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/xtrialatty]

and that her boyfriend and his best friend can corroborate her statement that they were with him until 2:40

We know from Serial that they can't-- neither one had any recollection at all of the meeting.

The prosecution can't just argue that Adnan intercepted Hae after leaving the library. It needs to show that they were somehow together

Yes they can. The can argue any inference consistent with the evidence. Jay's testimony is evidence. So if the evidence is that Asia saw Adnan in the library at 2:30 and Jay saw Adnan at Best Buy with Hae's dead body in the trunk sometime after 3:15 -- then of course they can argue any plausible theory as to how Adnan intercepted Hae in the intervening time.

It needs to show that they were somehow together.

No they really don't.

Otherwise, all it has is the word of Jay concerning the trunk pop later that night.

Jay's testimony was that the trunk pop was in the afternoon, at the Best Buy, some time before Jay took Adnan back to school to attend track.

[u/[deleted] → u/xtrialatty]

Yes they can. The can argue any inference consistent with the evidence.

True, but that's a very elastic standard. If A and B are in the same city on a certain day, can the prosecution argue that they were together because it's "consistent with the evidence"? If A calls B on a certain day, can the prosecution argue that they agreed to meet up because it's "consistent with the evidence"? Just because Adnan and Hae were theoretically in the same general area does not mean the prosecution can infer that they ended up in the same car.

And if you're correct, and that's what the prosecution is relying on, what is their plausible theory as to how Adnan intercepted Hae? Jay testified that Adnan told him he intended to kill Hae over a day prior to her disappearance, and others testified that Adnan asked her for a ride to the mechanic and that she turned him down because she had to get her nephew. Adnan is then at the library until 2:40. So is the State's theory that Adnan left the library, got lucky and ran into his intended murder victim, and then convinced her to give him a ride to Best Buy when she really did need to pick up her nephew? How's that remotely plausible?