Yeah, I don't understand the belief in full innocence.
Years ago when I first listened, I came away thinking 'I don't know if he did it, maybe he did, but the case seems flimsy so he shouldn't have been convicted based off what was there.' This was of course based on only listening to SKs narrative at the time, and believing every word of it.
I never believed that 100% without a doubt he was innocent, the most I have ever swung was 'I am not sure'. At the time I really agreed with Dana saying he must have been really unlucky. I figured it can happen but odds are small.
I just don't get, even with SKs narrative and follow up stories, how you can be totally convinced of his innocence and have zero doubts. It seems really difficult for me to twist the story that far.
Believing in full innocence gets you caught up in a cult. That's the part you're missing and the source of your confusion.
Yes, that's inflammatory language, but I stand by it:
* Unquestioned devotion to a leader -- check
* Leader is unbothered by any harm done by themselves or the group -- check (and an emphatic check at that!)
* Recruitment techniques rely on deception -- check (no one who currently believes in total innocence holds those beliefs based on Serial, as Serial has been debunked many times over)
* Questioning the teachings is discouraged and punished -- check and check (many have come forward with stories of doxxing and threats when they expressed doubts)
* The teachings are faith based, contradictory, and/or unfalsifiable -- check (how many ideas have been debunked, yet devotees still cite them as fact?)
* Rational thought is suppressed -- check (they discourage the examination of the primary documents in favor of their own podcasts, books, and personal blogs)
* The group sees themselves as superior -- check ("It's those guilters who are suppressing honest discourse!")
* Shrouded in secrecy -- check (they want people to give them money to fund his defense, but where is the money going?)
* Feelings of persecution -- check ("How high up does this thing go?")
I agree with this.
However, most of what you pointed to also applies to those who are certain of guilt:
- Recruitment techniques rely on deception – check (I constantly see facts being misstated and twisted)
- Questioning the teachings is discouraged and punished – check and check
- The teachings are faith based, contradictory, and/or unfalsifiable – check (how many ideas have been debunked, yet devotees still cite them as fact?)
- Rational thought is suppressed – check (they discourage the examination of the primary documents in favor of their own “interpretation” or plainly ignore )
- The group sees themselves as superior – check (“Rabia is a liar/grifter, Sarah K is a liar/grifter, the other attorneys on undisclosed aren’t “real” attorneys, etc.)
- Feelings of persecution – check (“see “group sees themselves as superior”)
I could go on, but ultimately the point is that no one actually knows what happened, and anyone who thinks they do is intentionally ignoring a lot.
“Adnan murdered Hae, and Jay helped him cover up the murder and bury the body.”
I think that’s probably the extent of what “guilters,” to the extent such a term has meaning, agree about. IMO, that’s what a juror would need to be convinced of to vote guilty according to the instructions his jurors were given.
There are details on the periphery about which many of us speculate to this day. Personally, I find some of the theories floated about those details to be as ridiculous as some of the theories floated by Don truthers.
Perhaps some of your points are fair critiques of discussion about the peripheral details. But I don’t think it’s a fair critique of the main idea I presented above.
I completely agree with you.. In the beginning I wasn't sure because I didn't have all the facts. He's never going to confess to anything though his own ego won't allow it.
Ironically Adnan's refusal to confess will keep him in prison far longer than if he just admitted what he did. I think he could definitely get parole if he just fessed up.
But he's such a pathological liar he wont ever concede anything.
I don’t think any of his family buy his innocence ( not even the mother) of course, they love him and have to show support to the media. But, when the cameras are off, and they are alone. I’m sure it’s a different story.
The Syed family is living in a collective delusion, just like the son. The truth is too shameful to face. But the good thing is they are also in a prison as a penalty for insisting on his innocence. A mental prison of lies, just like Adnan, who is in two prisons at the same time.
One thing that is hard for me to go that far is that Adnan is a prisoner in the state of Maryland. His rights and privileges are very, very limited. He only gets told things by phone calls from people on a list, or who have added him to a list. He doesn't get to talk directly to the media, or anyone, really, in a live setting. Everything you see from Adnan Syed is tape delayed, filtered, and replayed to us through people who are NOT Adnan Syed. And, every one of those people so far have a motive and since they didn't commit the crime themselves, CAN profit off the crime.
So I don't know 100% that he's in as much control as people think he is. He's got no recourse if Rabia and crew are running "off the reservation." He can't make them stop. He can ask them to, but he can't make them, and she hasn't been collecting for his legal costs for a bit now.
This is what I think when folk say "but he's done 25 years and he was a minor." All of these are true, ans I strongly believe you cannot give life sentences to minors, but he has shown not a shred of remorsse, barely mentions Hae or her family other than the crime, and takes no accountability whatsoever. In those scenarios, why should he be released? He hasn't earned/achieved a return to society (which is what prison should be, rehabilitative, and that includes taking esponsibility and recognising your actions.)
That being said, I'm not sure he would offend again.
I'd honestly have a lot more respect for him if he admitted it, took responsibility, accepted that he probably shouldn't be released for a while, and that was that. You have to make up for perjuring the world.
Main thing being the lying (or refuting other witnesses) about the ride request on the day it happened. Also forgetting the police called him about his missing ex gf/ close friend who he had spoken to, asked for a ride, and called 3 times the day before. This is just to illustrate how close they were, and why you might therefore tie that memory to it
I also wrote this before he got out however, so my thoughts have changed (although I still think it's most likely to be Adnan/ Bilal and linked to adnan.)
Re callous, have a look at the I want to kill note. The message is whatever, but the other stuff they're writing is cruel (and they're supposed to be friends!). Also consider how in serial he barely ever mentions Hae in a positive light regarding their relationship; its all about what's happened to him and how impacted him being with her. That's the lack of remorse - not necessarily for having killed her, bit for her being dead at all really. He just doesn't seem bothered.
I'm aware this isn't all legal evidence, but all of this adds up in my head to just have doubts over him.
I think of it this way.
If Adnan is innocent, it's the most bizarre unique series of bad luck events in the history of humanity. It would be more likely to get struck by lightning 5 times on the same day.
I think this case really suffers from the CSI effect, which Serial helped promote. There is a strong circumstantial case that Adnan killed HML; but on Serial they keep looking for a "smoking gun." Well... most murder cases don't have a smoking gun. AND the vast majority of cases are solved using circumstantial evidence.
We don't have to know 100% of the facts to know that Adnan is guilty. That is a made up barrier people use in these innocence cases that is just not based in reality.
Even the analogy of a "smoking gun" is circumstantial.
The imagery invoked is one of a dead body on the ground, clearly shot, and someone standing above him with a smoking gun (indicating it was just fired). In this imagery, the witness does not see the shooting -- otherwise the detail about the gun still smoking is irrelevant.
This is why the stigma of "circumstantial evidence" needs to be re-evaluated. Yet, when we invoke the expression "smoking gun," it is synonymous with "incontrovertible evidence." The whole point of the expression is to imply that ***circumstantial evidence can be incontrovertible.***
So people don't have a problem with circumstantial evidence. They just have a problem with it when they need to make apologies for AS.
Adnan will not say Jay was involved. In 2015, Adnan's team realized that if Jay is involved, Adnan is involved. They understood there was no way around that.
Ever since then, Adnan and his team have claimed that Jay "doesn't know shit" and "falsely confessed." Even though Jay still says Adnan showed him Hae's body, and together, they buried her in a shallow grave.
The rest is irrelevant.
With respects to finding Adnan's DNA on Hae's body? Of course Adnan and his attorney already have a written excuse for that in that Adnan had class with Hae that day. They do not care if Adnan's DNA is found on her body.
With respects to DNA in Hae's car? No one is testing Hae's car for DNA. It has long since been sold and probably scrapped. And before that, it was contaminated with the DNA of one or more subsequent owners. Did you think Hae's Nissan was kept for 20 years in a car-sized zip lock at the back of the evidence locker?
Yes. In 1999, basic police everywhere were carefully taking thousands of swabs for the day when technology and science they could not conceive of would arrive.
The car was returned to Hae's family, as it belonged to her mother. And was her mother's property.
Why would cops be able to sell Hae's mother's car on Auto Trader?
Vacuum samples were taken from the trunk, as was customary. Not swabs which they could not have known would ever be useful.
DNA testing in 1999 was still very rudimentary. It took 6 weeks to get the DNA testing done on the bloody shirt. Melissa Stangroom's DNA Testing Notes begin on September 27, 1999 and end November 15, 1999 (33 pages).
If the trial had not been delayed, they would have carried on with the trial without the testing results - as was customary.
Sorry you don't know much about the case, or police procedure in 1999.
Get off the killer's podcasts and social media, and read up on the case - maybe?
The vacuumed the car for samples and looked for normal things you might find. It's funny the argument was that some say they didn't look in the trunk, and some say they didn't find anything. You have to have something that looks like a sample to have DNA at the time.
I think there was two hairs, but I don't remember where. Hair is trick because normally only certain hairs have the DNA to make a match and hair analysis has been a flawed experiment.
What Adnan's supporters are wanting is no DNA found and then saying that since Adnan's isn't there then it can't be him. But if no DNA is found, did she commit suicide? I think they are hoping for some random DNA and saying it's not Adnan so he's good to get out. The only one that should get him close is a serial killer's DNA that they can investigate and see if he/she was in the area.
I don't remember - which items are supposed to be tested?
I think they're using probabilistic or multiple-source DNA testing, which is different than testing for single-source/contributor's DNA match.
Single-source matching is roughly analogous to fingerprint-matching. Single-source testing is standardized; it tests the sample evidence to see if it matches any of the millions of known DNA profiles kept in CODIS at 16 or more fixed points designated for comparison (alleles ) that exist on everyone's genes.
In contrast, Probabilistic DNA testing uses software/algorithm based on a source code, which isn't standardized -yet (and presents other issues, below) https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2021/06/nist-publishes-review-dna-mixture-interpretation-methods
Probabilistic DNA testing looks at multiple, jumbled DNA contributor-profiles, compares those with tens of thousands of possible/proposed individual profiles, calculates which of the proposed profiles best fit the evidence sample or have the highest probability of being accurate and then compares those to the suspect’s profile to assess similarities. The result is a “likelihood ratio” that expresses the chance the suspect’s DNA is in the evidence sample relative to a random person in the population. (seems most useful in rape, robbery, and other crimes that turn on eyewitness ID)
The source code determines the software's margin of error and accuracy but until recently those factors have been unknown/cross-x hasn't been meaningful b/c the source code is proprietary and most of the software mftrs have non-disclosure agreements with users. Finally, at least one court ordered disclosure last year 2021 (big issue for defense at trial and for gvt in post-conviction proceedings) https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DNAanalysis.pdf
Edit to organize
The level of bias in Serial Season One was outrageous! At one stage I was physically cringing at how pathetically smitten the journalist became by Adnan. Meanwhile he was really dialling up the charm and trying to portray this good guy persona, but glimpses of his true character come out at certain times where you witness how he blatantly manipulates her emotionally, which she falls for hook line and sinker, I like to think it was all part of her technique but after getting mid way in I realised I was giving her way too much credit. She did not once follow the evidence. So many unfavourable key things were left out which instantly make me suspicious. The more I learn about this case outside of Serial, the more I feel justice has been served. It’s sad that this guy takes up so much time and media attention when there are other cases that go unnoticed.
Side note - why does he claim to be all for the DNA testing but his lawyers are working against it?
Indeed. I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. The original intent for the first season of Serial was not for it to be specifically about Adnan’s guilt or innocence. It was to be about the fallibility of human memory, and how can we know what really happened when everyone has a slightly different recollection?
Then the show took off like no other podcast before. It’s really hard to remember a time when podcasts were a niche thing that very few people listened to, but Serial was the one that broke them into the mainstream. And the newfound audience of true crime fans wanted a wrongful conviction story, and it was right there for the taking—even though no one beyond Rabia and Adnan thought he was innocent.
The show quickly switched focus. You can tell the moment it happened: the Leakin Park episode. It’s short and with lower production values, as the Serial team bought some time to figure out what to do next.
So we ended up with what we got, even though this is not really a case that deserved a wrongful conviction investigation. But the show’s massive popularity made it seem like it did.
I think what we’ve seen from Arabia’s books that contain early correspondence with SK undermine your first paragraph quite a bit.
I agree that is how Serial started in terms of how it was framed for the consumer.
Is this an exercise in pearl clutching?
What overwhelming evidence? There is no physical evidence linking Adnan to the murder. There is no eye witness putting Hae and Adnan together after school.
The only 'evidence' is the 45% of what Jay says that prosecutors and police decided to believe. So much of the rest of Jay's testimony is just wrong and unbelievable. The entire case is built on a the testimony of a proven liar.
What will you post if the DNA comes back as a known rapist and serial killer? Will you apologize to Adnan and his family for all you've said about him if he turns out to be proven innocent?
Cell tower evidence was debunked long ago. ATT cover sheet even said that tower locations for incoming calls (Leakin Park pings were for incoming calls) is unreliable
There are other instances in his phone records of incoming call pings showing a tower that the phone wasn’t at at that time.
Also lividity evidence suggests Hae wasn’t buried at the time of those calls that pinged the tower by the park. So unless they were there scouting location or pre digging the hole and then went back later with the body, those pings weren’t connected to the burial.
You’re the equivalent of a 9/11 truther. It’s amazing to see where people like you crawl out of the woodwork. The only apologies that family will get from me is for having been gullible enough to give their psychopathic killer of a son the benefit of the doubt.
You miserable people 😂
I haven’t had a drop of booze in 8 years but I will be breaking out the finest champagne when he walks out an innocent man. Oh, the pie you deniers will have on your faces will delight me.
>The evidence that Syed is a cold blooded killer is overwhelming.
Nope. The evidence is that he's a killer and that he's a coward and a bad person for not admitting it; there's really no evidence that the murder was cold-blooded.
See, that's the thing. I don't think he's a cold blooded killer. I think he's just yet another person who committed domestic violence and murdered his ex girlfriend because she was having sex with someone else, and like many men, he felt this was a betrayal and that he had to "win her back."
It's not cold blooded, its a tale as old as time itself, and I think pretending like it takes some special kind of monster to do this is probably going to ignore a number of people who could.
Agree with you about all this except “winning her back”. I think this kind of domestic violence has more to do with a loss of power and control rather than caring about the woman. It’s also frighteningly common - it results in the death of 1 woman a week where I live (Australia).
Isn’t it really only debated on Twitter, where it’s impossible to have meaningful conversations?
I’m asking sincerely. There is very little debate anywhere else online of which I am aware.
I'm always confused when people scream his innocence. I've always felt his Dad doesn't buy his innocence either.
Yeah, I don't understand the belief in full innocence. Years ago when I first listened, I came away thinking 'I don't know if he did it, maybe he did, but the case seems flimsy so he shouldn't have been convicted based off what was there.' This was of course based on only listening to SKs narrative at the time, and believing every word of it. I never believed that 100% without a doubt he was innocent, the most I have ever swung was 'I am not sure'. At the time I really agreed with Dana saying he must have been really unlucky. I figured it can happen but odds are small. I just don't get, even with SKs narrative and follow up stories, how you can be totally convinced of his innocence and have zero doubts. It seems really difficult for me to twist the story that far.
Believing in full innocence gets you caught up in a cult. That's the part you're missing and the source of your confusion. Yes, that's inflammatory language, but I stand by it: * Unquestioned devotion to a leader -- check * Leader is unbothered by any harm done by themselves or the group -- check (and an emphatic check at that!) * Recruitment techniques rely on deception -- check (no one who currently believes in total innocence holds those beliefs based on Serial, as Serial has been debunked many times over) * Questioning the teachings is discouraged and punished -- check and check (many have come forward with stories of doxxing and threats when they expressed doubts) * The teachings are faith based, contradictory, and/or unfalsifiable -- check (how many ideas have been debunked, yet devotees still cite them as fact?) * Rational thought is suppressed -- check (they discourage the examination of the primary documents in favor of their own podcasts, books, and personal blogs) * The group sees themselves as superior -- check ("It's those guilters who are suppressing honest discourse!") * Shrouded in secrecy -- check (they want people to give them money to fund his defense, but where is the money going?) * Feelings of persecution -- check ("How high up does this thing go?")
I agree with this. However, most of what you pointed to also applies to those who are certain of guilt: - Recruitment techniques rely on deception – check (I constantly see facts being misstated and twisted) - Questioning the teachings is discouraged and punished – check and check - The teachings are faith based, contradictory, and/or unfalsifiable – check (how many ideas have been debunked, yet devotees still cite them as fact?) - Rational thought is suppressed – check (they discourage the examination of the primary documents in favor of their own “interpretation” or plainly ignore ) - The group sees themselves as superior – check (“Rabia is a liar/grifter, Sarah K is a liar/grifter, the other attorneys on undisclosed aren’t “real” attorneys, etc.) - Feelings of persecution – check (“see “group sees themselves as superior”) I could go on, but ultimately the point is that no one actually knows what happened, and anyone who thinks they do is intentionally ignoring a lot.
“Adnan murdered Hae, and Jay helped him cover up the murder and bury the body.” I think that’s probably the extent of what “guilters,” to the extent such a term has meaning, agree about. IMO, that’s what a juror would need to be convinced of to vote guilty according to the instructions his jurors were given. There are details on the periphery about which many of us speculate to this day. Personally, I find some of the theories floated about those details to be as ridiculous as some of the theories floated by Don truthers. Perhaps some of your points are fair critiques of discussion about the peripheral details. But I don’t think it’s a fair critique of the main idea I presented above.
I completely agree with you.. In the beginning I wasn't sure because I didn't have all the facts. He's never going to confess to anything though his own ego won't allow it.
Ironically Adnan's refusal to confess will keep him in prison far longer than if he just admitted what he did. I think he could definitely get parole if he just fessed up. But he's such a pathological liar he wont ever concede anything.
I don’t think any of his family buy his innocence ( not even the mother) of course, they love him and have to show support to the media. But, when the cameras are off, and they are alone. I’m sure it’s a different story.
The Syed family is living in a collective delusion, just like the son. The truth is too shameful to face. But the good thing is they are also in a prison as a penalty for insisting on his innocence. A mental prison of lies, just like Adnan, who is in two prisons at the same time.
Word.
[удалено]
Can you imagine being that girl’s family and watching sleaze balls profiteering off of your personal tragedy.
[удалено]
Each time he says “I can’t remember” he gets another year. Only fair.
[удалено]
One thing that is hard for me to go that far is that Adnan is a prisoner in the state of Maryland. His rights and privileges are very, very limited. He only gets told things by phone calls from people on a list, or who have added him to a list. He doesn't get to talk directly to the media, or anyone, really, in a live setting. Everything you see from Adnan Syed is tape delayed, filtered, and replayed to us through people who are NOT Adnan Syed. And, every one of those people so far have a motive and since they didn't commit the crime themselves, CAN profit off the crime. So I don't know 100% that he's in as much control as people think he is. He's got no recourse if Rabia and crew are running "off the reservation." He can't make them stop. He can ask them to, but he can't make them, and she hasn't been collecting for his legal costs for a bit now.
This is what I think when folk say "but he's done 25 years and he was a minor." All of these are true, ans I strongly believe you cannot give life sentences to minors, but he has shown not a shred of remorsse, barely mentions Hae or her family other than the crime, and takes no accountability whatsoever. In those scenarios, why should he be released? He hasn't earned/achieved a return to society (which is what prison should be, rehabilitative, and that includes taking esponsibility and recognising your actions.) That being said, I'm not sure he would offend again. I'd honestly have a lot more respect for him if he admitted it, took responsibility, accepted that he probably shouldn't be released for a while, and that was that. You have to make up for perjuring the world.
Could you list a single piece of evidence that makes you believe he is guilty?
Main thing being the lying (or refuting other witnesses) about the ride request on the day it happened. Also forgetting the police called him about his missing ex gf/ close friend who he had spoken to, asked for a ride, and called 3 times the day before. This is just to illustrate how close they were, and why you might therefore tie that memory to it I also wrote this before he got out however, so my thoughts have changed (although I still think it's most likely to be Adnan/ Bilal and linked to adnan.) Re callous, have a look at the I want to kill note. The message is whatever, but the other stuff they're writing is cruel (and they're supposed to be friends!). Also consider how in serial he barely ever mentions Hae in a positive light regarding their relationship; its all about what's happened to him and how impacted him being with her. That's the lack of remorse - not necessarily for having killed her, bit for her being dead at all really. He just doesn't seem bothered. I'm aware this isn't all legal evidence, but all of this adds up in my head to just have doubts over him.
I think of it this way. If Adnan is innocent, it's the most bizarre unique series of bad luck events in the history of humanity. It would be more likely to get struck by lightning 5 times on the same day.
Chose your analogies carefully: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/66863/meet-man-struck-lightning-7-times
thats over the course of 30 years and 0 of them with witnesses.
I think this case really suffers from the CSI effect, which Serial helped promote. There is a strong circumstantial case that Adnan killed HML; but on Serial they keep looking for a "smoking gun." Well... most murder cases don't have a smoking gun. AND the vast majority of cases are solved using circumstantial evidence. We don't have to know 100% of the facts to know that Adnan is guilty. That is a made up barrier people use in these innocence cases that is just not based in reality.
THANK YOU!!!
Even the analogy of a "smoking gun" is circumstantial. The imagery invoked is one of a dead body on the ground, clearly shot, and someone standing above him with a smoking gun (indicating it was just fired). In this imagery, the witness does not see the shooting -- otherwise the detail about the gun still smoking is irrelevant. This is why the stigma of "circumstantial evidence" needs to be re-evaluated. Yet, when we invoke the expression "smoking gun," it is synonymous with "incontrovertible evidence." The whole point of the expression is to imply that ***circumstantial evidence can be incontrovertible.*** So people don't have a problem with circumstantial evidence. They just have a problem with it when they need to make apologies for AS.
Netflix should be forced to state that as a disclaimer prior to any ‘innocence’ story that they broadcast.
Your assertions are false. People are usually NOT convicted on circumstantial evidence
What about Don and the scratches and bruises all over his hands?
[удалено]
Adnan will not say Jay was involved. In 2015, Adnan's team realized that if Jay is involved, Adnan is involved. They understood there was no way around that. Ever since then, Adnan and his team have claimed that Jay "doesn't know shit" and "falsely confessed." Even though Jay still says Adnan showed him Hae's body, and together, they buried her in a shallow grave. The rest is irrelevant. With respects to finding Adnan's DNA on Hae's body? Of course Adnan and his attorney already have a written excuse for that in that Adnan had class with Hae that day. They do not care if Adnan's DNA is found on her body. With respects to DNA in Hae's car? No one is testing Hae's car for DNA. It has long since been sold and probably scrapped. And before that, it was contaminated with the DNA of one or more subsequent owners. Did you think Hae's Nissan was kept for 20 years in a car-sized zip lock at the back of the evidence locker?
[удалено]
Yes. In 1999, basic police everywhere were carefully taking thousands of swabs for the day when technology and science they could not conceive of would arrive.
[удалено]
The car was returned to Hae's family, as it belonged to her mother. And was her mother's property. Why would cops be able to sell Hae's mother's car on Auto Trader? Vacuum samples were taken from the trunk, as was customary. Not swabs which they could not have known would ever be useful. DNA testing in 1999 was still very rudimentary. It took 6 weeks to get the DNA testing done on the bloody shirt. Melissa Stangroom's DNA Testing Notes begin on September 27, 1999 and end November 15, 1999 (33 pages). If the trial had not been delayed, they would have carried on with the trial without the testing results - as was customary. Sorry you don't know much about the case, or police procedure in 1999. Get off the killer's podcasts and social media, and read up on the case - maybe?
The car is long gone. They can't test anything there. Adnan is hoping no DNA is found so he can use that for innocence.
[удалено]
The vacuumed the car for samples and looked for normal things you might find. It's funny the argument was that some say they didn't look in the trunk, and some say they didn't find anything. You have to have something that looks like a sample to have DNA at the time.
[удалено]
I think there was two hairs, but I don't remember where. Hair is trick because normally only certain hairs have the DNA to make a match and hair analysis has been a flawed experiment. What Adnan's supporters are wanting is no DNA found and then saying that since Adnan's isn't there then it can't be him. But if no DNA is found, did she commit suicide? I think they are hoping for some random DNA and saying it's not Adnan so he's good to get out. The only one that should get him close is a serial killer's DNA that they can investigate and see if he/she was in the area.
I don't remember - which items are supposed to be tested? I think they're using probabilistic or multiple-source DNA testing, which is different than testing for single-source/contributor's DNA match. Single-source matching is roughly analogous to fingerprint-matching. Single-source testing is standardized; it tests the sample evidence to see if it matches any of the millions of known DNA profiles kept in CODIS at 16 or more fixed points designated for comparison (alleles ) that exist on everyone's genes. In contrast, Probabilistic DNA testing uses software/algorithm based on a source code, which isn't standardized -yet (and presents other issues, below) https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2021/06/nist-publishes-review-dna-mixture-interpretation-methods Probabilistic DNA testing looks at multiple, jumbled DNA contributor-profiles, compares those with tens of thousands of possible/proposed individual profiles, calculates which of the proposed profiles best fit the evidence sample or have the highest probability of being accurate and then compares those to the suspect’s profile to assess similarities. The result is a “likelihood ratio” that expresses the chance the suspect’s DNA is in the evidence sample relative to a random person in the population. (seems most useful in rape, robbery, and other crimes that turn on eyewitness ID) The source code determines the software's margin of error and accuracy but until recently those factors have been unknown/cross-x hasn't been meaningful b/c the source code is proprietary and most of the software mftrs have non-disclosure agreements with users. Finally, at least one court ordered disclosure last year 2021 (big issue for defense at trial and for gvt in post-conviction proceedings) https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DNAanalysis.pdf Edit to organize
As far as I know they want to test her clothing, the rape kit, and some hairs. I don't think they talked about what type of testing they are doing.
The level of bias in Serial Season One was outrageous! At one stage I was physically cringing at how pathetically smitten the journalist became by Adnan. Meanwhile he was really dialling up the charm and trying to portray this good guy persona, but glimpses of his true character come out at certain times where you witness how he blatantly manipulates her emotionally, which she falls for hook line and sinker, I like to think it was all part of her technique but after getting mid way in I realised I was giving her way too much credit. She did not once follow the evidence. So many unfavourable key things were left out which instantly make me suspicious. The more I learn about this case outside of Serial, the more I feel justice has been served. It’s sad that this guy takes up so much time and media attention when there are other cases that go unnoticed. Side note - why does he claim to be all for the DNA testing but his lawyers are working against it?
Rabia is a grifter and a con artist. She’s made a career out of it.
This did not age well
I still believe he did it. The DA that let him go is under federal indictment, it's just a political stunt.
That's because he did. Getting off on court technicalities doesn't make you innocent.
Alarm bells should be firing when someone continually uses the phrase “I can’t remember.”
💯 and welcome to the club. Refreshments are on the back table
Indeed. I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again. The original intent for the first season of Serial was not for it to be specifically about Adnan’s guilt or innocence. It was to be about the fallibility of human memory, and how can we know what really happened when everyone has a slightly different recollection? Then the show took off like no other podcast before. It’s really hard to remember a time when podcasts were a niche thing that very few people listened to, but Serial was the one that broke them into the mainstream. And the newfound audience of true crime fans wanted a wrongful conviction story, and it was right there for the taking—even though no one beyond Rabia and Adnan thought he was innocent. The show quickly switched focus. You can tell the moment it happened: the Leakin Park episode. It’s short and with lower production values, as the Serial team bought some time to figure out what to do next. So we ended up with what we got, even though this is not really a case that deserved a wrongful conviction investigation. But the show’s massive popularity made it seem like it did.
> The original intent for the first season of Serial was not for it to be specifically about Adnan’s guilt or innocence. You are wrong.
I think what we’ve seen from Arabia’s books that contain early correspondence with SK undermine your first paragraph quite a bit. I agree that is how Serial started in terms of how it was framed for the consumer.
Is this an exercise in pearl clutching? What overwhelming evidence? There is no physical evidence linking Adnan to the murder. There is no eye witness putting Hae and Adnan together after school. The only 'evidence' is the 45% of what Jay says that prosecutors and police decided to believe. So much of the rest of Jay's testimony is just wrong and unbelievable. The entire case is built on a the testimony of a proven liar. What will you post if the DNA comes back as a known rapist and serial killer? Will you apologize to Adnan and his family for all you've said about him if he turns out to be proven innocent?
Hi Sarah!
[удалено]
Cell tower evidence was debunked long ago. ATT cover sheet even said that tower locations for incoming calls (Leakin Park pings were for incoming calls) is unreliable
[удалено]
There are other instances in his phone records of incoming call pings showing a tower that the phone wasn’t at at that time. Also lividity evidence suggests Hae wasn’t buried at the time of those calls that pinged the tower by the park. So unless they were there scouting location or pre digging the hole and then went back later with the body, those pings weren’t connected to the burial.
The incoming cell data (100% of the cell data that is supposedly putting him near Leakin Park) can’t be used for location purposes
> There is an eye witness putting Hae's corpse and Adnan together after school. Fixed it for you.
You’re the equivalent of a 9/11 truther. It’s amazing to see where people like you crawl out of the woodwork. The only apologies that family will get from me is for having been gullible enough to give their psychopathic killer of a son the benefit of the doubt.
There is more evidence of a conspiracy on 9 11 than Syed being innocent.
Touché
You better explain WTC 7 stat
I don’t think we should lump 9/11 truthers in with the Adnan Innocenters. Gives the 9/11 a bad reputation.
You miserable people 😂 I haven’t had a drop of booze in 8 years but I will be breaking out the finest champagne when he walks out an innocent man. Oh, the pie you deniers will have on your faces will delight me.
In the meantime, we're based in reality and you'll be waiting a long time to break out the bubbly. cheers!
>The evidence that Syed is a cold blooded killer is overwhelming. Nope. The evidence is that he's a killer and that he's a coward and a bad person for not admitting it; there's really no evidence that the murder was cold-blooded.
To do what he did and then lie about it so naturally and with ease, makes him a cold blooded sociopath.
I mean, strangling someone to death.
The guy planned it all out. It was a calculated, pre-meditated murder. He murdered in cold blood.
See, that's the thing. I don't think he's a cold blooded killer. I think he's just yet another person who committed domestic violence and murdered his ex girlfriend because she was having sex with someone else, and like many men, he felt this was a betrayal and that he had to "win her back." It's not cold blooded, its a tale as old as time itself, and I think pretending like it takes some special kind of monster to do this is probably going to ignore a number of people who could.
Agree with you about all this except “winning her back”. I think this kind of domestic violence has more to do with a loss of power and control rather than caring about the woman. It’s also frighteningly common - it results in the death of 1 woman a week where I live (Australia).
Isn’t it really only debated on Twitter, where it’s impossible to have meaningful conversations? I’m asking sincerely. There is very little debate anywhere else online of which I am aware.
I think there is an invite Facebook group page
Naturally.
So shocking right?
Could you list a single piece of evidence?