Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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


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?


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



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.