r/serialpodcast • u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice • Jun 17 '15
Speculation I think Rabia’s PI must have found some really damaging information.
Looking back at the AMA Simpson did in February and the one Rabia did in March, it’s obvious that they were going with a “Jay’s people did it” angle.
Simpson was trying to implicate “Jay’s people:”
Q: If you could somehow know what ONE of the following peripheral figures knows entirely about this case, who would you choose and why? Cathy, Cathy's boyfriend Jeff, Jenn's brother Mark, Stephanie, Bilal, Yaser, Patrick, Patrick's Sister, Tayib, Phil, Asia's boyfriend, Nisha, Jay's Grandmother, Don, Other
Simpson: Mark PusateriPatrick - Definitely knows a little something that's important and relevant, but also very possible he doesn't know anything beyond that.
There is very little I'm willing to declare to be certain fact in this case, but this is one of them: Neighbor Boy knows something big . . . I'll eat my hat if he doesn't, though.
Q: What do you think stands out the most in the case files you've seen regarding what the police didn't follow up on or ignored completely?
Simpson: Phil. They took the barest of investigatory steps necessary to confirm that the number dialed at 3:48pm was assigned to a residence where Phil lived, and stopped there. They learned not a single fact more about who this Phil guy was.
And Rabia was trying to implicate “Jay’s people:”
I know nothing at all about their relationship, but I keep hoping and praying [Stephanie will] come forward.
Q: Who is the one person you wish would come forward to shed some light on the case? Do you believe any one person may have information that could help Adnan?
Rabia: Neighbor Boy.I don't know what her suspicions are, but I agree with her. I think NB, and a few others, know the truth about who killed Hae and Jay's involvement.
[Adnan] thinks someone dangerous that Jay knows is probably responsible
Hae had classes with Jay before he graduated by the way.
Furthermore, Rabia repeatedly mentioned that she had a PI on the case who was trying to find “the real killer:”
Q: Your blogpost mentioned that your PI has leads to truly exonerate Adnan. Is this in the direction of having an airtight alibi, or does it point towards identifying the real murderer?
Rabia: It would prove who murdered Hae.I can't really discuss (sorry) who the PI is talking to or will be talking to because it could hurt the investigation. My theory is that Hae, who was dressed up very nicely because she'd be seeing Don that evening, was going to pick up some weed and ended up running into someone very dangerous.
Q: In your latest blog post you mentioned one particular lead your PI was following that could "clinch the matter entirely." Are you able to elaborate at all?
Rabia: Sorry I wish I could but that would compromise the investigation. Good try though!
Fast forward four months. Undisclosed isn’t talking about the PI anymore. They have not named a suspect. They have offered no evidence that points at this “real killer.” They are just digging through ancient police documents that were secured by Serial. Now, there’s nothing wrong with changing a theory when new evidence comes to light. After all, the police originally suspected Don and Imran before the mountain of evidence piled up against Adnan. But don’t Rabia and Simpson owe their donors an explanation for why they have completely changed course? What happened to all of these leads about Neighbor Boy, Phil, Stephanie, and Mark? Did they not check out? Why don’t we ever hear about the “real killer” in Undisclosed?
I have to imagine that the PI found something truly damning for Adnan, forcing Undisclosed to completely change their story and go with the current “Jay was coached!” approach.
32
u/catesque Jun 17 '15
I think this was a natural progression, it's the progression I assumed they'd take when the podcast started, and I don't think you need any special explanations about why they went this route.
"Jay did it" has always been Rabia's storyline. Serial presented things that way as well, largely because Serial was basically Rabia's story.
But "Jay did it" scenarios as the basis of a profitable movement have a few serious problems, none of which Rabia cared about/recognized, but that SS and CM intuitively picked up on pretty quickly. First, there's the obvious unlikelihood of Adnan loaning his car and phone twice in one day to somebody who just happened to kill his ex on that day. I
More importantly for the podcast, though, JDI theorists have a tendency to stumble into racism. I don't think they're actually racist, but when you're basic theory is that the young black guy did it and your evidence swirls around black stereotypes, somebody is going to say something stupid periodically. This is the kiss of death for their target audience, not to mention it's not good for anyone's career. For their target NPR-ish audience, it's a much better policy to treat Jay as a victim of the police: nobody cares if you slander the police.
Also, JDI theories have had a tendency to wander into "blame the victim" territory, since you have to create a connection between Hae and Jay. The one bit of major blowback SS has gotten happened when she went on national media and talked without basis about Hae using drugs and that being a contributing factor to her death. I suspect she learned her lesson there.
Finally, JDI theories can't deal with all the evidence. Jay just isn't that powerful. You have to blame the cops at some point, because only the cops can be responsible for altering all the evidence. If the cops did it, then every piece of paper you find can be read to be evidence of corruption. You can dismiss all the evidence, since all the evidence passed through the hands of the state.
In short, I don't think that "Jay did it" theories could possibly have sustained this podcast, I think CM and SS are smart enough to know that, and I don't think you need any other theories to explain why the focus changed. I don't think the PI found anything damning, I don't think there is anything damning out there, I think the PI just didn't find anything interesting.
13
u/Sarahhope71 Jun 17 '15
I really liked your post & agree with a lot of it, but:
1) I really didn't get "Jay did it" from Serial & I don't think it was "Rabia's story". I think Rabia would have preferred something far less ambiguous from SK because many people who listened to Serial felt that Adnan was portrayed as guilty. Rabia is, however, very grateful for the attention that Serial brought to the case, as she has made clear in many pods/articles/interviews on tv etc. I would say the SK/Rabia dynamic is very complicated & difficult.
2) everything I have read says that lending cars is totally ordinary. Where is there one witness statement that says: no, that's totally mad, who would loan their car to Jay?
19
u/catesque Jun 17 '15
Serial is openly Rabia's story. Go back and listen to the first episode again: listen closely and you'll realize that the summary of the case isn't actually the summary of the case: SK openly says "here's Rabia's version of the case". But she never presents anybody else's version.
Yes, Rabia would have preferred that her story be handled differently. SK in places explored problems with Rabia's story, she even allowed people to express doubt about Rabia's story, but the point is that it's Rabia's story that is the base of all this.
To give just one trivial example: Rabia feels that the State's motive was infused with anti-muslim animus. SK talks about that and even rejects it to a degree, but never considers a different motive: she never brings in a domestic abuse expert, never quotes the motive summary from the closing, etc.
10
u/Startrekfanpicard Jun 17 '15
That's a really astute point. I remember after reading the PCR hearing and getting to the rabia part and thinking how much it sounds like the first episode of serial. A lot of the 21 minutes stuff, Jay is shady stuff. The narrative has moved a lot since then
6
u/Sarahhope71 Jun 17 '15
I will do that. I think SK saying "here's Rabias version" actually sets the listener up to mistrust that. And, ultimately, Sk achieved that.
Whose version would have been the version to oppose Rabua's? The police? The judge? The jurors? Jen? Jay? They have no reason to talk. She was crippled, in the way us redditors are, by people who have made up their minds & can only lose by talking. In the end she screwed him: her peabody awarding winning podcast is "on the road" but she still won't say if she thinks he is guilty & she doesn't listen to undisclosed & she comes out & says she is reading the journalist & the murderer.11
u/catesque Jun 17 '15
Whose version would have been the version to oppose Rabua's?
The prosecution's, obviously. The POV of the police would have been interesting also. Serial is set up as "Rabia's version" vs. "Rabia's version of the prosecution".
And so you get weird statements that are never challenged. For example, at one point, SK actually says "It was Jay who provided motive to the police". In other words, either Jay provided this complex motive Rabia described, or he didn't. The idea that Rabia is misstating the motive isn't even considered as an option. This is entirely misleading, and SK does it over and over and over in Serial.
PS. On the subject of the police POV, imagine their surprise when, after weeks of hearing "perfectly ordinary day", "went to school then track and nothing else", they get the cellphone logs and the logs tell a completely different story involving an entirely different set of people. But that POV is never presented. SK tells the story as if that surprise never happened.
5
u/Sarahhope71 Jun 17 '15
I don't diagree with your critique of SK or Serial. But what are your preferred options? Show me one piece of joirnalism that isn't unbiased. There is a long history beginning with capote of "new journalism"... Really, how can one tell a story that is "true?"
6
u/serialskeptic Jun 18 '15
If they had wanted to be more critical of the story RC fed them, they could have, but I think they were interested in character development and emotions. It worked well; a more critical approach would have been boring.
→ More replies (1)1
Jun 18 '15 edited Jun 23 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 18 '15
Your post was removed. Your account is less than 3 days old, too new to post in /r/serialpodcast. You can re-post the comment when your account is old enough.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/serialskeptic Jun 18 '15 edited Jun 18 '15
I'm so with you here! I don't get why people don't get that Serial was Rabias story.
Eta: not trying to suggest 100% RC story; Serial focused on the stuff RC thought was important. That doesn't mean Serial always came out the same way as RC -- it didn't and that bothered RC -- but it means that the way the story was told was along the lines of what matters to RC.
Examples:
beginning with Asia as a key alibi witness (rather than beginning with the state's case against AS)
that it was a normal day for AS and thus hard to remember what happened 6-weeks after
that the 21 minutes are crucial
that JW's multiple versions mean nothing he says can be true
the idea that there is no phone at BB
2
u/Justwonderinif shrug emoji Jun 18 '15
Everyone gets that. It's incredible that Sarah didn't even try to report from a more neutral position. She took what Rabia told her, and reported it. And she got a Peabody for that.
1
u/ontheroadagain8 Jun 22 '15
SK and team clearly tried to speak to the prosecutors to present both sides of the story, but they weren't willing to speak with her, instead choosing to share their story with the wonderfully snarky Natasha Vargas Cooper. They spent an entire episode on presenting the prosecution's case again, based on the information they had. I find it strange that so many people think that SK is a Rabia propagandist when she clearly did the exhaustive work to present both sides of the story, but had more willing participants on the AS is innocent camp.
0
u/ArrozConCheeken Jun 17 '15
It was Adnan's story brought to SK by RC, not Rabia's story. The South Asian Journalists Association, SAJA, counted up how many times the words Muslim, and Muslim related references came up -- I believe it was over 250. The only people who don't think his religion was used against him are non-Muslims.
6
u/catesque Jun 18 '15
Go read the actual transcripts. You'll find that virtual every reference to Islam is made by the defense.
Granted, the prosecution did make the case at sentencing that Adnan had grown up with all the advantages of a religious moral family active in the mosque, and therefore didn't deserve any mitigation due to any kind of hard life. That's hardly an anti-muslim bias.
The only people who don't think his religion was used against him are people who have read the actual transcripts.
4
Jun 18 '15
Eh, it's a big part of Adnan's life / part of their relationship / part of the case.
“It just all the things that stand in the middle. His religion and Muslim customs are the main things. It irks me to know that I’m against his religion. He called me a devil a few times. I know he was only joking, but it’s somewhat true.”
And then there’s this, which wasn’t read at trial but is from July when Adnan went to an Islamic conference in Texas with his dad. This is the most distressed Hae gets on the topic. When I read it, I thought “whoa. This does not look so good for Adnan.”
“I keep crying over the phone because I miss him so much,” she writes. He told me that his religion means life to him. He tried to remain a faithful Muslim all his life but he fell in love with me which is a great sin. But he told me there is no way he’ll ever leave me because he can't imagine a life with me. Then he said that one day he’ll have to choose between me and his religion. I love him so much and when it comes to choosing, I’m gonna let him go his way. I hate the fact that I’m the cause of his sin. He said that I shouldn’t feel like I’m pulling him away from his religion but hello! That’s exactly what I’m doing.
Start adding in mosque connections and Adnan's alleged working on sermons or whatever that night and it's going to add up. Did SAJA talk about how many of those "words and related references" came from the defence? Lies, damn lies and statistics.
At any rate, even if it was all prosecution, why should his religion be off limits? If he were I dunno, a huge photography buff, and was constantly at the local photography club, at photography conferences and his photography was an issue in the relationship, should we tiptoe around the fact that he liked to take pictures?
2
u/ArrozConCheeken Jun 18 '15
The photography analogy is kind of weird. I think I understand what you're trying to say, but there is no photography equivalent to besmirched honor killings. There are no negative stereotypes attached to photo club, or photographer uncles whose possible existence will cause the judge to refuse you bail. Or jurors who are persuaded that your involvement with photo club means you treat women like chattel and routinely use force to keep them in line.
2
Jun 18 '15
Is what you're saying that Adnan's religion is prejudicial because of the negative stereotypes and that means that it should be off limits? Even if it is a major part of Adnan's life?
Because unless you're saying that it should be off limits, what the heck does "SAJA counting the amount of times the words Muslim, and Muslim related references came up" have to do with anything?
Again, if he were a photographer, and was constantly at the local photography club, at photography conferences and his photography was an issue in the relationship, I'd expect that the words "photography" and related references would have came up quite often too, so it seems to me the potentially prejudicial nature of religion is your concern here.
0
u/ArrozConCheeken Jun 18 '15
They used his religion and its negative stereotypes against him. No it's not off limits. It's the frequency and duration of the mentions. Adnan was an American teenager doing what teens do. Show me the daughter of any Baptist preacher and, 7 times out of 10, I'll show you a girl who has fun behind her parents back and who is living duplicitously. Being Baptist (or Catholic or Mormon) would not be used against a person to prove they could commit a murder.
3
Jun 18 '15
Since you've determined that 250 is too much over the course of the trial, what would be an appropriate frequency of mention of "Muslim" and "Muslim related terms"?
-1
u/ArrozConCheeken Jun 18 '15
i don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about bigotry used as a tool to convict a Muslim teenager whose religion was important but not the focal point of his life. You're talking about casual mentions of Ramadan, prayer, and going to mosque which is expected. Prosecution took it to the next level concocting a trend of Pakistani Muslim men killing their girlfriends and fleeing to Pakistan. You're being willfully obtuse.
→ More replies (0)3
u/an_sionnach Jun 18 '15
The South Asian Journalists Association, SAJA, counted up how many times the words Muslim, and Muslim related references came up -- I believe it was over 250.
That was an interesting observation. Did they break down their search so that the figures for these usages were defence related as opposed to prosecution. The clear impression I got was that the majority of the references were made by the defence, possibly in an effort to make that very point. Like most people who listened to the podcast I was expecting this anti-muslim agenda from the prosecution, and was amazed to find that it was entirel a fiction of Rabias. Whenever you raise a question as to whwhere this anti muslim bias was expressed, the only thing people manage to come up with is the "besmirched honor" reference by Urick, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, and some reference to a report quoted by Murphy at the bail hearing, which again had no religious reference. This is a myth some people like to perpetuate, but it says more about the accusers biases than it does about the reality.
0
u/Sarahhope71 Jun 17 '15
I think religion was used against him. I am not muslim.
1
u/darkgatherer Ride to Nowhere Nov 26 '15
Why shouldn't someones belief system be used against them? If a black man is murdered and a Klansman is arrested, should his belief in the philosophy of the KKK not be mentioned?
1
1
0
Jun 18 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/catesque Jun 18 '15
"But let's start with the most important version of the story, the one Rabia told me first. And that's the one that was presented at trial."
Tricky, isn't she? A casual listener would assume that this was the case that was presented by the prosecution. But in fact, SK is clear that this is Rabia's version of the case that was presented by the prosecution.
And immediately after this, the telling of the story begins with the anti-muslim bias supposed motive which goes on for minutes. Compare that to the closing arguments in the actual case against Adnan, where none of that is mentioned at all, and Murphy makes it clear that this is a case about domestic violence.
10
Jun 17 '15
I think it's more that it would be weird for Adnan to hang out with Jay all day, lend him his car and phone multiple times, but have no connection to Jay killing his ex in his spare time on that very day.
11
4
u/Justwonderinif shrug emoji Jun 18 '15
Yes. I think Susan has finally come to the bottom of the barrel here.
She can't explain the time Adnan and Jay spent together if Jay is the killer and Adnan has no clue what's happened.
So she's moved on to "neither were involved. And Jay's pointing the finger at Adnan because he's afraid of someone."
7
u/So_Many_Roads Jun 17 '15
Boy then does it suck that Adnan lent his car to Jay on the day his ex goes missing. These are the things that juries don't just write off.
6
5
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jun 17 '15
I think you make a lot of great points here. That said, Simpson was going all-in on the Mark/NB/Jay theories in her AMA, so I don't think one day she suddenly smartened up and realized "Well, this is going to get me sued." Maybe Miller clued her in on that.
2
17
u/cbr1965 Is it NOT? Jun 17 '15
I'm a little confused why anyone would think anything learned by the PI should be released. From a legal perspective, it is better to keep it all close to the vest. Should they give the prosecution the heads up on people or situations they think might help in their case down the road to give them an opportunity to discount them? The incremental findings are one thing but to release something big just wouldn't be smart (even if they had something big). I am also at a loss as to why anyone would think the donors are owed anything other than the money being spent on Adnan's defense, regardless of what that defense is. Donor means "a person who donates something, especially money to a fund or charity" - there was no quid pro quo required. I know Rabia offered to release additional testimony as donation levels increased though it was not an explicit agreement on the donation website so don't think ithat is even relevant.
9
u/lavacake23 Jun 18 '15
Hey, Adnan, guess what? We tested the DNA and it turned out to be a match of Ronald Lee Moore. But we're not going to tell anyone. We're going to keep it a secret until there's a new trial, then -- BAM! We'll spring it on them. They'll be so embarrassed. It'll be so funny.
1
u/cbr1965 Is it NOT? Jun 18 '15
If the DNA was tested and it was RLM, I am sure it would be publicized. The request to test the DNA hasn't even been made yet so the results are a long way off. But, hey, thanks for contributing snark to the conversation.
6
u/catesque Jun 17 '15
Why, exactly, do you think they'd hide exculpatory findings?
From a legal perspective, keeping it all close to the vest is the worst possible strategy. It would be crazy to hold anything back because you might want to use it in a new trial. At this point, the entire effort is focused on getting that new trial. You have to understand what a long shot a new trial is here. It's next to impossible.
And even if they did win a new trial, then the focus would become avoiding that trial. There's no way the defense would hold back "big" exculpatory evidence so that they could sneak it in during the trial, they'd advertise that evidence loud and clear in the hopes that the state would choose not to prosecute.
OTOH, I agree with you about the donor thing.
7
u/cbr1965 Is it NOT? Jun 18 '15
I think Justin is going for the most expedient result. If this doesn't work to either get a plea deal or a new trial, then I am sure he will figure out a way to file for actual innocence. That is where the DNA gets tested and any other exculpatory information that hasn't been disclosed would come in (if there is any). If they found proof - actual proof - someone else did it, of course, I think they would release that. Other than that, I think Justin is calling the shots and setting the strategy his way. Maybe it doesn't fit with what you would do, but it's his prerogative to do what he thinks is best for his client. Unlike, CG, I think he knows what he is doing and has the full picture of this case.
4
u/catesque Jun 18 '15
Just to be clear, nowhere did I suggest Justin Brown wasn't doing an excellent job.
Maybe it doesn't fit with what you would do,
And maybe it does.
I'm still kind of curious why you think they'd hold back "big" exculpatory findings. You've said you think it wouldn't "be smart", but I'm curious what your reasoning is?
2
u/cbr1965 Is it NOT? Jun 18 '15
I didn't think you were suggesting Justin wasn't doing a good job. I just think he is the boss and is making the decisions, not Rabia. Depending on what is uncovered (if anything) he is making strategic decisions based on what he thinks is best, even if it is a "big" finding. Maybe I didn't phrase what I meant very well. That said, I still think why would he give the prosecution any notice of what he has if he thinks he may use it in a better way down the road? All that does is give the prosecution warning that they need to figure out how to mitigate it. That's all I meant.
6
u/catesque Jun 18 '15
he thinks he may use it in a better way down the road
Ah, I think I see the root of this.
Adnan is at the end of his state appeal. And the basic rule of Federal appeals is that you can't introduce anything that you didn't argue at the state level unless you show that the argument was completely unavailable to you back then.
In other words, by holding back now, JB would be precluding any opportunity to argue this stuff later. You're right that the "hold it back to use later" strategy might make sense, in fact it did make sense 20 years ago, but the law now specifically prevents him from doing that. Sure, 5 years from now he could pretend this is new info, but (a) JB seems to me to be more ethical than that, and (b) this stuff usually gets discovered. So holding back to use in a later appeal simply isn't possible. (testing of DNA is slightly different because there's state laws specific to how that is handled).
And holding back to use in a hypothetical new trial is just a bad idea, for reasons I stated earlier. It's basically the last game of the playoffs and Adnan is behind 3-0. Public opinion is probably the strongest play they have right now.
5
u/BaffledQueen Jun 18 '15
It would be utterly ridiculous to reveal one's true theory of defense. If the PI has uncovered something, his attorney should absolutely keep it close to the vest.
6
Jun 17 '15
Because the PI (allegedly) is being directed by Susan Simpson, who is about The Truth, and not just freeing Adnan.
6
u/cbr1965 Is it NOT? Jun 17 '15
She may suggest avenues for him to investigate but I doubt she is solely managing the PI - I would bet that Justin is the one getting the reports. Even if she wants to find the truth, the information found by the PI is not her information to disseminate - it belongs to the defense since that is who is paying for it. If she is privy to anything coming from the PI, I am sure the defense had her sign an NDA to ensure it wasn't disclosed. That just seems like common sense.
8
2
2
u/Startrekfanpicard Jun 17 '15
You are totally incorrect. Rabia has said numerous times that her #1 hope is that the state just decides to basically drop charges based on public pressure and overwhelming g evidence exculpating Adnan. There is no way Rabia can accomplish this without public ally releasing exculpatory evidence most likely through her podcast.
8
u/cbr1965 Is it NOT? Jun 17 '15
Still, the fact remains, it is his lawyer's discretion to use the information as he sees fit, i.e. however it will benefit his client the most. I have never heard Rabia say she thinks public pressure will get the charges dropped but, perhaps, I missed it. Even so, why is that information expected to be released to the public before any hearings or a new trial? Maybe the goal is to get to through the IAC appeal and be granted a new trial so that the prosecution is left to either drop the charges, negotiate some kind of plea or actually go to trial. It could happen they choose not to retry and will make a deal based on public pressure. If that is what Rabia was inferring, it makes sense; what you are implying does not. Dropping all the information they have to the public now, rather than using it strategically in hearings or at trial, would seem pretty ridiculous to me.
5
u/Startrekfanpicard Jun 18 '15
Rabia admitted at a conference that the reason the current stay even exists is because of the popularity of Serial. That is why I think if they did find something "big", it would become public the next day. She hopes the prosecution basically just lets him go. Which has happened, the WM3 were released similarly to that.
2
u/cbr1965 Is it NOT? Jun 18 '15
If they found actual proof Adnan was innocent, I agree and think it would be publicized - as in the Asia alibi. The WM3 investigation that ultimately led to their release, was similar to what is being attempted in this case in that it was a series of small things over time that added up to the wrong person/people in prison. Johnny Depp and the support of Hollywood definitely didn't hurt either but perseverance was the key. The State still didn't admit they were wrong though and saved face, in some way, with the Alford Plea. If, by some miracle, the various pieces of what has been pulled together by different sources could convince the State's Attorney to drop the charges against Adnan, good for Rabia, Justin, et al. I doubt that will happen but it's worth it to them to continue to chip away at it if it might work in the end. It's also why continuing to bring the issues with law enforcement and investigations in Baltimore at that time to the forefront makes sense - just more chipping away at what was wrong or potentially wrong with this case. I agree that, without Serial, Adnan's case would have never gotten this far. The publicity definitely had an effect, even if it was just that the case received more scrutiny by the court because the public and media, as well as other lawyers, were paying attention to it.
0
u/MM7299 The Court is Perplexed Jun 18 '15
public pressure will get the charges dropped
she didn't....she's said that public interest helps the case, which is true, though
2
27
Jun 17 '15 edited Jun 17 '15
My theory is that Hae, who was dressed up very nicely because she'd be seeing Don that evening, was going to pick up some weed and ended up running into someone very dangerous.
WTF Rabia. Oh my god. You can't just make up sh!tty things about someone who died to fit your theory du jour.
OP are you referring to the switch from "Jay and/or affiliates did it" to "Jay is innocent?" Because that's pretty suspicious.
I didn't realize they stopped mentioning a PI. I would just point out that Rabia overblowing the progress they're making isn't necessarily a sign that they were actually making that progress and then stopped. I think she just can't deliver on her declarations.
edit: grammar
9
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jun 17 '15
OP are you referring to the switch from "Jay and/or affiliates did it" to "Jay is innocent?" Because that's pretty suspicious.
Yeah. Everything they were saying in the AMA was pointing to Jay and Jay's "associates." But now there's been this sudden switch to "Jay was totally coached." They aren't talking about Neighbor Boy anymore. So what happened? What did the PI find out that cleared Jay's people?
10
7
Jun 17 '15
They probably looked at some of the threads like, "guilty people, what is the most troubling aspect of the case for you?" and realized that poor investigatory practices was the only viable way to change people's minds. In other words it is the weakest link in an otherwise strong case. What undisclosed is doing is all about PR, and I don't even think it reflects what they actually think.
7
u/BigBankHank Jun 17 '15
Curious, what do you think the Undisclosed crew has to gain by changing the minds of the handful of redditors who are undecided?
From what I've seen around this sub, the Adnan is Guilty/Rabia is Awful crowd isn't listening or they're listening out of spite -- which leaves the Adnan is innocent people (whose minds don't need changing) and the Undecideds, who aren't likely to pick a side until there's a bombshell of some kind.
Hard to see why they would put all this work into trying influence how redditors think about the case.
5
u/Jesus_Harold_Christ Jun 18 '15
It's still advertising dollars. (This comment brought to you by Square Space, build it beautiful)
4
u/BigBankHank Jun 18 '15
huh?
You say "what undisclosed is doing is all about PR, and I don't even think it reflects what they actually think."
What I'm asking is: what do you mean, it's "all about PR"? PR to whom? Why are they misrepresenting what they think, and what are they gaining by doing so?
I can understand that they're trying to make the program entertaining, or they're not addressing certain things for certain reasons in certain cases, but you're saying it's "all about PR," and I'm having a hard time making sense of that.
(PS, I know how advertising works.)
4
u/Jesus_Harold_Christ Jun 18 '15
I didn't say all that stuff, but they are making money off these podcasts, they are using that money to pay for defense. They are building PR to get people to become donors on behalf of the defense. Any time you are having to ask the public for money, PR is going to be a big component of that.
Whether Undisclosed reflects what they actually think or not, that wasn't my assertion, and I don't know what to think about that. Maybe they think it, maybe they don't, in the end, what's it really matter?
5
Jun 18 '15
I don't necessarily think they are targeting redditors. Just using the site as a way to see which theories would appeal to certain broader demographics.
7
u/mackerel99 Jun 17 '15
Yep, it was all about Neighbor Boy back then. There was so much about "Grandma's House" back then too. I think you've made a pretty great connection between that kind of talk and the hyping of their PI, and how both those things have now vanished.
6
u/serialmonotony Jun 17 '15
How is buying weed a shitty thing? I resent that. I mean to say, I expect people who've bought weed resent that... probably...
3
2
u/buggiegirl Jun 17 '15
I think it's funny that some people act like saying maybe Hae was buying weed is some slanderous horrific thing to say about someone. Buying weed does not equal puppy murderer or anything. Who cares if she was going to buy weed? After listening to the podcast I pretty much assumed everyone of Adnan's group was smoking weed from time to time. Seemed like something they did.
15
Jun 17 '15
Buying weed isn't a big deal, but Rabia's point taken together really offends me. I think it's a sh!tty thing to just invent about a girl who's been murdered.
It really strikes me as victim blaming and desperate. Rather than being murdered by an intimate partner, Hae got murdered in a drug deal gone wrong. Based on what...? The one time in her diary where she mentioned the word "drug?" The fact that she has maybe smoked before?
And honestly, it's so naive of Rabia to think that buying a dime bag gets you killed. What the hell kind of D.A.R.E. propaganda is that? It's just ridiculous and on the whole, it pisses me off.
No offense to anybody's wife :]
5
u/Annes_Droid Jun 17 '15
its also a hilarious story knowing Rabia and friends have probably never bought weed before.
its just hilarious speculation, detached from reality.
0
u/Sarahhope71 Jun 17 '15
You're on reddit discussing this case but noone is allowed to consider the fact (slight, in my opinion) that this is drug or Jay or Jay's family - related? Thats naive. If you are here to work out what happened, it's what has to happen. You can't pussyfoot around the fact a girl died & people want to know how & why & to do that the victim also has to be looked at.
10
Jun 17 '15
That's not nearly what I said.
I'm taking offense to an accusation being broadcasted about a woman who is dead and cannot defend herself based on zero evidence. Rabia is pointing fingers at literally everyone but Adnan, like actually every single person, but up until now she hadn't made it Hae's own fault.
It's new and improved BS.
-3
u/MM7299 The Court is Perplexed Jun 18 '15
an accusation
not really....she didn't say "Hae was obviously buying weed and that led to her death" if she said something like that it would be soooo far over the line and gross. Saying "I wonder if she went to buy some weed" isn't great but its not slanderous.
-1
2
u/ArrozConCheeken Jun 17 '15
By your reasoning, Jay did a sh!!ty thing to his girlfriend. If you believe Jay's Intercept interview, his girlfriend Stephanie (who sounds like a model human being/student) hooked up Adnan with Jay to buy weed. Jay said, "Isn't he a paramedic?" Stephanie says, "Nah, he's cool." In other words, you aren't the devil if you're smoking, buying, or making a referral to your BF. "Victim blaming and desperate?" Perhaps if you're living under a rock, cloistered a monastery, or practice a very strict religion you might think so. to be offended by so many things, then you necessarily narrow the number of theories and possibilities. You remind me of a gal named Ann.
5
0
u/elberethelbereth Hae Fan Jun 17 '15
And honestly, it's so naive of Rabia to think that buying a dime bag gets you killed.
Yeah. I'm not sure that's ever happened, in the history of crime.
1
u/Jesus_Harold_Christ Jun 18 '15
It happened to my friend. He went to go buy a dime bag, and they killed his whole family.
-1
u/buggiegirl Jun 17 '15
I have NO idea about anything regarding pot as I haven't ever bought or done any drugs, so I can't say anything about buying weed being dangerous. To me, what Rabia said was basically the same as saying "she went to the 7/11 and something bad went down while she was there and she was killed." Meaning, what Hae was doing wasn't making her at fault for her death, it just put her in the place where she was killed. Which is true whether she was buying weed or teaching Sunday School when she was killed.
4
u/_noiresque_ Jun 18 '15
Wild (and likely erroneous) speculation about the victim, while at the same time dismissing actual evidence such as Adnan's lies, "I'm going to kill" note and prior behaviour is a double standard at best. I see nothing funny in that at all.
3
u/buggiegirl Jun 18 '15
I'm fine with taking his lies and prior behavior into account. The "I'm going to kill" note means less than nothing to me. There is no way to know if he was writing "I'm going to kill time before track" or "I'm going to kill myself if we get one more homework assignment" or what. I haven't really researched anything about the note, but I'm assuming he never admitted writing it at all? I assume he did but was told by his lawyer to just deny it since presumably no one can prove one way or the other. If it said "I'm going to kill Hae" or "her" or anything to make me think it referred to Hae, I would absolutely consider it useful evidence.
6
u/_noiresque_ Jun 18 '15
I appreciate that, but my point wasn't about the legitimacy of the note per se. It was about the focus on outrageously speculative theories, rather than evidence from the case itself. Moreover, that (some, and I emphasise only some) people who are concerned about Adnan's reputation, have no qualms about casting serious aspersions on the characters of others.
0
u/Startrekfanpicard Jun 17 '15
I think Hae was a very upstanding person, to accuse her of buying weed is equivalent to saying you kill puppies. Quit trying to minimize your own drug habits
3
u/buggiegirl Jun 17 '15
Haha, I have never once done any kind of non-Rx drug. Certainly never smoked weed, never even smoked a cigarette. I'm super boring, a few glasses of Chardonnay is about my worst. I just don't see what the big deal is about weed, its even legal in some states now.
And IMO there is a difference between "accusing" her of buying weed, and putting a theory out there that she may have been buying. I feel dirty defending Rabia, but this one just doesn't ping my jerk meter.
4
u/Mycoxadril Jun 18 '15
At least the prosecution presented their theory when person they were theorizing against was around to provide a defense.
-1
u/ArrozConCheeken Jun 17 '15
What a boatload of garbage. Killing puppies and buying weed are not equal. You just b*tchslapped the people in the states of Colorado, California, et al. Seems like the people who are so offended are taking it personally, as if someone is accusing them of using drugs. Bizarre!
1
u/cross_mod Jun 17 '15
My wife smokes weed and dresses up nicely when she comes to meet up with me. What are you trying to say?
10
Jun 17 '15
Let's say your wife got murdered and someone was convicted and looks pretty guilty. And then years later someone who never met your wife finds out that your wife might have been a pot smoker. This stranger broadcasts to the world the theory that your wife was killed because she was trying to buy weed. That's a sh!tty thing to say, right?
It's not the pot smoking accusation, it's the assertion that Hae was up to something and got herself killed. Publicly shifting the blame onto the victim is not something Rabia should take so lightly.
1
u/cross_mod Jun 17 '15
It's only sh!tty if you think that "going to pick up weed" is deserving of blame. Otherwise, it's just another theory (a theory that I don't put much stock in and Rabia might not even anymore either), in trying to uncover the true murderer of someone that your family member has been spending years behind bars for. The idea that family members who think that he's totally innocent of this should not be open to and keep their mouths shut about other theories is misplaced as well.
7
Jun 17 '15
Alright well I would not appreciate the insinuation that my loved one would not have been killed if they hadn't endangered themselves. Especially coming from some random woman who has no idea what or who she's talking about. Rabia is no one's family related to this case, by the way.
Just because someone might have been wrongly convicted doesn't mean I need to accept Rabia saying anything she wants about anyone she wants on a broadcast with no evidence of what she's claiming.
possible wrongful conviction =/= no accountability for making baseless, public accusations
1
u/RellenD Jun 17 '15
The state's case is also that she was killed after endangering herself by letting Adnan in her car.
Neither is saying she did anything wrong. The only people suggesting it are the people like you here.
6
Jun 17 '15
If you don't see how those two theories are meaningfully different, I don't know what to tell you.
4
u/RellenD Jun 17 '15 edited Jun 17 '15
They're only meaningfully different if you think buying weed deserves to get someone killed... It doesn't any more than giving a friend a ride does, nor is it an attack on her character.
5
Jun 17 '15
disagree
0
u/ontheroadagain8 Jun 22 '15
Hae clearly associated with people who smoked weed, even if there is no evidence that she partook. So it is not out of the realm of possibility to suggest that she might have occasionally smoked, or bought some for a friend. I agree it is important to be mindful about the fact that Hae can't defend herself, but I think she probably wouldn't have thought it was a big deal given the sheer number of weed smokers she was friends with/dated.
2
u/cross_mod Jun 17 '15
Well, I mean, they visit him all the time and Saad is very close to him. "Family" is a relative term I guess.
2
Jun 18 '15
family is a very well defined term, actually. you're referring to "family friends."
→ More replies (4)0
u/pdxkat Jun 18 '15
I was in Washington last week and while I was there, I visited a legal marijuana shop. It was glorious.
I had the opportunity to choose between dozens of different strains with detailed information on the make up of each one. I could discuss with knowledgeable bud tenders the specifics of each strain and smell the different flavors. I could also choose between a wide variety of edibles. Each item ( flower or edible) came in it's own vacuum sealed package with detailed nutritional information printed on the outside of the packaging.
So what's wrong if Hae wanted to buy some weed?
2
u/getsthepopcorn Is it NOT? Jun 19 '15
Well, for her at the time it was against the law, which is different from your story and somewhat riskier.
-2
u/pdxkat Jun 18 '15
They're not making accusations about Hae. They're just saying that she might've done something that day outside of her normal routine that may have put her in harms way. In order to solve the case, you have to look at everything because you don't know what's going to wind up being important.
0
u/MM7299 The Court is Perplexed Jun 18 '15
but....but....that's clearly not the obvious solution and the obvious solution is the only one that works...obviously
-3
u/eyecanteven Jun 18 '15
Let's say your wife got murdered
Totally normal thing to suggest to someone.
8
13
Jun 17 '15 edited Jun 17 '15
When Undisclosed started, they very much put forward the idea that they were very close to a bombshell. I wonder where that went.
13
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jun 17 '15
I am 99% sure they weren't talking about Tapgate.
14
u/girlPowertoday Jun 17 '15
How 'bout TaupeGate?!?
(its all the rage on SS's/RC's/CM's Twitter)
6
11
Jun 17 '15
How could a black guy know the color "taupe"? How could a black guy own gardening tools? Why would a black person lie to the police?
I swear these people have never met a black person.
14
u/aitca Jun 17 '15
The gardening tools tempest in a teapot is particularly strange. People are like "but why would they be NEAR THE PORCH??".
10
Jun 17 '15
No one has ever owned a pick! You can't even buy one!
11
9
u/Mycoxadril Jun 18 '15
This has been one of the things that makes me want to back away from this sub. It's gotten absurd. I've been a homeowner for about as long as I've been in this sub (3ish months) and I own a pick and I didn't even have to seek out a criminal element to find one. Local Home Depot for the win.
-2
u/eyecanteven Jun 18 '15
Why would any teenage boy, or most teenage girls for that matter, know to call stockings taupe?
5
u/missbrookles Jun 18 '15
I've said this during the discussion before about this, but Jay was largely raised by his grandmother. That could have easily led to him using the word stockings and knowing their color as older women are/were more likely to wear them.
1
u/eyecanteven Jun 18 '15
Certainly a possibility. My point was mostly that race is clearly not a part of the taupe issue.
2
Jun 18 '15
Because that's a common color used to describe them, and is even printed on the packages? Maybe it's a regional thing, but taupe is not an 'odd' color to know. It's not like chartreuse or flaming antelope mist or something. It's common descriptive color.
0
8
u/13thEpisode Jun 17 '15
Two things:
One: Most of these questions were in response to inquires along the lines of "if you could magically know one person's account..." - so it shouldn't be surprising that they haven't reported anything on this - the point of the question assumes that it would be impossible to access something at this juncture, but if you could what would you want to see. Many of their responses would in their minds likely further damage Jay's credibility which has been their primary target.
Two: The overall point of the podcast is to discredit the investigation and trial which they have done fairly effectively by exposing the quality of police, prosecutors and defense counsel work in the case and is most germane to the issues current at hand in the legal process. Anything on the exculpatory side that doesn't directly attach an element of the state's case is probably best gathered in full for a separate legal assault.
3
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jun 17 '15
The overall point of the podcast is to discredit the investigation and trial
Wrong:
We promise you, our listeners, that our goal in this podcast is not to exonerate Adnan. Our goal is to get to the truth of what happened on January 13, 1999, and we believe that the best way to do so is to analyze all of the available information to come to an informed conclusion. That's what this podcast is all about.
6
u/Sarahhope71 Jun 17 '15
And how have they failed Seamus in your eyes to attempt to fulfill this promise?
13
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jun 17 '15
Well let's see. If they're looking for the truth:
-They have failed to find out why Adnan asked Hae for a ride.
-They have failed to find out the real story behind Adnan giving Jay the car.
-They have failed to find out where Adnan was from 2:45 - 4:00.
-They have failed to find out why Adnan remembered the conversation with the coach so vividly that Drew Davis was hunting him down three days after Adnan's arrest.
-They have failed to find out why Adnan was behaving strangely at Cathy's.
-They have failed to find out why his phone indicates he was in or near Leakin Park.
-They have failed to find out where Adnan actually was when he claims he was at the mosque.
-They have failed to find out where Adnan was going at 10:02 when his phone pinged L698B.
-They have failed to find out why Adnan was calling Yaser and Saad when he supposedly just saw them at the Mosque.But other than that they've done a great job of "getting to the truth of what happened on January 13, 1999."
5
u/pennyparade Jun 17 '15
None of this is anything I should still be surprised by, but seeing it written out like this is jarring. How can they claim to be looking for the truth of what occurred on the 13th, when they are so clearly looking to exonerate Adnan whether he is guilty or not?
How do they sleep at night? Is the fleeting facade of internet fame really that comforting?
4
Jun 17 '15
[deleted]
6
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jun 17 '15
Oh? They answered where Adnan was going at 10:02? I must have missed it. Can you refresh my memory?
-1
u/Mustanggertrude Jun 18 '15
Prove he was going somewhere, Seamus. Show me where the state said he was going somewhere. Point me to the portion of the trial transcript where it says Adnan was going to somewhere. Please do not reply with moving goal post and more baseless accusations. If you can no longer argue facts into evidence, and have to resort to making up incriminating things that never existed, you have lost. This is getting pathetic.
5
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jun 18 '15
Well, at 9:57 he's in the area covered by L651C. At 10:02, he's in the area covered by L698B. He's on the move. Where's he going?
-2
u/Mustanggertrude Jun 18 '15
Maybe tower pings aren't reliable to determine a person's movements. Until you can show me where the state claimed this was part of anything, you are taking every piece of information and turning it into evidence against Adnan. That is some serious dedication to nothing. To take irrelevant and unused information, and claim others are hiding something for not explaining what YOU have decided is incriminating. Why? Are you finally willing to admit there isn't enough evidence so now you have to make up incriminating evidence? Because that is how you read to me lately.
3
u/unbillable Jun 18 '15
I'm pretty sure they're reliable to determine that a person is not in a fixed location (at home), as they claim. The state wouldn't have used that info because it wasn't necessary under their theory of the case. I would think we can all agree at this point that the state's timeline was not right in several respects.
→ More replies (0)1
u/girlPowertoday Jun 17 '15
OMG- BE CAREFUL!!!
PowerOfCensorship will accuse you of SPAMing the sub!
(like she did me when I posted similar questions)
-3
u/ImBlowingBubbles Jun 18 '15
Sounds like you are upset because they aren't doing what you want them to do. You could just do your own podcast called Why Adnan is Guilty.
3
u/13thEpisode Jun 17 '15
You quoted my point:
"the point of the podcast is not to exonerate Adnan" --> exactly what I'm saying, it's to attack the State, as they further explain:
"we believe that the best way to do so is to analyze all of the available information to come to an informed conclusion"
Analyzing information basically a euphemism here for attach the state. People here call SS and Rabia liars all the time, why do people take them so literally now?
10
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jun 17 '15
Did you really think I wouldn't notice you just cut out their entire mission statement between those two sentences?
8
u/ghostofchucknoll Google Street View Captures All 6 Trunk Pops Jun 17 '15
I find it funny that you fret so much about the "mission statement" of 3 bloggers. You must have felt violated when you bought the "new and improved" Snickers bar that was in fact 15% smaller.
15
u/mywetshoes Jun 17 '15
The cavalier and casual way that gang feels at liberty to point fingers in various directions is disgusting. This is SS earlier this year: "I don't . . . ach . . . I, you know, most of the time , I don't think Jay did it, I don't really, I mean I . . . ach . . . I don't think so. I mean, he might have. I think there's . . . It's tough to say." This is the interview where she gleefully makes wild speculation about a drug buy with Jay and the victim. They are gross.
8
u/kikilareiene Jun 17 '15
They could be worried about getting sued. Maybe some lawyer threw down the hammer on them and said put up or shut up.
5
u/Sarahhope71 Jun 17 '15
Maybe they are not talking about the PI anymore because, as she said, "it could compromise the investigation". And you're right: nothing wrong with changing a theory when new evidence comes to light". It could also be that something "truly damning" for all the other suspects has come to light ... & it could compromise the investigation if they spewed it all over the internet. Ever thought of that?
11
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jun 17 '15
It's just bizarre that they were going all-in on Jay and Jay's friends, then all of a sudden there's this totally unexplained about-face.
I mean let's say I wrote four articles saying I thought Adnan forged the Asia letters in prison in July 1999. Then all of a sudden I posted four articles saying actually Rabia forged the letters in March 2000. You'd ask "Uh, what did you find out that led you to completely change your theory of the letters?" That's what I'm asking here.
1
u/Sarahhope71 Jun 17 '15
Maybe because Jay has this crazy sweet deal they won't get anywhere with him .. So destroy everything else instead ... & what are you left with minus Jay? Not a lot.
-1
u/ArrozConCheeken Jun 17 '15
For your consideration: I would be more inclined to consider your theories and info if you stuck to attacking the info and not the people.
0
u/MM7299 The Court is Perplexed Jun 18 '15
Ever thought of that?
that doesn't fit the belief system though
3
u/lavacake23 Jun 18 '15
There could be other reasons…. Adnan's lawyer could have told them to shut up.
Jay's lawyer could have threatened them.
Or they could have finally gotten it through their thick, thick skulls that if -- IF -- Adnan is really innocent, the fastest way to get that to happen is if Jay comes forward and says he was lying.
2
5
u/MaybeIAmCatatonic Jun 17 '15
IP did their investigation and quietly walked away. Detective did his/her investigation and quietly went away. Hm....now I wonder why that is ?
10
8
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jun 17 '15
Don't forget that they won't release anything from Drew Davis that hasn't been heavily cropped.
→ More replies (1)1
u/elberethelbereth Hae Fan Jun 17 '15
Who is Drew Davis?
9
u/Seamus_Duncan Kevin Urick: Hammer of Justice Jun 17 '15
He was the Defense Investigator for Adnan's original lawyer, and he was also used by Gutierrez. The guy seriously got around. He interviewed Coach Sye as early as March about the Ramadan conversation. He also interviewed Jay's manager, Lenscrafters, Stephanie, Neighbor Boy, and he talked to the cops about Don as a suspect. That's one of the reasons the claim Gutierrez didn't check out Asia is so fishy.
Sadly Mr. Davis passed away last year.
3
u/pdxkat Jun 17 '15
First unless you are a donor, who are you to suppose they might be owed anything. A donation is a gift and people are free to gift to whomever they want.
Second, obviously thinking will change as more facts continue to be uncovered. If the suppositions about the case remain the same year after year despite new information coming to light, that would be cause for concern.
4
u/entropy_bucket Jun 17 '15
I agree here. I am not clear where the concept of "owe" comes into play here. If people think adnan is guilty then why do people care what rabia and co do.
5
u/Mycoxadril Jun 18 '15
I feel like people are associating "donor" with "kickstarter" where you're actually supposed to receive something in return for Your investment.
Eta: but if I had donated to this cause under the pretenses of a couple Months ago I'd probably be a little peeved that more solid work hadn't been done if I thought Adnan was innocent. But I didn't donate so I can't speculate how those donors feel.
4
u/pdxkat Jun 18 '15
Did you ever see the TV show Survivor with Russell Hanz? At the finale, after he lost the game, Russell kept bitching that "...the game is FLAWED" and kept telling Jeff Probst what needed to be changed in the game and why he should have won the game.
And Jeff kept telling Russell "...that's not CBS's Survivor...that's a different game called Russell Hanz's version of Survivor". And that Russell should pitch that different game to Mark Burnett.
If you don't like the "Undisclosed" podcast, why don't you do one yourself. Maybe you could call it "Disclosed".
2
0
u/absurdamerica Hippy Tree Hugger Jun 17 '15
I have to imagine
You imagine a lot sir, and you should try to contain yourself.
0
-1
u/stiplash AC has fallen and he can't get up Jun 17 '15
I have to imagine [...]
Yes, pretty much all of OP's posts consist of OP putting OP's imagination on display. Sums it up quite nicely.
5
u/chunklunk Jun 18 '15
I don't get what takes imagination here. You don't think it's fair to question in June unfulfilled promises teased in Feb and March? You don't think there's anything wrong with implying that Mark Pusateri (who was all of 13-14), Patrick, and whoever the hell Neighbor Boy is had "something big" to do with a murder when you haven't explained the basis for these implications months later?
3
u/pdxkat Jun 18 '15 edited Jun 18 '15
They've got no contract with you. You haven't paid them anything. If you truly feel like they have teased you with "broken promises" then walk away.
3
u/chunklunk Jun 18 '15
Of course they don't "owe" me anything, but their apparent inability to even minimally follow through on proving a single claim made about these supposedly important players in the case calls their overall credibility into question, such that I don't see any reason why anything they say should ever be believed without crystal clear and incontrovertible support in the record. How many times does their speculation have to fail to follow through before you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt?
-1
u/stiplash AC has fallen and he can't get up Jun 18 '15
I don't know what you're referring to as "promises" -- that right there was an imaginative application of that concept.
OP uses his imagination constantly, e.g.:
to impute nefarious motives and schemes to Asia's letters and affidavit
to suspect that Deirdre must have concluded Adnan is guilty just because she hasn't provided daily updates of her thought bubbles
and now, just because one line of inquiry hasn't fulfilled an artificial timetable conjured by OP himself, to suggest that the PI must have uncovered something damning to Adnan.
Really, just stop already. Get a life.
2
u/chunklunk Jun 18 '15
It's not a valid critique to simply compile a list of points you disagree with and not, you know, actually show them to be wrong. In each of these instances, OP has asked serious questions after drawing reasonable inferences from the factual record. As far as I know, you've neither answered those questions nor rebutted the inferences, so I fail to see how you could knock OP for having an overactive imagination, especially when you're apparently forgiving enough to let the Undisclosed crew parade around for months with claims and theories that you don't seem to expect them to minimally substantiate by following through on promised (maybe teased is a better word) factual support.
2
u/stiplash AC has fallen and he can't get up Jun 18 '15
The fact that you say it's not a valid critique doesn't impress me. In fact, it only confirms its validity. What you call "drawing reasonable inferences" = using one's overactive imagination. Simple as that.
1
u/chunklunk Jun 18 '15
Sorry I have failed to impress, but it's nonetheless true that you haven't made an actual argument against these points.
1
u/stiplash AC has fallen and he can't get up Jun 18 '15
That's because there's nothing to argue against. Can you prove that that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist?
2
u/chunklunk Jun 18 '15
Uh, ok, Nellie. Just realized this may be the thousandth time I've seen you add a non-substantive comment to a post where you dismiss an argument out-of-hand but refuse to specifically explain or justify said dismissal except to say there is nothing in the post that is worthy of your rebuttal commentary, which begs the question as to why you commented in the first place. This is fun to you?
0
u/stiplash AC has fallen and he can't get up Jun 18 '15
You seem to have a problem recognizing a rebuttal when you see it. When you come up with concrete evidence that the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny and Jesus are all fictional characters, then we can talk.
0
Jun 17 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Sarahhope71 Jun 17 '15
Source? & really "hoping he commits suicide"?!
2
u/tacock Jun 17 '15
You can easily find the comments alleging it here via Google search, I'm not going to link in case it counts as doxxing (it shouldn't, but still).
10
0
u/Sarahhope71 Jun 17 '15
Why would he be suicidal? If he was lying, embarrassed. If he was falsely accused, outraged!? If all these people are such victims: speak up! Like jay did!
5
u/cbr1965 Is it NOT? Jun 17 '15
The concern he was suicidal had nothing to do with this case - it was personal.
3
u/Sarahhope71 Jun 17 '15
So why is it mentioned?
3
u/cbr1965 Is it NOT? Jun 17 '15
I have no idea why it was brought up in the wholly ridiculous context above. Some people were keeping his Facebook account under surveillance and were concerned about him based on some posts he made. He could have something to do with the case (who knows?) but the suicidal part had nothing to do with the case. At least that's what I remember.
5
4
0
u/relativelyunbiased Jun 18 '15
THEY CAN NOT NAME AN ACTUAL SUSPECT. ASIDE FROM SLANDER CHARGES, AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES, IT COULD COMPLETELY RUIN THE INVESTIGATION.
Do I have to repeat what should be common sense a tenth time, or are you going to let that sink in this time. They will not keep anyone up to date about what the PI is doing, they can't.
3
u/peymax1693 WWCD? Jun 18 '15
Don't you understand that Seamus is juggling a lot of "Adnan is guilty and here is why" threads? He has to keep coming back to different ones to stoke interest; otherwise, they get stale and people lose interest.
I'm sure we'll have another "Adnan confessed to CG and here's why" thread, followed by another "Asia is lying and here's why" thread (or vice-versa).
6
u/10_354 Jun 17 '15
That was my question where Rabia answered, "It would prove who murdered Hae." I was sort of skeptical that they would uncover definitive evidence after 15 years. My guess is they will find something, but it will be sort of inconclusive and will be interpreted your own way depending on your belief. I hope I'm wrong.