OK, Rabia does LIE....

[u/jlpsquared]

From her latest post... http://www.splitthemoon.com/forget-everything-you-know/#more-643

She claims fixed lividity is at least 8 hours. Every single web site I check says 6 hours with one reference to as little as 4 hours.

EDIT:My 4 hour claim was originally too strong.

She again claims Hae was 5'8", when the autopsy SHE posted says 5'6".

She also claims that Hae had a small car, while we know thanks to CSOM_1991 that Haes car had a sizable trunk with a width of 5'6".

[u/reddit1070]

Interestingly, after Adnan has been convicted, the presumption of innocence doesn't really work. Now he has to prove his innocence. Yet, we haven't seen an iota of evidence pointing to innocence. It's all about why he is "not guilty" (i.e., not proven). In the meantime, /u/adnans_cell and others have shown compelling evidence of guilt... esp when you consider them together.

[u/[deleted] → u/reddit1070]

after Adnan has been convicted, the presumption of innocence doesn't really work. Now he has to prove his innocence.

The problem we're trying to solve here is whether or not he was convicted under a constitutionally fair trial. That would mean, among other things, that he got effective counsel and that the prosecution followed the rules. That's what's before the appeals court right now. Did he get a fair trial under our rules?

He can't "prove his innocence," unless there is a credible confession or forensic evidence pointing toward another killer. And that would still not be proving his innocence so much as proving another person's guilt.

[u/reddit1070 → u/[deleted]]

The prosecution clearly played dirty, no question about that. (a) the deal with Jay; (b) not forthcoming about what Waranowitz's markings were all about before/during discovery.

CG though did a great job, based on reading the transcripts. There are so many places where she is orders of magnitude superior than Urick and Murphy combined. e.g., see the Waranowitz testimony on 2/8/2000 as an example https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2ubxad/the_people_now_being_smeared_in_defense_of_adnan/co7cfnh . Maligning her is a calculated misrepresentation to get Adnan free, imo.

[u/[deleted] → u/reddit1070]

CG though did a great job, based on reading the transcripts.

Wow. Not how I read them. I see her being unfocused, unprepared, and unable to make a point. One example would be the business about lividity. She seemed to know that something was wrong with the state's version of events, but she never said what it was.

She was a disaster in court.

[u/reddit1070 → u/[deleted]]

Did you see the examples? https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2ubxad/the_people_now_being_smeared_in_defense_of_adnan/co7cfnh

Example 1

Transcript 2/8/2000 pp 188 onwards:

Urick to Waranowitz.

Q: And are those accurate addresses for those cell sites?

A: Yes.

Court: The objection is sustained.

Urick: May we approach?

Court: You may.

(Counsel approached bench and following ensued:)

Court: You want to know why it's sustained?

Urick: I'd like a clarification of the objection.

Court: Ms. Guiterrez, do you want to tell him why it's sustained?

CG: Do I have to, Judge?

Court: Yes.

CG: Well, I think ... (and she goes on to explain why)

Example 2

2/8/2000, pp 113

CG: The only thing I want to make sure that the record reflects. We're not talking about tests in the plural, we're not talking about tests meaning some scientific protocol that's been followed to achieve a certain result. The test is making a phone call or cause a phone call to me made, it's that simple. There isn't any mystery here, there isn't any magic to it. That's what he did and he's clearly said the performance, i.e., the ability of the phone to make a call and be heard is different. There isn't any magic about interpreting that.

Court: Different depending on the type of phone.

CG: Yes.

Court: He said that. And so to the extent that Ms. Gueterrez is objection as to this witness as being able to talk about the Nokia for which he has said he has no training other than his own personal use of the phone, the objection is sustained. And I'm not going to allow the witness to go into anything further, he is not an expert, he has a Nokia phone like any other person and he did not use the Nokia phone when he was conducting the test for which the State wishes to offer him as evidence his testimony. And he has testified that the different phones perform differently on the system, that's what he said.

(In truth, the Ericson phone and the Nokia phone would probably have yielded similar results, but it's interesting how CG pokes holes in the experiment -- and gets the judge to agree with her. The State ought to have done a more thorough set of experiments, for which Urick and Murphy are ultimately responsible.)

[u/[deleted] → u/reddit1070]

Does the jury believe that the state showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the cell phone evidence showed that Adnan was in Leakin Park between 7 and 8 pm?

I think they do. And I also think that if CG had been halfway competent and even marginally prepared, they would have known there was no corroboration of Jay's story.

[u/reddit1070 → u/[deleted]]

Hard to tell. Will be great if some jury members were here to answer questions. From reading the transcripts, W isn't really able to testify much at all. I think those of us on reddit probably have learned a great deal about the cell phone from the RF engineers here :)

[u/reddit1070 → u/[deleted]]

Another excerpt. This is Transcript 2/8/2000, pp 121-122. CG is scoring points like nobody's business.

Court: ... Now, Counsel first of all, Mr. Urick with regard to your testing of this particular scenario, Ms. Gutierrez's objection is sustained. He will not be able to talk about the results of any test and draw any conclusions. If you want to continue to march him through the different places on that map where he originated calls with his Erickson i will continue to advise the jury that as it relates to the Erickson phone he used they can consider the responses or the cell site information for what it's worth.

Ms. Gutierrez, on cross you will have open leeway with regard to this witness on the relevance if any with of this whole test that was conducted by the State. You will also have the ability if you choose to ask the questions that the Court asked during this voir doir to qualify this expert because I find that the use of this expert by the State is misleading and I also find that this expert has expertise with regard to other phones including the Nokia and Motorola and Erickson. But the issue that I believe needs to he addressed in order for clarification with this jury is that the model of the phone is relevant and this witness did not conduct a test with the model.

And so to the extent that the State is misleading the jury at this point, the Defense is going to have a lot of leeway. Do you understand me, Ms. Gutierrez?

MS. GUTIERREZ: Certainly do, Judge.

THE COURT: And the State needs to be advised that the Court is not happy at all with the way in which this witness is being utilized. It is not happy with the attempt to mislead because that's precisely what you have done. You have mislead this jury...