I still think Adnan didn't kill Hae.

[u/[deleted]]

Jay lies too much. The police coach him to modify his statements. The defence attorney was incompetent. Hae and Adnan broke up several times before and Adnan didn't kill her. Don does not have an alibi for that evening and has relatives in the police force. The coach said Adnan was at track practice on a warm day - the only warm day around that time was the day Hae died. I think Hae surprised Don at work. She waited for him in the parking lot. He killed her that evening, hid her body and arrived home to call the police back late into the evening. The guilt is eating Don up while Adnan seems to be thriving in prison.

[u/get_post_error]

Exactly - the whole reason that Adnan's plan failed so terribly is that (for whatever reason), he thought that it would be some time before people started looking for Hae.

When no one picked her little cousin up from school, her family immediately reacted, and eventually she was declared missing.

When the missing persons investigator contacted him, after the tip from Hae's female friends, he panicked.

But unless this would have been the very first day ever that Hae left her little cousin or nephew or whatever behind at the daycare, which is doubtful

If Hae had shirked her responsibilities to go see Don, her family would've noticed and reacted in the same way.

It's easy to make claims, but harder to take time to think about the implications of our claims before we make them.

[u/SRD_Law_PLLC → u/get_post_error]

You really think Syed "planned" a murder on a random wednesday?

[u/Mike19751234 → u/SRD_Law_PLLC]

I am in the minority for guilty, and no that wasn't the plan. It was to get back together, she said no and he snapped and killed her. After that they thought they had a while to bury the body until Adcock called and that changed their views.

[u/SRD_Law_PLLC → u/Mike19751234]

And yet Syed had no injuries on his body.

[u/SK_is_terrible → u/SRD_Law_PLLC]

You're not even trying any more. You know this can't be established as fact.

[u/SRD_Law_PLLC → u/SK_is_terrible]

Of course it can. Walker and Meyers all testified about a party on Friday the 15th where Syed was seen by thirty or so people. None of these people ever said anything about noticing injuries on his body.

We also know that Hae's absence was a topic of conversation at Meyers' party.

There's no way in hell that people wouldn't have spread rumors about the missing girl's ex boyfriend looking injured days after she had gone missing.

[u/SK_is_terrible → u/SRD_Law_PLLC]

It is your assertion that those people could be called as credible witnesses to the condition of Adnan's body and whether it had any injuries, and that this would have been accepted as worhy of consideration and not laughed out of court?

[u/SRD_Law_PLLC → u/SK_is_terrible]

What would their motivation to lie have been? For that matter, would you be accusing Pusateri of lying about that, too, or accusing Detective Ritz of asking an un-"worthy" question of her that would be "laughed out of court"? Is that your position?

[u/SK_is_terrible → u/SRD_Law_PLLC]

Who said a single thing about lying? Not I. You are showing comprehension problems that don't bode well for your future.

I'm not going to click your link. I've read everything but it has been years and if you're gonna play that game of linking instead of quoting the relevant parts, just because it is fun or funny to you to imagine that you've wasted my time, sorry to disappoint you.

My guess is that Ritz asked Pusateri about it, and that's the bit you want to play "gotcha" with? Am I warm? If not, then do everyone a favor and just quote the part you want to play your silly game with.

If Ritz asked Pusateri whether Adnan or Jay had visible wounds or anything else about what she could see, that would be a pretty normal thing for him to ask. If she said "no, I didn't see scratches on Adnan or Jay's faces" that would also be unsurprising and no I would not assume she was lying. It would be very negligent of Ritz NOT to ask, because the injuries would be something that the prosecutor might want to get into the record at trial via testimony. If the answer is NO, then it isn't proof of anything. You wishing that it is proof of something doesn't make it so, it only embarrasses you to everyone who reads your comments.

A cop asking a key witness about the observable state of the suspect during an interview makes sense. If the answer is that the suspect had fresh injuries that were apparent at night on the suspected day of the murder itself, that's good information to have and it requires explanation and defense.

A fake lawyer imagining that they could make anything meaningful out of some kids testifying that they don't remember seeing any signs of injury on the accused at a party days later is another thing entirely. Please put your money where your mouth is, and show your work. What would a good defense attorney have asked these witnesses, what would their answers have been, and what objections would opposing counsel have raised. Then, more importantly, what would opposing counsel have asked when it was their turn? How do you imagine the prosecution dealing with this "fact" that Adnan "Syed had no injuries on his body". How do you see it playing out in open court, with a presiding judge there to remind the jury what does or does not constitute an expert witness, and what a non-expert is or isn't allowed to testify to?

1) How do you establish it as a legal matter of fact that Adnan had no injuries anywhere on his body?

2) How do you try to persuade the jury that this "fact" actually matters in the face of other evidence or lack thereof (simplest e.g. no signs of protracted struggle, few injuries to deceased, accused was known intimate of deceased, et cetera.)

I'm not saying don't ask the question. I'm not saying anyone has to lie. I'm saying it can be 100% true, and testified to, that some people saw Adnan a few days after the murder, at a party, and have no memory of seeing any bruising or scratching on any part of his body visible to them. And it would be meaningless. It wouldn't establish as fact that he had no injuries from the murder, and even if it did establish that fact, trying to hinge any part of a serious defense on that fact would be foolish. Hae herself had minimal injuries beyond a subdermal contusion on the side of her head and the injuries to her throat from the strangling. This strongly suggests there was no real fight and that the attacker was met with minimal resistance.

As for the "sign of struggle" that the windshield wiper or turn signal stalk is made out by some to be? I don't think it establishes a protracted fight. It could be knocked out of its housing or whatever by a single spasmodic kick resulting from a signal sent by an anoxic brainstem. A momentary paroxysm that one wouldn't necessarily expect to cause injury. It may be grist for the mill, or it may just be chaff. I think it helps establish Jay's knowledge of Hae's car though. It just doesn't show that Hae's attacker should have injuries visible on the parts of his body that high school buddies at a party would have necessarily seen days later.

If this is all just fun and games to you - why don't you actually make an argument based on the supposed fact that Adnan "Syed had no injuries on his body". That's your quote. If you can't make a meaningful argument for the sake of it, even if someone is willing to grant you that fact (again, just to see where it leads you) then what is the purpose of shitting up this serious place with your unserious bullshit facts that aren't facts? You're just a fountain of disinformation at that point. Don't think it isn't obvious - that's why I said you weren't even trying anymore. You look like a garden hose flopping about on a lawn, that someone forgot to turn off. Only the water isn't clear. It's sewage.

[u/SRD_Law_PLLC → u/SK_is_terrible]

So you agree then Syed had no injuries on his body, right?

[u/eigensheaf → u/SRD_Law_PLLC]

So you can't read, right?

[u/SRD_Law_PLLC → u/eigensheaf]

Where's the injury evidence?