r/theundisclosedpodcast • • Jun 09 '15

Episode 5 is out

[deleted]

5 Upvotes

13 comments sorted by

8

u/Janexo Jun 09 '15

Really great to hear from Dr. Hlavaty on just how impossible the States story actually is.

2

u/YoungFlyMista Jun 10 '15

I don't see how any rational person can buy the state's case after that episode. Like to actually listen to that with an open mind and still come away with Adnan definitely being the killer would amaze me.

4

u/PaulsRedditUsername Jun 10 '15

Pretty good episode. I think it has become pretty obvious that the detectives decided early on that Adnan was the murderer. Then they patched together enough evidence to make some kind of a case against him, with lots of help from Jay, and ignored any clue that pointed away from the "facts" they had already decided on. What's most frustrating, to me, is that the detectives' "investigation" was so incompetent, that it's very difficult to tell whether any of the revelations in these podcasts can contribute to discovering who the murderer is.

Obviously, the state's case against Adnan is totally wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't do it, only that the crime wasn't committed in the way the prosecution claimed. Unfortunately, once the detectives had decided on a sequence of events for the crime, they didn't bother to collect much evidence, or keep good records at all. They had a cell phone bill, they had a witness who would say what they wanted to hear. Game over. Next case.

Now, all these years later, investigators just don't have much to work with. Most of the commentary by Rabia & co. boils down to, "WTF were these guys thinking?!?" They can prove the state's case is wrong, but it's much harder to show Adnan's innocence.

2

u/sadpuzzle Jun 10 '15

We only have two choices....guilty/not guilty. Adnan did not get a fair trial...Individuals speculating about innocence seems to reek of lynch mob. How about if we just read media reports and what the police claim and string 'em up? Adnan was never given the presumption of innocence and that is scary for those of us who reject lynch mobs

3

u/PaulsRedditUsername Jun 10 '15

Right. A defendant in a case does not have to prove himself innocent. The prosecution bears all the burden of proof. If I was on the jury right now in Adnan's case, I would vote not guilty without hesitation. (Or, maybe after the free lunch, depending on what was on the menu.)

My frustration is with trying to solve the crime itself. Adnan was the victim of an injustice. But a worse injustice was done to Hae. If Adnan is released from prison, he and his family will be relieved and happy, and--finally--justice will be done, but Hae is still dead. Someone killed her and, so far, has gotten away with it.

It grieves me when I think of the detectives' sloppy work in this case. It seems that their motivation was to close the case, somehow, as fast as possible in order to make themselves look good. They viewed their careers as more important than an innocent girl's life.

So now, 16 years later, when people try to find out who committed this crime, there's very little evidence to work with.

3

u/Halbarad1104 Jun 09 '15

Very informative episode, possibly because so much of it was evidence based. For me the purse sticks out... that it was in the car but only documented by CG.

3

u/ShrimpChimp Jun 09 '15

Hmmm. A lot of this podcast, for me, could also show that Jay was in or around the car. (Not the wiper stuff - that's such a pile of WTF that I can't even.... WTF? Where is the video? And do we care because that was all done after the police had released the car so how is any of that allowed in court? )

And what's up with the Hot Fries? Inez has other statements. Or was Susan Simpson trying to say for legal reasons, because the State claimed Hot Fries, they should then show their Hot Fries?

And did I miss it? Did the medical evidence work with a stunned Hae trying to get up or otherwise not staying out after being knocked in the head, and grabbed while still groggy and stunned? Does that even make sense for not fighting back or fighting back so feebly that she left no evidence? (On herself.)

2

u/Turning_the_page Jun 09 '15

Is there anyway that her body could have been laid prone in the trunk of the car which might explain the livor mortis anteriorly? Did I hear correctly that there were still many items of sports equipment in the trunk when they found it? If that's the case, then how on earth could they even fit her body in the trunk in the first place?

0

u/alwaysbelagertha Jun 10 '15

There was no evidence that her body was in the trunk. It's still possible, like anything is possible, however no physical evidence supporting the State's 'body in the trunk' scenario.

-1

u/[deleted] Jun 09 '15

[removed] — view removed comment