> 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

> 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.