6 ms·

Appeals Court Upholds New Trial for Subject of 'Serial'

31 points by coloneltcb 9y ago

wwv25 9y ago
Jay knew where the car was.
- Femur 9y ago
  This is the fact that I always come back to when I assert that I think Adnan is actually guilty.
- stepanhruda 9y ago
  Yup, so it was either him or Adnan. If you ever played a deception game, when someone falsely accuses you, you go mad. Adnan is not mad and not accusing Jay back. He is guilty but didn't want to disappoint his community by admitting it, because they were so supportive during the trial.
- btilly 9y ago
  Do we know that? One of the many eye-opening things in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH_nP8pX4Fg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH_nP8pX4Fg is that during a long questioning session the police will often introduce facts about the case to see if you recognize them, then forget that they did so, then hours later ask a different question and your knowledge of the facts that you were previously told BY THE POLICE is now evidence against you. This happens frequently enough that I would want to know that an independent third party reviewed tapes of all questioning of Jay before concluding that he in fact had previous independent knowledge of any fact about the crime.
  - e40 9y ago
    Yeah, like the child sexual abuse trials of the 80's. The children were fed facts that were later presented as information in the trial obtained from the children. I do think this is the central question the retrial should deal with.
    - btilly 9y ago
      Children in particular are very suggestible. We had to learn how to question them without eliciting the response that we are priming them for.
CodeTheInternet 9y ago
How do articles like this pertain to Hacker News?
- testvox 9y ago
  Serial is a popular podcast among the hacker news crowd. So a follow up on one of their stories is probably going to be popular too.
- vowelless 9y ago
  If you think it's not useful, flag and move on ...
- pwthornton 9y ago
  This case involves two things that are very interesting for this audience: 1) Cell phone data was used as evidence to convict him. It later came out that at the time it wasn't that accurate and that the prosecution misled the jury about it (perhaps based on the prosecution not understanding the data either). Also of interest was how much trouble the judge, prosecutors and jury had with making sense of this data. Cell phone location data is way better today, but when this kind of data first became available -- much like DNA evidence -- juries have trouble making sense of it. 2) This trial is also interesting from a DNA evidence perspective. A lot of people feel that DNA evidence makes a case ope and shut, but everyone involved with this case was purported to be friends. So, what does some small amount of DNA evidence mean in a case like this? I find this trial is also interesting as we look at data from home AI speakers. I get the sense that we may have a few trials like this coming up in the future where the quality or type of data that a home AI speaker records is misunderstood, and it leads to bad evidence being shared.
- mmanfrin 9y ago
  On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Sangermaine 9y ago
rogerb 9y ago
Much like the Steven Avery case, this case was poorly prosecuted and defended. The case the State brought was unlikely that what actually happened. In the Steve Avery case there was a healthy dose of the police 'enhancing / fabricating' evidence and witness tampering, here it was mostly witness tampering and prosecutorial and defense 'issues'. If you believe Adnan is guilty - he goes free because of poor prosecution and defense; If you believe Adnan is not guilty - he spend years in jail for a crime he didn't commit - because of poor prosecution and defense. :(
- emsy 9y ago
  Yeah the question should really be if he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt, to which the answer can only be no.
- Kylekramer 9y ago
  What was poor about it? All my research into the case show that the prosecution was fairly above board and comprehensive. Syed had motive, means, and opportunity. There was physical evidence, a pattern of Syed lying to police and a confessing accomplice who had information the police didn't. Real tragedy in this case how the justice system can be so easily manipulated by the media.
  - rogerb 9y ago
    The police coaching ? The witness lying about, well, pretty much anything ? The defense not calling critical witnesses ? Or pointing out timelines that can't work ?
    - Kylekramer 9y ago
      Murder accomplices tend to be liars. There isn't any compelling evidence of police coaching. The "critical witness" the defense failed to call disappeared for 15 years, and came back with a cash in book deal in tow once the case was popular again. The timeline wasn't perfectly nailed down, but that isn't a prereq of a murder conviction.

31 points by coloneltcb 9y ago

wwv25 9y ago

Jay knew where the car was.

Femur 9y ago
This is the fact that I always come back to when I assert that I think Adnan is actually guilty.
stepanhruda 9y ago
Yup, so it was either him or Adnan. If you ever played a deception game, when someone falsely accuses you, you go mad. Adnan is not mad and not accusing Jay back. He is guilty but didn't want to disappoint his community by admitting it, because they were so supportive during the trial.
btilly 9y ago
Do we know that? One of the many eye-opening things in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH_nP8pX4Fg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH_nP8pX4Fg is that during a long questioning session the police will often introduce facts about the case to see if you recognize them, then forget that they did so, then hours later ask a different question and your knowledge of the facts that you were previously told BY THE POLICE is now evidence against you. This happens frequently enough that I would want to know that an independent third party reviewed tapes of all questioning of Jay before concluding that he in fact had previous independent knowledge of any fact about the crime.
- e40 9y ago
  Yeah, like the child sexual abuse trials of the 80's. The children were fed facts that were later presented as information in the trial obtained from the children. I do think this is the central question the retrial should deal with.
  - btilly 9y ago
    Children in particular are very suggestible. We had to learn how to question them without eliciting the response that we are priming them for.

CodeTheInternet 9y ago

How do articles like this pertain to Hacker News?

testvox 9y ago
Serial is a popular podcast among the hacker news crowd. So a follow up on one of their stories is probably going to be popular too.
vowelless 9y ago
If you think it's not useful, flag and move on ...
pwthornton 9y ago
This case involves two things that are very interesting for this audience: 1) Cell phone data was used as evidence to convict him. It later came out that at the time it wasn't that accurate and that the prosecution misled the jury about it (perhaps based on the prosecution not understanding the data either). Also of interest was how much trouble the judge, prosecutors and jury had with making sense of this data. Cell phone location data is way better today, but when this kind of data first became available -- much like DNA evidence -- juries have trouble making sense of it. 2) This trial is also interesting from a DNA evidence perspective. A lot of people feel that DNA evidence makes a case ope and shut, but everyone involved with this case was purported to be friends. So, what does some small amount of DNA evidence mean in a case like this? I find this trial is also interesting as we look at data from home AI speakers. I get the sense that we may have a few trials like this coming up in the future where the quality or type of data that a home AI speaker records is misunderstood, and it leads to bad evidence being shared.
mmanfrin 9y ago
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Sangermaine 9y ago

rogerb 9y ago

Much like the Steven Avery case, this case was poorly prosecuted and defended. The case the State brought was unlikely that what actually happened. In the Steve Avery case there was a healthy dose of the police 'enhancing / fabricating' evidence and witness tampering, here it was mostly witness tampering and prosecutorial and defense 'issues'. If you believe Adnan is guilty - he goes free because of poor prosecution and defense; If you believe Adnan is not guilty - he spend years in jail for a crime he didn't commit - because of poor prosecution and defense. :(

emsy 9y ago
Yeah the question should really be if he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt, to which the answer can only be no.
Kylekramer 9y ago
What was poor about it? All my research into the case show that the prosecution was fairly above board and comprehensive. Syed had motive, means, and opportunity. There was physical evidence, a pattern of Syed lying to police and a confessing accomplice who had information the police didn't. Real tragedy in this case how the justice system can be so easily manipulated by the media.
- rogerb 9y ago
  The police coaching ? The witness lying about, well, pretty much anything ? The defense not calling critical witnesses ? Or pointing out timelines that can't work ?
  - Kylekramer 9y ago
    Murder accomplices tend to be liars. There isn't any compelling evidence of police coaching. The "critical witness" the defense failed to call disappeared for 15 years, and came back with a cash in book deal in tow once the case was popular again. The timeline wasn't perfectly nailed down, but that isn't a prereq of a murder conviction.