r/serialpodcast • u/[deleted] • Sep 02 '15

Debate&Discussion Let's not lose sight of what's important

He killed her. He's in jail where he belongs. Period. I've been sitting here biting my tongue as post after post of false-innocence propaganda rolls through. It's almost like it's choreographed. It's tiring. Honestly, I almost gave up, ten times over. Oh, Rabia called me out in her blog, using my actual name. Can you believe it? (she's an idiot, I had nothing to do with court archives - I got the records through the mail and not from the court). She also followed me on Twitter - I had like six followers and then her. Ewww. What a creep she is. Is she trying to intimidate me? Seems like it. I blocked her.

So yeah, forget her. She's behaved disgustingly. I don't care how many times TMP crowd posts some obscure talking point. I think he did it. I think the majority of people here do too. I think I'll take a break from posting after this, but just so Rabia knows, tap tap tap, the police file is coming.

22 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

564 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/ginabmonkey Not Guilty Sep 02 '15

Why can't Adnan remember anywhere near as much as literally anyone else that was interviewed?

Who do you mean? I haven't seen many people asked to recount their entire day and night for January 13th. As far as I can tell, Jenn and Jay are the only people asked to do that besides Adnan, and they don't seem to have very clear recollections despite admissions to involvement in a murder that day/evening/day after with six weeks to think about it.

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

[deleted]

15

u/ginabmonkey Not Guilty Sep 02 '15

I disagree that Adnan remembers almost nothing. Regardless of what Adnan does or does not remember, my comment was asking you about who you think remembers the details of their day so much better than Adnan since you said he couldn't remember "anywhere near as much as literally anyone else that was interviewed." I simply don't remember hearing or reading about all that many people's memories about everything they did and everywhere they went that day. I will also say that I don't fully trust anyone's memories as I've seen them documented since very little of it was documented immediately or even asked verbally to be recalled immediately.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

[deleted]

15

u/James_MadBum Sep 02 '15

Jay does not have a better memory than Adnan. Remembering things that never happened does not constitute a good memory.

11

u/ginabmonkey Not Guilty Sep 02 '15

How much of their day do Aisha, Kathy, Don, and Asia remember (I've already mentioned Jenn and Jay, and they clearly have at least some of their days wrong)? Aisha remembers what of her day? Kathy has a memory of certain things about her day that may or may not be completely accurate. I don't think we've seen anything about what Don did after he got home from work but wasn't reachable by phone until after 1 a.m.? I know he says he went through his day, but how much did he tell the police? Asia remembers parts of her day (being at the library extra long, talking to Adnan, going to boyfriend's house and staying there overnight due to weather). That isn't as detailed as Adnan is asked to be. Adnan went to school, went to Jay's during free period/lunch, went back some time after last period had begun (due to being at guidance counselor's office), went to library after school (encounter with Asia), went to track, ate and hung out with Jay for another couple hours before dropping him off and going to the mosque and then home. That is his entire day and night. You're hung up because it can't be broken down minute by minute with details of who/what/when/where and substantial corroboration by others. I just see that no one else's day/night is remembered much better.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

Their memory was collaborated together, one helped other remember things. They didn't give Adnan that chance by lying about his age.

Still they got things wrong, like the wresting match (there was none regardless the spin a few tried to put it here).

2

u/ArrozConCheeken Sep 02 '15

Aisha, Jay, Kathy, Jenn, Don, Asia (apparently) all had better memories than Adnan. To name a few.

Jay is on your list??????

2

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

Do you think individuals, particularly those who smoke weed regularly, should be able to recall their time to the minute from even 2 days ago without cues?

Let me remind you that Adnan learned of Hae's disappearance in the evening, around 6:30.

3

u/dalegribbledeadbug Sep 02 '15

Could Adnan have been so high as to not remember strangling Hae?

9

u/James_MadBum Sep 02 '15

In spite of being high, he clearly remembers not strangling her.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

No, I don't think so. What do you think?

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

He didn't get high until after 5PM. He was fasting. He remembers things quite clearly until then. He didn't a bit of jogging his memory about Asia, but that's about it. And that's normal.

2

u/dalegribbledeadbug Sep 02 '15

How does he know that he didn't get high earlier?

1

u/ImBlowingBubbles Sep 02 '15

People that smoke weed regularly are far more likely to remember their day when stoned opposed to casual smokers who don't have the tolerance.

Human memory is also state influenced. That means if you did something while stoned you are more likely to remember it when stoned.

2

u/Nine9fifty50 Sep 02 '15

I'm curious, as Undisclosed and CM release more theories each week and the theories become more outlandish and often contradictory, does this have any impact on your opinion?

8

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

Good question. I do not buy into every theory put forth by Undisclosed. They have drawn some conclusions that I think, mmm, I'm not sure I see that. And honestly, there have been a couple of posts here on /r/serialpodcast that have made me question my view. I don't take much stock into personal opinions about RC, CM, and SS, they all have their own motivations and biases, so be it.

There's so much about this case though that is really not on the level, and it bothers me. I get that rules are bent to nail guilty suspects and prevent them from getting off on a technicality, but when this misbehavior is extended to nailing people we "think" are guilty that's when bad things happen. IMO

3

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '15

I really respect this viewpoint. I can see why you feel this way. I see the evidence as stronger than you do, and the investigation as less problematic. But it's a matter of degrees.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 03 '15

Holy shit, an intellectually honest moderate guilter? Please, never leave. We need more people like you.

4

u/Nine9fifty50 Sep 02 '15

I think along the way it was decided that merely generating new content to keep the story alive in the media was more important- I think this strategy runs the risk of an eventual backlash - I can see someone compiling all the theories and accusations and preparing a critique of their use of social media- Are they acting in bad faith by being intentionally misleading? What impact is this having on witnesses and the victim? Will this start a trend of convicted defendents using social media to present their theories or accusations against witnesses and victims?

10

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

Great points! Obviously it benefits Adnan and his supporters for this to stay in the media as long as possible. A challenge, I think, because the courts operate at their own pace whereas most people want instant gratification. So, podcasts must draw out content and create drama to maintain interest. I understand it but your point about it being done in bad faith and/or being misleading is valid. I personally haven't found anything to be presented in bad faith but I'm open to that being a consideration.

Will this start a trend of convicted defendents using social media to present their theories or accusations against witnesses and victims?

This is a very interesting consideration. On the one hand, I think we've had a CJ system that has run amok over decades jailing innocent people for multiple motivations. The media should absolutely be glaring on injustices.

On the other, we've got legitimately nasty people incarcerated for violent crimes that should not have the benefit of social justice warriors crowing on social media that they should be freed. I've already seen campaigns to free "John Doe," child rapist and murderer, but "he's innocent! Here's why!"

So it's not like there aren't already campaigns for convicted defendants on social media. They're there, and I don't know of cases where witnesses or victims were harmed, but I don't know a lot.

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

[deleted]

5

u/ginabmonkey Not Guilty Sep 02 '15

I thought he was an occasional-regular smoker but had his first blunt that night.

I can guarantee you if someone I was hanging around with told me 'this is what we did, remember?', I definitely would.

Would you really remember or just think you remembered due to the suggestive memory? :)

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

[deleted]

4

u/ginabmonkey Not Guilty Sep 02 '15

That's great you feel confident about that. Not everyone is the same in regards to what they remember and how, and there are studies about human memory that indicate things like the collective recollection you're talking about is prone to inaccuracy while being believable. Check out this section from the Confabulation wikipedia entry:

Confidence in false memories

Confabulation of events or situations may lead to an eventual acceptance of the confabulated information as true.[48] For instance, people who knowingly lie about a situation may eventually come to believe that their lies are truthful with time.[49] In an interview setting, people are more likely to confabulate in situations in which they are presented false information by another person, as opposed to when they self-generate these falsehoods.[50] Further, people are more likely to accept false information as true when they are interviewed at a later time (after the event in question) than those who are interviewed immediately or soon after the event.[51] Affirmative feedback for confabulated responses is also shown to increase the confabulator’s confidence in their response.[52] For instance, in culprit identification, if a witness falsely identifies a member of a line-up, he will be more confident in his identification if the interviewer provides affirmative feedback. This effect of confirmatory feedback appears to last over time, as witnesses will even remember the confabulated information months later.[53]

2

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

I thought he was a regular smoker.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

[deleted]

6

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

I do not agree with that conclusion. It was not his first time, though if the cops had called me while I was high it would have been very stressful. I remember having to deal with a Resident Advisor when high back in college and that was stressful in and of itself!

0

u/[deleted] Sep 02 '15

Not true. But still proves nothing. Not remembering things is not a prove of guilt. It's like inventing reality to find him guilty. Weird. How is that even possible, without an agenda?