Submitted by nowhathappenedwas t3_124xzd5 in news
Comments
DenotheFlintstone t1_je1j4ew wrote
Thank you. Was hoping there would be a TLDR.
AdSweaty8557 t1_je3utix wrote
That’s great to hear, I was going to say, what’s the point of playing with this man’s life. Freeing him , after all those years, just to send him back. They couldn’t make sure the first time ?
3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je239gy wrote
There is no guarantee the conviction will be vacated this time. Mosby and Feldman are gone. The evidence now has to be presented in court with the statements why the evidence supports the decision.
It didn't happen with the original motion. There was a lot more wrong with it than just the Lees were not given enough notice to attend.
It's also not just that the Lees were not given sufficient notice prior to the hearing, it's that the real hearing already happened prior, with the evidence being shown in secret.
Storied_Beginning t1_je2kvpp wrote
“If Syed’s case does return to a Baltimore courtroom, it will be handled by a new attorney — former prosecutor Becky Feldman has left the office — and under the administration of new State’s Attorney Ivan Bates. Bates took office in January but said while campaigning he believed Syed’s conviction was flawed and that Syed should be freed.“
3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je2lss9 wrote
That was back in 2017, when running against Thiru Vignarajah. In 2022, he ran to the right of Mosby and expressed being tougher on crime. The story made it seem like it was recent, but it's not. Things change a lot in 6 years.
Storied_Beginning t1_je2maa4 wrote
My apologies.
WebbityWebbs t1_je2vtb2 wrote
So just how much more tax payer dollars will the criminal (in)justice system waste to try to put someone back in prison, after he has been in prison for decades?
3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je2wkkg wrote
It's not just about one case. It's about fixing systematic issues that were present in the Motion to Vacate Syed's conviction. It affects a lot more than just Adnan Syed. It's the original motion to vacate that has "wasted" tax payer dollars, not what is currently going on.
oldcarfreddy t1_je4a58u wrote
I think you're just biased from an equally opposing perspective. You're ignoring that the basis for the vacate was grounded on prosecutorial misconduct that the court agreed with. Can't pretend to care about systemic issues then ignore that. That's disingenuous.
3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je4udbx wrote
The alleged Brady violations in this case are yet to be proven though.
[deleted] t1_je8bv3z wrote
[removed]
WebbityWebbs t1_je2xqar wrote
Any attempt to retry the case would be the waste of taxpayer money, was my point.
3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je2y7uy wrote
They may not have to retry the case. If a new motion to vacate fails, then Adnan Syed remains a convicted murderer.
WebbityWebbs t1_je32b23 wrote
Good point. I’m slipping.
washington_jefferson t1_je3r36i wrote
I think Adnan is very guilty, always have. That said, he's done enough time in prison. It's time to move on. He does not strike me as a repeat offender. "Life imprisonment" sometimes means a 25 year sentence.
[deleted] t1_je317z7 wrote
[removed]
hellomondays t1_je1n3df wrote
Let's hope all that is, like this move sounds dangerously close to double jeopardy. Like, sure, the thoughts and notions of a victim and their family should play a role in the justice system but that role should be small enough as to not infringe on the rights of the accused.
KingfisherDays t1_je2tp1e wrote
>the thoughts and notions of a victim and their family should play a role
Should they? At the end of the day, the question is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the feelings of the victims have no bearing on that. For sentencing, maybe there's an argument there, but I'd argue that the point of the justice system is to take that kind of vengeance out of the equation.
hellomondays t1_je2v5f3 wrote
I'm not saying any sort of major role, like vegance should be the last thing a justice system cares about!
[deleted] t1_je3lpkh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je3v8ix wrote
[removed]
3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je299ry wrote
This is just vacating the last motion to vacate hearing, which was not conducted properly.
Some key notes in today's judgement:
> We note that, although CP § 8-301.1(f)(2) requires the court to “state the reasons > for” its ruling, the court did not explain its reasons for finding a Brady violation. See State v. Grafton, 255 Md. App. 128, 144 (2022) (Brady violation requires proof that: (1) the prosecutor suppressed or withheld evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to the accused; and (3) the evidence was material). > > It did not explain how, or if, it found that the evidence was suppressed, despite the lack of affirmative evidence that the information had not been disclosed, and the statement in the motion to vacate that, “[i]f this information was indeed provided to defense,” the failure to utilize it would be ineffective assistance of counsel. > > The court also did not explain how the notes met the Brady materiality standard. Additionally, the court found that the State discovered new evidence that created a substantial likelihood of a different result, but it did not identify what evidence was newly discovered or why it created the possibility of a different result."
Also
> We note, however, that, if there is an in-chambers conference, the judge should put on the record what was discussed in chambers. See Poole v. State, 77 Md. App. 105, 120 (1988) (at the conclusion of a chambers conference, the court should announce on the record, “at a very minimum,” what was agreed to during the discussion), aff’d, 321 Md. 482 (1991).
Source: https://www.mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2023/1291s22.pdf
WebbityWebbs t1_je2w83g wrote
The way Brady violations are handled is shameful. If a court finds a Brady violation under Grafton, the prosecutors and cops should be going to jail. We allow cops and prosecutors to engage in criminal acts without consequence and then act shocked that they are a bunch of criminals.
3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je2xcr2 wrote
Agreed, what was presented in Adnan Syed's motion to vacate is not Brady material.
Mythosaurus t1_je4kppd wrote
It’s almost as if their “real” job is to harass and terrorize minority communities with a figleaf of deniability.
And that holding them to account with reasonable standards would break these systems and institutions that were founded with evil goals.
Trousers_MacDougal t1_je3l0sv wrote
I commented 6 months ago on the note in the MtV stating "even if [shared with defense]...then ineffective counsel."
It was the weaseliest sentence in a weasel explosion of a document. Glad the court picked up on it as a have your cake and eat it too justification. Once we all saw the content of the note it is manifest why it would not be used in any way by the defense.
ScrewAttackThis t1_je31c0t wrote
He hasn't been acquitted. Double jeopardy isn't an issue.
>should be small enough as to not infringe on the rights of the accused
Victims have rights, too.
[deleted] t1_je35zpz wrote
[deleted]
DudeWithAnAxeToGrind t1_je2jc95 wrote
In the meantime, the prosecutor changed. Didn't the new prosecutor run on a campaign promise he'll not agree to vacate the conviction? Basically making the new outcome influenced by political campaign promises. Which would be deeply flawed in itself.
3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je2vh30 wrote
No. Bates said that he would drop charges against Adnan and reopen the investigation back in 2017, but has since been more moderate and made comments that were tougher on crime. He never said he wouldn't vacate the conviction in the latest election.
[deleted] t1_je52739 wrote
[removed]
SS451 t1_je1yay7 wrote
This is a really inappropriate decision by the appeals court and emphasizes the danger of "victim's right" laws. The Lee family did not and cannot prosecute Syed, the State did. Syed did not and could not have violated the Lee family's procedural rights in connection with the hearing, the prosecution or the court did. There is no reason why the remedy for a violation of that right to be heard should run against Syed, and in fact this statute has no provision for remedies at all. The idea that reinstating a criminal conviction could be an unwritten remedy for the violation of a procedural right of a third party is bizarre. I sincerely hope that this is appealed to the Maryland Supreme Court and reversed.
Xiriously1 t1_je22r43 wrote
Agreed, too many of the commentators are stuck on the fact that there's a cloud of suspicion around Syed and its likely he committed the crime. Whether or not he's guilty is irrelevant to the discussion here. A judge found his rights were violated in the original trial and vacated the conviction.
This appellate decision is reinstating a murder conviction, not on the basis of the lower court judge's findings being wrong per se but because the victim's brother couldn't be present at the hearing? To do what exactly? We're effectively saying that this person's rights were ruled to be violated but because the victim's family member wasn't allowed to sit in the courtroom and hear about it in person that the bell gets unsung and this person is effectively guilty of murder again?
If the defendent was sympathetic then people would be furious.
ScrewAttackThis t1_je31twd wrote
Epstein was reinvestigated because his sweetheart deal was found to violate similar victim's rights laws.
That's basically the point of these laws. To allow victims proper notice of these decisions and to exercise their rights. Keep in mind we're talking about a vacated conviction and not an acquittal. An appeal was always possible and the state could've avoided this by just giving them proper notice.
Khiva t1_je3i8gi wrote
Reddit is a terrible place to get takes on anything that involved a specialized field of knowledge. The law, economics, anything science ... honestly really anything than pop culture and comic books.
Unless you're in a specialized, heavily moderated subreddit you're going to be hit with a disaster of misinformed takes whenever something highly technical hits the news.
prof_the_doom t1_je23fhp wrote
Why would the Lee family ever show up, if they think Syed is guilty, then?
bananafobe t1_je26cx1 wrote
I'm not sure about the specifics here, but my guess is that if they opt not to attend, then there's no basis to say they were denied access, which sounds like the basis of the objection.
[deleted] t1_je2l7fp wrote
[removed]
Elhaym t1_je1pt4a wrote
I listened to Serial and came to the firm conclusion this guy is guilty as sin, and that those who believe otherwise are naive as hell and unfamiliar with lying sociopaths.
Icantredditgood t1_je1raaj wrote
I listened to Serial as well, and am unsure whether or not he is guilty, but I believe that due to the absolute farce of a trial based solely on circumstantial evidence, and an incompetent defense attorney, he should not have been convicted. His guilt or innocence is immaterial.
frealfr t1_je1ro6v wrote
Circumstantial evidence convicts individuals on a massive e scale.
thetacticalpanda t1_je4gaod wrote
"There was only circumstantial evidence" is to law as "Evolution is just a theory" is to science. If you have video of a husband and wife entering a building, the husband's fingerprints on the knife found in the wife's chest, and video of the husband leaving the building alone, all you have is circumstantial evidence.
Maria-Stryker t1_je4uh17 wrote
Yes but in this case it all hinged on one guy’s testimony and cell phone location data corroborating everything. The one guy in question had all the motivation to lie for leniency on his crimes and other experts have stated that the cell phone location data is not that accurate. Do I think he’s actually guilty? I don’t know, but I will say I don’t think the evidence reaches the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold especially since the police didn’t clear the alternative suspects
[deleted] t1_je2xdpb wrote
[removed]
Elhaym t1_je2bjg1 wrote
I agree he had an incompetent defense. No question there. I don't have a problem with "circumstantial" evidence. Most evidence is, and it's totally fine to convict solely based on it. What is important is how strong the circumstantial evidence is.
andrewthemexican t1_je3704n wrote
This is my opinion on Steven Avery. I'm not entirely convinced he didn't do it, but I can't agree with a guilty verdict with the whole shitshow.
d01100100 t1_je2io6a wrote
A smoking gun is circumstantial evidence. It's very strong, but it not in flagrante delicto.
Mydickradiates t1_je2xzy2 wrote
I guess this is why the rebuttal to whining about defense attorneys is they exist to give a vigorous defense so that the obviously guilty will not walk from incompetence
spasske t1_je4rik0 wrote
Are you considering it a farce when someone testifies that they helped him bury the body?
[deleted] t1_je1ufzn wrote
[removed]
89141 t1_je1uhuo wrote
Almost all evidence is circulating.
hellomondays t1_je1rw4c wrote
I agree, that was my take away too but it's not how justice works or should work. The state's case fell apart under post-trial scrutiny, their evidence was flimsy and overstated. I rather many guilty person go free from the state not being able to prove their guilt rather than one innocent person be wrongly convicted.
SpaceTabs t1_je20cun wrote
Yep. It's all about procedure. If the state makes a mistake on the procedure, that can result in a reversal. The truth is secondary.
Morat20 t1_je2565i wrote
It's done that way because it's to incentive prosecutors not to do shady shit to try to get convictions.
Which has, historically, been a real problem.
WebbityWebbs t1_je2wik0 wrote
Historically been a problem? It’s still a huge problem.
SpaceTabs t1_je4hyl7 wrote
It wasn't only this though. The police made way too many mistakes. The vehicle wasn't found for way too long. Now it would be found same day.
In 1999, this should have been a red flag about Baltimore PD corruption/incompetence. Since the murder, there has been two full-blown federal/state investigations of BPD with 100+ page reports, a riot, an award winning seven season HBO mini-series, and the mayor was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud the government over using a children's book to enrich herself. That was after she fired one of the better police commissioners, who went next door and became police chief.
[deleted] t1_je2nkrl wrote
[deleted]
SpaceTabs t1_je2vdx2 wrote
Well, there's also losing at the supreme court. At that time called the court of appeals. He is out because the prosecutor made a procedural motion to vacate the conviction and nolle prosequi for the court to dismiss the charges.
3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je23ipx wrote
The state's case really didn't fall apart though. The conviction was upheld multiple times.
hellomondays t1_je2keu4 wrote
I mean, their cell phone tower expert testified that overstated his testimony in the trial and DNA evidence later exonerated Syed. This is on top of a brady violation that was the thing that got him over the finish line. I think the prosecution made a good faith effort, they weren't trying to railroad him, but they made mistakes
3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je2l7w9 wrote
The outgoing calls were never in question. The incoming calls still have to be in range of the tower referenced.
The DNA evidence never exonerated Adnan. His DNA/prints were already found in the car. If they were found on the shoes too, people would just make the same excuse for that DNA they gave for previous evidence which is Adnan had been in the car before anyway.
hellomondays t1_je2nf70 wrote
The touch DNA excluded him. He wasn't a match.
3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je2t2x1 wrote
It didn't though. There is no evidence the murderer touched the shoes with their hands. The shoes were dress shoes worn all day at school. The DNA on the shoes could have come from anywhere.
Elhaym t1_je4fm0a wrote
The DNA did not exonerate him at all. If I strangle you while wearing gloves, there's a good chance none of my DNA would wind up on you. Would investigators finding none of my DNA mean I'd be exonerated? Nope. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
[deleted] t1_je2bw13 wrote
[removed]
BroBogan t1_je2wabq wrote
> I rather many guilty person go free from the state not being able to prove their guilt rather than one innocent person be wrongly convicted.
This is one of those lines that is great in theory but much tougher in practice.
We are talking about murder here. So if ten people are on trial for murder and one of them is innocent but the other nine are guilty you would rather all ten be free then all ten be in prison? How comfortable are you with setting free nine murderers into your community?
What if it is 100 and 99 of them are guilty and one is innocent?
There is no correct answer here. I struggle this with myself and it's an interesting dilemma (like the trolley problem). But I think your statement is easy to say in theory but harder in reality when you're talking about releasing murderers into a community.
JCPRuckus t1_je2ye81 wrote
You're the 1 innocent person wrongly accused of murder. Are you willing to go to jail to put 9 actual murderers in jail?... I'm not.
BroBogan t1_je5hs4l wrote
So serious question. How many murders would you be willing to release to spare one innocent person.
Let's say there are 300,000 people in prison for murder right now. Statistically at least one is innocent. Probably much more than one.
Should we release all 300,000 people convicted of murder in order to ensure that the innocent are let free?
JCPRuckus t1_je5l25g wrote
Edit: Actually... Answer my question first.
How murderers would it take being imprisoned instead of released for you to be willing to be imprisoned for a murder you didn't commit and branded a convicted murderer for life?
DefinitelyNotAliens t1_je2ylaq wrote
The murder recidivism rate for another murder is 2% after 5 years, so actually pretty comfortable because statistically, none of the 10 will kill anyone, and any crime is 51%, including property crimes, where losses are dollars, not physical harm.
Overall recidivism rates are close to 80% in 5 years, so actually murderers are much less likely to do bad stuff compared to like... car thieves and domestic abusers. Unless the murder is a domestic abuser. Property crime guys are highest at over 80%.
Realistically, we shouldn't convict people unless they are beyond reasonable doubt, the perpetrator. A criminal record is devasting in finding work. Even an arrest can destroy your life. Cash bail is a pay to play justice system and disproportionately impacts the poor.
Some states your criminal record follows you for life. You will never get a good job with good pay. You are forever a criminal.
To brand someone as a criminal for life is a big deal. Take years of their life? Big deal.
Yeah. The state should be really freaking sure before destroying their life and stripping human rights. It's not a small thing.
BroBogan t1_je1sixl wrote
There is a lot of "I really want this guy to be innocent" in the true crime genre.
I felt the same way with "Making a Murderer". First time I watched it I felt he was innocent, then I started looking at it more closely and he definitely did it
Thoughtlessandlost t1_je22o8l wrote
The Monster podcast about the Atlanta child murders was the same way. They seemed to REALLY want to paint the guy as innocent.
That and then watching another true crime show where they painted the guy as innocent, but on further inspection it showed they left out a ton of evidence pushed me away from true crime.
[deleted] t1_je2yh85 wrote
[removed]
DefinitelyNotAliens t1_je32bfo wrote
I listened to one that tried to convince me that Scott Peterson didn't murder his wife - get this - because of a chair assembly video and the fact they have no definitive time of death or cause of death.
Crime Junkie. Seriously. He murdered his wife and dumped her body in the San Francisco Bay. I gave the benefit of the doubt but the evidence was overwhelming. He was cheating on his pregnant wife, wanted out and murdered her and to get out of his marriage and fatherhood. Her body wasn't found for weeks. Without a bullet or stab wound to her bones or poison present, no, nobody can tell you how a person died or precisely when after weeks of decomposition.
There is zero evidence implying anyone else could have been involved. He went into the Berkley Marina, on Christmas Eve, all the way from Modesto, to go fishing.
The outfit on her body matches what she was wearing on the 23rd. Peterson says she was wearing a different outfit on the 24th. Their dog was found wandering the neighborhood and put into their yard by a neighbor.
They're like... omg, see? The dog! The dog proves some rando snatched her and dumped her body in the exact location her husband was, 70 miles away from where they kidnapped her!
Like... it's not possible he grabbed her from not their home, or let the dog loose because he told the cops she had been walking the dog that day?
What are the actual odds that he went to the Berkley Marina on the 24th and somebody else kidnapped and murdered his wife and dumped her body so it'd wash up 4 miles from where he launched his boat the day she went missing and was murdered?
Seriously. That's the theory? Someone else snatched a random pregnant woman who was being cheated on and happened to dump her body hours away from her home in the exact same spot her cheating husband happened to be?
89141 t1_je1up14 wrote
Same. Well, I never thought he was innocent but I’m unsure about his nephew.
Bucksandreds t1_je1vvin wrote
The nephew was either 100% innocent or terribly manipulated by his murderous uncle and horrible detectives. Either way I have infinite sympathy for Brendon Dassey
Indeeedy t1_je4a2o5 wrote
agreed. He is just another victim of Avery, who has many
empfindsamkeit t1_je3pp0q wrote
Yup. I think there's a variety of reasons. Wanting to feel like a hero releasing an innocent. Enjoying feeling angry at the injustice. Wanting to feel like a detective without having to do all the leg work and without merely retreading the same path the actual detectives followed. Wanting to feel like a lone voice in the wilderness unafraid to speak the truth. And of course money/attention from an audience which wants to feel these things.
MikoyanMaster t1_je2ax86 wrote
I'm starting to see this with podcasts i used to respect.
Indeeedy t1_je49zyy wrote
They are still out there fighting tooth and nail that Avery is innocent. He isn't. That documentary was like some sort of spell on some people. Most people found out with 5 minutes of googling that they had been taken for a ride by Netflix
Diarygirl t1_je4n745 wrote
It's been a while but I remember the police and prosecutors did some shady things but that doesn't make Avery innocent.
[deleted] t1_je2hy0b wrote
[removed]
FleetAdmiralPopcorn t1_je1v9pj wrote
I stopped taking Serial seriously after they did that completely unscientific "Let's retrace his path in our car and see if the timeline pans out" experiment.
1Koala1 t1_je1wnna wrote
I don't even remember, what happened with that
FleetAdmiralPopcorn t1_je20m5a wrote
If I remember correctly, they "determined" that the timeline, between the suspected time of Lee's death and Syed meeting Jay Wilds in the Best Buy parking lot, that the prosecution put forward was plausible. However, this was based on a single drive through of the route ~15 years later.
mowotlarx t1_je1z6hx wrote
Good thing the justice system isn't supposed to be dictated by the feelings of people who have a very curated picture of a case from a podcast or TV show.
SuperSocrates t1_je343hp wrote
The podcast tries pretty hard to make you think he’s innocent
mowotlarx t1_je4i8uj wrote
Not really. It did try hard to show us how flimsy the evidence and court case were regardless of whether he was innocent or guilty.
JGT3000 t1_je4la5y wrote
Yes really, it's literally the basis of the podcast from the very first episode
mowotlarx t1_je4unz0 wrote
The basis of the podcast is whether the evidence was enough to convict, not whether he was guilty. Those are different things.
JGT3000 t1_je4yd7a wrote
No, they said the basis of podcast was that but it was clear from the very intro that Koenig views him as innocent and a victim of injustice beyond simply procedural misconduct
utter-ridiculousness t1_je1zrfm wrote
I listened as well. I felt like there was absolutely not enough evidence to convict this guy.
Not sure if he did it or not.
SuperSocrates t1_je33q0p wrote
Yeah and I also came to really dislike the host
89141 t1_je1udi2 wrote
Yeah, he’s guilty. From the witnesses to his flimsy non-alibi. How anyone could not find him guilty is beyond me.
spasske t1_je4rf7d wrote
They never really refuted why someone would testify that they helped bury the body with him. That was what seemed to confirm it to me.
[deleted] t1_je1rijs wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je1u7hh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je26gr4 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_je33bg7 wrote
[removed]
rlbond86 t1_je39zyh wrote
I think he did it too, but the state clearly didn't do their due diligence for this case.
momobozo t1_je4d1aj wrote
But how? The witnesses that were against him aren't reliable at all. The evidence against him is mainly Jay's testimony which had a lot of issues. How can you be firm?
DOOManiac t1_je2dc7f wrote
I listened to Serial as well and walked away unsure, kind of leaning towards him maybe being guilty. Then I listened to the Undisclosed podcast and they completely proved beyond any doubt that he is completely innocent.
elainek04 t1_je2esnt wrote
How did they prove it? I havent listened to the podcast
DOOManiac t1_je2f9lb wrote
Listen to the podcast. It’s fascinating but also heartbreaking. TLDL though, most of the evidence doesn’t hold up scrutiny, and there was a lot of evidence withheld or outright tampered with by the prosecution that exonerates Syed.
1Koala1 t1_je1wdhr wrote
The details surrounding the circumstances of adnan on that day are sketchy af. So sketchy I can't believe they made a podcast about it.
This dude said he gave his weed dealer who was only an acquaintance his car and cell phone for the day. Why? To get his gf a gift. WHAT?!? How is this believable to anyone?? And did he get the gift??? Nope. And it just so happens the cell phone tinged the cell towers in the area of the murder right around when the murder would have happened.
At a minimum this is really hard to believe but more than likely adnan was involved in some capacity
bananafobe t1_je29nra wrote
It's possible there's a kind of hindsight bias here.
The original intention of the podcast may have been less about arguing for his innocence than about examining a complicated murder investigation without a clear correct answer. The podcast going viral and the takeaway many had about him being innocent may have retroactively became what the podcast was primarily about.
JGT3000 t1_je4lhuc wrote
No, the podcast from the very start was about him being innocent and it being an injustice he was on prison. That's what drew Koenig to the case and it was the foundation for all the investigation and the podcast
spasske t1_je4r419 wrote
They went back and forth quite a bit.
Glen_The_Eskimo t1_je6pmbw wrote
I didn't listen to the podcast, I watched the Netflix documentary. They focused a lot on "not proven guilty," which I agree with. Innocent is a whole other thing.
[deleted] t1_je2vusn wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je2zo7y wrote
[removed]
pungen t1_je2bo5q wrote
The hard part about a lot of murders is if other illegal stuff was going on concurrently, people will try so hard to cover it up that it interferes with the murder investigation.
A friend of mine was murdered a couple years ago and it took them over a year to make a charge even though they knew who it was from the start. Because everyone close to this guy was involved in other illegal business (they were running a scam ring and selling meth) nobody would talk to the police because they didn't want to get themselves in trouble.
It felt like there was a whole lot of that going on with Adnan's case too. Everyone involved gave stories that seemed like lies, even the person who found her body. We will probably never know the whole truth.
Technicolor_Reindeer t1_je34sjq wrote
This is a case I'm honestly 50/50 on. But if I were on the jury I don't think I'd feel I could vote to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.
andrewthemexican t1_je36sub wrote
> And it just so happens the cell phone tinged the cell towers in the area of the murder right around when the murder would have happened.
Wasn't that actually not the case? Thought that's what I read.
KingsleyZissou t1_je4d0bx wrote
I don't think they actually know where the murder took place. Jay had a timeline in his testimony of where and when he claims it took place, but it doesn't align with cell records.
spasske t1_je4r0i2 wrote
That’s the dude who testified he helped him bury the body. They never really seemed to address why someone would fabricate something like that.
EggfooVA t1_je8j9yj wrote
I believe it was suggested it was an order to get immunity from his weed selling business. I mean, in the end that guy confessed to committing numerous crimes, as well as being a serious weird dealer and was never charged
mattheimlich t1_je3f15h wrote
Keep the time period in mind. It would not have been at all strange for a high school kid to leave their phone in the car all day, those things were immediate trouble if you had one in school back then.
1Koala1 t1_je3h61u wrote
My guy, you're not gonna give your car and cell phone to your weed dealer that you only consider an acquaintance no matter what year it is.
I get what you're saying, you can't bring a cell in school at the time but this was after school. And forget about the phone, his car??? The most valuable object a teenager has and he's just letting some weed dealer use it to get his gf a gift. One that is never purchased btw.. What if this guy wrecks his car? It's just preposterous, the whole thing
Derp_a_deep t1_je2dhy3 wrote
His friend Jay told the cops where the victim's car was ditched. No one knew that. Jay 100% was involved with the killing and/or body disposal. No rational person would conclude that Jay did this on his own. Adnand is a murderer, without any reasonable doubt.
I'm blown away that people were celebrating his release.
DudeWithAnAxeToGrind t1_je2iu9p wrote
Putting aside Adnan's guilt or innocence, why does victim's brother being given sufficient notice to attend the hearing change anything? If the court would make exactly same decision if he was present, any remedy would be between Lee's brother and the state, and should not result in defendant being dragged through the court system.
If you think he should be in jail, you can easily turn the tables around and ask yourself would you still support this if it was somebody you truly believed was innocent, and the other side was appealing on immaterial (in the sense they would not have changed outcome) details in the hopes they'll have better luck with some combination of court, judge, or prosecutor shopping in the next round. That's basically the spirit of why there is prohibition on double-jeopardy.
Magjee t1_je34j3o wrote
That is the law in Maryland
The victims family is supposed to receive adequate notice to attend and be given an opportunity to speak
The victims brother was notified Friday afternoon of a long weekend that a hearing would take place Tuesday and he could watch over zoom
He was not informed he had a write to attend and to make a statement
The brother lives in California and contacted a Maryland attorney over the long weekend, the attorney had no facts of the case and attempted to request a delay Tuesday morning, the judge said the brother could make a statement over zoom, he didnt have one prepared and made a brief statement
So effectively this is a procedural problem, the appeal court agreed the hearing was not handled correctly to allow the victims family adequate notice
Bucksandreds t1_je1wao8 wrote
100% guilty lying narcissistic sociopath. I listened to serial and read all the evidence and theories available. This guy did this and I would vote guilty as a juror beyond a reasonable doubt and give him life in prison. The state should retry him asap.
Proteinshake4 t1_je24bpi wrote
I agree 100%. His lawyers just kept appealing until they found procedural errors and a DA that was politically motivated to let him go. He strangled her and dumped the body and is a talented liar. I hope he dies.
namesurnn t1_je3mfg9 wrote
If you come home to a box of cookies torn up in your dog’s bed, with cookie crumbs all over your dog’s mouth, but you didn’t watch your dog rip up the box of cookies, did your dog do it?
People are so gullible and want everything to be an injustice. The real injustice is Hae wound up strangled to death after her ex-boyfriend lied to her about his car being broken down so he “needed a ride.” Jen is the key witness, not Jay. Adnan is guilty but he is free on a technicality and 100% a politically motivated DA.
UrricainesArdlyAppen t1_je3rym7 wrote
> If you come home to a box of cookies torn up in your dog’s bed, with cookie crumbs all over your dog’s mouth, but you didn’t watch your dog rip up the box of cookies, did your dog do it?
Clearly, the dog ate whoever ripped up and ate the box of cookies.
hpark21 t1_je274iz wrote
Law is pretty clear, you can NOT re-convict the person that has been found innocent no matter HOW it was achieved for that particular crime.
So, DA did not do a good job but it also works in MANY MANY other cases where public defender sucked and forced innocent man to agree to a plea.
rapid_disassembly t1_je2mne5 wrote
Vacating a conviction isn't the same as finding someone not guilty of a crime. It's more similar to there never having been a trial in the first place. They could absolutely retry him on this, though I believe the DA has dropped the charges.
jcdio t1_je2nqqp wrote
His conviction was overturned, but Adnan Syed has never been found innocent.
Bucksandreds t1_je2k9wf wrote
He wasn’t found innocent and can thus be retried. He was released because the prosecution did not share all the info with the defense that they were legally required to do so. He was not found not guilty. In a legal sense, a mistrial was declared. The prosecution gets to decide if they want a retrial and I hope and believe that they will
blondechinesehair t1_je29dtm wrote
I kind of don’t want to hear about this case anymore. It’s not as I as interesting as the podcast tries to make it sound.
simulacrotron t1_je2zykh wrote
Can anyone explain it like I’m five? Why does a relative’s ability to attend a hearing ( or anything else having to do with them ) have any effect on the case?
Technicolor_Reindeer t1_je34k2x wrote
The top comments sums it up okay:
>Sounds largely procedural - its unlikely Lee's statements will have any material effect on changing the decision to free Syed. Lee simply was not given his opportunity to be present in the hearing where the motion to vacate the conviction was heard.
>They will reschedule, ensure Lee has ample opportunity to be present, and vacate the conviction again.
simulacrotron t1_je4ecve wrote
But that doesn’t explain why Lee has anything to do with it. If the conviction is no more why does Lee have anything to do with Syed? I get that Lee might be invested in the idea that Syed is to blame, but he is not the judge or a jury. So why does he need time to be there at all. If she had no family at all, this would be over.
I understand the what, just not the why.
Technicolor_Reindeer t1_je598s7 wrote
Victims's rights laws in Maryland.
The victims family is supposed to receive adequate notice to attend and be given an opportunity to speak.
Kastigart t1_je5ytlj wrote
Here is a motion filed by the AG office that I found relevant and interesting. Maybe someone can post some defense filings and we can learn more about the arguments on different sides?
justforthearticles20 t1_je2hq5r wrote
Maryland Court causes blatant miscarriage of justice in reinstating a miscarriage of justice. At least they know it and gave 60 days to sort it out, but Lee's Lawyers will delay the shit out of it.
Icy-Letter-3514 t1_je4jf4x wrote
This isn’t double jeopardy?
[deleted] t1_je597ot wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je1fbt2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je2uhk1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je2uj8v wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je3l9y1 wrote
[removed]
mickeysbeer t1_je4eq05 wrote
Does this mean he is back in jail or no?
[deleted] t1_je5b8f5 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je4jgw3 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je73ezv wrote
[removed]
Pineapplepizza4321 t1_je25lf8 wrote
Did they not find another guy? I agree that he seemed guilty as hell, but I'm pretty sure the police buried a bunch of evidence on other suspects.
sn34kypete t1_je2fher wrote
I seem to recall the police coaching the dealer on his testimony. Gentle corrections on details, pointing to words on paper for him to make sure to say, something of that nature. Doesn't seem very fair, does it?
Maria-Stryker t1_je4uy4d wrote
We don’t know that for certain since the interviews were only audio recorded, but there were pauses and tapping noises that alluded to this possibility. Now by law those interviews need to be videotaped
[deleted] t1_je3yvgh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je2xx93 wrote
[deleted]
3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je32q83 wrote
It is clear who they are. One is the person who found the body and has an alibi, who the defense also focused on during the trial. The lot near the house is a bit deceptive when you see the actual lot and the way the houses are arrayed. It's also not a house the person visited.
The other suspect is Adnan's mentor who with Adnan was heard discussing if investigators could identified when the victim was killed after the body was found. .
[deleted] t1_je34q65 wrote
[deleted]
3rdEyeDeuteranopia t1_je37unp wrote
Both people on the guilty and innocent side, including Rabia, have stated it's those two people.
[deleted] t1_je4a2il wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_je1f1kg wrote
[removed]