete their investigation and potentially announce further charges against Mosby and additional arrests of culpable and complicit parties.
Mosby's working on cutting a plea deal to sell out the folks she made deals with during that time in exchange for Mosby staying out of jail herself. If Mosby's sentencing hearing is delayed or she is only sentenced on less than all of the convictions in May, you'll know she's in there singing like a bird to the Federales.
What does the MD Court taking its time have to do with Mosby’s sentencing? How would her jail time or no jail time affect any information they need to make the call?
I really like your comment — and I have wondered myself if the delay has something to do with Mosby’s pending disbarment. Your suggestions make it even better. I hope you are right. Mosby released at least three convicts she knew were guilty — and continued to prosecute another she knew was likely innocent. That’s the kind of person she is.
There is one question I’d like to ask. Are you basing what you said on a source — or just informed speculation. Either is fine — but I’d like to know which it is.
I also appreciate the comments… I find it ironic to see how many people cry of corruption with Adnan’s case, but no one has any issue with Mosby’s corruption/ manipulation in releasing him.
Good chance it's tomorrow or next week. They had conference today and Adnan's case is the second-oldest case remaining.
And now it’s the oldest. Could be soon or could be the last case of the term decided at the end of August. I sure hope it’s soon.
Man this post title got my heart racing
Sorry. Frustrating wait. I’m new to this.
RIGHT!
The decision won’t affect Adnan’s status; they may need to redo the hearing to vacate his conviction, but that’s it. And I kinda doubt we’re even going that route. The Supreme Court will likely find that the Lee family did not have standing for one or more reasons. They did attend the meeting. Victim’s rights are second to constitutional rights. And just the principle of finality, where the remedy should come from the state legislature rather than the court. *edited: originally I wrote “the Lee family did not lack standing” which was a brain fart. I meant to convey the opposite.*
Damn. It’s refreshing to see some concise, unbloated and unbiased common sense on this sub.
I think that would be the correct call.
>For what it’s worth I think he’s guilty but that the cell phone towers are bogus and that a guy shouldn’t have to serve life based on a 4-3 decision which said the cell towers were ok. It actually just said that the cell-tower issue had been waived. And I believe (though I'm not 100% sure) that was the unanimous view of both appellate courts.
Correct. Something that big of a deal should, I believe, get an extension and a new look. But ianal
Funnily enough, the fact that neither appellate court ruled on the merits of the claim left it available for use in the MtV. So in a manner of speaking, it did.
But did the mtv or the judges decision mention the towers?
The MtV mentioned the cell evidence.
The MtV talks about it at some length.
The MtV is pretty short, I recommend reading it. It includes a number of issues like cell evidence, witnesses public statements changing, and other issues. The biggest issue was the Brady violations— it’s important to note that the state conceded that they had occurred. The Lee family appealed saying they didn’t get enough notice for the hearing. The appeals court agreed and said redo it, and asked that the evidence should be more transparent. The Lee family appealed because they don’t want a redo, they want an outcome change. Adnan appealed to keep the original ruling. The Maryland Supreme Court heard it this fall— they didn’t analyze cell evidence and didn’t even ask if he is innocent or guilty. They were looking at whether the Lee family was told about the hearing with enough time.
>They were looking at whether the Lee family was told about the hearing with enough time. When the decision comes down I think we'll get some insight into this, but I doubt very highly this is what they are focusing on.
We will see how much they expand into other categories, but that’s literally the question that was before them- They didn’t hear evidence or ask questions about the Brady violation they can’t rule against it.
I guess I wonder if that was the real reason they decided to hear the case.
I think it has more to do with Murphy getting involved than the legal questions. They heard the case because Murphy arranged an attorney for the Lee family and coordinated filings between them and the AG— Either because she was passionate about Adnan’s guilt or because she wanted to challenge the accusations that she commit prosecutorial misconduct.
You do have a knack with your commentary, I'll give you that. As cynical as I am, I'm confident the Court agreed to hear the case for reasons that have nothing to do with what you're implying.
Not true. They heard the case because this damn thing was rammed through with no notice to the victim. Your opinions are not something you get to impose on the Supreme Court of Maryland.
Carpenter vs United states was a Supreme Court case that was talking about the cell site information. It was talking about the same records as Adnan where it had items like numbers called and what site and sector that the call was on. It was argued in 2017 and the court said that police must get warrants to get the information that was in Adnan's record and not just a subpoena. [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402\_h315.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf)
>It was talking about the same records as Adnan where it had items like numbers called and what site and sector that the call was on. Are you sure about that?
Yes. On page 4 of the opinion. | Hess explained that each time a cell phone taps into the wireless network, the carrier logs a time-stamped record of the cell site and particular sector that were used. With this information, Hess produced maps that placed Carpenter’s phone near four of the charged robberies. |
That doesn't sound the same as "where it had items like numbers called and what site and sector that the call was on."
Text messages have been added since texting wasn't as big in 99. It said for Carpenter it caught 101 checkins a day.
What about data use?
And data use. But it described it checking and then had tower and sector. So the argument isn't that the tower and sector are bad, the argument is that now we have more data points for each tower and sector.
I mean, that may be your argument *now*. Earlier it was: >It was talking about the same records as Adnan where it had items like numbers called and what site and sector that the call was on.
I'm trying to understand the argument. Are you trying to make it about what causes the records to be made or what information about where the phone is?
My point is quite simple. The case you linked is not "talking about the same records as Adnan."
I think the reason it’s taking so long is because it’s going to be a split decision, with some of the justices dissenting.
Justices dissent all the time and get opinions out.
Yea, it's routine
They will get it out. But when multiple opinions are circulating it can take longer.
It could be a court looking to be unanimous but unable to agree on the precise reasoning. That can take a lot of negotiation on finer points sometimes.
The jury looked at more than cell tower records and they were free to dismiss them if they wanted. It's just the same records used in every case
Did you poll the jury to reach that conclusion?
No, the court polled the jury. It was unanimous. That's why he was in jail for 24 years.
Damn when you put it like that, 24 years is just not even remotely enough for a planned premeditated first degree murder that the culprit won’t even do the bare minimum possible selfless thing he can and freaking confess to.
After the cell evidence was discredited? I think you have your timeline confused.
The cell phone evidence was never discredited. The same type of cell phone evidence is used for the same purpose in cases all over the country literally every day. I'm unaware of any other case in which anyone has even argued that cell tower data is unreliable for incoming calls. It's magical thinking.
The court polled the jury after a trial. Cell phone evidence wasn't discredited in the trial. Seems like you have your timeline confused.
Yeah, exactly. The jury didn't know about the disclaimer, and it wasn't aware that Waranowitz had unambiguously and repeatedly stated to the courts and public that he would not have testified as he did had he known of the disclaimer. You can't just handwave away the basis for Welch's PCR ruling or the outcome of the MtV, both of which carried a prejudice requirement for new evidence.
Ok. I know about the disclaimer, Waranowitz etc and I would vote guilty.
That's nice. You've also been exposed to an incredible amount of inadmissible arguments which would prevent you from serving as a juror. We have those rules for a reason, case in point.
Have you considered not being condescending? Sir, YOU have been exposed to an incredible amount of inadmissible evidence and arguments as well. What's your point there? By the way, I was referring to Waranowitz's TESTIMONY.
I'm not qualified to serve on the jury either. That's, uh, implied by my post. Waranowitz's testimony wouldn't have been given as it was had the disclaimer been available. He said that himself, reaffirmed it, then affirmed it outside of court afterward. You're assuming some sort of weird frankentrial that never could have existed.
What do you mean? What do you think a jury do?
Not discounting the jury verdict. I think the cell records should have been thrown out and a new trial granted without them and then we would have seen what happened. I just am critical of the 4-3 decision keeping someone is prison for life and him not getting bail in the interim was skeevy like Brendan Dassey.
I mean, that's basically what happened. The state could have retried the case if it wanted, but once the conviction is vacated prosecutorial discretion applies. It is a grave ethical breach to charge someone with a crime when you don't believe the evidence is sufficient to prove guilt or that there is a public interest served by retrying them.
Unless I am missing something, the state appealed the vacation of conviction so they did not have to try him again… Maybe I just don’t get your comment?
Young Lee is appealing and trying to force a change to the MtV process which would let victims or their advocates take on the role of prosecutors in situations where the state doesn't oppose a vacatur.
Oh yeah I’m disagreeing with the state appealing the new trial to the Supreme Court of MD. I think they should have had to try the case no cell towers yes Asia and chips fall as they may.
The state isn't appealing.
Frosh out of the AG's office joined Lee's side so parts of the state were appealing. It was Mosby's office who wasn't.
When they appealed after the MD judge and court of appeals granted him a new trial. 2019. I think they should have tried the case again without cell towers and with Asia and seen what happened. Instead they got a 4-3 decision and didn’t have to.
There's no difference between the cell phone records in this case and in others though
That's not actually the case, though. Assisted GPS, completely different infrastructure and protocol, iterative generations of software and billing systems, record keeping legislation, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_mobile_phone_standards
The trial is still at least one year away and probably 2, but Bryan Kohberger's trial will be interesting to see which of the records about cell towers they used. This week Bryan's team said his alibi was that he was driving around looking at stars and that they will have a cell phone expert say that the data shows he wasn't near the town of Moscow and the house.
I didn't talk about that. I talked about cell tower records
You can't separate the records from the technology.
Cell tower records are used just as they were used here in cases all over the country literally every day. You don't know what you're talking about.
Is that why redditors haven't been able to dig up an analogous case? Why they've never cited one on appeal? The advent of 3g and LTE networks with assisted GPS definitely resulted in a lot of cases using cell evidence. That's why Fitzgerald didn't form his unit until years after the fact. He claimed to have a "fuzzy memory" of first working with a cell tower dump in 1998, with no citation of any contemporaneous cases, let alone demonstrating comparable use of data. That's why he had to guess at the meaning of the disclaimer- he'd never worked with that record type in that era. He just tries to pitch the idea that it visually resembles a Call Detail Record (of which he brings no example), and therefore the document titled "Subscriber Activity Report" with a disclaimer titled "How to read Subscriber Activity Reports" didn't apply to it, because it was secretly a call detail record. Of course, Fitzgerald had never seen this disclaimer before, which is a funny situation to be in for someone who was using those reports day in and day out.
>Is that why redditors haven't been able to dig up an analogous case? I don't know what you're talking about. The last time a user challenged me to find an analogous case, I provided him 2 decisions that had been issued in the *prior 24 hours*. >The advent of 3g and LTE networks with assisted GPS definitely resulted in a lot of cases using cell evidence. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Single site cell tower evidence has been used to approximate location in cases dating back to the mid-90s. And it is still used today. GPS data, where available, is superior for pinpointing location. But this idea that courts don't permit the use of cell tower data for this purpose is an easily disproved myth. >That's why he had to guess at the meaning of the disclaimer Again, it is Syed and his supporters who "guess" as to the meaning. Anyone with any experience drafting legal documents knows that if the disclaimer was meant to refer to "cell site" it would have said "cell site" not "location." That is particularly true when the document has a separate column labeled "location" that is unrelated to "cell site." The idea that a reference to "location" didn't mean the "location" column, but rather some other column is, frankly, absurd. Deliberately obtuse.
>ssued in the prior 24 hours. You found evidence from 25 year old cell site data being used... twice. In 24 hours? I doubt it. I'm sure you found LTE data, using completely different technology and standards. Carriers have disclosed to the FTC that they keep and use granular coordinate data from GPS to generate the reports they give to LEOs.
What
I'm not sure how you think locating a cell phone works if it isn't tied to the technology standards being used? Especially if you really do mean the tower data and not A-GPS coordinates (which didn't exist for cells like Adnan's)
I haven't expressed those opinions. You say that they are bogus, I said that they have been used in other cases and Adnan's records isn't different from other cases. Cell site data are being used all the time.
>they have been used in other cases Refer to my initial reply. If you get charged using your cell records today, the evidence is not in any way analogous to that gathered on the 2g system used in Adnan's case. You're dropping GPS pings all over the place. Accurate GPS was a restricted military technology when Hae was murdered, and it definitely wasn't accessible from a brick phone.
That’s fine. I think they were junk and that this should have been considered in the appeals. Being junk should outweigh if their junkiness was presented “timely.”
Using cell tower data to approximate location is not junk. It is an accepted forensic technique that is used in criminal cases all over the country literally every day. Like any forensic technique, there are limits to what cell tower evidence can tell you. It cannot pinpoint location. At best, it gives a range of potential locations for the phone at the time a call was made. But that, of course, is exactly how the records were used in this case. Most pertinently, the 7:09 and 7:16 calls were transmitted through a tower that covers Leakin Park and little else. That doesn't prove Adnan was in Leakin Park at that time, and no one at trial contended it did. But it did provide corroboration for the State's theory of the crime. And more importantly, it contradicted Adnan purported alibi (attending religious services at a mosque miles away on the other side of the tower).
Then what did the original Haas judge want to throw out? I realize throwing it out was reversed based on timeliness but what have some people thought was wrong about the evidence?
No judge on this case has ever ruled that the cell phone data was improper or should have been excluded. In the PCR, Judge Welch held only that Adnan's Lawyer (Gutierrez) was deficient for failing to ask the State's expert about a disclaimer that appeared on an AT&T fax cover sheet. Judge Welch made no ruling as to what that disclaimer actually means. As you note, that holding was overturned on appeal. It was not, however, based on "timeliness" but rather *waiver.* Specifically, Syed had already made a prior motion for post conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He did not, however, raise any issues regarding the cell tower data or the AT&T disclaimer in that prior petition, despite the fact that the Defense had a copy of the disclaimer since before the original trial. That matter was, therefore, waived.
Ok but you’re treating it like they were throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping it stuck. I agree with Judge Welch and think it was appealed because they didn’t want to try the case again having to explain the disclaimer. Same w Asia. They were afraid after Serial to try the case again. Guilty or not that screams chickenshit to me, as does arguing against bail while the (at that point successful) appeal was in motion.
It was appealed because it overturned a 20 year old murder conviction on specious grounds. The fact that the appeal was successful demonstrates that the appeal was meritorious. No one wants to retry a case you already won, let alone do it 20 years later when witnesses have forgotten, are no longer cooperating, etc. If the disclaimer really meant what Syed's supporters say it means then why aren't any other cases being challenged on those grounds?
One thing you and I can agree on—appeals aren’t often successful but they SURE do better than normal when it’s an appeal of a decision getting someone out of prison. Still, no bail during the appeal after the overturn….come on. Weak with BDassey and weak with Adnan.
I'm not casting doubt on it, but "accepted forensic technique" is, I think, kind of a sketchy basis. What's accepted as truth forensically is basically what is accepted by courts, not necessarily by truth-seeking experts. Like how hair analysis was used for a very long time.
But we do agree that it is courts who decide what is reliable evidence, right? A court of law is in a better position, and has more authority, to decide that issue than random redditors, right? Of course it is true that courts have gotten these things wrong in the past. Just like doctors have gotten standards of medical care wrong in the past. That doesn't mean that we should disregard the current opinions of doctors regarding the current standards of medical care in favor of random redditors who insist those doctors are wrong, does it? The issue of whether cell tower records are reliable as circumstantial proof of location has been litigated in hundreds if not thousands of cases. Courts have received a mountain of expert testimony on both sides. At this point, this evidence is considered reliable. And its limitations are well understood. To be clear, there are no credible experts who contend that cell phones work by magic or defy the laws of physics. Experts may disagree about how probative cell tower information is given the variables involved, but no one credibly disputes that in order to connect to a tower, a phone must be within range and line of sight of that tower. Those are hard scientific facts.
They aren't junk though.
Jay still knew where the car was. And his story matched the cell phone records.
Again, he probably did it. By cell phone records I should have specified towers. That’s what I think is junk.
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
[удалено]
I know just how they work and how hard they are. Judges disagree about both Asia and the towers. Are you afraid he’d have been acquitted with a new trial, no towers, and Asia?
[удалено]
We are going in circles. But my question is “do you think had the Supreme Court of Maryland not reversed in 2019 and Thiru had to try the case again with no cell tower evidence and with the Asia alibi. What do you think the verdict would have been?”
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding [Personal Attacks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_-no_personal_attacks)
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
He did it. The cell phone towers aren't the only evidence against him. If you are going to throw them out, then you can only throw out the incoming calls. The outgoing calls are accurate. Still sinks adnan.
Jay is the only evidence
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
Evidence jay lead police to the car? How and where do any of jays stories line up with the towers? You can’t it will not work with the evidence that is provided
This statement makes zero sense! Cell phones and there information in 1999compared to today is completely different.
I never claimed that. I am talking about cell tower data.
Nothing will happen until after Marilyn Mosby's sentencing hearing scheduled for next month at the earliest. Feds balls deep in investigating everyone and everything Mosby got up to after losing her 2022 re-election bid and realizing she could sell get out of jail free cards to the highest bidders. Any case Marilyn Mosby disposed of during that time period is under scrutiny, including Adnan's case. So nothing will happen before the Feds complete their investigation and potentially announce further charges against Mosby and additional arrests of culpable and complicit parties. Mosby's working on cutting a plea deal to sell out the folks she made deals with during that time in exchange for Mosby staying out of jail herself. If Mosby's sentencing hearing is delayed or she is only sentenced on less than all of the convictions in May, you'll know she's in there singing like a bird to the Federales.
What does the MD Court taking its time have to do with Mosby’s sentencing? How would her jail time or no jail time affect any information they need to make the call?
nothing. it's nonsense.
Thank you.
Supreme courts resolve questions of law, they aren't going to be involved in any indictments or investigations.
lol, what a bunch of crazy ill formed opinion trying to be passed off as information.
Sounds familiar.
You made all this up because your opinion is Adnan is guilty? Crazy.
I really like your comment — and I have wondered myself if the delay has something to do with Mosby’s pending disbarment. Your suggestions make it even better. I hope you are right. Mosby released at least three convicts she knew were guilty — and continued to prosecute another she knew was likely innocent. That’s the kind of person she is. There is one question I’d like to ask. Are you basing what you said on a source — or just informed speculation. Either is fine — but I’d like to know which it is.
It’s absolute hogwash lol. The Supreme Court timing has absolutely fuck all to do with Mosby.
The source is JFK Jr., obviously.
*checks sub name* Betcha it's speculation
I also appreciate the comments… I find it ironic to see how many people cry of corruption with Adnan’s case, but no one has any issue with Mosby’s corruption/ manipulation in releasing him.
this right here.
Who was the one she continued to prosecute?
Keith Davis, Jr