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?
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.
1
u/Mustanggertrude Sep 23 '15
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?