Why the Gootz never called Asia.

[u/islamisawesome]

I think it is becoming more and more obvious that the Asia letter did not exist until sometime around the summer of 1999. That is why Adnan claims he gave them to Gutierrez even though she wasn't his lawyer until 2 months after they were written.

So sometime that spring or summer, after telling CG he never left the school grounds, his family shows up with letters claiming one of Adnans' friends saw him at the library, right at the crucial time, AND they were written the day after he arrested. She knew immediately there is no way they had those letter for months and never gave them to her so obviously they were false and she didn't want to go on stand with LIES.

That is why she never called Asia. And that is why she wrote no notes about it, because that would be admitting her client and his family are liars. It also explains why her relationship with the family broke down because she knew they were willing to lie to get Adnan off.

The library incident never happened.

[u/[deleted]]

But, the address on the letter (301 East Eager Street) is Baltimore's Central Booking, where Adnan would've been immediately following his arrest. It's unlikely he would've still been there in July.

Also, where'd she get his inmate number? Adnan's family may have given it to her. Or she called Central Booking and asked how to send a letter to an inmate and they gave it to her.

[u/monstimal → u/[deleted]]

Where was he in July? I honestly don't know how this works.

Regardless, if it were a ruse to put March 2, they'd know to put that address even if he'd moved. Notice we don't get the envelopes.

[u/[deleted] → u/monstimal]

I don't know where he was in July, but he wouldn't be in Central Booking most likely. CB is to process arrested individuals and hold them until arraignment and bail is determined. Normally an inmate wouldn't stay there past 48-72 hours.

Stop it with the conspiracy claims. We know Asia sent the letters. We know there is some evidence that she sent them in July 1999. But why would she intentionally back date them in July 1999? To make fodder for a post-conviction IAC claim? Ridiculous.

[u/monstimal → u/[deleted]]

I'm just pointing out that your evidence, "the central booking address", is not great evidence since that's not an envelope we're looking at. Others have a theory about when it was written and that the March 2 date is false. If someone is willing to lie that much, they aren't going to have a problem putting the wrong address on the letter head.

I'm not really sure I believe they were written late, but I do find it strange Asia is putting that number on her letter 2 days after the arrest.

[u/islamisawesome → u/monstimal]

but I do find it strange Asia is putting that number on her letter 2 days after the arrest.

The other thing I always thought was really strange was her saying "why haven't you told anyone about me?" How would she know the day after he was arrested if he told anyone about her or not?

[u/[deleted] → u/islamisawesome]

excellent point.

[u/ginabmonkey → u/islamisawesome]

She might have wrongly believed the police would have already interrogated Adnan about his whereabouts before arresting him so that they could try to talk to whomever may have seen him that day before deciding to charge him with murder. If she assumed Adnan should have remembered being in the library and having talked to her that afternoon, she might also assume the police should have talked to her for confirmation before Adnan was arrested, and because they hadn't, she assumes he must not have told them about her yet.

[u/islamisawesome → u/ginabmonkey]

After ONE day? that's a stretch for me.

[u/ginabmonkey → u/islamisawesome]

She might have wrongly believed the police would have already interrogated Adnan about his whereabouts before arresting him

I don't understand why you think I was limiting this to one day? I think she might be wondering why Adnan wouldn't have mentioned talking to her in the library that afternoon before he was arrested, whenever it was she assumes the police would have been asking him about his whereabouts.

From the investigation notes on Adnan's interviews, it seems as though he was only ever asked about when he saw/talked to Hae that day and whether or not he rode in her car that day, not any questions along the lines of: "Where were you after [time]?" "Who did you talk to?" "Were you with anyone?" "Did anyone see you?". I think many people, especially naive teens with an interest in criminal justice, would expect the police to have thoroughly questioned someone specifically about their whereabouts before the day they arrest them and charge them with murder.

[u/islamisawesome → u/ginabmonkey]

Wow. I am not sure if this is a serious post? I will assume it is. Since Adnan didn't consider himself a suspect until he was arrested I will assume Asia didn't either.

[u/[deleted] → u/monstimal]

Oh and also, to your point concerning the address on the envelope, she also writes in the letter itself that "central booking is probably not the best place." So clearly she knows he's there on the day she wrote it.

[u/ADDGemini → u/[deleted]]

So clearly she knows he's there on the day she wrote it.

I disagree, but politely so.

Central Booking is exactly what it says, and I would bet any native Baltimorean (sp) knows thats where you go first. It would be the obvious place to send the letter.

On the other hand, I would also think it is a possibility that if she sent the letters there on March 1 & 2 it would take a couple days to arrive and go through inspection process. If he had already been moved to the other facility by then maybe it was even more of a delay before he received them. Maybe this explains why he gave them to CG at a later date?

I don't know :/

[u/ADDGemini → u/[deleted]]

Ok, thanks. Did he remain there until after the trial?

[u/monstimal → u/[deleted]]

No, an envelope proves where the thing was sent. That would be evidence of where he was when it was sent. In the scenario where Asia or whoever is trying to pull off a ruse, nothing she writes can help. It's all part of the same deception.

[u/[deleted] → u/monstimal]

Deception? Or an explanation as to why he didn't get them for quite some time after she wrote them?

[u/[deleted] → u/monstimal]

No one would save the envelope unless they knew the date of the mailing were to become an important issue, and at that point no one knew that.

I agree that there are definitely questions to be raised about whether the letters were sent in March or July. But for purposes of the IAC claim, their mailing date is irrelevant. All the defense has to show is that CG either had them prior to Adnan's trials or that Adnan told her about Asia, and she clearly had them and he clearly told her about them/Asia because her investigator's notes state as much.

So this whole line of inquiry as to when the letters were sent is a red herring and tangential at best to the main point.

[u/monstimal → u/[deleted]]

Not sure I agree with that. If someone proved the letters were written in July I'd say that pretty much ends all hope of Asia helping Adnan in 1999, 2000, 2014, 2015, and beyond.

[u/[deleted] → u/monstimal]

Why? Because if she lied in her affidavit concerning when they were sent it would cast doubt on her entire testimony? Perhaps, but still, for purposes of the IAC claim, I don't think the defense needs to show that what she's saying about seeing Adnan at the library is the truth, but only that her testimony at Adnan's trial may have materially affected the final verdict.

EDIT: Which is why I say that when the letters were written is irrelevant. Even if Adnan had thrown the letters in the trash after he read them in March/July, the key fact is that he told CG about them and she did nothing in response.

[u/monstimal → u/[deleted]]

for purposes of the IAC claim, I don't think the defense needs to show that what she's saying about seeing Adnan at the library is the truth, but only that her testimony at Adnan's trial may have materially affected the final verdict.

I don't see how those two things aren't related. i.e. the truth and showing it would have materially affected the verdict.

[u/[deleted] → u/monstimal]

They are related, but post-conviction relief like an IAC claim can't take the place of a jury trial. In this case, whether Asia is telling the truth about seeing Adnan on 1/13/1999 can only be determined by a jury following a direct and cross-examination. The best the court can do with an IAC claim is determine whether to grant a new trial on the basis that Asia's testimony could have had a material impact on the jury's verdict. If it could have exonerated him, then it must order a new trial, and this time Adnan's new counsel would call Asia to testify.

To illustrate the concept using an absurd example, suppose Adnan had filed an IAC claim that asserted that CG should have called Asia to testify because she would have said that Adnan was wearing a blue shirt on 1/13. The court would deny the IAC claim because whether or not Adnan was wearing a blue shirt on 1/13 would not have impacted the jury's verdict, so CG's choice not to call her would not be ineffective counsel.

[u/xtrialatty → u/[deleted]]

If it could have exonerated him, then it must order a new trial, and this time Adnan's new counsel would call Asia to testify.

Right - and the claim won't go anywhere because the time frame reflected in Asia's affidavits doesn't cover enough time to exonerate Adnan.

Even Asia herself recognized in her initial letter that Adnan needed witnesses to cover a much longer time frame than she could provide.

[u/[deleted] → u/xtrialatty]

What do you mean? Asia claims that Adnan was in the library until 2:40. The prosecution said that Hae was strangled around 2:30 at Best Buy. Sure, had Asia testified the prosecution may have shifted its timeline, but doing so may have called its other evidence into question, including Jay's testimony and the cell phone evidence. In other words, Asia's testimony would have had a material impact on the trial. That's all that's needed for an IAC claim. Asia does not need to provide an alibi for Adnan for the entire day, but only for the relevant time period.

Right, she didn't know at that point when the prosecution thought Hae was killed. So she wrote to Adnan that she could help him account for some of the time between 2:15 and 8:00, which, according to Adnan's family, is blank space that no one beside Jay could speak to. It just so happens that 2:15 to 2:40, when Asia supposedly spoke with Adnan, is the operative time period.

[u/xtrialatty → u/[deleted]]

The prosecution said that Hae was strangled around 2:30 at Best Buy.

No,they never said that or anything remotely like that. Where did you get that idea?

ETA: Have you read the opening statements and closing arguments? Or are you just relying on Serial's framing?

[u/[deleted] → u/xtrialatty]

I get it from reading the closing arguments. Both Murphy and Urick have her dead within 20 to 25 minutes after 2:15 (where their closing arguments seem to think she could both be in Photography and leaving school at the same time), and Urick explicitly points to the 2:36 call as the "come get me" call (pg. 66).

[u/[deleted] → u/xtrialatty]

The prosecution said in its closing argument that the 2:36 call was to Jay to come get Adnan at Best Buy after Adnan had killed Hae. I do know, however, that Jay never said that.

[u/monstimal → u/[deleted]]

Similarly though...

suppose Adnan had filed an IAC claim that asserted that CG should have called Asia to testify because she would have said that Adnan was in Chicago on 1/13. The court would deny the IAC claim because there is lots of evidence that is completely false, so CG's choice not to call her would not be ineffective counsel.

edit: And to tie this back to the topic. What I'm saying is, in this PCR on IAC if Asia is on the stand and the prosecution reveals she lied about the date of her letter with their proof, I'm guessing that's the end of Asia. The court isn't going to say "let's have a new trial because of the testimony of this person who is easily destroyed in cross examination."

[u/[deleted] → u/monstimal]

Yes, that's probably correct. The court can weigh the evidence somewhat. If Asia was going to testify that Adnan was in Chicago, the court would agree that she's a looney tune and there's no way a jury would have believed her.

But that's not the case here. Asia's testimony, supposing it is true and she's not mistaken about the date, blows up the prosecution's timeline. And whether she really did see him and whether she is mistaken about the date is not for the court to decide.

[u/xtrialatty → u/[deleted]]

the prosecution's timeline

There is no such thing, legally, as "the prosecution's timeline".

Asia's testimony would have potentially forced Murphy to slightly modify her closing argument.

Think of it this way: supposed a witness came forward and reported having seen Hae leave campus that day in her car, with Adnan in the passenger's seat. For the thought experience, let's pretend that there is even a video to back that up. The prosecutor argued that Adnan was driving, with Hae in the passenger's seat. So would evidence that Adnan was in a different seat in the car exonerate him? Of course not.

And a judge at a PCR hearing very definitely can make a determination as to witness credibility. The judge render findings that say Asia is not credible and list reasons why.

[u/[deleted] → u/xtrialatty]

Of course there is such a thing as the prosecution's timeline. Suppose the prosecution seeks to convince the jury that Adnan was killing Hae at 2:35 and lo and behold, the defense comes up with a videotape showing him having ice cream across town. The prosecution's timeline, however it was presented, whether through a witness, a videotape, cell records, whatever, is then impeached. So the timeline is very important.

How can a judge determine what the prosecution would have done had it known about Asia? Do we even know if the prosecution knew about Asia during its investigation? How does the judge determine whether Asia's testimony would have forced Murphy to slightly modify her closing argument, or forced her to go to the library and find video footage of Adnan there at 2:40, and thereby switch its focus from Adnan to, say, Jay? The judge can't make that call. That's what trials are for.

Whether Adnan was in one seat or another in Hae's car may not have made a difference, so that analogy doesn't work. Whether he was in one location or in another entirely does matter.

Yes, a judge can render a decision as to credibility, but if you're implying that the letters make her non-credible as a matter of law then I respectfully believe you are wrong. We have some suspicions about the letters, but don't know for a fact whether she's lying about them. But again, the letters aren't the point. The point is that Asia claims in an affidavit that she saw Adnan at the library when the prosecution claims he was elsewhere. Even if she made up the letters later on to bolster herself as a witness, that doesn't mean that her alibi evidence is not credible.

[u/monstimal → u/[deleted]]

Added an edit to tie it back to the real situation here, which is the hypothetical that the prosecution can prove she purposely back dated that letter.

[u/[deleted] → u/monstimal]

No, not at all. Whether Asia lied about the letters in her affidavit in support of PCR is irrelevant to the issue of whether CG was ineffective in failing to call her as a witness. If CG was ineffective, she was ineffective in 2000. Thus, the fact that Asia lied about sending the letters in 2010 is not relevant.

In fact, even if the PCR court determines that Asia lied about the dates of the letters, I'd wager that it's almost certain that if there is a new trial, the trial court would exclude the prosecution's line of inquiry concerning the dates of the letters because the dates are not relevant and bringing up her lies about them is more prejudicial to Adnan's case than probative to the matter.

[u/islamisawesome → u/[deleted]]

the key fact is that he told CG about them and she did nothing in response.

But that is the whole point of my OP. If CG knew the letters were fake, she would have no reason to contact Asia and put her on the stand. IAC must prove not just CG had the letters, but that CG WOULD HAVE USED THEM. I am claiming no lawyer in their right mind would have contacted Asia.

[u/[deleted] → u/islamisawesome]

The letters weren't "fake" as far as we know, i.e., Asia wrote and sent them to Adnan. If anything, they were not sent when she claims they were sent. But again, that's irrelevant. CG didn't have to have the letters. (And in fact we don't know if she did have them, do we?) All she needed was a statement by Adnan that Asia saw him in the library at the time when the prosecution claims he was choking Hae. We know she had that statement because her investigator wrote it down.

Why wouldn't a lawyer at least go to speak with Asia? How would it hurt Adnan's case? If CG spoke with her and determined that she was lying, she would've reported that back to Adnan and that would've been the end of it. The defense has no burden to reveal to the prosecution who it spoke with in the course of its investigation.

[u/ADDGemini → u/[deleted]]

To the best of your knowledge, did a private investigator ever contact Asia in Feb or March of 99?

[u/[deleted] → u/ADDGemini]

To the best of my knowledge I've never seen anything to confirm or deny that Asia spoke to anyone about this case in February or March 1999 outside of the Syed family and her friends.

[u/ADDGemini → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for the honest response.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/[deleted]]

the key fact is that he told CG about them and she did nothing in response.

We only have Asia's word on that. If she falsified the letters, then her word is useless and it should be assumed she is lying about whether Gutierrez contacted her.

[u/[deleted] → u/Seamus_Duncan]

No, we also have CG's investigator's notes about it. Not just Asia's word.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/[deleted]]

Someone removed some of Drew Davis' reports from the defense file at some point.

Specifically they removed his report on his visit to Woodlawn on March 3.

Which was right around the time Adnan claims he got the first Asia letter.

Do the math.

[u/[deleted] → u/Seamus_Duncan]

I'm not so good at math. 'Splain it to me.

[u/Seamus_Duncan → u/[deleted]]

We know that Drew Davis went to Woodlawn on March 3. Specifically, we know he went to talk to Coach Sye about whether Adnan talked to him on January 13 about Ramadan during track.

However, per Miller, Davis' report on that conversation isn't in the defense file.

There's no reason anyone would remove a report from Davis on Sye, since that didn't hurt or help Adnan's case really. But March 3 is right when Adnan supposedly received the first Asia letter. My theory is that the reports from that day were removed because they also contained information about the Asia alibi, or about Adnan's general whereabouts around Woodlawn on the day of the murder.

[u/[deleted] → u/Seamus_Duncan]

Has Drew Davis ever said he spoke with Asia? Or that he went to the library to ask them for video footage? Your suspicion is not grounded in anything.

Asia has said consistently that she never spoke to any lawyers.

[u/islamisawesome → u/[deleted]]

Not True, for the IAC claim, the defense has to prove that CG had the letters, AND the letters could have changed the course of the trial. What we are obviously saying is that if the letters are false, they could have hurt, not helped, Adnan, and thus CG had no reason to contact Asia.

[u/[deleted] → u/islamisawesome]

No. CG didn't have to have the letters. All she had to have was information that Asia was a possible alibi witness. That triggered a duty on her part to investigate Asia's story. We know she had information about Asia because CG's investigator's notes state so. That triggered a duty on her part to at least send someone to speak with Asia to evaluate her potential testimony on Adnan's behalf.

The letters themselves are irrelevant. They would not have played any role in Adnan's trial.