Serial Episode 10 - The Best Defense is a Good Defense

As a relative late adapter, this 2-week layoff was the longest I have had to wait for an episode.  And while there wasn't much in terms of information about the case to dissect, it does a very nice job of providing insight to some of the things that happened.  The episode is focused on two parts: (1) the potential impact of prejudice in the prosecution of the case and the jury's verdict and (2) the performance of Christina Gutierrez as Adnan's defense attorney.  I think SK knocks it out of the park on the first issue.  But there were points in the discussion of Gutierrez where it felt a little, I don't know, unclean?  Perhaps it was justified, but it seemed a little weird kicking a dead woman.  

Anyway, onto the main points.

The Baltimore Jury Pool - Before getting into the main part, SK offers a quick point about the jury pool in Baltimore.  SK explains that in the jury selection process, the Court will ask a standard question asking the potential jurors if they or a close family member has been a victim of a serious crime, arrested for a crime, or served time for a crime.  SK notes that a large portion of the pool stands up (more than half, she estimates) and plays some clips from some of the jury pool.

I wasn't sure what to make of this segment.  Yes, we understand Baltimore can be a rough place.  But I don't think that necessarily played a role in the process.  Also, the selection of the sound clips was a bit odd.  There was a mix of jurors who said they were victims of crimes while other jurors said they had family members who were arrested or in prison for crimes.  Listen to the clips and you may notice that the people in the former group sound very different from the people in the latter group.  

Given that a focus of the first half of the episode is about how prejudice -- even inadvertent -- can factor into decisions, I found the collection of clips interesting.  Maybe it was just coincidence.  Maybe the selection was colored by some subconscious stereotyping.  Or maybe the selection was intentional to make a meta-level point about the theme of the episode.

Impact of Prejudice in the Case - SK uses the discussion of the jury pool as a segue to the main topic of anti-Muslim prejudice.  She starts with a statement by one of the jury pool who states that he could not be impartial because he has a Muslim "friend" and that he has seen this friend mistreat his wife and family.  

The discussion starts with Adnan's mother, who definitively states that the driving force behind the police's and prosecution's focus on Adnan was anti-Muslim prejudice.  SK voices her skepticism about this claim, but concedes that perhaps some prejudice did creep into the proceedings, whether intentionally or inadvertently.  

On my first pass through, I misinterpreted SK's skepticism.  I thought she was being naive that the police and prosecution would not be subject to such feelings of prejudice.  But I think she disagreed with the idea that such prejudice would have been the motivating force.  I think given the choice between an honors student of Pakistani heritage and a black drug dealer with a criminal record, I would expect any initial prejudice by the police would lead them to suspect Jay.  As for the prosecution, I wouldn't expect the prosecutor to actually believe the stereotypes; but instead, the State realized that this was a compelling theme that they could sell to the jury, so it became a focal point.  So while this may not have been a motivating force, it definitely became a theme and a powerful argument that resonated with the jury.

The first specific example SK discusses is from the bail hearing, which was an incident that Adnan's mother specifically points out.  At the hearing, the courtroom was full of Adnan's supporters from his mosque.  Adnan's attorney (different attorneys from Gutierrez) noted the crowd and made the case that these respected members of the community - doctors, teachers, lawyers, accountants, correctional officers, religious leaders - will watch over Adnan and supervise him if bail is set.  The prosecution paints the group as a bunch of aiders and abetters with limitless resources who will whisk Adnan away to Pakistan if bail is granted.  Prosecutor Vicki Wash (sp?) stated, "It is our position, your Honor, that if you issue a bail, uh, then you are issuing him a passport under these circumstances to flee the country."  Wash continues to note a conversation she had with a Harry Marshall, a senior legal advisor for international affairs with the Justice Department:

"He cited that there is a pattern in the United States of America, where young Pakistan males have been jilted, have committed murder, and have fled to Pakistan and we have been unable to extradict them back.  He gave me a specific instance that's occurring now that's pending in Chicago where the factual pattern is frighteningly similar.  Again it's a young Pakistan - Pakistan male who was jilted by his girlfriend, who fled the country and they have had no success.  And he indicated it would be a dim situation indeed if the defendant would flee to Pakistan.  We have information from our investigation that the defendant has an uncle in Pakistan and he has indicated that he can make people disappear."

SK speculates that the last bit about the uncle in Pakistan came from Adnan's science teacher, Mr. Nicholson.  Police notes state that Nicholson said suspect "had an uncle in Pakistan who could make people disappear."  The notes also stated "they drained blood from cow at mosque one day.  He was pumped."  This is the only mention of the uncle in Pakistan.

Adnan's attorney tried to fact check this assertion.  Three weeks later, Wash writes a letter to the judge apologizing if she misled the Court.  She said she "misconstrued" the information from Mr. Marshall.  She spoke with him again and he made it clear that there was not a pattern of young Pakistani men committing murder after they had been jilted and then running off to Pakistan.  And the "frighteningly similar" case from Chicago?  "That case parallels Syed's case only that it involves a Pakistani male charged with murder where the victim was known to the defendant."  

I love the apology.  "I'm sorry if I misled you by telling you these outright lies."  I can imagine the behind the scenes that led to the letter.  Adnan's attorney reaches Harry Marshall to ask him about this pattern of fleeing Pakistani murderers.  He hears what Wash says.  Probably an angry phone call with lots of obscenities.  And an apologetic letter to the judge before the defense can call her out on these lies.  I can't imagine the judge is happy about that.  Incidentally, this was the first and only time Vicki Wash was mentioned in the story, and I would be surprised if she had any further involvement in the case before this judge.

(As an aside, judges really don't like it when you lie to them.  In one of my earlier cases, our opposing counsel engaged in lots of motion practice.  Whether it was out of incompetence, carelessness, or it was willful, they would routinely overreach with their description of a case or two.  Without fail, there would be at least one case that they cite in their brief that did not state what they contended it did.  And of course, I took great joy in putting a big highlight on this.  Of course, they were my defendant so the responsibility of drafting the response to each of these briefs fell on me.  And considering they had a habit of dropped briefs late on Friday afternoons, ruining many a weekend, I did not like them very much.  Initially, I was more politic in describing this.  I'd say counsel was "mistaken" about this case and give the correct explanation.  That would later evolve to counsel "misconstrues" the holding of that case.  Towards the end, I'd come out and say that counsel "misrepresents" the case.  Not coincidentally, they lost every motion.)

In the end, this probably didn't make a difference.  Considering Adnan was being accused of 1st degree murder, he probably would not have been granted bail.  But it should have been clear that the prosecution was planning to play into the Muslim stereotype card as a major theme.  They resorted to major fear mongering at the bail hearing.  Consistently referring to Adnan as a "Pakistan male" was not coincidental.  So it's not a surprise that Gutierrez tries to tackle this head on in opening.

SK also (a bit mockingly) notes Jay's little "shout out" to Islam during his testimony at the second trial.  When testifying about a conversation with Adnan after meeting him at Best Buy, "This is when we started to talk a little bit.  I don't know he said to me it kinda hurt him but not really.  And when someone treats him like that they deserve to die.  How can you treat somebody like that who you're supposed to love?"  And then, "all knowing is Allah."  This is a detail that was never mentioned during interviews with police or at first trial.

So I was driving to work when I listened to this episode the first time.  I literally chortled out loud when I heard this.  This sounds like dialog from a bad television show, doesn't it?  Something the stereotypical terrorists would say while plotting their attack?  So, yeah, I don't buy this for a second.  It is highly unlikely that Jay would have all of a sudden remembered this new detail about a conversation that took place a year ago after neglecting to mention in during his numerous statements.  If you're going to embellish your story, make it believable.

And SK notes a couple of things from some of Adnan's teachers:

• One teacher said, "Think about what he would have been taught about women and women's rights."
• Another teacher told SK that she was terrified that Adnan's relatives were going to come after her for talking to the detectives.  She told SK that she assumed Adnan's parents were "evil."

And these are the people who are responsible for educating our children...

Comments from the Jurors - SK says the jurors she spoke with said that religion did not factor into their decision.  She notes Lisa Flynn (you may recall her from totally not holding it against Adnan that he didn't testify, nope, not one bit) said that the religion issue interested her at the beginning, but then she realized Adnan was just an American teenager doing normal teenager things.  Once they understood that, whatever stereotypes they had went right out the window.

Of course, probing a bit further, it's clear that wasn't the case.  Rather than stereotyping on "religion," there were stereotypes based on "culture" instead.  

William Owens:  

"I don't feel religion was why he did what he did.  It may have been culture, but I don't think it was religion.  I'm not sure how the culture is over there, how they treat their women.  But I know some cultures where women are second class citizens and maybe that's what it was.  I don't know.  He just wanted control and she wouldn't give it to him." 

Stella Armstrong:  

Armstrong:  They were trying to talk about in his culture, Arabic culture, men rule, not women.  I remembered hearing that.

SK:  One of the jur – you mean when you were deliberating, one of the jurors said that?

Armstrong:  Yes, when we were – right, when we were deliberating.

SK:  Mm hmm.

Armstrong:  So um, he had put his whole life on the line for her, you know.  And she wanted to – she didn't want no involvement anymore.

The problem with bias and stereotypes is that you don't necessarily realize you're doing it or what you're doing is wrong.  I'm sure Mr. Owens really felt that whoever "they" were "they" treat "their" women poorly and "those" women are second class citizens.  And hearing the State make those arguments reinforced his pre-conceived notions.  Ms. Armstrong parrots back the State's party line about how Adnan put his whole life on the line.  You may recall that her earlier quote parroted the State's description of Jay as the street-wise friend that Adnan could turn to in order to deal with this crisis.  So Ms. Flynn may naively thought that all these stereotypes went out the window.  And it seems that they did.  

Now, I have to admit that my commentary may be colored by my prejudice against juries.  As an attorney, I was trained to assume that the jury is incompetent and unable to comprehend any argument that is too complicated for a grade school child.  So when I hear these comments, they are feeding into my bias against jurors - that they are incapable of comprehending the evidence and making reasoned decisions based on evidence.  So make of this what you will.

But I think the Muslim angle was definitely a theme played up by the prosecution.  And that's not an accident.  They seized on a theme they knew would resonate with the jury and something that they could use to their advantage.  

Evaluation of Christina Gutierrez - The rest of the episode is focused on how Christina Gutierrez handled Adnan's defense and the erratic behavior she displayed towards the end of her career.  I don't really know what to say about the discussion of Gutierrez's deterioration.  It seems clear that she was affected by her health and that she was displaying erratic behavior.  And the improper money handling is clearly an issue that SK relates to since she reported on it originally.  But I think SK's assessment that Gutierrez didn't sabotage the case on purpose is reasonable.  While her health may have impaired her ability, this is information that adds to the story, but I don't know how much it changes things.  

On a lighter note, I was amused by SK's comment, "How could you even fit $10,000 in your pocket?"  $10K takes up very little space, especially in new $100 bills.  As this scene from Once Upon A Time In Mexico shows:



So I'd like to focus more on the substantive points of the defense.  First, SK starts by noting that Adnan's only gripe was that Gutierrez failed to contact Asia McClain.  He felt that Gutierrez was fighting for him and he trusted her completely.  Although, the later discussion with Adnan's mother suggests that his parents had a different experience with her. 

SK summarizes the defense strategy as "someone else did it."  The first trial ends in a mistrial after a heated conference with the Court over the cell phone records.  The judge admonishes Gutierrez for lying, Gutierrez indignantly and (apparently) loudly protests that she is not a liar and is offended by the implication.  Court grants motion for mistrial.  According to her law clerk, the jury was polled from the first trial and they indicated they were leaning towards acquittal.

I think SK is assuming to much here.  While anything is possible, it's by no means a done deal that the first jury was going to acquit him.  The prosecution had not rested their case.  Adnan would not have made his decision not to testify.  There would have been no closing argument.  So the record was not closed.  Also, the jurors probably knew who was conducting the polling.  Once relieved of their duty, it is quite possible the jurors would have just told the defense what they wanted to hear.  This inclination to try to please people is not uncommon.  So it is not fair to assume that the mistrial cost Adnan his freedom.

SK notes that in the second trial, Gutierrez did a lot of research trying to link Mr. S to Jay, but was unable to find anything.  Mr. S apparently testified at trial as a hostile witness, but there is no mention that his testimony turned up anything relevant.

Her focus, and rightly so, was on Jay.  She cross-examined Jay on 5 separate days.  SK notes that her examination seemed to be less effective.  Adnan is heard describing the prosecution as doing a "masterful job" of presenting the facts and that they had a "clear outline."  But the defense case was not as clear and her punches didn't always land.

For example, SK plays a lengthy clip form Gutierrez's cross on Jay's testimony regarding when Adnan told him the plan to murder Hae.  Jay initially said that Adnan didn't tell him until the day of.  But in the second interview, Jay claimed Adnan told him the plan 4 or 5 days in advance.  At trial, his testimony reverted to the original version.

CG:  On another occasion you told them well the conversations I had with Adnan Syed they occurred 4 or 5 days earlier, right?

Jay:  Yes ma'am.

CG:  And – let me make sure because now there are new interviews.  The first, your very first interview, occurred at a time when there was no tape recording, correct?

Jay:  Yes ma'am.

CG:  And on that occasion, did you tell them it occurred on the 13^th?

Jay:  No ma'am.

CG:  Then your second interview, after the tape recorder got turned on, did you tell them it occurred on the 13^th?

Jay:  No ma'am.

CG:  On the 15^th of March, did you tell them it occurred on the 13^th?

Jay:  I believe so.

CG:  Well, sir, do you recall that actually on the 15^th of March you told them that Adnan told you that he was going to kill that bitch.

Jay:  Yes, I remember.

CG:  So on the 15^th you actually told them, you knew a whole day ahead of time that Adnan was thinking of strangling her, right? 

Jay:  In the previ – the previous evening, yes.

CG:  Pardon?

Jay:  The previous evening, he spoke to me.

CG:  I can't hear you sir.

Jay:  No.

SK describes this exchange as "something just happened."  She's not sure what, though.  

This was not a good exchange.  If this clip is any indication of how the rest of the cross-examination went, that this was really, really bad.  First, I don't know what point she was trying to make.  If her point was that his testimony at trial is contradicted by a prior inconsistent statement that he made, there has to be a better way of making the point.  Second, dates are hard to keep track of.  She talks about the "13th" and the "15th of March" which is awfully confusing and hard to keep track of.  Third, if you hear the clip, her singsongy lilt is grating and I can't see a jury keeping their attention on this exchange to get any point out of this.  

One thing I will note from this exchange is that Jay comes off as an excellent witness.  He gives simple, clear yes or no answers for the most part.  He keeps his responses short.  He trails off a bit towards the end here, but if he maintained this tone throughout the five days and held up, I can see why the jury believed him.  

Also, SK notes that the reason Gutierrez left threads hanging is that you don't want to give the opposition the chance to fix any damaging testimony on re-direct.  So the goal of cross-examination is to get admissions on specific factual points.  Then you wrap all those threads up on summation.  The hard part is to (1) make the jury understand that you just won a point, and (2) pray the jury remembers the point when you get to summation when you tie your neat little bow.  This exchange spectacularly failed at part (1).  When a juror says you were talking, but not saying anything, that is not a good sign.

More troubling is SK's note that Gutierrez was less rigorous on other aspects.  She singles out the cell phone evidence.  Gutierrez's main attack of the state's cell phone expert was that he had used a different brand of phone to conduct his tests than the brand that Adnan had (which makes absolutely no difference).  And she did not attack the State's timeline and clearly explain how a significant swath of the cell phone records from the day do not match Jay's testimony.

This is more baffling.  Strategically, attacking Jay's credibility is a crucial point.  So while she may have been ineffective, she was on the right track.  But not focusing on the cell phone records is more troublesome.  First, you never want to make an attack that is facially wrong.  Here, this failed argument not only failed to weaken the expert's testimony, but it probably ended up bolstering it.  In relation to Episode 5, I noted the following about the cell phone testimony:

Rather, it would have been wise to have the defense's own expert mirror the tests the prosecution's expert conducted, and focus on the 10 sites that did not "pass" the test.  (Note: I think episode 7 touched a bit on the difficulty of an expert?  I forget and will have to look into that.)  Basically, create a battle of the experts and convince the jury that your expert is more credible.  Having an expert mirror the same test and discuss the 10 sites that are conspicuously absent from the prosecution's case should have been effective.   

Also, of the 4 other sites, the only one that really matters is the one at Leakin Park.  Once you establish the Leakin Park site as the only one that matters in the prosecution's case, attack it.  There, a defense expert would note that while the cell tower pinged, note that the cell tower has a wide range and testify that the cell phone did not necessarily originate from the burial site... and conduct tests from the area that would ping that tower.  And maybe introduce the caveat expressed by Dana - at best this proves the cell phone was in Leakin Park.  There are still a few logical steps that need to be taken to prove that Adnan killed Hae and that he was burying her body in Leakin Park at that precise time.  Especially considering the only thing supposedly establishing those links is Jay's unreliable testimony.     

The cell tower evidence was flimsy at best and should have been crushed at trial.  The idea that this evidence somehow corroborates Jay's story is utter nonsense and it boggles my mind how this trial resulted in a conviction.

 I found it baffling that the defense did not have their own expert.  And I don't think there was a mention of any difficulty in finding an expert.  So this is still puzzling.  A 5-minute conversation with an expert would have revealed that the brand of the handset used makes no difference.  Anyone with a modicum of understanding of cell phone technology would know that the communications protocols follow an adopted standard so that handsets know how to communicate with the towers.  

The troubling part is that later on, when SK discusses Gutierrez's money issues, she notes that Gutierrez used money in ways that she did not say she was.  So I wonder if there was supposed to be money allocated for an expert that got used elsewhere. 

SK notes that the defense's case was short.  It lasted 2.5 days.  The witnesses were the cops, a PI, and the surveyor of the burial site (the one who couldn't see the body when he was at the burial site).  And a bunch of character witnesses.  SK notes that Rabia criticized the defense, saying that it was laughably weak.

It does seem a bit flimsy.  But the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case, so having few defense witnesses is not necessarily dispositive.  Asia McClain should have been investigated and put up as an alibi witness to attack the State's claim that Adnan killed Hae by 2:36pm.  SK was able to find people who said they saw Hae at school (Debbie and Becky and Summer).  They would have hurt the State's theory that Hae was dead by 2:36pm.  Even Ines Butler's testimony that Hae was alone when she left the concession stand could have potentially helped (to show Adnan wasn't with her), but this is not as strong.  And the defense should have had their own expert to rebut the State's expert.  Character witnesses are okay, but they weren't going to make a difference.  The case would turn on whether the jury believed Jay or not.  Character testimony is sketchy enough as it is and it probably didn't accomplish anything.  

Prosecutorial Impropriety - The last substantive issue recounts what should have been a big "gotcha" moment for Gutierrez.  During the second trial, cross-examination of Jay reveals that Jay's attorney was provided by Kevin Urick, the prosecutor.  According to Jay, there was a lengthy period of time after he gave his statements in which he was not contacted by the police.  He tried to find an attorney and spoke to a public defender, but he was told he needed to be charged with a crime first.  On September 6th, the police came to notify Jay that he would be charged with being an accessory after the fact.  The next day, the police pick him up, book him, then take him to Urick.  Jay said this was the first time meeting Urick.  Urick introduces Jay to the attorney and says she could represent him pro bono.  

Gutierrez justifiably raises a fit.  Basically, the idea is that providing a lawyer is a benefit, which is worth something.  This can look like the State is paying Jay for his testimony or that Jay may feel beholden to the prosecution and could color his testimony.  The judge seems displeased but notes that Jay did not think there was anything improper and that he didn't realize he was receiving a benefit.  So no harm, no foul. 

Ugh, this made me feel dirty.  In the end, perhaps providing an attorney did not influence Jay's testimony.  If he were lying, he was doing it already out of self-preservation and in exchange for his plea deal.  The attorney in and of itself probably did not change the equation for him.  And considering Jay was not likely to face jail time anyway, maybe the attorney didn't make much of a difference.  

But this just looks bad.  From the beginning, I had assumed that even though the case was flimsy, I gave the prosecution and police the benefit of the doubt.  That they were acting properly and there was a reason for pursuing this case.  But this combined with Ms. Wash's deceit during the bail hearing makes the prosecution look really dirty.  The prosecution is trying to build the strongest case and their job is to put Adnan in jail.  And arguing a theme based on religion and culture, while icky, can be considered in bounds.  But lying to the Court is not in bounds.  And essentially paying witnesses is not right either.  

So maybe this was a snow job after all.  At least now, I'm willing to strongly consider that possibility.

News of Appeal - Finally, SK addresses the recent news that Adnan is getting a new appeal.  She says that is not correct.  What was decided was that a court ordered the State to respond to Adnan's petition for relief on one specific issue - that Adnan was denied effective assistance of counsel for failing to seek a plea deal contrary to Adnan's request.  

The last bit is an interesting exchange.  SK plays dumb and finds it was surprising that Adnan would ask for a plea given how adamant he was about his innocence and how he originally seemed to trust that process would win out and he'd be home.  But Adnan discusses how he saw people get long sentences and he realized how hard it is to beat a murder charge.  

I'm presuming SK is playing dumb here.  I would assume an experienced journalist would be fully aware of the realities of the justice system and that just because someone accepts a plea deal does not mean he/she is guilty.  This is just a reality of the system and a by product of the flawed jury system.  As Gutierrez's law clerk says, "You never know with these juries."  

The interesting twist is that usually it would be the attorney telling the client to accept a plea deal.  The attorney should be more realistic and aware of the capriciousness of the jury.  And usually the client would be more naive and idealistic in trusting the system.  So it's interesting how the roles were supposedly reversed.  Also, it seems like after the first trial ended in a mistrial would have been an opportune time to discuss a plea deal.  I'd assume that the prosecution would have polled the jury as well.  So if the jury really were leaning towards acquittal, this could have made the State more amenable to a plea.  Who knows?

Not sure if anything will come of this development.  SK ends the episode on a pessimistic note, stating how Adnan is unlikely to receive parole.  And how his petition is hanging on by a thread.  A somber reminder that once this season ends, his story will continue.  

Serial Episode 9 - To Be Suspected

This is an "Adnan episode."  With a lot of the heavy, substantive material taken care of, the story focuses more on how this has affected Adnan, taking us from his reaction to Hae's discovery, his interrogation and subsequent arrest, the trial(s), and his prison life.  Before SK focuses on Adnan, SK discusses three pieces of information that seems to definitive destroy the prosecution's theory of the case.

Laura's recollection of Best Buy payphone - The first piece of information is from Laura who tells SK that there were never any payphones at Best Buy.  Remember Laura is the friend of both Adnan and Jay who had the wonderful, flabbergasted quote in Episode 8.  Laura tells SK that she went to that Best Buy frequently... to steal CDs.  She said there weren't any outside, and the only place there would be payphones were near the entrance.  Her explanation why she is sure is that because she went there to shoplift, she was very aware of surroundings.  Laura speculates that the police didn't pay attention to the payphone because it was such a small detail.  SK is indignant about this and insists it isn't a small detail.  

This seems like a weird thing to make up, so Laura seems to be certain about her recollection.  It makes sense that she would be aware of her surroundings inside the store.  But I don't know if that would extend to the exterior of the store.  The fact that SK has not been able to find confirmation of the payphone tends to support Laura's recollection as well.  But if you look on the Serial blog, there is a map  that Jay draws, which shows the payphone by the corner of the store.  (Incidentally, Jay butchers Adnan's name as "Ahnand," which seems to show how little they knew one another.  Misspelling it is perhaps understandable but he completely butchers it...)  And this would be a weird, specific detail for Jay to make up.  It would be the type of thing that could easily be checked, so it would be dumb to lie about something like that.

As for whether the police followed up on this, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.  If they did and there was a payphone like Jay said, then that could have helped verify his story (although why they wouldn't have subpoenaed the records is another matter).  If they checked it out and found no payphone, then they very well would ignore it as a small detail because it doesn't fit with their case.  This is where SK's little outburst seems a bit naive.  She's viewing it from the perspective of someone who has spent months trying to find the truth.  But that's not how the police were approaching this.  At this point, they are convinced (for some reason) that Adnan is their guy.  They already arrested him and decided to side with the drug dealer who led them to the victim's car.  That takes a pretty high level of certainty, and operating within that framework, verification bias would be strong.  If they investigated and found no payphone, they very well could have dismissed that as a small detail, if they felt the big picture (i.e., Adnan killed Hae) was intact.

Summer's story of seeing Hae - The second piece of information comes from Summer, who was a student at Woodlawn.  She contacted SK to say that is the prosecution was claiming Hae was dead by 2:36, that was impossible because she spoke with Hae at school later than that.  Summer was friends with Hae (not that close, but they had classes together) and Summer joined Hae as a manager of the boy's wrestling team.  On that day, she was getting ready for the team's trip when Hae came by and said she wasn't taking the bus with the team and would meet them at the location.  Summer recalled this because she was new to this and was not comfortable keeping score.  Hae told her that she would be there, but she had to pick up her little cousin.  Summer says they spoke for about 10 minutes and this happened around 2:30 to 2:45.  Summer says she was positive this was the day because Hae obviously never showed up and she was mad at Hae for ditching her.  It appears the police never spoke to Summer.

Summer's story is corroborated by other witnesses.  Becky said she saw Hae right after school.  Debbie said she saw Hae inside the school near the gym around 3pm (which could fit Summer's story).  The one witness who contradicts this would be Ines Butler (the concession lady) who had told SK that Hae asked her to tell the team bus to wait for her.  But SK notes that Ines' statement to the police said that Hae was not getting on the bus.  

At this point, SK asserts that the 2:36 call was not the "it's done, come get me" call made from the Best Buy as the prosecution argued.  And if there never was a payphone at Best Buy, then maybe the murder didn't take place there at all.  Chris said Jay told him the murder took place at the Woodlawn Library parking lot, but that place is even more impractical due to the number of people near there.  SK wonders if Hae was still alive then, could the 3:15 call be the "it's done" call?  If then, there are severe timing problems as Jay's testimony is all messed up.

Summer's story is interesting.  The timing seems to be that she contacted SK after hearing about the podcast.  So she is either telling the truth or making this up to get attention and interject herself into the story.  It's impossible to evaluate what she's doing, but the fact that Debbie and Becky also said they saw Hae at school, and given the details provided and the explanation for why she remembered that day, it seems like a plausible story.  Besides, no one actually believes the prosecution's insane theory anyway.  But even if Summer is right, does it really change anything?  Perhaps if Adnan was at track practice, that narrows the time window in which he could have committed the murder.  Rather than a 90-minute timeframe from 2:30 to 4:00 pm, now it becomes a 45- to 60-minute window.  This doesn't mean Adnan is necessarily innocent, but it does make things more complicated. 

Throwing out 2:36pm as the murder time really narrows the time window.  If Hae was at school until 2:45 to 3:00pm, and she was supposed to pick up her cousin at around 3:15pm, then she would have had to have been diverted in this 15 to 30 minute window.  But, this also means Hae would have been in a rush, so it would have taken something pretty extraordinary to divert her attention.  She no longer has almost an hour to get her cousin.  Now it's she has to go pick up her cousin in 15 minutes.  And I think that changes things.  

Aisha Calling Around that Evening - The last piece of information relates to Cathy's observation that Adnan was "panicked" after receiving a phone call while he was at her apartment.  SK notes that this call may have actually been from Aisha, who was calling around looking for Hae.  This came from Krista, who told SK that Aisha was calling people and she spoke with Aisha at around 6pm.  Aisha confirmed that she spoke with Adnan, although she couldn't remember if she called him or the other way around.  It was a "super short" conversation and Adnan was annoyed with her for telling the police to check in with him.  Aisha thought the conversation had occurred after Adnan had spoke with the police.  But she can't be sure exactly when the call happened.

At this point, SK suggests Aisha could have been the 6:09pm call.  So when Adnan says "what am I going to do?  What am I going to say?" it isn't necessarily out of panic.  It could have been the result of his annoyance for Aisha directing the police in his direction (like, "what do i know where she is.  why did you have the police bother me?" sort of thing). 

Of course, we can't be sure if this is what happened, but that sounds like a perfectly plausible scenario.  I (and several others) really credited Cathy's testimony anyway.  She had never met Adnan before.  She made her conclusions about Adnan's behavior after he was already arrested.  She's drawing conclusions from one side of a phone conversation.  And her testimony pretty much requires there to be a third person, who no one has suggested.  

Adnan's story - The rest of the episode is devoted to Adnan's experience in this.  Lots of sound clips of Adnan speaking.  Some useless observations about how Adnan seemed to be taking the news of Hae's death (and a statement from Jim Trainum saying that these statements are all useless).  A couple of interesting bits here are: (1) Adnan called the police (Detective O'Shea) when he, Krista, Aisha, and Stephanie were together after hearing the news of Hae's body being discovered, and (2) Adnan reminding SK that he was 17 when this was happening and just couldn't process the implications of what was going on.  Otherwise, there are some clips of Adnan speaking.  Here's him on learning Hae was dead:

“Yeah, it was a complete it was just a complete - yeah it was just a complete shock.  There no way that you know that I... I’m pretty sure they didn’t either... imagine that she would turn up, you know, dead, murdered, and her body would be found.  So, no, I had never ever consider that.  I’m pretty sure they didn’t even think something bad happened to her either.  We just kinda thought that it was some – there was some explanation.  You know, Hae was somewhere, you know with her father in California, or with her new boyf- who knows.  So, no.”

He sounds a bit flustered talking about this, but it could just be remembering an emotional time.  I guess something I keep forgetting is that they are all 17-18.  And teenagers do dumb things and they can be naive.  It's easy to automatically fear the worst when someone disappears.  But then again, I guess it's not unheard of for an 18-year old to run off with a boy or go somewhere.  It really does seem like her friends were in denial that Hae was dead as well, so Adnan's reaction doesn't seem out of place.  

Letters with Krista - SK spoke with Krista, who showed her letters exchanged with Adnan.  Adnan wrote consistently, and they seem like he genuinely cares for her.  He asks about Krista's life, prom, boyfriend, etc.  He tells her about prison life.  He notes other people who have written him -- Laura, Ju'an, Justin, Asia, Erin.  SK notes he did not attach any significance to Asia's letter as a potential alibi. One interesting letter was right before his sentencing when Adnan sent Krista a photo from a magazine that looked like Hae.  SK seemed a little concerned about this.  Was this too nonchalant?  Creepy?

This section was very nice storytelling.  We get a nice picture of the good side of Adnan.  He comes off as he was a good friend who had a genuine relationship with Krista.  Not much to analyze here, but it is excellent storytelling.  The one potential downside is SK really does paint a rosy picture of Adnan.  I know SK is trying to be an impartial investigator here, but it seems like she does like him and hopes he really is innocent.  

Sentencing - SK discusses the sentencing process.  Hae's mother speaks, and at that point Adnan says he understood for the first time how people on the other side viewed him.  Adnan's attorney asks the judge to consider it a crime of passion.  Adnan is upset because the attorney is giving away his innocence.  He wants to maintain his innocence but his attorney advises against it because that would anger the judge.  Adnan gets a chance to speak and more or less bungles it.  

The judge has some scathing words when she issues the sentence:

“I disagree with you counsel.  This wasn’t a crime of passion.  You planned it.  You used that intellect.  You used  that physical strength.  You used that charismatic ability of yours that made you the president or what was it the king or the prince of your prom.  You used that to manipulate people.  And even today, I think you continue to manipulate even those who love you, as you did to the victim.  You manipulated he to go with you to her death.” 

Wow.  This seemed very harsh coming from the judge.  I can understand a juror or a layperson buying into the prosecution's story and convicting.  But I am surprised a judge would listen to the evidence and basically call Adnan a sociopath.  Unless we are missing some damning pieces of evidence, the prosecution's case was flimsy as hell and full of holes.  Anyone paying attention to Jay's story should have spotted gaping holes.  I just don't understand how you can go from there to making these comments.  The judge seems to have genuine contempt for Adnan in these statements, and that took me by surprise.

Adnan Today - SK recounts how another prosecutor told her that of course Adnan can't admit he's guilty now with everything his family and friends have gone through and are doing.  Adnan takes offense to that.  He says his parents are the dearest people in the world to him and the thing that hurts them the most is the injustice of the situation.  He says that if they found out he actually was guilty, they would feel better because they would know that he deserved to be in prison.  They still love him but would understand he was being justly punished.  

Interesting reaction.  I suggested maybe that Adnan would be willing to maintain his innocence to protect his parents.  I'm not willing to adopt Adnan's rationale here, but he does raise an interesting point.  

The last notable thing is an exchange with Adnan about why he isn't angry or bitter.  Adnan says he is lucky compared to many who are in prison.  He has family and friends who care, visit, etc.  Religion has helped as well and it made him a better Muslim.  And he has a clear conscience because he didn't kill Hae.  

Once he tells SK that he's in prison because of his own stupid actions.  When asked about it, he says:

A:  Well I mean because at the end of the day man who can I – I mean... I never should have let someone hold my car, I never should have let someone hold my phone.  You know.  I never should have been friends with these - with people, you know, who – I mean, who else could I blame but myself? 

SK:  Well, you could blame Jay if you think he’s lying.

A:  I mean yeah but at – I mean – him, the police, the prosecutors.  But I mean – I mean sure what happened to me happened to me – I had nothing to do with this, right.  But at the end of the day, I have to take some responsibility.  You know I mean you don’t really know the things that my younger brother went through.  You know, um what my family goes through, you know I mean – at the end of the day if I had been, you know, like a good Muslim, you know someone who didn’t do any of these things, you know what I mean, then uh (pause) yeah it’s something that really weighs heavily on me.  I mean, no way, I had absolutely nothing to do with Hae’s murder but I mean at the end of the day you know it’s uh...I can’t (pause).  Yeah.

So one of my biggest red flags about Adnan is his calm demeanor and lack of anger towards Jay.  I suppose he really could have found inner peace thanks to religion.  But this exchange still felt weird.  He stammers all over the place.  He doesn't even seem to consider blaming Jay until SK brings him up.  And that would require an immense amount of self-assuredness to just forgive Jay to the point of not even considering him blameworthy.  

He does sound like he has regrets, though.  Maybe even feels some guilt.  Not sure if it is guilt over what he did to Hae or if he is guilty about how this has affected his family.  Throughout this process I have gone back and forth in deciding whether he did it or not.  What I can say is I don't think he is a cold-blooded sociopath.  I don't think this was premeditated murder.  And I don't think he "continues to manipulate even those who love him."  

Serial Episode 8 - The Deal With Jay

Warning: There will be rants.

As the title suggests, this episode focuses predominantly on Jay.  It's also a bit disjointed as SK jumps from person to person, trying to get their thoughts.  But basically, this was a wasted episode.  In an episode that is supposed to be devoted to the linchpin of the entire case, there is just nothing here.  There is a pointless "debrief" of a conversation with Jay that establishes nothing.  Some snippets of friends describing Jay, which amounts to nothing.  An investigator's assessment of the police investigation, which doesn't matter.  And some absolutely infuriating comments from jurors who were on the case.  Let's take these in turn.

Talk with Jim Trainum - SK spends a decent chunk of time getting Trainum's thoughts on the case.  He used to be a homicide detective in DC and is now a bit of an expert in false confessions and an advocate for better interrogation techniques.  He explained why Jay worked well for the police -- he completed a circle for them.  They were suspicious of Adnan, they investigated him and his phone records turned up Jenn, Jenn led to Jay, and Jay fingered Adnan as the culprit.  This was perfect.  Trainum said that he believed the investigation was technically sound.  But he had reservations about Jay's inconsistent stories.  And he said if there was some "mischief" it would have occurred during the pre-interview, before the recording started on Jay's statements.  

He does note that the police went easy on Jay.  They never searched his house.  They never subjected him to a polygraph.  He speculates that Jay was on their team now and didn't want to push too hard.  The cops "probably settled for what was good enough to be the truth."  He notes that at the stage where they are talking to Jay, they are trying to build the strongest case possible rather than focusing on getting the truth.  There is verification bias: if something fits their case, they will embrace it; if it doesn't they will ignore it.  

It's hard to tell whether SK's outrage over the comments about building a strong case rather than finding the truth authentic or played up for the audience.  It seems pretty naive for an experience crime reporter to genuinely feel surprised by this.  It's pretty apparent that at some point, the police made up their mind that Adnan was their culprit.  That's why they put up with Jay's lies, shifting statements, and did what they could to find a story that could sort of fit Jay's statement.  

Personally, this doesn't surprise me.  But I like to think there was some reason why the police were so convinced that Adnan was the culprit.  SK sort of leads the audience in this direction when she describes the detectives as good investigators in an earlier episode.  They were experienced, good detectives - they must have seen something to make them so sure.  Initially, that was my main basis for not falling into the "Adnan is innocent" camp.  I can't believe that an anonymous call was enough to make them convinced he was guilty. Or maybe I'm giving them too much credit.   

Conversation with Jay - For the most part, SK's narration style has been effective in grabbing my attention and making me invested in the story.  You can hear her investment into the case.  Her doubtful rhetorical questions mirror what we the audience often are thinking.  But there is one major difference -- she actually got to talk to these people while we are left to listen to what she recounts to us.  

That's what was so frustrating about this segment.  What was the point?  The effect of this is that SK and her colleague (blanking on her name) were super excited about talking to Jay.  And then they had a 20 minute conversation that took the wind out of their sails.  That's it.  Of course he is going to back up his story.  Of course he is going to maintain Adnan was guilty regardless of whether Adnan really is guilty or not.  He is not going to change his story now.  Whether Jay "looks tired" or that he was "polite and sweet" or that he was "forceful" in insisting Adnan did it really don't add anything.  Basically, I could not help but feel that this was a wasted opportunity.  

Now, I realize I'm not the person who was actually there, and I realize that SK has other obligations and protocol to follow.  But if all they got from the conversation was this, then the build up was unnecessary and aggravating.  A simple, "we were able to speak with Jay briefly.  He was tall and wary and looked tired.  He was polite and sweet but it was clear he didn't want to talk to us about the events.  What struck us was how forceful he was in insisting Adnan was guilty and scoffing at the notion that Adnan would maintain his innocence."  That takes 30 seconds -- about the time that this segment deserved.  I understand this was a narrative choice, but I was annoyed by her choice.  And I know others have expressed their disapproval as well.  
  

The only interesting thing I took away from this segment was that Jay exchanged emails with SK before ultimately declining an interview.  This was odd because the natural reaction in his shoes would be to decline to comment and not let them in the door.  Not only did he let them in, he acted as if he were accommodating them, even extending this process with the promise of an interview before providing a gentle letdown.  This was a very deft way of handling the situation he found himself in.  The descriptions of Jay focus on how he was "polite."  But I think it goes beyond that.  He is charismatic and knows how to interact with people in different situations.  

When faced with a highly disruptive situation - two journalists knocking on his door to discuss events he didn't want to re-live - he handled it remarkably well.  To me, this suggests that when sitting in a police interrogation room, he is capable of deftly massaging a story to fit what the police wanted while hiding certain details.  By the time the police picked him up, they wanted Adnan.  Their focus was already on Adnan, and Jay could pick up on it.  So he gave them a story that satisfied what the police wanted and gave them Adnan.  In short, he quickly understood the game the police were playing and played along with them.  There was a lot of talk last episode of whether Adnan was a charming sociopath.  Should that inquiry be made about Jay instead?

Discussion with Jay's Friends
SK also recounts her discussions with some of Jay's friends:  Chris, Laura, Patrick, and Cathy.  On balance, these discussions provide a little bit of insight into Jay, but again, there is hardly anything substantive here.  Overall, Jay was considered an oddball, the "Rodman" of the group.  Some people found him mean and intimidating.  Others said he was not serious and was just a goof.  Lots of contradictory statements, depending on your perspective.  Not very helpful.  

Chris:  The discussion with Chris yielded some information relevant to the case.  Apparently, Jay had told Chris about the murder and told the police that he had done so.  Yet, the police never questioned Chris.  But the story he was told was vastly different from any iteration of the story Jay told the police.  To recap, Jay was shooting pool when Adnan called.  Adnan dragged him out and showed him Hae's body outside the pool hall.  He forced Jay to help because of Jay's illegal activities.  Jay told him that Adnan killed Hae because he thought she was flirting with a car salesman.  When Hae said Adnan was crazy, he snapped and strangled her.  This happened in the parking lot of the Woodlawn public library.  And Adnan kept Jay in line by threatening Stephanie.  Jay told him that Adnan arrived at Jay's house with Stephanie, to demonstrate how easily he could get to her.  According to Chris, Stephanie was Jay's weakness:  "He would move heaven and earth if it came to protecting Stephanie."  

Let's start with the story.  It's hard to construct the timeline, but it sounded like Jay told Chris before he was picked up by the police.  But this is different from the story he supposedly told Jenn the night of the murder.  So why tell Chris a completely different story and then go back to the Jenn version when talking to the police?  There are bits of the story that are appealing.  The fact that Adnan allegedly killed Hae in a fit of rage makes more sense than the premeditated version of the story (for reasons discussed in context of earlier episodes).  Strangulation seems to be more a passion/rage kill rather than a cool, premeditated kill and that fits more.  Unsure about the car salesman bit, but that could have been Chris mis-remembering details.  Maybe they were arguing about Don.  That makes the story more plausible.  

But the other details don't make sense in terms of why these details would change.  Why would it matter what Jay was doing at the time or where he saw the body.  He gave three different locations:  outside the pool hall, by a strip off Edmonson Avenue, and the Best Buy parking lot.  The first two locations appear to be more associated with Jay, while the Best Buy maybe had meaning to Adnan...  The murder location shifts as well.  Why tell Chris the parking lot of the Woodlawn public library?  That seems to be a pretty silly claim given how public that location is.  Maybe he was trying out different stories?  Not sure.  

Not sure what to make about the last comment about Stephanie, though.  My gut reaction is to discount that because of the things we know about Jay in relation to the case (that he was cheating on her, that he didn't call her on her birthday until at the end of the night).  But then you have to stop and remember that we know very little (if anything) about these people.  So maybe Jay did feel this level of protectiveness and love for her.  But then again, maybe he knew people knew that about him and thought that would be an effective excuse for how Adnan would keep him in line.  Who knows?

The other interesting story Chris tells SK is how Jay tried to stab Chris because he had never been stabbed before.  Jay said Chris needed to know what it felt like to be stabbed.

W. T. F.  And why the hell was Chris laughing about this story?  I'm sorry, maybe I'm soft, but if you try to stab me, I am not going anywhere near you.  Just a bizarre story.  Does it mean anything?  Maybe it suggests Jay was a little "off" too?  Probably not that important, but it does add quite a bit of color to the picture we have of Jay.

Laura:  Laura is a friend of both Adnan's and Jay's.  She talks about how wonderful Stephanie is and how she was probably too good for Jay.  She was the good thing in Jay's life.  She said that Stephanie would not talk about this with anyone and Laura said it probably caused the end of their friendship.  Laura said she hung out with Jay during the summer before the trial.  But Jay wouldn't talk about it either.  

Nothing substantive here.  Just some more filler to paint a picture about Jay.  Of course, the best thing about Laura is this wonderful quote:

“Well then who the fuck did it?  Like why would... like why would... it doesn’t make sense.  Why would ki- eh- aleh- why wou- Hae was a ... I just... I can’t... I’m probably just as confused as you are.”

Patrick:  This is a different Patrick than the drug friend who appeared on the call log.  He said he had drifted from Jay when this happened, but they reconnected years later in around 2005.  Patrick asked Jay about it, and he said  he was afraid Adnan was going to hurt Stephanie.  He pushed for more details but Jay wouldn't go for it.  Patrick believed that the Stephanie explanation sounded pretty thin.  

Patrick's take that he didn't buy the Stephanie explanation was also echoed by some other people SK spoke with.  SK recounted that some "could not square" Jay feeling threatened by Adnan.  I tend to agree.  As I noted in the Episode 7 discussion, it appears that Jay and Adnan acted friendly after January 13th.  If Nisha's testimony is correct, Adnan put Jay on the phone at the video store, which means Jay and Adnan were on good terms after that date (remember, Jay did not have the video store job then).  And if Adnan were keeping Jay in line by threatening Stephanie, it would be colossally dumb to put Jay on the phone with the girl he was seeing.  So yeah, I don't buy that explanation.

"Cathy":  Cathy helpfully makes the observation that Jay lies about everything... but he wouldn't lie about something this big.  This is helpful.  Of course, in an earlier episode, she told SK that she only knew Jay through Jenn, so it's unclear where she is drawing this observation from.  She also justifies her conclusion because of how Adnan was behaving at her house.  

Eh, this isn't really anything either.  She seems to think Adnan and Jay were acting weird.  But it really is hard to put that in context.  She was forced to think back on the night after Adnan was arrested and Jay was being questioned by police.  With that piece of information, it is easy to look back and make assumptions that they were acting weird because they were guilty.

Also, one of the most important things about trying to read body language is to get a "baseline" reading.  Everyone has their own "normal" state.  The trick to getting physical tells is to compare this baseline reading and noticing any deviations, and to draw conclusions on what that deviation means.  (This comes into play in poker a lot.  But sorry Rounders fans.  A plate of Oreos isn't going to help you win at poker.)  Physical tells are very different from verbal tells in that generalizations can be drawn from differences in language, word choice.  But such generalizations really can't be made for physical tells.

Given that she met Adnan for the first time that night, I don't expect her to know how Adnan normally acts and that she is qualified to know if he was acting weird.  You need that baseline.  

Jenn:  SK mentions Jenn again in the context of Jay's friends.  SK reports Jenn was not rude, but clearly not interested in talking to her about this.  She said she believed Jay then and that has not changed over the years.  She said she could understand the kind of lie Jay told (like initially telling her that he didn't help bury the body).  But she said she didn't believe that the murder happened at Best Buy.

Another key person who SK seemed to let off the hook too easily.  If she doesn't want to talk about it, then what's the point in talking to her now?  It's clear Jenn knows more that she let on, or she lied for Jay.  So this was also profoundly disappointing.  I just can't take any of her statements at face value.
  
Jay's Statement at the End of Trial - The episode plays a clip of Jay at the end of trial expressing his remorse over his role in this.  Jay's attorney speaks up for him.  The prosecution commends him for his cooperation...  Yes, Jay's attorney is paid to do this.  The prosecution got their star witness to play his role.  But why is the podcast trying so hard to paint a sympathetic picture of Jay?  

I'm sorry, but Jay is not innocent.  He's not a "polite and sweet" kid who happened upon a bad situation.  He is a drug dealer who callously helped bury the body of a dead girl (who he knew!) and stayed quiet about it for 6 weeks.  Good people do not do these things.  I am not going to believe he suddenly feels remorse because he can cry in court.  You know what would have demonstrated remorse?  Going to the police and reporting the murder that you supposedly did not commit.  So let's just stop painting Jay as a victim here.  

The Defense Attorney 
The episode plays a short clip of Adnan's attorney in action.  And with that 15 second clip, it was pretty apparent how the jury found Adnan guilty on such flimsy evidence.  

SK notes that Gutierrez's strategy was to attack Jay's credibility.  Yes, that was a sound strategic choice.  Seeing as the prosecution's case hinged entirely on Jay's testimony, it was vital to destroy his credibility.  But it's the execution.  Oh, how awful this was!  SK is spot on in her observations.  She's in Baltimore with a half-black jury.  She's yelling at young black man trying to cow him into telling the truth.  She's shrill, she's condescending, she's rude.  As a result, the jury ended up feeling sympathetic to Jay, which translated into believing him.  Game over.


The Jury - Sigh.  The jury.  What do you do about the jury?  In my opinion, the jury system is horribly broken.  It is one of the most inefficient and error-prone parts of our legal system.  As a general matter, a jury is simply unable to fully appreciate and understand all the testimony and evidence that is presented over the course of a trial.  Here, the trial took 6 weeks.  Yet, the jury took 2 hours to convict. The fact that the jury was able to convict on this evidence is a cause for concern.  The fact that they did so in 2 hours is deplorable.  

So what happened?  Well, as with many cases, this was a battle of credibility.  Because of how the trial was framed, it became an issue of Jay versus Adnan.  If the jury believed Jay, then Adnan is guilty; if the jury did not believe Jay, then Adnan is not guilty.  In the end, Jay held up to Gutierrez's attacks and the jury believed him.  

SK plays recordings of conversations with a couple of the jurors.  Stella Armstrong says she believed Jay and wondered why would anyone admit to something that drastic if you didn't do it since you're going to jail anyway.  But Jay didn't go to jail.  When SK corrects her, she responds, "Oh. That's strange. That's strange."  

--Oops.

She said Jay seemed "street wise" and the type of friend you would call if you were in trouble.  So she found it believable that he would be the guy Adnan would turn to.

--Interesting that she basically parrots Jay's reason why Adnan would contact him.  This is the story that the prosecution fed.  Adnan couldn't turn to his magnet school nerd friends.  He had to turn to someone more "street wise" like Jay.  And of course, no mention of the fact that, you know, Jay and Adnan supposedly weren't good friends.

She said she felt that the defense attorney was trying to blame it on Jay.  But there was nothing to suggest any motive for Jay to kill Hae.  Gutierrez was trying so hard to pin Jay as a liar, but she felt he was telling the truth.  

--As a general matter, people hate to be told what they should think.  So repeatedly calling Jay a liar isn't effective.  It's much more effective to bring the jury to the edge so that they can reach the conclusion on their own that Jay is a liar.  How?  Just establish a pattern of his lies.  Highlight each inconsistency.  Have he say something then play the recording where he contradicted himself.  With all of the shifting stories and, yes, lies, there is no way she should have let Jay off the witness stand with the jury believing a word he said.  

Don't accuse Jay of being the murderer.  Lead the jury to think about that possibility.  Jay is the one who knew where the car was.  That makes him the only person here who definitively demonstrated they have first hand knowledge of the crime.  

• Jay never told the police that Adnan killed Hae until the police picked up Jay for questioning.  
• The whole case against Adnan is because Jay says Adnan did it... but Jay is the one who knew where the car was.  
• The prosecution says Adnan did it because Hae broke up with him... and the police thought that because Jay told them that.  
• Jay just happened to have Adnan's car and cell phone on this particular day. 
• Jay got his friend Jenn to lie about an alibi until 3:45... which is the window of time when Hae disappeared. 

The dumbest question was asking him straight out if he killed anyone.  Of course he's going to say no!  But you can ask him so many questions that he has to say yes to.  

• "You didn't tell the police that Adnan killed Hae until the police picked you up for questioning, correct?"  
• "You were the one who showed police where Hae's car was, correct?"  
• "You told the police that Adnan killed Hae because she broke up with him, right?" 
•  "You testified that you were at Jenn's house until about 3:45, correct?"  
• "And you had Adnan's phone and car with you until this time, right?"  
• "On the cell phone log, there is a call to Jenn's home at 3:21PM, do you see that?"  
• "So it is your testimony that while you were at Jenn's house with Jenn at 3:21PM, you called Jenn at her house?"

Bring the jury to the very edge, but let them take the final step.  She didn't have to prove that Jay was the actual murderer.  She just had to leave enough reasonable doubt - and that could be having them think Jay could have been the murderer.  

And then there is Lisa Flynn.  Her statement was that "it was huge" that Adnan didn't testify himself.  As she put it:

“We all kind of like gasped.  Like were all just blown away by that.  Why not?  If you are a defendant, why would you not get up there and defend yourself and try to prove that the State is wrong.  That you weren’t there that you’re not guilty.  We were trying to be so open-minded.  It was just like get up there and say something.  You know, try to persuade even though it’s not your job to persuade us but I don’t know."

<Infinite facepalms> I mean, what can you say to that?  One of the most fundamental tenets is that you have the right not to incriminate yourself.  Juries are specifically instructed that they may not hold a defendant's decision not to testify against him.  Yet, the jury found it "huge" and were "blown away" that he would "get up there and defend [him]self."  This is so fucking backwards and why I hate the jury system.  

The majority of people are simply not capable of processing information that they are not familiar with and making a rational decision based on a set of unfamiliar rules.  That's basically what the jury system is.  We put a collection of people, throw a bunch of testimony and evidence at them, give them some basic legal principles to keep in mind, and then ask them to make a determination about a critical issue that could effectively end someone's life.  When faced with this daunting task, rather than process the evidence and testimony and make an informed decision, they simplify the task.  Who do I believe more?  The credibility could be for the star witness.  It could be the police detective who testified about the investigation.  It could even be the attorney speaking in court.  Things like "evidence" and "burdens" and "presumptions" are not what drive's the jury's decision.  It's going to be based on credibility.  Who do they believe.

Here, they obviously found Jay credible.  Without Adnan testifying on behalf, Gutierrez basically became Adnan's proxy.  And after watching her try to bully Jay (and failing), the jury determined they believed Jay over Adnan's attorney, and hence Adnan was guilty.  

Now I am not blaming the jurors themselves.  It's not their fault.  Most jurors are simply not equipped to make these determinations.  I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person.  But if you put me in an operating room and force me to remove someone's appendix, I am going to fail.  Spectacularly.  So then why are we forcing jurors to do something they are not really capable of doing?  

My initial reaction to this case was "Adnan should not have been convicted."  That is the only definite conclusion that I have.  I still am leaning towards believing that he killed Hae or was involved in her death.  But these are two different concepts.  When finding something guilty of murder, it can't be a guessing game.  It has to be a reasoned decision based on a compelling case made by the prosecution, which is the result of a thorough and diligent investigation by the police.  Depriving someone of his/her liberty is a drastic act.  That's why the burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is present.  All I see here is reasonable doubt.