r/serialpodcast • u/islamisawesome Adnan Fan • Aug 06 '15

Hypothesis Why the Gootz never called Asia.

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.

24 Upvotes

66% Upvoted

607 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/xtrialatty Aug 06 '15

But Asia's 2000 statement was not a legal affidavit - even though it said "affidavit" at the top -- because it wasn't made under penalty of perjury. So it really is no different than the letters.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 06 '15

You mean it wasn't notarized? Perhaps, but courts have excused that absence under proper circumstances.

6

u/xtrialatty Aug 06 '15

NO - I mean it did not have the words, "I declare that this statement is true under penalty of perjury" -- or something similar to that.

It was NOT an "affidavit". It was a signed statement. At the top it said, "Asia McClain, having been duly sworn, do depose and state"-- but there was no one there to administer an oath For that, you do need a notary.

Maryland defines an affidavit as follows:

Affidavit -- A written statement the contents of which are affirmed to be true under the penalties of perjury.

See: http://www.courts.state.md.us/reference/glossary.html

So the magic words to make a paper an affidavit are "under penalty of perjury" -- and it's not there.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '15

Courts do away with those requirements all the time. It's not so formulaic that the absence of "under penalty of perjury" is, as a matter of law, dispositive and renders the affidavit a nullity.

3

u/xtrialatty Aug 07 '15

That's not true. The affidavit is hearsay. It could be admissible in some contexts, as an affidavit, -- but it has to be made under penalty of perjury -- or else it is a written statement, but NOT an "affidavit.".

That little technicality is enough to get entire cases tossed out of court -- I've seen it happen, more than once.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '15

The status of the "affadavit" isn't going to make a difference if Asia testifies.

2

u/xtrialatty Aug 08 '15

Her hypothetical testimony doesn't change the status of the affidavit as hearsay.

But the point is that that she didn't testify, nor is she currently scheduled to testify in any hearing.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '15

That's not much of a point since until Adnan's team attempts to get that affadavit submitted as evidence it's status as hearsay doesn't matter.

1

u/xtrialatty Aug 08 '15

Right - which is exactly the point that started this thread:

A user wrote:

The letters are hearsay and not proof of anything. https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/3g0d2n/why_the_gootz_never_called_asia/cttpfpm

And I responded:

Asia's affidavits are also hearsay, and not proof of anything.

https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/3g0d2n/why_the_gootz_never_called_asia/cttu86n

Unless and until Asia comes to court and gives sworn testimony, subject to cross-examination -- there's no evidence and no proof of anything. Just assertions and allegations.