3 ms·

Syed's fingerprints were in the victim's car, no other suspects were.

rogerb 9y ago
He was her boyfriend and had been in the car many times. I may sound like I'm defending Adnan, but I am not. I just don't think that the case was well prosecuted and or defended, which is either now allowing a killer to walk free or an innocent person to have spend years in jail for something he didnt do.
p49k 9y ago
His fingerprints were on a map in her car. He was her boyfriend, so it’s no surprise that some of his fingerprints would be there. It has no actual connection to anything related to the murder. I spent some time looking into this case as well and came to the conclusion that there is simply not enough information to definitively conclude anything, and that people seem too eager to take several leaps of faith to assume he’s guilty. He very well may be, but it isn’t close to being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Every piece of evidence used to convict him is sketchy in some way.
- Kylekramer 9y ago
  The mind can always come up with an innocent explanation if it wants to see that. He had been an ex-boyfriend for nearly a month, and no other suspects had fingerprints in the car. Not sure how you believe people are too eager to see him as guilty when the only reason anyone knows about him is a campaign to free him.
  - dbasedweeb 9y ago
    You're really certain about something you can't possibly be certain about, but putting that aside, you're also misreading motives for interest in his case by many. I don't know if he's guilty or not, I just care that our justice system holds itself to an acceptable standard, which it did not in this case. "Ah reckon" isn't the standard, but "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is. "Who else could have done it" is a poor standard, and yet the one that seems to have been employed in this case. For people who care about how the system works, or doesn't work, this is an important distinction. In essence, it has little to do with the guy himself, and more to do with how the system failed him. If he's guilty, lets actually prove it as we're supposed to, and then we can all get on with our lives.
  - p49k 9y ago
    I don’t think he’s innocent, I think there’s not enough info, and people are being intellectually lazy in proclaiming him guilty. It’s a common and dangerous trend in the US and I think it’s one of the reasons why so many innocent people are wrongly convicted. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim the fingerprints have significance. Fingerprints on a weapon, or her clothes, or even the trunk or door handles are evidence. Fingerprints on a map are meaningless when he had probably been in her car dozens of times before as her boyfriend.
    - Kylekramer 9y ago
      I think it is equally intellectually lazy to throw up your hands and claim solipsism in a murder case, particularly when there is a lot of compelling evidence. The real significance of the finger prints isn't that Syed's were there, but that they were there and no other suspects were. Someone with murderous intent was in that car, and the evidence shows that Syed was at least recently in car while all other suspects have no evidence that they were.
      - p49k 9y ago
        > Compelling evidence The thing is that the evidence is not compelling at all. It relies on sketchy cell phone evidence and the witness of a guy who told three entirely different versions of his story. The cell phone evidence is so bad that the expert who testified for the prosecution retracted his analysis during the appeal. Prosecutors presented location for incoming calls as evidence, even though the AT&T call log made it clear that incoming calls did not have valid location info. The police mistakenly placed one of the towers in Patapsco State park, and the first version of Jay’s story had them driving through there. The police fixed their map and the second version of his story does not have them going to that park. That seems pretty clear that he was being coached, which puts the claim that “he knew where the car was” in doubt.
      - Sangermaine 9y ago
        What's intellectually lazy is that you're clearly approaching this from the assumption that Syed is guilty and demanding proof that he isn't. The American system is founded on the exact opposite principle: the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Syed is guilty. Syed doesn't even have to show that he is innocent, just that the State can't prove his guilt. In the case of the fingerprints, as many other posters have pointed out, he was the victim's boyfriend and so had been in her car many times. The presence of his fingerprints in her care is therefore neither surprising nor evidence of guilt. It just shows that at some point he was in her car, which already know was true many times. It's not for Syed to explain away the fingerprints, it's for the State to explain how it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murder. Despite your numerous erroneous assertions to the contrary, the evidence presented by the State is extremely weak and circumstantial, and testimony of their key witness demonstrated to be extremely unreliable. Not to mention your assumption that it MUST be one of the listed suspects, and since their fingerprints weren't there it must be Syed. It's possible the killer was an unknown person. It's possible one of the other suspects wore gloves or some other protection against fingerprints. It's also possible Syed was the killer, but the fingerprints being in the car are not in any way proof of that because, as noted above, their presence is to be expected. Yours is precisely the kind of mindset the entire system is set up to avoid. Thankfully people who actually know the law and have gone over the evidence haven't approached this question with your attitude.

He was her boyfriend and had been in the car many times. I may sound like I'm defending Adnan, but I am not. I just don't think that the case was well prosecuted and or defended, which is either now allowing a killer to walk free or an innocent person to have spend years in jail for something he didnt do.

p49k 9y ago

His fingerprints were on a map in her car. He was her boyfriend, so it’s no surprise that some of his fingerprints would be there. It has no actual connection to anything related to the murder. I spent some time looking into this case as well and came to the conclusion that there is simply not enough information to definitively conclude anything, and that people seem too eager to take several leaps of faith to assume he’s guilty. He very well may be, but it isn’t close to being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Every piece of evidence used to convict him is sketchy in some way.

Kylekramer 9y ago
The mind can always come up with an innocent explanation if it wants to see that. He had been an ex-boyfriend for nearly a month, and no other suspects had fingerprints in the car. Not sure how you believe people are too eager to see him as guilty when the only reason anyone knows about him is a campaign to free him.
- dbasedweeb 9y ago
  You're really certain about something you can't possibly be certain about, but putting that aside, you're also misreading motives for interest in his case by many. I don't know if he's guilty or not, I just care that our justice system holds itself to an acceptable standard, which it did not in this case. "Ah reckon" isn't the standard, but "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is. "Who else could have done it" is a poor standard, and yet the one that seems to have been employed in this case. For people who care about how the system works, or doesn't work, this is an important distinction. In essence, it has little to do with the guy himself, and more to do with how the system failed him. If he's guilty, lets actually prove it as we're supposed to, and then we can all get on with our lives.
- p49k 9y ago
  I don’t think he’s innocent, I think there’s not enough info, and people are being intellectually lazy in proclaiming him guilty. It’s a common and dangerous trend in the US and I think it’s one of the reasons why so many innocent people are wrongly convicted. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim the fingerprints have significance. Fingerprints on a weapon, or her clothes, or even the trunk or door handles are evidence. Fingerprints on a map are meaningless when he had probably been in her car dozens of times before as her boyfriend.
  - Kylekramer 9y ago
    I think it is equally intellectually lazy to throw up your hands and claim solipsism in a murder case, particularly when there is a lot of compelling evidence. The real significance of the finger prints isn't that Syed's were there, but that they were there and no other suspects were. Someone with murderous intent was in that car, and the evidence shows that Syed was at least recently in car while all other suspects have no evidence that they were.
    - p49k 9y ago
      > Compelling evidence The thing is that the evidence is not compelling at all. It relies on sketchy cell phone evidence and the witness of a guy who told three entirely different versions of his story. The cell phone evidence is so bad that the expert who testified for the prosecution retracted his analysis during the appeal. Prosecutors presented location for incoming calls as evidence, even though the AT&T call log made it clear that incoming calls did not have valid location info. The police mistakenly placed one of the towers in Patapsco State park, and the first version of Jay’s story had them driving through there. The police fixed their map and the second version of his story does not have them going to that park. That seems pretty clear that he was being coached, which puts the claim that “he knew where the car was” in doubt.
    - Sangermaine 9y ago
      What's intellectually lazy is that you're clearly approaching this from the assumption that Syed is guilty and demanding proof that he isn't. The American system is founded on the exact opposite principle: the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Syed is guilty. Syed doesn't even have to show that he is innocent, just that the State can't prove his guilt. In the case of the fingerprints, as many other posters have pointed out, he was the victim's boyfriend and so had been in her car many times. The presence of his fingerprints in her care is therefore neither surprising nor evidence of guilt. It just shows that at some point he was in her car, which already know was true many times. It's not for Syed to explain away the fingerprints, it's for the State to explain how it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the murder. Despite your numerous erroneous assertions to the contrary, the evidence presented by the State is extremely weak and circumstantial, and testimony of their key witness demonstrated to be extremely unreliable. Not to mention your assumption that it MUST be one of the listed suspects, and since their fingerprints weren't there it must be Syed. It's possible the killer was an unknown person. It's possible one of the other suspects wore gloves or some other protection against fingerprints. It's also possible Syed was the killer, but the fingerprints being in the car are not in any way proof of that because, as noted above, their presence is to be expected. Yours is precisely the kind of mindset the entire system is set up to avoid. Thankfully people who actually know the law and have gone over the evidence haven't approached this question with your attitude.