Serial: The Podcast

[alteran]

If that was her plan it worked out poorly, given that he fired her after the trial (as a lot of defendants do when they lose). I can't even conceive of an attorney, particularly an experienced criminal defense attorney, doing something quite that awful but I suppose nothing's impossible.

I agree with the comment above, though, about her style being grating and ineffective. I actually know an attorney whose manner is very similar. I've always found that shrieking near-hysterical tone really off-putting, but it seems to work for my colleague and apparently for Gutierrez as well, this case notwithstanding. Were I a juror it would be a big turn-off for me, but I guess different people respond to different things.

She was apparently in latter-stage MS and it was beginning to effect her legal work. She got so many complaints that she faced disbarment, and accepted voluntary disbarment rather than fight it. Apparently she was a hell of a defender in her day.

Thanks for the comments on the presumption of innocence and juries. I probably underestimate how strongly juries are affected by that.

One thing I would note is that this juror wasn't just swayed, she out-and-out cited it as a key factor in the jury's decision. Boldly, and without apology or embarrassment. If she and the jury felt free to not only ignore a judge's admonition but proclaim that she did so, it makes me wonder how many other admonitions she/they felt free to ignore.

Like presumption of innocence.

That being said, later in the same podcast, they covered Adnan's pre-sentencing statement. And the judge's reaction. As a layman, I found the judge's comments to be pretty unequivocal about Adnan's guilt. I read that as the judge-- someone presumably not swayed by fallicies or fancy lawyer tricks-- buying the state's case as well.

Which makes me think there must be stuff we haven't heard yet.

Would you read that the same way? Or do judges speak that strongly at sentencing even if they think the verdict may not be entirely justified by the facts in evidence?

[Matches]

That being said, later in the same podcast, they covered Adnan's pre-sentencing statement. And the judge's reaction. As a layman, I found the judge's comments to be pretty unequivocal about Adnan's guilt. I read that as the judge-- someone presumably not swayed by fallicies or fancy lawyer tricks-- buying the state's case as well.

Which makes me think there must be stuff we haven't heard yet.

Would you read that the same way? Or do judges speak that strongly at sentencing even if they think the verdict may not be entirely justified by the facts in evidence?

I think judges assume most criminal defendants are guilty. It's hard for anyone who deals with the system regularly to reach any other conclusion unless they just think the police and DA's office are completely corrupt. Once there's an actual "guilty" verdict, the judge more or less HAS to take guilt as a given in order to impose a sentence. Otherwise s/he'd be subverting the function of the jury. I'm sure exceptions to that exist, of course.

And I'm sure there's lots of stuff we haven't heard yet. We've probably heard most of the big stuff but the trial lasted for weeks - just no way everything could be covered in the podcast.

New episode tomorrow!

[NashvilleDevil]

I think judges assume most criminal defendants are guilty. It's hard for anyone who deals with the system regularly to reach any other conclusion unless they just think the police and DA's office are completely corrupt. Once there's an actual "guilty" verdict, the judge more or less HAS to take guilt as a given in order to impose a sentence. Otherwise s/he'd be subverting the function of the jury. I'm sure exceptions to that exist, of course.

And I'm sure there's lots of stuff we haven't heard yet. We've probably heard most of the big stuff but the trial lasted for weeks - just no way everything could be covered in the podcast.

New episode tomorrow!

This thread got me interested. I am listening to episode 4 now and will probably be caught up after tomorrow.

[YmoBeThere]

This thread got me interested. I am listening to episode 4 now and will probably be caught up after tomorrow.

I have to admit that I'm now on episode 4 also.

[YmoBeThere]

Not sure if they can be considered spoilers...


http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/12/04/se...-best-defense/

http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/12/01/se...st-adnan-syed/

[lotusland]

Episode 10 focused on Adnon's attorney and possible lapses on her part in representing him in the original mistrial and the second t rial. While it was interesting, it did little to change perceptions of guilt or innocence for podcast listeners since Sarah Koenig is telling the story this time. My opinion so far is that Adnon is probably guilty but, at the same time, there really wasn't enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

[GDT]

While it was interesting, it did little to change perceptions of guilt or innocence for podcast listeners...

It seems to me like the series has become less of a whodunnit (if it ever really was) and more of a whateveryonedid. And while the first few episodes were completely addicting waiting for exculpatory evidence that never really came, I'm finding the later episodes interesting for the opportunities for empathy that they provide. As much as I cringed at Ms. Guitteriez's (sp?) tone, the knowledge that she was the cause of the mistrial, was suffering from diabetes and MS and clearly breaking down over the weird money issues, was kind of heartbreaking. Obviously, if Adnan is innocent it's a lot more than heartbreaking, but I felt for him too, with a lawyer he trusted but whose strategy he never really understood.

So, what about the final sentence? Usually that's the theme of the next episode. Psychopath. There's a part of me that wondered if she had recorded him confessing and that's the final episode. That would cap the series emphatically. I doubt that's the conclusion, but she has left that word hanging out there an awful lot. Psychopath.

[Matches]

It seems to me like the series has become less of a whodunnit (if it ever really was) and more of a whateveryonedid. And while the first few episodes were completely addicting waiting for exculpatory evidence that never really came, I'm finding the later episodes interesting for the opportunities for empathy that they provide. As much as I cringed at Ms. Guitteriez's (sp?) tone, the knowledge that she was the cause of the mistrial, was suffering from diabetes and MS and clearly breaking down over the weird money issues, was kind of heartbreaking. Obviously, if Adnan is innocent it's a lot more than heartbreaking, but I felt for him too, with a lawyer he trusted but whose strategy he never really understood.

Yea I thought this was one of the better episodes even though it was completely irrelevant to the question of Adnan's guilt or innocence (and I agree the podcast has evolved past that question). To some degree you can always second-guess a strategy after it fails - check out any thread on here after a Duke loss. I'll say this, though - the way I heard it, Gutierrez was ONE of the causes of the mistrial but not the only one. The Judge accusing her of lying in front of the jury was way out of line, as he himself seemed to recognize (thus granting the mistrial). Even if she was lying, and I have no opinion on that one way or the other, calling her out should have been done outside the jury's presence. Really big turning point since apparently the jury was leaning toward acquittal.

So, what about the final sentence? Usually that's the theme of the next episode. Psychopath. There's a part of me that wondered if she had recorded him confessing and that's the final episode. That would cap the series emphatically. I doubt that's the conclusion, but she has left that word hanging out there an awful lot. Psychopath.

One of the most over- and mis-used words in the English language IMO. We're talking about the manual strangulation of an innocent teenage girl. There's no believable scenario where she was threatening imminent bodily harm to her killer or any third person. So almost by definition, any motive offered up is going to be something horrible - jealousy, vindictiveness, whatever - and not something for which any reasonable justification exists - yet she was murdered in a highly personal way. Yet *someone* did it; if not Adnan then someone else. That person almost *has* to fit our definitions of psychopathy.

[lotusland]

Episode 11 also added little in the way of evidence but it did make clear that next week will be the final episode after which it be "over". We'll have to wait until next week to find out what "over" means.

[Billy Dat]

Grantlanders make their Serial finale predictions in their own podcast
http://espn.go.com/espnradio/grantla...er?id=12041955

[alteran]

Episode 11 also added little in the way of evidence but it did make clear that next week will be the final episode after which it be "over". We'll have to wait until next week to find out what "over" means.

Seeing that the teaser for episode 11 was "psychopath," there really wasn't anything there. Stealing money from the mosque/temple/church collection plate? Completely meaningless.

[lotusland]

The "ending" was unsatisfactory although expected. The conclusion, in a nutshell, was that she still doesn't have enough hard facts to know what actually happened so, as a juror, she could not have voted to convict. That is more or less where we started.

There is an appeal motion and the Innocence Project filed a motion to retest DNA for possible match with a serial killer who was active at the time so, although it wasn't mentioned, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some season 1 updates. I'm curious to see what the Season 2 topic will be and I wonder if it can possibly match the buzz from Season 1. I waited anxiously for each episode and listened as soon as possible but the ending was predictable about half way through and the last 3 to 4 episodes just didn't have the same urgency and gave me the feeling that the ending was being prolonged unnecessarily.

[grad_devil]

The elusive Jay - specifically Jay Wilds - gives an exclusive interview to Natasha Vargas-Cooper at The Intercept.

Here's part 1 of ?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...ial-case-pt-1/

[alteran]

The elusive Jay - specifically Jay Wilds - gives an exclusive interview to Natasha Vargas-Cooper at The Intercept.

Here's part 1 of ?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...ial-case-pt-1/

And he contradicts himself again. Surprise!

[grad_devil]

And he contradicts himself again. Surprise!

Rabia Chaudry agrees, and takes it a step forward to point out every single lie on her blog.

http://www.splitthemoon.com/happy-ne...deed/#more-533

To me, the interesting part of Adnan's case will be the results of the forensics testing, should the courts grant the motion filed by the Innocence Project. If DNA is found and whom it matches, if anyone, will speak volumes either way.

[JohnGalt]

The "ending" was unsatisfactory although expected. The conclusion, in a nutshell, was that she still doesn't have enough hard facts to know what actually happened so, as a juror, she could not have voted to convict. That is more or less where we started.

There is an appeal motion and the Innocence Project filed a motion to retest DNA for possible match with a serial killer who was active at the time so, although it wasn't mentioned, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some season 1 updates. I'm curious to see what the Season 2 topic will be and I wonder if it can possibly match the buzz from Season 1. I waited anxiously for each episode and listened as soon as possible but the ending was predictable about half way through and the last 3 to 4 episodes just didn't have the same urgency and gave me the feeling that the ending was being prolonged unnecessarily.

I actually rather enjoyed the ending. We've known for weeks that there would be no real resolution, but throwing the nuggets in from the Innocence Project about (a) the motion for DNA testing and (b) the possible lead around the guy that killed the other Asian lady were more than enough to satisfy me. Count me in as someone looking forward to season 2.

[lotusland]

Rabia Chaudry agrees, and takes it a step forward to point out every single lie on her blog.

http://www.splitthemoon.com/happy-ne...deed/#more-533

To me, the interesting part of Adnan's case will be the results of the forensics testing, should the courts grant the motion filed by the Innocence Project. If DNA is found and whom it matches, if anyone, will speak volumes either way.

I found the Jay interview and Chaudry's subsequent blog quite interesting. At first read I have to admit that Jay comes off as pretty believable except that, as Chaudry points out, he completely contradicts the various stories that he told police and his own testimony at the two trials. Adnan's attorney, Gutierrez, made a big deal about how unprecedented it was for the prosecutor to have arranged for Jay to have an attorney who, in turn, negotiated Jay's plea bargain with the prosecutor. The plea deal kept Jay out of jail and, of course, it was Jay's testimony that almost exclusively convicted Adnan.

Now Jay’s changed his whole timeline and even the time and place where he claims Adnan first showed him the body and explains the discrepancies by saying that he was not really cooperating with the police. In doing so he’s actually admitted to committing perjury for which there apparently is no statute of limitations. I bet both he and the Prosecutor wish he had contacted the attorney again before doing the interview.

It still does not change the fact that Adnan and Jay both agree about hanging out together on the day of the murder and that Jay was able to lead the police to the victim’s car. Given those 2 facts I still think that it is unlikely that Adnan was not involved but, since their only witness has completely destroyed his own credibility, I don’t see how Adnan could be convicted if allowed a retrial.

I also thought Adnan’s acted peculiar when he agreed to the forensic DNA testing. I wonder what sort of DNA may be available to be tested. Adnan allegedly strangled Hae with his bare hands so I wonder if any DNA evidence exists to confirm or discredit that claim. Either way it seems like the story is not over yet by a long shot.

[YmoBeThere]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...e-goes-record/

It was “pretty much a run-of-the-mill domestic violence murder,” prosecutor Kevin Urick said in an exclusive interview with The Intercept.

[alteran]

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2...e-goes-record/

It was “pretty much a run-of-the-mill domestic violence murder,” prosecutor Kevin Urick said in an exclusive interview with The Intercept.

There's been a lot of criticism of the The Intercept's handling of their interviews with Urick, and, earlier, Jay Wilds.

If you want to read the whole tale of craziness, Salon did an excellent excellent job. But even if that (and the other article) are tl;dr, you can see the author has an ax to grind when she opens the "interview" with a 28 paragraph (!!!) editorial/jeremiad against Serial, Sarah Koenig, and Adnan Syed. The second half of this interview was due to be released 3 or 4 days ago, but something has caused The Intercept to delay the publication. We can only speculate as to why, my speculation is because of the backlash from a number of well-known journalists. Maybe it will be released today.

Ultimately, I think it's good that the prosecutor got to tell his side. I wish he had elected to tell it to Koenig, or any reporter who is not in the act of going off the rails or pursuing a personal vendetta. Someone who knows the source material and is inclined to ask follow-up questions when appropriate. Maybe the second half of the interview is going to be conducted in a more responsible manner. But I'm not holding my breath.

[YmoBeThere]

From the desk of Sarah Koenig:

http://serialpodcast.org/posts/2015/...dnan-syed-case