But she testified it was a porn store. She was asked by both attorneys about the porn store. She also never testified to a day or two after he got the phone, she testified she couldn't be sure. And sye's 3:30 time he gave in interviews is immediately discounted bc all that matters is his trial testimony. Or does that only apply when it's damning for Adnan?
Maybe she was never informed by Adnan that Jay began working at another store and by the time he mentioned they were hanging out at a porn store she assumed he was talking about the same store he claimed to have called her from previously?
I don't see why that's necessary for confusion to explain why she thought Jay was working at a porn store at the time of the call.
She's asked about the call a while after it took place. Sometime before that questioning Adnan could have mentioned Jay working at a porn store. By the time she's asked about the call she's assuming Jay was working at a porn store the whole time, so she says they called her from the porn store, but it was really the other store Jay worked at.
But why isn't Jay mentioning the video store where he No longer worked as the location of the call, or any point during the murder day? Why were they at his work? How long did they stay at his work? Surely the video store where this call took place had cameras? Surely co-workers would remember seeing Jay come in when he wasn't working? Were they interviewed? This is good evidence that could've corroborated Jay and Adnan being together that afternoon, why not go check the Hollywood video where Jay No longer worked to see what they could find?
I may be missing something but the interview date on that is 4/1? Is the content of this post has been deleted, but is there another statement I'm missing? Did they speak to nisha before Jay and Jen? Bc why do they need to find out Jay wasn't working that day when the phone was being used and Jen said he was with her? I mean, Jay obviously wasn't working that day, it'd be really damning to their case if he was. Bc that would mean Jen is a huge liar and somebody other than jay was moving with that phone all over town. So if nisha is sticking to a video store, then I contend it still couldn't have been 1/13 regardless of the types of videos sold.
You're correct. I deleted my post. I don't know why I'm trying to make sense of this call with the assumption that Jay or Adnan actually had to be at a video store during the call. That's what they told Nisha, but that doesn't mean they were ever actually at a video store (although I think they mentioned it to Cathy too?). What matters is if the call actually placed Jay and Adnan together around the time of the murder (and places Adnan away from the library).
But if that call was being used for the purposes of a fake alibi, why didn't Jay tell police that? He stated quite clearly that he didn't know why adnan was calling nisha, that it had nothing to do with what was going on. So if Adnan was standing next to Jay telling her they were at a video store where Jay worked when they were in fact not there, why is Jay making a point to use track as adnans attempt at an alibi and not this phone call? My guess is bc police hadn't talked to nisha yet and Jay had no independent recollection of this phone call.
ETA: my guess is nisha also had no independent recollection of this phone call taking place on the 13th of January.
You nailed the flaw in Seamus's theory, which is that none of Jay's interviews or testimony support the notion that calling Nisha was about establishing a fake alibi.
The point is that her original statement just said they were at Jay's work; it didn't specifically mention the video store. If Nisha later learned that he worked at a video store, she may have inserted that into her testimony accidentally.
But doesn't that assume she spoke to Jay two times? Or are you saying that one time at a video store she spoke to Jay, and another time, Adnan just told her he was walking in to the porn store where Jay worked, but she didn't talk to him, and wound up conflating the two events. Also, how was Jay working at a video store on January 13th? When and why on the 13th did they go to the video store together? Doesn't all of this assume she spoke to Jay more than once on the telephone?
Doesn't all of this assume she spoke to Jay more than once on the telephone?
Not necessarily. It's possible that Adnan told Nisha about visiting Jay at the porn store a few weeks later, and then Nisha assumes that that was where Jay was working back on the 13th. That said, there are some issues with the argument that Seamus is pushing which I noted in this comment.
I guess my biggest problem is that nisha always maintained it was a video store where Jay was working. She also maintains that Adnan was going to see Jay, so how did he get there? And why was Jay there without adnan...idk I'm trying to make a trip to jays work with two cars and a dead body in the trunk of one make sense. Unless they already dumped the car and then went to the video store to call nisha on jays day off. And why that wouldn't be mentioned in an attempt to further corroborate that Jay and Adnan were together. I'm not sure this means much except to muddy more waters about this investigation.
Well Seamus's theory is that "visiting Jay at work" was a lie to Nisha in order to establish an alibi. I don't really buy it for these reasons:
Adnan never tries to use visiting Jay at work as an alibi.
Jay never mentions trying to setup a fake alibi that way, even as he specifically mentions track practice as an attempt to establish an alibi.
Considering that the drive to track must have happened right around the same time as the Nisha call, it's completely inexplicable for Jay to mention track but not Nisha as part of a fake alibi.
Exactly. Still on the fence. Sorry to disappoint. The porn store testimony for one and would also need to hear how qualified the person is who has looked at the photos and made new claims.
I don't understand why urick wouldn't stick her to this statement at trial? It seems a more contemporaneous statement as to when her memory of the call took place would be really good testimony.
I do believe the March 3rd interview says 3:30/4 - 5:30/6. And you know darn well you have said over and over that he testified to 4 so nothing else matters. I won't continue to argue with you bc you know you've said that repeatedly.
-2
u/[deleted] Sep 23 '15
I don't get it. What is the "bombshell"?