Undisclosed: The State Vs. Adnan Syed: Episode 3 - Jay's Day
May 13, 2015 7:15 AM - Subscribe

Rabia Choudry, Collin Miller (EvidenceProf), and Susan Simpson (The View From LL2) attempt to reassemble Jay's path on the day Hae Min Lee died. The episode draws heavily on Simpson's research from last November, but also builds on it and alleges that the Baltimore Police illegally coached Jay to develop his story to frame Adnan.
posted by Going To Maine (8 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
Man. Good episode. Good episode, though certainly plenty taken out. I'd love to see an informed critique though. I mean, this is an obviously one-sided podcast trying to develop an argument. It's an argument I find compelling, but I also feel painfully aware that I lack the skills to identify and assess its flaws.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:18 AM on May 13, 2015


The first two episodes of this, I wasn't really on-board with, because it all seemed like the three hosts believed they held the key to showing Adnan's innocence, but this episode did a really good job in cutting into the prosecution's case. Of course, just relying on the prosecution's timeline is problematic, but that's the case they presented, and if the defense had presented the timeline the way these lawyers are doing so, I think there would have been a different outcome.

It does sound like a ton of coaching came into play, especially in some of the recorded statements of Jay's.
posted by xingcat at 7:44 AM on May 13, 2015


I kind of wish there was a transcript of this, mostly because all I do is get interrupted fifty times a day while trying to hear it and god only knows how much I caught/remembered because of it. But it sounds like Jay's motivation for lying boiled down to "someone in that room is sneaking him the answers," correct?
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:47 PM on May 13, 2015


But it sounds like Jay's motivation for lying boiled down to "someone in that room is sneaking him the answers," correct?

The motivation is more like "the cops told Jay they'd pin it on him if he didn't play ball," which raises questions about why the cops didn't just put it on Jay. The evidence is that parts of the tape can be interpreted as the cops feeding him answers, either with taps or by showing him the transcript of locations, paired with the inconsistencies in Jay's story that don't match with the timeline.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:20 PM on May 13, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'd love to see an informed critique though. I mean, this is an obviously one-sided podcast trying to develop an argument. It's an argument I find compelling, but I also feel painfully aware that I lack the skills to identify and assess its flaws.

I was also (and am still) skeptical of the obvious bias in this podcast, but it *is* interesting to hear the defense's case presented so clearly and with so much clarity and detail. I don't know if Adnan is innocent or guilty but this podcast is doing a stellar job of describing why the state's case against Adnan was rubbish. It seems pretty clear that if Adnan gets a new trial there is very, very little chance he gets convicted again, unless the state is able to conjure new witnesses and fabricate an alternate storyline. The most damning thing I've heard in this series so far is the fact that there was no wrestling match on the evening of Hae's disappearance! What! Basically all of the witnesses were thinking of the wrong day. The fact that Serial did not catch that is really surprising and does not cast Sarah/Julie's investigative skills in a good light. The whole point of Serial is that memory is really fallible. Demonstrating that nearly all of the principals involved were remembering the wrong day is amazing, and crucial.

As for the counter argument, I think it boils down to this: Jay is lying, he admits to lying during the case, he will probably continue to lie for the reasons he has already mentioned (protecting friends/family); and yet he could still be correct. Adnan could have killed Hae and enlisted Jay's help to do so. It's the only story and explanation we have, and you can nit-pick details until nothing appears to stack up. And yet the heart of the story can still be true.

But regardless of Adnan's guilt/innocence, this podcast is doing a bang up job of showing just how flimsy the case against Adnan really was. It was way, way flimsier than even Serial showed it to be.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:26 AM on May 17, 2015


Going to Maine, if you're still reading this thread, here's a pretty full-throated rebuttal.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 4:29 AM on May 18, 2015


Going to Maine, if you're still reading this thread, here's a pretty full-throated rebuttal.

Interesting! It's not quite the rebuttal I was hoping for, but it's certainly a stab in the right direction, and it's a good reminder of some of the features of Rabia's fervent defense that I found most off-putting. In the original Serial discussions, I tended to assume that stuff in the real world often just doesn't make sense; there's a lot of confirmation bias floating around out there, and in this case it had come down against Adnan. But in her own blog posts, Rabia seemed willing to go above and beyond to tar Jay as untrustworthy; I particularly remember her tarring for working at a porn video store; that's a fine emotional appeal, but doesn't have to do much with anything else.

That said, I think that Brocklehurst tends to lean towards that side too; she's really leaning on the various evidences of partner violence and that one email about the murder (and that's a shocker), points that I think Undisclosed really needs to investigate.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:23 AM on May 18, 2015


Ultimately, you have a case where everyone's stories seem to be shifting, and the only real evidence that Adnan did it is Jay's testimony. Otherwise it's all stuff like how he acted on certain days, or using previous behavior to determine whether he was even capable of doing it. So in such a situation, it seems kind of natural that opposing sides will pick and choose the evidence that supports their theory -- in the absence of evidence pointing in a specific direction, conclusions are drawn first, and then the evidence is spun to support those conclusions.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:30 AM on May 18, 2015


« Older Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: Q-...   |  Carniv├ále: The Day That Was Th... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments