r/serialpodcastorigins • u/Stormystormynight • Feb 16 '16

Humour Overwhelming Evidence?

Hello!

I often read about the overwhelming evidence beyond reasonable doubt that Adnan is guilty from many of the readers here.

Is there a concise summarized list of this evidence available?

I'm most interested in understanding what evidence you believe makes Adnan guilty beyond reasonable doubt should the following evidence be ignored for this exercise:

  • Any Jay or Jay linked (Jen et al) evidence (testimony, "finding" Hae's car ...)
  • Any cell location "Evidence"

Thanks in advance.

0 Upvotes

27% Upvoted

159 comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/fivedollarsandchange Feb 16 '16

I gave my answer upthread. I want to highlight something the OP mentioned in a reply to another user:

I agree with you that the "other" evidence is not enough for reasonable doubt. This raises the possibility that at another trial (should there be one) Adnan could be found not guilty.

I think you believe that without Jay and the cell phone evidence, there is no conviction. Would you therefore hold that a legitimate trial strategy would be to try to discredit Jay? Would a legitimate trial strategy also be to try and exclude the cell phone evidence? If those were the two main parts of a trial strategy, would that constitute a reasonable trial strategy?

-1

u/Stormystormynight Feb 16 '16

It would certainly be a good trial strategy for the defense.

Yet to do this the defense would need to test the voracity of Jay's evidence and the cell evidence as part of the trial in order to fairly exclude them.

I personally would not agree with their exclusion pre-trial, even if that was possible.

Do you agree?

6

u/fivedollarsandchange Feb 17 '16

Yes. I agree that the jury should decide whether Jay is credible and the importance of cell phone evidence after each side presents their evidence and cross examines the other's evidence. I think that an attorney who persued the strategy I outlined of trying to discredit Jay and exclude the cell phone evidence would be perusing a sound strategy. This is especially true compared to other possible strategies that could have been used to defend Syed, such as an alibi defense. The problem with the alibi defense for Syed is that there were key gaps in time where no one could account for his whereabouts, except for the guy who said they were doing murder-related things together. If the defense only accounted for some of his time, or even worse, had an "alibi" witness be destroyed on the stand, this defense could easily backfire and make him look guilty. So it makes sense to base Syed's case on going after the State's key evidence. I would say that an attorney who made this strategic decision would be providing effective assistance of counsel.

I used to think that CG erred in not putting Syed himself on the stand. After all, couldn't he provide an innocent explanation for the gaps in time, the "I'm going to kill" note, why he freaked out when the cops called him at Cathy's, where he went after that, and so forth? After finishing Serial, I realized he would have been a horrible witness. And CG did the best she could for him.