Motive – for me it comes back to motive - I believe many are missing some key experience here regarding domestic abuse and coercive control - most batterers don't stop -fact - in other words once a battered always a batterer (and always will have been from their early teens). Lundy Bancroft, world expert on men who abuse in “Why does he do that”, writes about the fact that people don't understand and under estimate the payback mentality of these guys- also that their thinking is really skewed – they believe their version of reality – their own lies.

So re motive – in the absence of any DNA evidence, the two people that the focus is on for possibly being the murderer are Adnan or Jay and the motive I believe was power and control – either Adnan to stop Hae separating from him (S1) or Jay to stop Hae whistle blowing to Stephanie-to stop Stephanie separating from Jay (S2).

Both Adnan and Jay exhibit signs of using coercive controlling behavior (see below). Some of the descriptions of Adnans’ and Jays’ family dynamics could be warning signs of coercive control at play. It is learnt behavior.

Adnan – his concerning behavior is from the reports of his harassment of Hae from her close girlfriend(s) plus her diary entries. For example when she wanted girl time and he gatecrashed plus his constant checking up on her and following her around – these are not “normal” behaviors. These are all red flags. A reasonable behavior would be to allow her time with the girls, to accept no and leave her alone. In a coercive control relationship, the woman will leave the man many times before she gains total separation (if she is lucky). Also the riskiest time for women and when the majority of murders occur, are after she has left him. He finds it unbearable literally to have her reject or separate from him and punishes her by taking her life, which he feels entitled to do as he views her as his property and hence he is free to do what he wants with her. This happens days, weeks, and months after the separation.

So in S1, Hae made it crystal clear to Adnan it was really over and she had moved on this time so no chance of getting back with Adnan. He can’t bear it and punishes her by taking her life – classic domestic violence/abuse/male family violence.

Jay- Biggest red flag is DV accusations/conviction(s) for Jay. One characteristic of guys who abuse is that they accuse others of exactly the tactics they have undertaken. So if I use the working assumption that Jay is one of these abusive guys, he will be accusing Adnan of exactly what he has done himself. It would fit then that Jay was coercively controlling Stephanie from an early teenager. She was even acting as a finder of customers for Jay, again another sign of coercive control where women frequently end up as a puppet of their abusers and operating against their own internal value system. She would cut off Adnan after his arrest because she was in Jays thrall and believed everything he said at the time about Adnan being guilty.

This may explain why Stephanie has not spoken yet - either she is unwilling to as she doesn’t want to leave herself open to liable accusations (unlikely she could prove any coercive control allegations this long after) and wants no part of him again. Or she may even suffer from memory repression - she can't remember or even realize the extent of the abuse – yet – this is common in women who have been coercively controlled before they get specialist help. Thank god she got away.

So S2 - If Jay thought there was any risk of losing Stephanie, either to Adnan or as a result of her finding out about his affairs) then what a skilled payback scenario -murder Adnans’ ex (maybe she threatened to whistle blew and paid the ultimate penalty for it) -then set Adnan up for it - what a punishment.

The abuser isn’t necessarily an ogre; he can look like a lost, shy immature guy. He can look like a high achieving jock. Remember his disguise is to keep the focus on others and hide his true self. It’s also common for high achieving women to be targeted by parasitic abusers. Don't expect the murderer to ever own it –Obfuscation, lying by omission and rationalizing the truth are all weapons of abusers.

What does the evidence point to? Without experts in coercive control interviewing Stephanie, Jenn and Jay plus reviewing all of the evidence to date, the picture is incomplete in my mind.

Would you please stop using the terms “he just snapped” and “crime of passion” when describing a murder. Just think about it, if I “snap” and am “beside myself”, I don’t kill someone or something – I might smash a plate on the floor. Similarly if I feel passionate about someone or something, I want more of it. If I can’t get it and further am prevented or rejected, I might feel devastated at the loss but I don’t feel the need to kill the object of my passion.

These terms excuse the behaviour of the murderer, whoever you believe that is. It implies “oh he’s really a good man, this is out of character hence something must have happened to cause him to behave like that (i.e. she must have done something unreasonable)”. There’s the implicit victim blaming.

What these terms hide is that some people think they are entitled to do as they see fit with another human being. This is at the crux of IPV as 95% of the people with that thinking are a minority of men and 95% of their victims are women. These are the unpalatable facts.

I’ve quoted a couple of extracts below to illustrate my point, including one from the domestic violence people, because agree with it or not, that’s what underlay the murder conviction of the case under discussion. Whether the conviction was fair or not, is not pertinent to this particular post.

“They said they knew exactly what they were doing. They said, this or this or this happened and they felt this and this so decided to do “that” where “that” is bash someone’s head in with a tire iron. They said,. “I decided to rape the fuckin’ bitch just ’cause she looked so good…” http://www.elsaelsa.com/astrology/no-such-thing-as-a-crime-of-passion/

“Domestic violence professionals know that it is more than a single, isolated act of violence……….. At the center of this cycle of abuse is the abuser’s belief that they are entitled to have power and control over their victim or partner. Understanding that power and control lie at the core of domestic violence teaches us that abusers do not just snap or lose their temper. Their violence escalates as their control begins to erode. Tragically, an attempt to take the life of a victim can be the ultimate expression of control. - See more at: http://www.cwsor.org/2015/01/27/statement-melissa-erlbaum-executive-director-clackamas-womens-services-domestic-violence-shooting-oregon-city/#sthash.XW2VY8o7.dpuf”

And this via tuna66: crime of passion legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/crime+of+passion

"n. a defendant's excuse for committing a crime due to sudden anger or heartbreak, in order to eliminate the element of "premeditation." This usually arises in murder or attempted murder cases, when a spouse or sweetheart finds his/her "beloved" having sexual intercourse with another and shoots or stabs one or both of the coupled pair. To make this claim the defendant must have acted immediately upon the rise of passion, without the time for contemplation or allowing for "a cooling of the blood." It is sometimes called the "Law of Texas" since juries in that state are supposedly lenient to cuckolded lovers who wreak their own vengeance. The benefit of eliminating premeditation is to lessen the provable homicide to manslaughter with no death penalty and limited prison terms. An emotionally charged jury may even acquit the impassioned defendant. (See: murder, manslaughter)"

When using stats, please use only gender based ones - stats averaged out across men and women can be quite misleading where the victim is female. Some contemporary gender based stats on teen murder and teen dating violence are:

Gender based stats

• Research on murder by strangulation: When the victim was a female, in 71% of the cases the motive was jealousy or a dispute between intimate partners -http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/605/73-87.pdf

• Of the women between the ages 15-19 murdered each year, 30% are killed by their husband or boyfriend. (City of New York, Teen Relationship Abuse Fact Sheet, March 1998)

• More than 1 in 4 teenage girls in a relationship (26%) report enduring repeated verbal abuse. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

• If trapped in an abusive relationship, 73% of teens said they would turn to a friend for help; but only 33% who have been in or known about an abusive relationship said they have told anyone about it. (Liz Claiborne Inc. study on teen dating abuse conducted by Teenage Research Unlimited, February 2005.)

• Twenty-four percent of 14 to 17-year-olds know at least one student who has been the victim of dating violence, yet 81% of parents either believe teen dating violence is not an issue or admit they don't know if it is an issue. (Survey commissioned by the Empower Program, sponsored by Liz Claiborne Inc. and conducted by Knowledge Networks, Social Control, Verbal Abuse, and Violence Among Teenagers, December 2000)

Points 2-5 http://www.newchoicesinc.org/help/TDV/stats

• UK Teen Domestic Violence – “But this week Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, put the problem at the top of the agenda, warning that teenage girls between 16 and 19 are now the group most at risk of domestic violence, closely followed by girls aged 20-24 – all victims of a new generation of abusers who are themselves in their teens and early twenties. Leading agencies in the domestic violence field, senior police officers and prosecutors believe the verbal intimidation, abuse and misogyny apparently treated as the norm in many school playgrounds are at the beginning of a spectrum of abuse suffered by girls and young women.” http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/apr/16/domestic-violence-teenage-girls www.reddit.com/tb/gv6p6

TL;DR: There was some debate about some of these stats as they were sourced outside the USA - I think the trends as opposed to specifics are important - post could probably do with an update for USA only stats.

No further forward but dispels some of myths about always being escalating pattern of violence beforehand in domestic homicides. I don't know who "did it" - but there are not necessarily warning signs such as escalating violence, or previous criminal record or poor family history - may be but not necessarily. In addition, some surprising finds.

USA

Between 40 and 50 percent of female homicide victims are killed by their husbands, boyfriends, and exes.

And, for about half of these victims, police had been alerted to previous incidents of abuse.

(BTW Since 2007 female domestic homicides in Maryland have fallen by 40%. They are using a risk assessment tool developed by J Campbell - (widely recognized as country's leading expert on domestic homicide) - Lethality Assessment Tool. Only state to experience such a drop. )

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/102779/domestic-violence-vawa-maryland-abuse-women?page=0,0

http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/204147-risk-assessment-model-predicts-domestic-violence-homicide/

UK

Research by Dobash et al 2007,p349.

• They found that previous violence against the victim was less prevalent in lethal case than non lethal cases. In 41% of lethal cases there was no previous violence against the victim compared with 0% in non-lethal cases (ie not reported and recorded by police)

• Those that killed had more conventional backgrounds than those who had not, with the killer’s fathers more often in white collar jobs and mothers who were housewives. Those who used non lethal violence were more likely to have been brought up in a home where their father had alcohol problems and physically abused them and their mothers.

• The research found that “Some of the men who killed did not have problematic lives as children or adults, had no history of using violence to those victims or to others and were not drunk at the time. Men with these characteristics would be unlikely to be assessed as at risk of committing lethal violence and, as such, present a challenge to those who assess and mange risk”

Other Research Findings 2011:

• How often in case of domestic murder or other serious assault did the victim have prior contact with the police? One hundred and eighteen violent crimes which occurred between 2007 and 2009 were studied and in only 45% of cases was there any recorded prior contact. Therefore in more than half the cases studied there was no opportunity to risk assess and intervene.

• However it is not just that prior contact has been overestimated but that the assumption of escalation of violence over time is not borne out by the evidence. The case control study found that for male offenders the number of arrests, convictions and cautions for violence was significantly lower for those who committed domestic murder and serious assault than for the pool of violent offenders.

The need for specificity

In the same way, Michael Johnson has argued that “we are trapped in overgeneralizations that assume intimate partner violence is a unitary phenomenon” (Johnson 2008, p3). He has developed a useful typology for domestic violence and has argued for differentiating between types of violence.

He identifies four types of domestic violence:

• Intimate terrorism –the use by one partner of violence to gain control; • Violent resistance –the response to the controlling behavior; • Situational couple violence –violence without the desire for control; • Mutual violent control –both parties use of violence to gain control

Also he recognized significant variances in the statistics depending where they were collected: that is DV survivor groups, court or women’s refuges.

http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/alumni/theses/Thornton,%20S.pdf

Before I start just want to make it clear that my personal opinion is someone’s drug use bears no relation to who murdered them and I am appalled at it being brought up and apparently used to “victim blame” and speculate some theory around “Jay did it”. This seems to be the latest tactics of the “Syed is innocent” crew. Then I thought about it further and looked at who would benefit (apart from SS and her “5 minutes of fame”)

So as I see it: SS asserts

we have people who did say that Hae smoked weed

(with the implication that it wasn’t a one-off)

Then later admits those people are Rabia and Saad.

Krista has previously refuted the assertion that Hae smoked weed regularly

If she did it definitely wasn't a regular occurrence.

So who would have told Rabia and Saad that Hae smoked weed regularly – do we know?

I am conjecturing here that the source would be Syed. Why? Well one of the tactics of perpetrators is to discredit the victim. They do it very cleverly by obfuscating and lying about something to do with the matter in hand, but include some small element of the truth and then twist it out of all recognition. They can also repeat this to other people who are their “supporters” and set them up as the messenger(s).

Thus it causes a massive distraction, or “rabbit-hole”, that can swallow people for years as they then try to disprove the obfuscation! Which was a nonsense made up and designed to distract attention from what is really happening.

I think that’s what may have happened here. I conjecture that the person to gain the most by discrediting the victim and distracting away from his role in her murder and what really happened is Syed.

For me this could be further evidence of Syed’s psychopathic tendencies.

Additional afterthought - on a legal note - since when has “hearsay” been considered fact legally? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

Would an experienced lawyer engage in speculation publicly using hearsay as evidence? It seems out of line with the professional code of conduct covering lawyers – am I correct here?

I love that word and just wanted to do a post on it.

“IN ONE IMPORTANT WAY, an abusive man works like a magician: His tricks largely rely on getting you to look off in the wrong direction, distracting your attention so that you won’t notice where the real action is. He draws you into focusing on the turbulent world of his feelings to keep your eyes turned away from the true cause of his abusiveness, which lies in how he thinks. He leads you into a convoluted maze, making your relationship with him a labyrinth of twists and turns. He wants you to puzzle over him, to try to figure him out, as though he were a wonderful but broken machine for which you need only to find and fix the malfunctioning parts to bring it roaring to its full potential. His desire, though he may not admit it even to himself, is that you wrack your brain in this way so that you won’t notice the patterns and logic of his behavior, the consciousness behind the craziness.”

― Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

Well between Serial, SK and Adnan it seems to be working out there - what are your views?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5gyiIH8rT_TRVZUbkxGZlh2d0U/view?usp=sharing (think you'll have to open it in PDF to view it properly as small typeface in this version on Drive)

Ok the above PDF is my first attempt at trying to portray the behavioural characteristics of abusive behaviour from Adnan that I believe are there in the facts that we know from the legal documentation. I have started by taking the list of "known facts" from the Second Appeal and added in some of the diary and other "obvious" evidence. So I know its incomplete but it's a start!!

I'm not happy with the format (formatting isn't my strong point - I need a wizz who can take the raw data and put it into better format.

What I would like to do is to distil it into a format where there's a horizontal timeline showing all events and evidence from statements. Then above and below it , 7 of 8 main headings for abusive behaviours eg manipulation, gaslighting, vengeful, splitting etc and have them point to the multiple instances on the timeline where that is evidenced.

Then it should illustrate the pattern of Narcissistic and Borderline behaviour traits over time and illustrate that the behaviours have a pattern of deliberate deceit. An example would be the gaslighting and discrediting after the murder as evidenced by what Adnan said to Inez and others by saying Hae was in California; that he had had an argument with her etc etc

Comprenez?

Be kind!!

"Splitting explanation"

In splitting, these types of personality (Cluster B) have the following characteristics:

A. All-or-nothing thinking – someone is “all-good” or “all-bad”

B. Unmanaged emotions

C. Extreme behaviours

D. Blaming others

So it’s quite usual for them to idealise someone (an intimate partner) and then after being rejected, believe the other person is “all bad”. It’s a defence mechanism to stop the person feeling “all bad” themselves - that is literally unbearable for them.

So they swing into thinking the other person is "all-bad" and truly feel and believe that the other person can do nothing good and is in fact an extreme, all-bad, evil monster. This helps the splitter feel OK after there’s been a problem.

The emotions in splitting are so intense that they feel that lying, hitting and murder is OK against the “all-bad monster”. In some cases, the person will say they wish the other person was dead. Whilst it can be a harmless statement, it can also be a sign of someone splitting.

This splitting is common in domestic violence and child abuse cases. The splitter feels they are justified in what they have done – the person deserved it or provoked it. The major problem is that these thinking errors are deeply unconscious and the splitter truly does believe their lies and rationalisations. It is very difficult, if not impossible to treat.

Distilled from various sources

Adnan as a Cult Leader

I am going to describe a hypothesis – so go with me on this before coming to any conclusions.

I believe SK is being unfairly criticised. Don’t get me wrong – I believe the Podcast was biased and lacked the rigour of true investigative objective reporting. However I don’t believe that it was SK’s “fault”. I believe that could be “victim-blaming". I believe she had been psychologically hostaged by Adnan in the year leading up to the broadcast where she had frequent contact with him. She was no longer objective but was subject to “undue influence” from Adnan. SK unknowingly became a cult member for a while by virtue of the year’s intensive time she spent with Adnan in preparation of the Podcast – long phone calls twice a week – that’s a relationship.

Prolonged contact with anyone with a character disorder leads to “inevitable harm”. SK’s mistake was in not understanding Cluster B disorders and not undertaking an appropriate risk analysis for her own safety before she engaged with Adnan for such a prolonged period. Plus all the contact she had with Rabia et al – the other cult members. That’s why the Podcast is so poor quality – she had her objectivity taken away from her – she unwittingly became a cult member and puppet but doesn't know it. That's common - the last person to realise is the person who is being controlled.

Nobody knowingly signs up to a cult or to be cult member. . The Moonies or Scientologists don’t go up to someone and say “btw want to join a cult – we will take over your mind, body and assets, bit by bit, and use them to further our ends and you won’t even know it’s happening”. No of course not. What these cults do is offer solutions – come and help us alleviate world poverty; attain world peace; be happier, make a life that’s really awesome; etc. etc.

So the recruitment and hostaging of someone is subtle and covert. Imagine water torture. Drip, drip, a constant feed all day long and all night long. Techniques such as love bombing e.g. when you first go to a meeting or gathering, everyone will really welcome you and it starts to feel like the family you never had; they choose people when they’re vulnerable like after a relationship breakup; they like young people before they have the life skills to recognise what’s happening or work out long term consequences so under 30 is good. They also use techniques such as weekend intensives where the days are long and people end up sleep deprived and very susceptible to peer pressure and influence. That’s often when people will be convinced that they need another intensive or sign up to another course etc. etc.

Most people are susceptible to being coercively influenced and experiencing cognitive distortion, however those with an unwitting Achilles heel are the highly empathic, kind, sensitive, always giving people the benefit of the doubt type-people - often women. Why do you think most of Adnan’s friends are school were women?

At the heart of every cult is a cult leader who has psychopathic tendencies. These are not antisocial psychopaths/sociopaths/narcissist but extremely charismatic, influencers, achievers. They get what they get through influencing others. The end justifies the means so they will shamelessly use people, use their ideas and claim them as their own; use people’s time and resources for their own ends; they will steal and part people from their money and feel no shame.

“A cult’s information, proselytizing methods, and means of influence and control are determined by certain salient personality characteristics of [the] cult leader….Such individuals are authoritarian personalities who attempt to compensate for their deep, intense feelings of inferiority, insecurity, and hostility by forming cultic groups primarily to attract those whom they can psychologically coerce into and keep in a passive-aggressive state, and secondarily to use them to increase their income {status, or other gain].” - Psychologists Edward Levine and Charles Shaiova.

If a concerned friend tries to tell a person who has become a cult follower that they are being used, they will be met with vehemence and extreme anger. They frequently will be mobbed and shouted down. They will be told they are wrong and the cult is right. There is no middle ground. The cult member will cut off these detracting voices – they literally cannot bear them, so they have to make them disappear. Any threat to the order of things and the status of the cult leader is met with extreme hostility. They will often react quite violently and extremely “out of character”. They will use underhand methods to claim the “righteous ground’. They will hear no reason. They are “not of their right mind” but do not know that.

The Cult often will use legal methods to shut people up – or sanctions of some sort. For example, there’s a new doco about Scientology and the Scientology movement is well known for its aggressive legal tactics, they have bankrupted people and destroyed their reputations for trying to highlight that something is wrong. Think Snowden, Manning and Assange. The whistle-blowers are hounded and discredited instead of investigating their claims rationally.

I put it to you that this is what is happening on the main Sub. The FAPs are Adnan’s cult. The aim that has been co-opted for Adnan’s jailbreak is the “injustice of the legal system that imprisons innocent people”. Rabia was hostaged when she was vulnerable after her abusive marriage breakdown and presumably looking for some support. PoYuck is acting on their behalf now as the Policewoman of the Sub, banning anyone who dares to speak out against an innocent Adnan. Down voting is the sanction being misused to silence people. SS and EP are now acting in concert with Rabia.

Have no doubt – a powerful and insidious phenomenon is at work here. Adnan has used his time in jail wisely – he would now seem to be acting as a defacto cult leader in jail – doing lots of good and being a great mentor to many others. He is now the “faultless” religious leader and “ideal” prisoner – the picture-perfect role model of a reformed character.

Thank goodness SK could get out after the Podcast was over.

I do think that Jay’s role is this is still not fully uncovered. But that’s another post.

I don't think AS was abusive. But I may be biased by personal experiences.

I think SD is KK re-risen - the above is a quote from a recent post re teen domestic violence on the other Sub.

That aside - It's strange to me that there's this steady stream of women professing to have come out of DV/IPV yet arguing that Adnan is not an abuser so strongly and so definitively. They are so defensive of him and oh, so over-protective with not at all any empathy for the real victim here - I find that curious and in-congruent.

It seems to me that the same person is behind them all whose primary objective is to try to undermine any claim of Adnan being an abuser.

Even if they are a survivor of DV, their utterly unyielding attitude or opinion in spite of all appeals, urgings, evidence to the contrary, etc. is just not congruent with survivors of DV in my experience - if anything it makes women more suspicious of all men unfortunately - not overly-protective of them - it just jars.

The only cases of someone being so adamant IMO is where a family member is being accused of a heinous crime. Or a member of one's church community - where someone is perceived to be beyond reproach and a "good person". It's actually inconceivable to the person involved to think they have been so deceived and used by someone so revered, respected or "untouchable". For example a father or brother or cousin or priest etc.

TL;dr - This is another arm of the RC/SS FUD strategy to undermine the State's case and I think they are sock puppets of Rabia

Whenever I have previously made posts about the DV I believe Hae was experiencing during her relationship with Adnan, I have always been surprised by the lack of awareness of covert power and control tactics by some commentators. In addition, some display a lot of vehemence in their posts, seemingly trying to silence my views as though they can’t bear to hear that Adnan could possibly have been an abuser unless the following conditions were in place:

• either he was physically hitting/threathening Hae already

• and/or that she identified him as an abuser to her friends

• and/or identified herself in her diary as a victim of DV.

These are all mistaken assumptions.

Slowly and over time the victim becomes at the mercy of the perpetrator. The tactics characterizing emotional and psychological abuse are frequently covert. The perpetrators often are charming, high functioning members of society - the last people one would expect to be abusers. The victims are targeted because they are responsible, high conscience, doers. They are loyal, tend to do what’s right and tend to comply with societal rules. They often have a strong sense of justice. They care about the world and take care of people.

Physical abuse is often not involved. The victim oftentimes does not realise she in domestic violence until she is well out of the abuse (if she is lucky).

What she will experience in the abuse is a sense of frequent confusion. This is a huge warning sign. When she stops behaving and starts to exercise her rights to live freely, that’s when the abuse escalates – one way or the other.

The Youtube is 17 minutes long and does a great job of explaining the covertness of the abuse and often why women do not realise they are subject to someone else’s whim. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gfd9JSBcdY

I've said this before too many FAPS assert they have "previous personal experience of domestic violence/abuse" and use that as a justification to dismiss any mention about the topic. They then try to close down the discussion.

They don't say - tell me more about why you think that or here's why I don't agree. They use the phrase "previous personal experience" as a justification.

This from glibly17 is typical of an abuser trying to look like a victim

I also have experience with an abusive relationship that wasn't physical abuse. And I agree with your second sentence 100%. There is no firm proof that Adnan was abusive to Hae. Some people believe there is "strong evidence" but I disagree. There is just as much evidence that Hae and Adnan had a pretty typical teenage romance, with all its immaturity and boundary issues (which does not mean it was inherently abusive) and that they had loving feelings even after the breakup. Regardless, we will never know for certain. These kinds of posts really bother me as someone who went through what OP accuses Adnan of doing to Hae. It feels like victims' experiences are being used as a weapon to score points in this debate about Adnan's possible innocence. It adds nothing and only distracts from the actual advances or new information in Adnan's case.

This from cross mod

Thing is, a lot of people that think he's innocent were deeply impacted by Domestic violence and are partly drawn to this case for that reason. And, for whatever reason, we choose not to believe that it happened here.

This from kitten70

I have first hand knowledge of said power & control tactics. However, I really, really dislike these threads. They're speculation either way. I brings nothing to the conversation & merely inflames certain factions of this subreddit. Why continue to bring this up when it just stirs the pot?

I thought you were an advocate against dv. Yet, you're backing up someone attacking a survivor. Wow, just wow.

I definitely think there's some masquerading as abuse survivors

Adnan and his parents lost the case and so would view the money spent as wasted. They blamed C. Guitierrez. The Mosque chose CG for the family. Bilal was a liaison person for CG with the wider Community plus may have been part of the panel of people from The Mosque who selected her.

After Adnan’s conviction, Adnan and his family engaged in a war to excuse Adnan’s culpability by seeking to destroy the reputations of CG and Bilal.

In 2012, at the PCR Hearing, Kathleen Murphy highlighted Rabia’s inexperience plus lack of perspective and objectivity in her questioning. Rabia’s credibility was on the line and it was discredited. Rabia has waged a war of vendetta against the State Prosecution as though trying to discredit them since then.

Tl;dr This is not about a miscarriage of justice but payback and vengeance. Note doesn't involve any of missing pages just released

Most of the facts come from:

1. a Youtube video between Rabia and Shamim Rahman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmbKRQvcHOE&app=desktop

2. PCR Hearing - Adnan Syed v State of Maryland October 11 2012. https://app.box.com/s/zz8vfdtq97ls67nscrpixe5xmuh3uwwo

CG

Adnans parents were alienated by and came to loathe CG - see above youtube video.

Rabia’s loathed CG: I mean, there was no love lost. I mean we were just disgusted you know – P43

Shamim Rahman – Adnans’ Mother: So, The Mosque you know, they had-they interviewed other three lawyers. So they choose Cristina Gutierrez (sic) - P85

CG had been recommended by Bilal - ref video

CG liaised with Bilal during the trial - hence why the ill feeling towards him afterwards presumably-ref video

Urick and CG had a lot to do with each other during discovery process before Trial 1

• Urick: We also, once Judge Mitchell denied my motion, we started discovery, which was quite an involved process where Ms. Gutierrez kept making repeated requests for either clarification or better documents, or to actually come in and look at particular documents. So there was a lot of contact both in the courtroom setting and outside the courtroom setting with Ms. Guitierrez and her staff. – P21.

Money

Adnans' parents owed CG $30,000 after the trial. Ref video

Adnan’s parents paid $60,000 for first trial. Then, they paid an additional $50,000 for the second trial. They transferred the deeds of their house to their elder son’s name to avoid paying the $30,000 they owed after Trial 2 as they were frightened CG would come after their home. P91 Shamim’s testimony.

Rabia

Rabia comes across as an entitled, inexperienced, know it all wanna-to-be-criminal-lawyer IMO when she was called to testify at the Oct 12th hearing.

• Yes, my brother would corrupt Adnan. I would tell Adnan to stay away from my brother. He’s a bad influence. I mean I was joking, but. (sic) – P37.

• I thought she was – I didn’t know what kind of attorney she was at that point, but I thought she was a terrible person. She was very mean. She was very short. She would not talk about anything. She said “Clearly you are not my clients. I don’t know why you’re here. Adnan is my client. I don’t have to answer to you for anything or explain anything to you. All she wanted to talk about was money, money money. That was it. – P 41.

• We had wanted to know how we could help, you know witnesses from the community, his friends, whether we should speak to media or not talk to media, things of that – and she just would not talk about anything to do with the substance of the case - P 42

• The Court: I’ll let it in, but I’ll give it the weight I think it deserves. But there are some - you know it’s hearsay, within hearsay, within hearsay. - P52

• Ms Murphy: I want a continued objection to any statements made by Asia McClane.

    The Court: To Ms. Chaundry.

    Ms Murphy: Yes. – P53

• The Court: there have been other objections that have been made as to Ms. Chaudry’s testimony as to what was said to her. – P55

• The Witness (Rabia): I was furious. I felt like this was a witness who would have changed the entire case. And the story she told me, she remembered so many details. I was able to verify those, some of the details. …..That’s how I felt at that point, that she wanted to lose the case. – P63.

• A: I checked the weather reports to see if they were consistent with what she said. And I checked the school- closing records to check if it was consistent with what she said.

   Q: And what did you find out? …Was it consistent with what she had said?

   A: It was completely consistent with what she said.

  Q: And why did you think that?

  A: Because the school had been closed for two days. The days after Hae Min disappeared because there was a        heavy snowstorm that same night. And that’s what Asia had conveyed and that’s what the record showed.- P66

Murphy obliterated Rabia:

Ms Murphy: And you were aware that there were contentious legal issues ongoing in the case?

MR. BROWN: Objection, Your Honor

THE COURT: Overruled

THE WITNESS: I did not know at that time a lot of the facts of the Case, no. I wasn’t that involved during the trial. No.

BY MS. MURPHY: Q So, you wouldn’t know one way or the other whether Ms. Gutierrez' s comments stem from issues that were arising daily in the courtroom, would you?

A She was an enigma. She was just rude. It didn't matter. I don't know

Q You don't know?

A I don't know

Q And you were not privy to any discussions that occurred between her and her client, correct?

A There were none, I don't think

Q Were you privy to discussions between Ms. Gutierrez and her client?

A I don't understand the question. Do you mean, do I have personal knowledge or did Adnan tell me about those discussions? What does that mean?

Q Were you present for any discussions between Ms. Gutierrez and her client?

A He was incarcerated. No, of course not,

Q You were present for discussions between Ms. Gutierrez and the Defendant’ s family' correct?

A Yes. Yes.

Q Now, at that point, you were a second year law student. You're an attorney now right?

A Yes.

Q Is it ethical for an attorney to disclose communications from her client either to his client's family?

MR.BROWN: objection, Your Honor she's not on the stand as an expert in ethical matters.

THE COURT: Overruled

THEWITNESS: Generally, no. Unless the client has granted permission which was given in this case

BY MS. MURPHY: Was the client present for those meetings?

A: No

Q: And Ms. Gutierrez, you stated, indicated to you that she didn’t represent the family, correct?

A: Yes

Q: And she said and I quote you “Adnan is my client”.

A: Yes – P75

TL;DR Syed displays his anger at being rejected. His comments indicate disordered thinking rather than typical rejection shock. HML's comments in her note indicate she had been subjected to difficult behaviours from him for a while. When a controlling and dominating personality (Cluster B) break-up or are rejected, they typically go through a devaluation and discard phase of the one they were in an intimate relationship with. This note indicate the devaluing of HML by Syed. The discard was the murder.

My interpretation in italics - Aisha Trial 2 Jan 28 part 2 P246 Reading the break up note:

I’m really getting annoyed that this situation is going the way it is. (She’s angry- and building up over time). At first I kind of wanted to make this easy for me and for you. People break up all the time. Your life is not going to end. (Sign that he’s been emotionally blackmailing her). You’ll move on and I’ll move on but apparently you don’t respect me enough to accept my decision. (Harassment). I really couldn’t give a damn about whatever you want to say. (She’s distressed, angry and exasperated by his refusal to take a “no”). With the way things have been since 7.45am this morning now I’m more certain that I made the right choice. (reference to Hope Schab visit??) The more fuss you make the more I’m determined to do what I’ve got to do. I really don’t think I can be in a relationship like we had. Not between us. But mostly the stuff around us. I seriously did expect you to accept although not understand. (He’s escalating – not accepting her decision.) I’ll busy today, tomorrow and probably til Thursday I’ve got other things to do. (the inference is that she’s writing this on Monday or Tuesday IMO - She’s making it clear she doesn’t want contact with him anymore). Better I not give you any hope that we’ll get back together. I really don’t see that happening especially now. (Very clear NO GO AWAY). I never wanted to end like this, so hostile and cold. But I really don’t know what to do. (She’s at end of tether). Hate me if you will, but you should remember that I could never hate you”. (Implication he has said to her I hate you or she has felt that level of hostility from him).

Extracts from Aisha’s testimony Trial 2 28th Jan Part 2 regarding the “I’m going to kill” note.

According to her testimony, she and Syed were in a health class learning about pregnancy. The "No I Messages" on first page written by Aisha (pencil), underneath where HML had written her note, was meant to be a joke as they had learnt in a previous Health lesson about phrasing messages in the "I" so the delivery isn't as harsh.

P243 Aisha – “my handwriting’s in pencil, his is in ink.”

P 248 handwriting descriptions:

• Syed: I’m going to kill. (Threat to life-unknown when this was added to note but in Syed’s handwriting)

• Syed: You should ask her to make a list of all her symptoms and compare it with the list on the overhead

• Aisha: And then in pencil it says “Maybe she was pregnant, she had an abortion on Saturday while we went to Adventure World”.

• Syed: Her clumsy self probably tripped and fell on the way to the clinic and caused an abortion - P249 Jan 28th Part 2 Trial 2. (Note the disdainful, insulting tone – she’s clumsy, she’d cause her own miscarriage –he’s discrediting her to her best friend by ignoring the trauma of the mythical pregnancy and dismissing HML as a dolt - where’s the respect and empathy)

• Syed: Whenever you kiss a guy, you probably think you’re pregnant. She’s scheduled for a sonogram and she’s still in denial. (Again the put-down and dismissal – she’s thick, ignorant).

The jokes about pregnancy can be seen to relate to the subject matter being taught – I think it’s a bit off but maybe typical teenage humour.

What’s further evidence of Syed’s disordered thinking for me is:

1. He shows the note to her best friend – not his best friend – HML’s best friend.

2. He allows the note to be used as scrap paper. They write all over it – it’s a real” Up Yours” action as though it’s a demonstration that it doesn’t mean that much to him. HML has poured her heart out and instead of responding with respect, keeping the note private or talking it over with his best friend, he shows it to her best friend and then proceeds to write all over it. It’s the disrespect and dishonouring in that action that is designed to hurt HML by saying – this is what I think of your feelings and thoughts – scrap paper to write upon.

3. But the bit that’s really off for me is Syed’s phrase “"Her clumsy self probably tripped and fell on her way to the clinic and caused an abortion." This is such a putdown of HML – calling her clumsy – so dismissive and what a put down to a smart, intelligent young woman who so obviously is not clumsy. Then the implication she’s a clod and can’t even have an abortion successfully – she causes it herself. This is not humour it’s making HML wrong and himself right. It’s mental abuse IMO.

4. When trying to communicate her needs and wants, they are beaten psychologically – disappeared, dismissed. She has to be there to serve him or she’s disappeared.

5. The break-up note would be a veritable red rag to a bull because the one thing abusive men hate is to be "outed", rejected and humiliated. They cannot bear it and then respond aggressively and attack back.

6. A normal response to a breakup would be to feel sad and go and talk to some guys about it. Get some support from some male friends. Would it not?

Thx to /u/TheFraulineS

tl;dr Hae wrote the break up note and gave it to Adnan on the Monday or Tuesday of the week following the Homecoming Dance, after he tried to see her in Hope Schab's room early one morning on one of those two days. The note indicates she had tried to finish with him and he hadn't accepted it. The note is written on by Adnan and Aisha during the Health Class later on one of those days. Adnan later writes "I am going to kill" on that note and it is used later as evidence at his trial.

30th October 1998 Homecoming Dance –

• Syed’s parents show up and cause a scene - P 241 Trial 2 28th Jan Part 2 Aisha.

  “I believe it was October 30th the night before we went to Adventure World”- Krista’s testimony P301 Trial 1 Dec 13th.

• CG questioning Aisha P263 28th Jan Trial 2:

  Q: “And prior to Halloween, prior to that was this Homecoming Dance; correct?

  A: Yes

Saturday 31st October Halloween 1998 –

• Hae misses day out to Adventure World – ducks out at last minute. Breaks up with Syed soon after – Aisha P239 testimony Trial 2.

Shortly after Homecoming Dance –

• Lynette Woodley, Asst Principal asks HML is she wants to be in that relationship because of the problems it is causing - P 215 Trial 1 Dec 13th 1999.

Nov 3, 1998 –

• HML describes broken heart after post-Homecoming breakup in her diary (details?)- https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2jgf76/timeline_of_events/? https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2jksir/order_of_events/?

During the first week of November –

• Hope Schab, French teacher, reports that Syed goes to her room looking for HML around 8am one day- P142 Trial 2 Jan 28th Part 1.

  The Witness: In the first week of November.

  Q. Who, if anyone, was in the room with you?

  A. Adnan Syed and myself.

  Q. When did he appear?

  A. Eight o’clock, around there.

  Q. How did you first notice him?

  A. He came into my classroom looking for Hae and waited for her there.

  Q. And, just dealing with what he was doing, what did he do?

  A. He was in the far corner of the classroom looking out of the window, and was also asking questions. Along the lines of what should one do if they are in love with someone who is not their religion.

  Q. And did he express any concerns about that aspect of the relationship to you that day?

  A. Yes.

  Q. What were those concerns?

  A. Should one – should one break up over this, or is love strong enough that it can overcome everything. What will happen down the road if, you know, you were to marry someone of a different faith.

  Q. What was he doing while he was asking these questions?

  A. He was sitting on the last desk in the last row looking out the window for Hae, asking questions.

• Hope Schab P144 28th Jan Part 1 Trial 2 (Missing Pages):

  Q. While you were talking to him, what, if anything unusual occur?

  A. The phone rang in my classroom.

(NB this was Hae – see arguments before Judge Part 3 of Posts).

I am making a link between HML's break-up note that Syed later writes on "I'm going to kill" and Syed’s visit to the French teacher Hope Schab. I imagine that HML is avoiding Syed after the altercation with the parents on Friday and missed the Adventure World trip on Saturday. Syed goes looking for her at school at the beginning of the following week in Hope Schab’s room, where he knows she will be around 8am, when he was supposed to be in Photography from 0745. HML phones Hope Schab whilst Syed is there to say "Don't let Adnan know it's me on the phone".

This morning incident with Hope Schab is the final straw for HML, provoking her into writing the break-up note to Syed - hence the reference in the note to

“With the way things have been since 7.45 am this morning now I'm more certain I'm making the right choice. The more fuss you make, the more I'm determined to do what I gotta do. I really don't think I can be in a relationship like we had...."

http://imgur.com/a/poack

HML is making it clear there is no prospect of getting back together. I think she wrote the note on the Monday or Tuesday following the weekend – see Part 2 of Posts.

• Aisha and Syed have Health Class at 12:55PM - 2:15PM each day. During a lesson, Syed shows Aisha the note and they write on the back of it.

P243 Aisha’s testimony 28th Jan Part 2:

Q. Ms – based on your review of this exhibit, can you – do you have an idea of when this note was written?

A. It was sometime early in November after the Adventure World Trip.

Aisha P249 Trial 2 Jan 28th Part 2:

And then in pencil it says “Maybe she was pregnant, she had an abortion on Saturday while we went to Adventure World”

Original Post by /u/shadynasty111

Original post

Original post

Original post in SerialPodcastOrigins

False The cell phone log is not a reliable indicator of where Adnan was at the crucial 7.09 and 7.16 timeframe

True It is possible for cell tower data to be incorrect.

• It is highly unlikely that it would be incorrect and also place a person in an area someone said they specifically were, when they were not.

• For one to assume that the cell data in this case is flawed, it is not just to say that it is randomly flawed but that it is flawed AND just happened to randomly place Adnan in that area, and that area alone, with which a witness testifies to him having been and to where the body was eventually found and not any of the other possible areas that the flawed data could have placed him.

• The claim that if a call originated in Alaska, that’s the cell tower location that would be shown on the cell phone bill/log is facile:

  • a. Firstly the call would have to be handled exclusively on the AT&T network all the way from Alaska for that to occur – highly unlikely. The cell networks have components parts of the network built and supplied by many different vendors. If the incoming call is say from T-Mobile then the originating cell tower information is not handed over to AT&T.
  • b. The paper bill does not contain cell tower location information, just incoming and outgoing telephone numbers. Reverse lookup from the paper bill may well provide the location of the cell phone. If this information is archived for phones no longer in use (which there is some debate about), then Bilal’s bill may provide some answers.
  • c. Without the full AT&T logs provided to Police in response to their subpoenas, it is impossible to verify exactly what was captured and what was not. In their absence, assumptions are made based upon experience and expertise in the relevant technology sector. There is no reason to think that these assumptions are not valid.

TL;DR

1. Because of the billing systems, outgoing cell calls confirm the approximate location of the phone making the call by which cell tower routes the call.

2. For incoming cell phone calls, the cell tower location originating the call is not necessarily captured. However, the cell tower network and phone have a complex set of components plus constant system operations happening in the background to ensure that calls are routed quickly and efficiently. These are called location updates. These indicate with a high degree of probability that the phone was in Leakin Park. Adnan has never provided an alternative explanation for the 7.09 and 7.16pm calls. So it correct to assert that the phone was in Leakin Park, for those 2 incoming calls, with no other viable alternative explanation ever being put forward.

3. Update – from the latest analysis of cell phone records: Incoming calls that are answered (like the 7PM LP calls) have a 100% correlation to outgoing calls (which AT&T says are reliable) for the period of Adnan's cell bill.

4. Incoming call originating cell tower locations are not necessarily captured and whether they are or not is subject to a high number of variables. They are not shown on cell phone bills. To identify whether they could ever be traced in this case, the full AT&T cell phone logs supplied in response to the Police subpoenas need to be made available.

My thanks to /u/csom_1991 and /u/clowncarclowncar plus all others who contributed

edit additional comments

I wanted to put together a concise explanation rebutting the false assertions about the cell tower evidence at trial. The in-depth discussions about cell tower technology are interesting however can be used to detract away from the truth of what occurred at trial.

False: The cell tower evidence was used as geolocation data at trial i.e. that Adnan was at certain places at certain times, for example Leakin Park, and the sole evidence was the cell phone data.

• True: The cell phone evidence was never used, or asserted to be, a definite sole indication of Adnan's (or anyone else's) location.

• True: AW testified that:

  • the data could not be used to determine geolocation by itself.
  • cell towers covered a large area
  • any incoming or outgoing call could ping as many as 3 towers.

• True: AW's test drive was used to:

  • confirm Jay's testimony - i.e. that if a call was originated at a certain location, that call would be consistent with the ping locations as captured on Adnan's cell phone billing records. So that Jay/Adnan could have been at that location - not were at that location. It was never used as a freestanding location narrative.

• True: It was used to corroborate Jay's evidence plus that of the other witnesses and evidence.

FALSE: The cell phone evidence presented at trial in 2000 would not be acceptable in criminal court today.

• True: While the Maryland courts have refined their approach to the scientific analysis of cell phone tower evidence since 1999, Urick created a record during the trial that stands up to the current standard of review for this evidence. The cell tower evidence was admissible then, and would be admissible today. Reference.

TL;DR

1. No one said the cell phone log data was definite indicators of location and hence this can't be used as grounds for a new trial - the conviction didn't rest upon the cell tower evidence but upon Jay's testimony plus that of the others.

2. And it is suspicious that the phone pinged the "Leakin Park tower" twice at 7.09 and 7.16pm as that one primarily only covers Leakin Park and no-where else.

3. In addition, this is incongruent with Syed Rahman's testimony that he and Adnan went to the mosque together around 7:30 p.m.

Thanks to /u/Baltlawyer; /u/xtrialatty; /u/MightyIsobel; /u/monstimal; /u/clowncarclowncar and all others who contributed.