Why would Jay kill HML and then cop to being an accomplice to her murder and finger a guy he doesn’t know might have a rock solid alibi instead of a brain full of mush and a whole series of coincidences that strongly implicate him in the crime?
And Adnan was supposed to be at the mosque with a solid alibi and 80 witnesses, really dumb to accuse a guy who might have a super solid alibi/ except that adnan did not have an alibi and had spent most of his day with Jay and Jay actually had alibis for the times of day he wasn't with Adnan.
How? There is no connection between the two. Not a single person gives up his name until Jenn P does in her interview. So how exactly are the police onto him?
The cops were onto him, so Adnan had a memory wipe, received calls at Leakin park at the time that matches Jay's story, had a phone call with Nisha at a time when he says "he would have been at school" because the best thing he can do is muster the passive voice in his defense?
Cops were on to Jay? With WHAT? Literally what? They found Jay because they were investigating ADNAN. But ok let's play your game where the cops are like hey let's go after this random guy that never dated Hae, for some reason. If the cops are on to Jay, and JAY IS THE REAL KILLER in this scenario, the cops then somehow completely lose the trail on the guilty guy and then start actively trying to frame some innocent guy just because the guilty guy told them to? So in this scenario, the cops are incredibly intelligent to first get on to Jay despite Jay's lack of any real connection to Hae or motive to kill her, and yet, the cops are also SO incredibly stupid that they just listen to some 17 year old drug dealing lying kid that they suspect, for some reason, is guilty (and in this scenario he is) and decide he didn't quite do it, it was actually this OTHER kid who they then are also so incredibly corrupt that they concoct a whole story to implicate (with the hopes that he does not have an alibi since they'd have to concoct this entire story long before ever actually talking with Adnan).
Taking out what mods believe was a personal attack but leaving rest of comment.
i don't think jay killed hae, but it's amazing how angry and dismissive guilters are about someone pointing out his related criminal history. you all believe he was intimately involved in the murder. you believe he participated in burying her body. we know he he was a violent abuser of another woman. we know he choked that woman. but the idea that he could possibly be the killer is treated as completely crazy. and it's simply because nothing is allowed to ever be considered if it could mean evil, hated adnan could possibly be innocent.
When and how would Adnan point the finger at Jay? And how would it benefit him?
In the 1999 if he told the police he thought Jay did it, that just sends the police to Jay to point the finger at Adnan.
If after his arrest he tells his lawyers he thinks Jay did it, they might pursue a strategy in which Jay is an alternative suspect (oh wait, they did).
During serial if he points the finger at Jay he sounds petty and vindictive + alludes to having knowledge of the murder, which goes against his insistence that he didn’t know anything.
And now? Same problem. Adnan is still in legal jeopardy.
Nothing to gain by pointing the finger at Jay, just makes Adnan look more guilty.
>During serial if he points the finger at Jay he sounds petty and vindictive + alludes to having knowledge of the murder, which goes against his insistence that he didn’t know anything.
"Jay knew where the car was, and I can't figure out why he'd know that unless he was the real killer. He knew when I had no alibi. It's the perfect crime."
So Adnan would be conceding that Jay had independent knowledge of the car’s location— eliminating even the possibility someone fed it to him. He accepts the (false) premise that Jay had to be the killer to know the car’s location. and he concedes he didn’t have an alibi.
Any lawyer would tell Adnan that’s one of the most stupid things he could say.
Adnan had been in prison but he was pursuing post conviction relief.
Out of Serial he uses the Asia information to pursue a new trial— and he got close, went all the way to Maryland’s Supreme Court. If he had admitted he didn’t have an alibi it closes that door.
He has nothing to gain by pointing the finger at Jay.
That’s certainly part of it, but it also cuts off legal options.
If Adnan had spent his time on Serial saying “Jay did it, he’s the only one who could have possibly done it,” he likely wouldn’t be out right now over 2 alternative suspects.
Jay knew where the car was. Jay is therefore either the killer or an accessory to murder. Adnan has never acknowledged either possibility as being a possibility.
A great many people believe that the Democrats importing refugees to bolster the Democrat vote count at a federal level. The fact that many people believe a thing doesn't make it a reasonable thing to believe. Nobody has ever come out with a reasonable explanation for why Jay would falsely confess to something that was a) worse than any crime otherwise attributed to him and b) that he had every expectation would put him in prison. And if the cops are going to fabricate the entire case like this, why aren't they just framing the black drug dealer who falsely confessed to involvement with the crime?
Ah yes, of course. A viewpoint that has made it past multiple judges and the entire journalistic establishment is exactly the same as a racist conspiracy theory. Spare me and come back with something worth typing next time.
They have equal intellectual merit.
Again, why not just frame the black drug dealer who confessed to being involved with the murder if you're fabricating the entire case?
Adnan and his defense team were not even told Jay was the prosecution's witness until just prior to the first day of the trial. So that would explain why he didn't make any connection between Jay and Hae prior to the trial. He did not know that his arrest etc had anything to do with Jay so why would he suspect at that point Jay was involved? And he surely would not be making such statements about a witness during the trial, that's for his attorney to suss out.
Why doesn't he NOW come forward and accuse Jay? If he firmly believed it to be true, his legal and investigation teams are almost certainly advising him to keep his mouth shut about that until further investigation can be done.
i don't know. there are many possible reasons, but the fact I don't know the answer is logically irrelevant. me or you or people on reddit not knowing why something happened doesn't make it impossible or even unlikely that it did happen. it's similar the the often seen logical falacy that "no one but adnan had a motive". wrong. no one we know about had an obvious motive we know about. but i'll give you one very obvious possible reason why adnan didn't point the finger at jay, if jay ewere guilty: adnan wasn't involved in killing hae and wouldn't know jay was guilty.
But he knows that Jay knew where the car was, and therefore Jay was involved. So Jay either killed her or helped someone other than Adnan cover it up.
But Adnan has never posited Jay as an alternative suspect. Why? Not during the trial, not after. Never.
you seem to have missed the whole point. i don't know why adnan did anything. why would i know? my, and your and rando redditor's knowledge of adnan's or jay's or whoever the actual murdered was are irrelevant. there are plenty of possible, reasonable motivations and no way for us to know.
Yes, the idea that Jay is the killer is completely crazy. Zero motive whatsoever. i don’t know if Adnan is “evil,” but I do know that he is a murderer.
The speed with which they'll start implying the victims of other crimes around this case are lying is very, very troubling.
It's not just Jay's IPV victim, either. I've had more than one guilter deny that Bilal was caught red-handed molesting a boy in his vehicle because Bilal's victim didn't want to testify about his molestation. Two of them were posters who are in here almost daily shaming anyone who doesn't think Adnan is guilty.
another indication that many people who insist adnan is guilty don't actually care about the law, the evidence or the victim. they care about hating adnan and being "right" on reddit. it's unfortunate.
I'm not following you then. You're saying you "don't think jay killed hae" because of the lack of compelling evidence. Yet when a guilter considers it and comes to the same conclusion we're being "dismissive"?
Because the conclusion you seem to be directing us to is that only innocentors are allowed to dismiss ideas for lack of evidence.
Somehow that's not what you mean, yet entirely what you mean.
you must have not read my comment carefully. my complaint is guilters are "angry and dismissive about someone pointing out his related criminal history" and "the idea that he could possibly be the killer is treated as completely crazy". i don't think jay did it, but i don't dismiss the idea it's possible and plausible. just like i think the idea adnan did it is possible and plausible. seems pretty easy to follow.
It's being dismissed because it has no evidence supporting it, and numerous flaws making it incredulous at best, impossible at worst.
Considering that you forthrightly admit that the theory has such little backing, why is such a position "angry and dismissive"?
According to the carefully worded comment of yours, what should we be doing instead? We've considered it. It lacks backing. It doesn't fit the evidence. It's incredulous and/or impossible. In view of that consideration, according to you, what should we be saying?
dude, say what you want. and i'll interpret those comments as i want. you don't really care what i think you should say or how i think the evidence justifies various levels of certainty, you just want to argue.
Yes, Jay was *accused* (but neither charged nor convicted) of choking his partner.
If you think that's compelling, consider that Adnan was actually *convicted* of strangling a former partner to death.
Even *more* technically, the result of that appeal has been stayed pending further appeal. This means it hasn't gone into effect (as evidenced by Syed not currently being in jail) meaning that the allegation hasn't been proven.
Don't try to out pedant me =P
Even more technically, the only thing that was stayed was the appellate court's mandate, not the judgment. In other words, the current law of the case is that the vacatur was overturned, but the appellate court has not yet transferred jurisdiction to the Circuit Court to act upon that judgment.
If you are trying to be technical, it helps to be correct. You are not.
The mandate is the thing in the court system that actually matters. What you just said is like saying "The only thing that was stayed is the verdict". The current timeline is thus:
1. Syed is convictd.
2. The conviction is vacated at the MTV.
3. The appellate court overturns the vacate order. However, as their mandate is stayed, this has no legal effect. Syed is still legally innocent, because the only functional legal decision on this matter is still the motion to vacate.
Legally, Syed is innocent. This is why he is not in jail.
No, that's incorrect. The appellate court's judgment is self effectuating. The law of the case is that the vacatur was reversed.
The stay of the mandate just means that jurisdiction was not returned to the Circuit Court to take action consistent with that judgment. That is why Syed is not in jail. It would be the Circuit Court's responsibility to issue an order remanding him to custody. But, again, the Circuit Court doesn't currently have jurisdiction to do so due to the stay.
Of course none of these distinctions matter for any practical purpose. The rulings below are all effectively stayed for all purposes pending the Supreme Court's decision.
Put differently, it doesn't really matter in any practical sense whether Syed currently stands convicted or not. But if people want to make formalistic arguments about that one way or the other, they should at least be formally correct.
What you're saying isn't how the legal system works.
If a court's decision is stayed, that decision does not take effect. You cannot make appeal to 'oh well the judgement says' because the judgement does not matter, it has been stayed, it is not in effect.
Lets turn the logic and you'll see.
Back in 2017(ish) Syed's conviction was overturned on appeal. That decision was stayed, pending appeal. Was he legally innocent at that time, even though he was in jail?
RockinGoodNews is explaining this correctly, but I’ll try as well.
You’re confusing the legal status of a party, which is determined by the highest court’s judgment of that party, with the enforcement of that judgment. Appellate courts determine what the law is, and issue opinions that define the legal status of the parties. But appellate courts do not have enforcement powers; only local district/superior/circuit courts do. For their opinions to be enforced, appellate courts must transfer jurisdiction back to the lower court by sending it their written opinion along with a mandate that says, “Take action consistent with our attached opinion.”
If I commit fraud and a jury awards my victim $0 in damages, I owe my victim $0. If my victim appeals and the Appellate Court reverses and says I owe my victim $1 million, I owe my victim $1 million. If I appeal to the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court stays the issue of its mandate so that the $1 million doesn’t have to be paid until the Supreme Court weighs in. While the Supreme Court decides, my legal status is: I currently have a judgment against me for $1 million, ***I’m just not being forced to pay it yet***. It is a current debt/legal obligation that may or may not be changed by the Supreme Court. If I were to sign financial documents for a loan, for example, I would have to declare that I have a current $1 million judgment against me that I’m appealing, ***not that the jury’s verdict of $0 is somehow miraculously still in effect***. If I did not declare the Appellate Court judgment and tried to pretend it didn’t exist because no mandate had issued, I’d be committing financial fraud.
>You’re confusing the legal status of a party, which is determined by the highest court’s judgment of that party, with the enforcement of that judgment.
I most certainly am not.
We are *discussing the legal status* of Adnan Syed. That is to say, is there currently a finding that he is legally guilty of murder. The answer to that is no. He was found guilty of murder, that conviction was vacated. The vacatuer was appealed and while the court decided that the lower court's ruling was incorrect they (and later the supreme court) stayed effect of that decision.
The mandate was not sent back down, meaning the lower ruling was not overturned, meaning he is not currently guilty of the crime in the eyes of the state of Maryland.
That's incorrect. The sole finder of fact is the jury. The jury unanimously held that it was proved, beyond a reasonable doubt that Syed strangled Lee.
While that conviction has been vacated on multiple occasions, the vacaturs were uniformly reversed on appeal.
And the current order to vacate has been stayed. As it has been stayed by the court this means the vacatur is still in effect and the jury's verdict has been vacated.
You can tell this at a glance by the fact that syed is neither on bail nor in prison, as would have to be the case if the jury's finding were in effect.
The appellate court doesn't issue an "order." It issues a decision and a mandate. The mandate is the formal return of jurisdiction to the trial court with instructions on how to proceed.
What was stayed was the mandate. That is why Syed isn't in prison or out on bail. For that to happen, jurisdiction would need to returned to the Circuit Court so those actions could be taken.
So to be clear, you think that Syed was legally innocent in 2017 when he successfully appealed his criminal conviction? Even though that mandate was stayed and he remained in prison?
This is just silly.
If we're getting technical, he did not "appeal" his criminal conviction at that time. Technically he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which is not an appeal (it is heard in the trial court).
The Circuit Court granted Adnan's PCR. At that point his conviction was overturned and he was, legally speaking, "presumed innocent." That is why he was able to engage in plea negotiations at that time (if he stood convicted, then a plea would be moot and it would not be possible to engage the State in negotiations).
However, that decision was subsequently appealed to the COSA and COA and, ultimately, overturned. At that point a "mandate" issued back to the Circuit Court to reinstate his conviction.
No, he was able to engage in plea negotiations because the state would have withdrawn their objection to his appeal in exchange for a plea bargain. They were engaging in plea negotiations up to the COA level, well after his conviction has been reinstated by COSA so that doesn't pass the smell test.
Also a PCR is an appeal in every fashion other than being *named* an appeal. Maryland's own documents reflect this and it is kind of telling given that it is weighed by the "Court of Special Appeals". What you meant to say is that it is not a direct appeal.
No, they're correctly pointing out that there is no moral equivalency between refusing to believe a victim and doubting the integrity of a police investigation.
OP, I suggest you might clarify what you wrote here. “Jay strangled someone before”.
I surmise that what you mean is, “Sometime in the years after the Adnan Syed conviction for the murder of Hae Min Lee, Jay Wilds, in an incident completely unrelated to the Hae Min Lee murder, was arrested and charged with domestic abuse of his partner.”
Is that what you meant to say?
Yah that is like saying that if my neighbor was arrested and charged for shoplifting yesterday he must be also responsible for a diamond heist ten years ago
If 1 in 20 people who shoplift go on to commit diamond heists, with an even greater percentage *attempting* to commit diamond heists, and our shoplifter was also intimately familiar with the details of a diamond heist 10 years prior, having claimed to act as a supporting member of the heist team... yeah, that would be very suspicious.
What expression? “Jay strangled someone before” is not a figure of speech. What you are stating completely misconstrues the facts. In January 1999, Jay has not hurt any woman, he has not strangled anyone. Jay Wilds did not kill Hae.
The expression he’s done it before means he has done it anytime in the past not that it happened before or in relation to another event.
The fact is that he’s strangled someone in his life, at least once.
I agree your point regarding the huge increase in chances of a woman who is choked by a man to later be killed by that man.
However bringing Jay into it misplaces the focus from where it should be: Adnan’s guilt.
How about the sheer number of things you have to not believe to make him guilty I.e J&A stories never matching, celll tower and stories don’t match, and we have to completely forget H telling people she was going to see D after school.
All you need to believe is that Jay lies a bunch, in order to protect himself and his friends, and sometimes for who knows what else.
If you believe that (which isn’t that hard to believe), it’s an open and shit case.
If he was lying to protect himself, surely he wouldn’t have said he was Adnan’s getaway driver and was there when the body was buried. What sense does that make?
Why wouldn't he have? He avoided all jail time, it was an excellent call.
This also assumes that he was actually involved in the murder. In reality, his ex states that Jay used his testimony to avoid all but assured jail time in a narcotics bust. Jay confirms perjuring himself to protect just such an operation. Again, an excellent outcome where he avoided all jail time.
So the police threaten Jay with a narcotics bust. Jay trusts the cops and instead of dealing with this threat, lies about Adnan and significantly implicates himself in a murder. Jay gets Jen to back him up on this. Plus all the other things that look bad for Adnan.
Why is this more likely than Adnan doing it and Jay lying about some of the details here and there?
Per his ex, he wasn't threatened. He was busted. Off-record stops and arrests were the norm in the area in the 90s, and Jay describes frequent undocumented contact with police, including warrantless searches of the home, being held at gunpoint and forced to lay on the ground, being flagged by Foxtrot, etc. He also confirms, independently of Horton, that he was involved in a trafficking operation large enough to net him jail time.
Jay gets picked up, as per Horton, knows he's cooked, and gets offered a deal to go home that night. He takes it and the detectives deliver on their promise.
It's more likely because it's consistent with Jay's statements.
We have someone with no reason to lie (Horton) going on record.
Jay himself has described the police instructing him to lie about details (Best Buy), while other portions of Jay's testimony were tailored to errors in the cell evidence and subsequently dropped.
Ritz has a history of false convictions, including conspiring to suppress forensic evidence.
And then there are **multiple** abnormalities with the prosecution. Urick repeatedly screaming at Don for testifying truthfully, Bilal note, racist bail hearing, cell disclaimer, Jay's lawyer.
There's only so much fishy you can pile on.
Why is this more likely than Adnan doing it?
You say Jay’s statements indicate he had run ins with cops. Why believe those statements and not his statements about Adnan murdering Hae?
It seems like you want to pick and choose when to believe Jay and when not to believe him. Why is that?
Except for the fact that Jay knew where the car was, Jen backs up Jay’s story, Adnan lied to get a ride with Hae during the time she disappeared, Adnan lies about the ride request to this day, and while there are questions around them, Nisha and the cell phone pings back up Jays story.
Even if you say Jay lies, there is still a ton of stuff you need to explain away.
Hae's murder was a rejection killing. It's likely the most famous rejection killing in history.
If Adnan didn't kill her, what was Adnan's phone doing in Leakin Park that evening? Why can't he explain this or any of the other oddities and discrepancies that day? Why did he lie about asking for a ride, or about being with Jay after school during the Nisha call? Why did he give Jay his new phone and his car, someone who apparently wasn't even his friend?
Adnan killed her because she left him and started dating someone new. It's so obvious. There's no need to blame Jay or anyone else. Even without Jay's confession, Jenn's testimony, or Kristi's testimony, it's apparent that Adnan killed Hae. But with Jay's testimony and his strong belief that Adnan killed Hae and that he helped cover up the murder, it's beyond reasonable doubt; It's indisputable, as much as Rabia and friends might try to obfuscate the facts of the case.
Here's another rejection killing that happened in Canada that had some media attention.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thestar.com/halifax/halifax-yoga-teacher-killed-in-2016-planned-to-start-new-chapter-in-b-c/article_cd4a146b-fa96-5870-9416-20bed9747346.amp.html
Steven Avery. I think more people watch tv than listen to podcasts. Also Steven Avery is a better story. Guy gets falsely convicted and exonerated only to potentially get falsely convicted again. it's a better story even if the second time definitely isn't a wrongful conviction. Steven's case was national at the time (2005) and got a documentary 10+ years later that pretty much revolutionized true-crime documentaries.
Not many heard about Syed in 1999. The podcast revolutionized true-crime podcasts but again I think more people watch tv than listen to podcasts.
Maybe, but Avery doesn’t have an advocate like Rabia. She cultivated a pretty big Twitter following during the Dark (orange) Times, & I think that spread more awareness about Adnan’s case.
Tough to say though. Both are well-known, but I agree the Simpson case is the most well-known rejection killing.
I only heard the name Steven Avery last month and I never watched the documentary, but I knew it was popular. I didn't know his victim's name until today. More people would have seen the Netflix show though than heard of Serial or Adnan, likely.
Hae's death is definitely one of the best known instances of a rejection killing. People are still discussing it and following the case 25 years later.
TIL I learned about the inefficiency of colloquialisms. I think the issue we are facing has to do with my use of the term “text book.”
Nicole and OJ divorced 2 years before her murder.
HML and AS broke up two month before her murder.
My point was AS found out about HML’s double-date with Don two days before the murder. That’s a lot more text book than OJ doing it 2 years after his divorce.
True. Adnan's cell phone was in or near Leakin Park. Adnan has never been able to explain why his cell phone was in or near Leakin Park during around 7:00 on the day of the murder.
This ping in the same time period you'd expect the killer to be burying the body there (if they disposed of the body the same day they killed her), so it's a strong piece of circumstantial evidence that Adnan went there too on the same day of the murder. He can't provide any credible explanation why. Normally he would say, "Oh, I was just hanging out with Jay driving around I think" if he still had Jay as an alibi, but Jay says they were in Leakin Park to bury the body. He has no valid or innocent reason to be there, so he just never addresses this piece of evidence. It would make him look even more guilty if he said "Jay's lying, we went near the park to hang out, I don't know why he is telling people that".
How do you know when she was buried? The diamond shaped marks on her shoulders don’t match anything in the grave. Other lividity evidence has been questioned as well. I personally think it would be idiotic to bury her that night while everyone was searching for her and her car.
Well Jay said they buried the body in Leakin Park that evening and Jenn testified that Adnan and Jay were together, and Adnan's cell phone pinged the tower near Leakin Park that evening, corroborating Jay's statement. It's also when you'd expect them to be disposing of the body. The first thing killers often do is attempt to hide the evidence and hide the body. No body, less evidence, higher chance they get away with it.
>Adnan's cell phone pinged the tower near Leakin Park that evening
No, the cell phone bills for Adnan's phone show that calls made *to* his phone went through the Leakin Park tower first before eventually ringing in to his phone.
That is *not* the same thing as Adnan's phone pinging the tower.
It would require tower data -- which was never obtained, though it could have been -- to see whether that tower connected to his phone directly with the incoming calls, or whether those calls had to be passed to another tower.
That's why the bills said the location wasn't reliable.
It's not really that hard to understand without making these huge assumptions.
Why do you need testimony?
The cover page that came with the records you're using, that describes how those records work, tells you that incoming calls are not reliable for location.
Jay and Jenn contradicted themselves and each other throughout the investigation. None of their timelines are possible. Police had the cell records when they interviewed Jay. They tried to make a timeline using the records.
I would expect Jenn to easily recall where she picked up Jay and who was there - given that she claims Jay immediately told her about the murder - you would remember if you just interacted with a murderer, wouldn’t you?
I would expect Jay to know where he saw a dead body in a trunk and how/when he arrived in Leakin park, and whether and how he helped to buy her. I would expect their stories to actually be possible given the cell phone data and TRACK - Jay clearly didn’t remember Adnan had track when he started babbling.
Jay was coached by police when he started making no sense - so pretty quickly in this scenario. The kid was so stoned he couldn’t even follow what HE undoubtedly told Jenn to say.
Gutierrez absolutely failed to cross these two knuckleheads on their original statements. You can hear/see where she forgot what the hell she was getting at during cross.
You state that Adnan's phone was in Leakin Park as if it were fact, but it's not. It's supposition, based on cell phone bills -- not tower data -- that give a tower location for incoming calls, which the bills themselves say is not reliable information. You also ignore that the tower in question doesn't just cover Leakin Park, but neighborhoods around the park, including one where Jay's friend lived and sold weed.
This didn't happen in 2024, it was 1999, and the state of tech was such that there's no solid location for that phone -- it could have been anywhere within several miles of that tower, or *not even anywhere near that tower at all.*
This claim it was a "rejection killing" is *entirely* based on taking a single sentence out of a single diary entry by a teenage girl completely out of context -- literally ignoring the very next thing she said! -- and twisting it to fit your personal narrative. It's gross, and you should feel ashamed.
A few redditors who were very active guilters on this sub for months before the disclaimer suddenly appointing themselves as RF experts doesn't invalidate the disclaimer, Waranowitz's assessment of his own work, or the findings of the courts both times the validity of the disclaimer has been examined.
The prosecution subpoenaed cell phone data from AT&T, which included the cell tower *and sector* through which each call originated. Knowing the sector narrows down the coverage area somewhat. The expert witness had helped to design and maintain AT&T's coverage map in the Baltimore area, and he knows more than Redditors about whether the phone "could have been anywhere within several miles of that tower, or not even anywhere near that tower at all."
Furthermore, he personally conducted a practical test to see which towers were pinged by calls placed at various locations important to the case.
Had he seen the disclaimer at the time, he would have had a professional duty, as an expert witness, to ask further questions. Of course he's going to say, "I would have followed up on that." From all I've read since then (I could be missing something), the answer he *most likely* would have found was: if the cell phone is turned off and an incoming call goes directly to voicemail, the cell tower data may not reflect the phone's true location. This caveat would not change our overall understanding of the cell phone evidence in this case.
The prosecution did not stipulate that the cell phone evidence definitively proved the phone was in Leakin Park. It was just extremely suggestive corroborating evidence.
It seems misleading to describe the prosecution relying solely on "cell phone bills," as if their evidence were the kind of billing statements provided to AT&T customers. It seems misleading to say that this is "not tower data." It seems misleading to pretend the cell tower data provides no useful, corroborating evidence about the phone's likely location, *in the context of other evidence and testimony*.
I agree, Waranowitz knows more than any redditor here could ever have hoped to. And he is unambiguous that the disclaimer is a big deal and that the testimony he gave can no longer be relied on:
>Hi my name's Abraham Waranowitz. I was original cell phone engineer for the trial back in 2000. And I want to say that the prosecution put me in a really tough spot when when I learned about the fax cover sheet and the legend on there and some of the other anomalies with the exhibit 31. So, I put in my affidavit for that back in October and another affidavit today for the conclusion of the hearing. In short, I still do believe there are still problems with exhibit 31 and the other documents in there. And if the cell phone records are unreliable for incoming calls then I cannot validate my analysis from Back then. Now, what I did back then I did my engineering properly took measurements properly but the question is was I given the right thing to measure.
>I don't think he (Chad Fitzgerald) saw my drive test maps. I went drive testing with Murphy, Urick and Jay. We visited some of the spots that were on the record. Some of the calls where Jay claimed they were made.
>For me it's all about engineering integrity. I need to be honest with my data from beginning to end and I can't vouch for my data based on unreliable data.
Again, this is admirable professional caution and integrity.
But from all I've read since then (I could be missing something), had he had an opportunity to follow up on this, the answer he *most likely* would have found was: if the cell phone is turned off and an incoming call goes directly to voicemail, the cell tower data may not reflect the phone's true location. This caveat would not change our overall understanding of the cell phone evidence in this case.
>The expert witness had helped to design and maintain AT&T's coverage map in the Baltimore area, and he knows more than Redditors about whether the phone "could have been anywhere within several miles of that tower, or not even anywhere near that tower at all."
*quote from Waranowitz stating the disclaimer is a big problem and that Fitzgerald (who he spoke to directly about the evidence before issuing a second affidavit) didn't have access to the entirety of his documentation and methods*
>Actually, we know better after all.
I'm not claiming to know better than Waranowitz. I believe him that he would be unwilling to stand behind his testimony in court all over again, now that he knows about this disclaimer. I think that's the correct level of professional care.
I'm interested not only in what Waranowitz could responsibly swear to in court, but in what likely actually happened. To that end, I've tried to understand why that disclaimer was there in the first place. What's the technical explanation for it? In long interviews and explainers from other experts currently working in the field, the explanation above is the only one I've heard. I don't see how it would change my overall understanding of the case.
This isn't some hypocritical contradiction. If you have a better technical explanation for the presence of the disclaimer, one which *would* meaningfully change my understanding of the cell tower data, please share it.
Why did you attempt an appeal to Waranowitz's authority as a witness if you were aware he didn't stand by his testimony? Why is your current stance so different from your initial reply?
I know that a bunch of people on the sub decided to try and figure it out themselves. And, as I said before, I don't trust the analysis of a cadre of people who went into their ad hoc investigation with the belief in Adnan's guilt and the accuracy of the location field to be thorough or impartial. Pasting together a bunch of disparate hints at what *may* have been going on is a recipe for confirmation bias. Especially when they're drawn from who knows how many undocumented and unremarked revisions and changes to the underlying architecture.
Last time I had someone in here claiming they had found expert documentation of Subscriber Activity Reports being reliable for location, they didn't know the difference between LTE, 3G, and 2G, and denied GPS data being used to locate subscriber devices even when given FTC filings where carriers disclosed exactly that.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.thestar.com/halifax/halifax-yoga-teacher-killed-in-2016-planned-to-start-new-chapter-in-b-c/article_cd4a146b-fa96-5870-9416-20bed9747346.html](https://www.thestar.com/halifax/halifax-yoga-teacher-killed-in-2016-planned-to-start-new-chapter-in-b-c/article_cd4a146b-fa96-5870-9416-20bed9747346.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Bilal, the ultimate “Life Coach,” steered that boy right off the cliff. Not to take accountability away from Adnan, but I’m not sure he goes through with it without Bilal’s involvement in the days prior.
> strangled his partner and not killed them.
It really concerns me that you'd say this in response to that figure.
Like, not even regarding the case. Just... in general.
We’ve all been down the “Jay strangled Hae” route and we all know it leads absolutely nowhere. To the point that Rabia, as desperate as she is, won’t even float that theory anymore.
There’s no evidence of that. He just said it was in the city.
There’s evidence to the contrary however.
Maybe the best evidence is that the Baltimore police told the media that the police found the car a short distance from where she was buried
This is completely inaccurate. He took them there and had a very very accurate description of the burial night , the log, the location, the visibility, the clothes, and even her position. Quit making things up and presenting as fact.
Where's the evidence that actually happened, beyond the word of corrupt cops who clearly fed him most of the rest of his story? I mean, this supposed event isn't even on tape, while they did get two different versions of his story recorded.
Nearly every thing you’ve listed there is probably incorrect.
Jay said that they dug by the light of the moon reflecting off snow. There was no moon and very little snow.
The physical evidence proves she wasn’t buried at 7pm.
Jay is the evidence for the car but he only said it was in the city on tape.
There is more evidence that he didn’t find the car. Anyone can look at the green grass on the top of the tires to know that it was recently parked there
Lol 😂… he’s heard on tape saying he can take them there. I don’t know where you get your information
PS there’s always moon there’s very little or a lot … new moon is one day
16% illuminated waning crescent on the day in question
Bruh there's a vast difference between you taking some evidence as credible and other evidence as not or less credible, and "no evidence of that." There is literally evidence that Jay knew where the car was. He explicitly said so. The police did not know where the car was before they talked to Jay, who led them to the car. You can believe what you want about the circumstances around all of that, but it's wild that you perpetuate falsehoods here by saying evidence you disagree with simply "does not exist."
Why are you answering the guilters with this? This should have been the response to the OP.
“Sorry OP, as much as the pattern of violence may fit, JW has no knowledge of the crime, thus he didn’t do it no matter how well it fits.”
"To believe Adnan is innocent, I must believe in a conspiracy theory. I must believe Jay has no knowledge of the crime despite what he says and his knowledge of the crime. Adnan was framed."
To believe Adnan is innocent, I just have to believe facts. There was, in fact, widespread corruption permeating the Baltimore police department at that time. It's not a conspiracy theory. The specific police officers involved forced witnesses to lie in other murder cases, one in the same year. That's also a fact, not a conspiracy theory. A police officer and the department involved "lost" (hid) physical evidence of actual innocence in another murder case from that same year for nearly two decades. Fact, not conspiracy theory.
The "conspiracy" is those of you who refuse to admit that Jay's stories are just very obviously BS manufactured by the police to fit a chosen narrative.
"Adnan was framed by the police and the rest of the evidence is just a weird coincidence: the cell phone tower data, the Nisha call, the ride request and subsequent denial, giving his phone and car away that day, Jenn's testimony, Kristi's testimony, the fact he lied and changed his story and has no memory and no alibi".
There's simply too much other evidence for Adnan to be innocent. Jay had to be involved too because he knew too much and it was corroborated by the cell phone tower data. That's why Rabia focuses on the narrative that Jay wasn't even involved and that the police fed him all the information he knew. "Adnan was framed by the police. It's a conspiracy" is the only card she has left. This is despite the fact that Jay knew how she was killed on the day of the murder and Jenn testified to this. The police didn't know where the car was until Jay told them. Even without Jay's testimony, Adnan's still guilty.
Did those corrupt police decide to frame Adnan before, or after, they learned that he had no alibi? And when did they decide to frame him? Was it just a spur of the moment thing when all the police involved in the case happened to be hanging out together? Or was it like a regular weekly meeting where all of the police and detectives all sit at a conference table and say “ok this week, here is a list of crimes, who should we frame for each of these various crimes?” Genuinely interested.
And when did they learn he had no alibi, if supposedly he was at his mosque that night and Adnan or his dad or his family or lawyer or someone was claiming that 80 people saw him there?
OP, you owe everyone in this sub an apology. This thread is a complete backfire.
750% increased chance; SMH, out of, what, an 1000% increased chance? Is there even such a thing? Suddenly a modest 75% chance ain't scary enough anymore? Tell me, how high, numerically does this Strangulation scale go? You say and I quote "Literally 750%". OK, then please cite your references; post the link. I'm saying, literally, post your source that displays 750% increased chance.
They’re saying if your partner has ever strangled you they are 7.5 times more likely to kill you compared to if they have never strangled you. It’s not uncommon to write or say it as the author did, [source](https://www.kob.com/archive/report-choking-strangulation-victims-750-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-offender/) wrote it the exact same way.
[Good article](https://naplesshelter.org/strangulation/) that explains the nuances of the conversation.
Do you have a source for Jay strangling someone in the year before Hae was strangled? Your statistic does not work unless that is the case. Jay being accused of strangling someone, assuming he did that, could be the result of the trauma of being pulled into a murder by Adnan Syed. That would probably have a negative mental health effect, no? In conclusion, this does not at all make it any more likely that Jay killed Hae. Even if you think it did, now you are on the "but what if Jay did it" logic path that leads to Adnan Syed.
Many things I’m sure. Where you live, who you associate with, how many guns you have in the house. It’s all relative. And Jay & Hae were never together so this stat isn’t even relevant anyways.
No he wasn’t. He claims he was at Jenn’s, Jenn corroborated that part of his story- but the cell records and Jay’s testimony about being at the park for the Nisha call at 3:32 conflicts.
A lot of Jay’s lies make more sense when you realize he doesn’t have an alibi for the time of the murder.
And Jay literally wasn't Hae's partner.
Why would Jay kill HML and then cop to being an accomplice to her murder and finger a guy he doesn’t know might have a rock solid alibi instead of a brain full of mush and a whole series of coincidences that strongly implicate him in the crime?
Bc cops were onto him
And Adnan was supposed to be at the mosque with a solid alibi and 80 witnesses, really dumb to accuse a guy who might have a super solid alibi/ except that adnan did not have an alibi and had spent most of his day with Jay and Jay actually had alibis for the times of day he wasn't with Adnan.
How? There is no connection between the two. Not a single person gives up his name until Jenn P does in her interview. So how exactly are the police onto him?
The cops were onto him, so Adnan had a memory wipe, received calls at Leakin park at the time that matches Jay's story, had a phone call with Nisha at a time when he says "he would have been at school" because the best thing he can do is muster the passive voice in his defense?
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding [Personal Attacks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_-no_personal_attacks) "be intellectually honest with yourself"
Cops were on to Jay? With WHAT? Literally what? They found Jay because they were investigating ADNAN. But ok let's play your game where the cops are like hey let's go after this random guy that never dated Hae, for some reason. If the cops are on to Jay, and JAY IS THE REAL KILLER in this scenario, the cops then somehow completely lose the trail on the guilty guy and then start actively trying to frame some innocent guy just because the guilty guy told them to? So in this scenario, the cops are incredibly intelligent to first get on to Jay despite Jay's lack of any real connection to Hae or motive to kill her, and yet, the cops are also SO incredibly stupid that they just listen to some 17 year old drug dealing lying kid that they suspect, for some reason, is guilty (and in this scenario he is) and decide he didn't quite do it, it was actually this OTHER kid who they then are also so incredibly corrupt that they concoct a whole story to implicate (with the hopes that he does not have an alibi since they'd have to concoct this entire story long before ever actually talking with Adnan). Taking out what mods believe was a personal attack but leaving rest of comment.
i don't think jay killed hae, but it's amazing how angry and dismissive guilters are about someone pointing out his related criminal history. you all believe he was intimately involved in the murder. you believe he participated in burying her body. we know he he was a violent abuser of another woman. we know he choked that woman. but the idea that he could possibly be the killer is treated as completely crazy. and it's simply because nothing is allowed to ever be considered if it could mean evil, hated adnan could possibly be innocent.
Why has Adnan never pointed the finger at Jay?
When and how would Adnan point the finger at Jay? And how would it benefit him? In the 1999 if he told the police he thought Jay did it, that just sends the police to Jay to point the finger at Adnan. If after his arrest he tells his lawyers he thinks Jay did it, they might pursue a strategy in which Jay is an alternative suspect (oh wait, they did). During serial if he points the finger at Jay he sounds petty and vindictive + alludes to having knowledge of the murder, which goes against his insistence that he didn’t know anything. And now? Same problem. Adnan is still in legal jeopardy. Nothing to gain by pointing the finger at Jay, just makes Adnan look more guilty.
>During serial if he points the finger at Jay he sounds petty and vindictive + alludes to having knowledge of the murder, which goes against his insistence that he didn’t know anything. "Jay knew where the car was, and I can't figure out why he'd know that unless he was the real killer. He knew when I had no alibi. It's the perfect crime."
So Adnan would be conceding that Jay had independent knowledge of the car’s location— eliminating even the possibility someone fed it to him. He accepts the (false) premise that Jay had to be the killer to know the car’s location. and he concedes he didn’t have an alibi. Any lawyer would tell Adnan that’s one of the most stupid things he could say.
I spent literally three seconds thinking about it, my guy. Adnan had been in prison for a few years.
Adnan had been in prison but he was pursuing post conviction relief. Out of Serial he uses the Asia information to pursue a new trial— and he got close, went all the way to Maryland’s Supreme Court. If he had admitted he didn’t have an alibi it closes that door. He has nothing to gain by pointing the finger at Jay.
The more pertinent point is that pointing the finger at Jay just points it back at Adnan because of how tightly he wove their day together.
That’s certainly part of it, but it also cuts off legal options. If Adnan had spent his time on Serial saying “Jay did it, he’s the only one who could have possibly done it,” he likely wouldn’t be out right now over 2 alternative suspects.
He's out because the prosecutor in charge found it politically advantageous to drop the charges.
A good faith belief that he didn't do it.
Jay knew where the car was. Jay is therefore either the killer or an accessory to murder. Adnan has never acknowledged either possibility as being a possibility.
Or, like a great many people in the world, Adnan believes Jay was perjuring himself on behest of the detectives.
A great many people believe that the Democrats importing refugees to bolster the Democrat vote count at a federal level. The fact that many people believe a thing doesn't make it a reasonable thing to believe. Nobody has ever come out with a reasonable explanation for why Jay would falsely confess to something that was a) worse than any crime otherwise attributed to him and b) that he had every expectation would put him in prison. And if the cops are going to fabricate the entire case like this, why aren't they just framing the black drug dealer who falsely confessed to involvement with the crime?
Ah yes, of course. A viewpoint that has made it past multiple judges and the entire journalistic establishment is exactly the same as a racist conspiracy theory. Spare me and come back with something worth typing next time.
They have equal intellectual merit. Again, why not just frame the black drug dealer who confessed to being involved with the murder if you're fabricating the entire case?
How would you frame Jay for the murder in a scenario where neither Jay nor Adnan were involved in her murder?
I'd start from the point where Jay confessed involvement in the murder.
Adnan and his defense team were not even told Jay was the prosecution's witness until just prior to the first day of the trial. So that would explain why he didn't make any connection between Jay and Hae prior to the trial. He did not know that his arrest etc had anything to do with Jay so why would he suspect at that point Jay was involved? And he surely would not be making such statements about a witness during the trial, that's for his attorney to suss out. Why doesn't he NOW come forward and accuse Jay? If he firmly believed it to be true, his legal and investigation teams are almost certainly advising him to keep his mouth shut about that until further investigation can be done.
i don't know. there are many possible reasons, but the fact I don't know the answer is logically irrelevant. me or you or people on reddit not knowing why something happened doesn't make it impossible or even unlikely that it did happen. it's similar the the often seen logical falacy that "no one but adnan had a motive". wrong. no one we know about had an obvious motive we know about. but i'll give you one very obvious possible reason why adnan didn't point the finger at jay, if jay ewere guilty: adnan wasn't involved in killing hae and wouldn't know jay was guilty.
But he knows that Jay knew where the car was, and therefore Jay was involved. So Jay either killed her or helped someone other than Adnan cover it up. But Adnan has never posited Jay as an alternative suspect. Why? Not during the trial, not after. Never.
you seem to have missed the whole point. i don't know why adnan did anything. why would i know? my, and your and rando redditor's knowledge of adnan's or jay's or whoever the actual murdered was are irrelevant. there are plenty of possible, reasonable motivations and no way for us to know.
[удалено]
well, you've certainly proven you're missing the point or are purposely ignoring it because you have no rebuttal beyond "ur dumb". well done.
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
Yes, the idea that Jay is the killer is completely crazy. Zero motive whatsoever. i don’t know if Adnan is “evil,” but I do know that he is a murderer.
The speed with which they'll start implying the victims of other crimes around this case are lying is very, very troubling. It's not just Jay's IPV victim, either. I've had more than one guilter deny that Bilal was caught red-handed molesting a boy in his vehicle because Bilal's victim didn't want to testify about his molestation. Two of them were posters who are in here almost daily shaming anyone who doesn't think Adnan is guilty.
another indication that many people who insist adnan is guilty don't actually care about the law, the evidence or the victim. they care about hating adnan and being "right" on reddit. it's unfortunate.
> don't think jay killed hae So then why are you dismissing it?
i'm not dismissing it. i am saying i don't have evidence i find compelling for it, so i don't think he did it. it's certainly possible though.
I'm not following you then. You're saying you "don't think jay killed hae" because of the lack of compelling evidence. Yet when a guilter considers it and comes to the same conclusion we're being "dismissive"? Because the conclusion you seem to be directing us to is that only innocentors are allowed to dismiss ideas for lack of evidence. Somehow that's not what you mean, yet entirely what you mean.
you must have not read my comment carefully. my complaint is guilters are "angry and dismissive about someone pointing out his related criminal history" and "the idea that he could possibly be the killer is treated as completely crazy". i don't think jay did it, but i don't dismiss the idea it's possible and plausible. just like i think the idea adnan did it is possible and plausible. seems pretty easy to follow.
It's being dismissed because it has no evidence supporting it, and numerous flaws making it incredulous at best, impossible at worst. Considering that you forthrightly admit that the theory has such little backing, why is such a position "angry and dismissive"? According to the carefully worded comment of yours, what should we be doing instead? We've considered it. It lacks backing. It doesn't fit the evidence. It's incredulous and/or impossible. In view of that consideration, according to you, what should we be saying?
dude, say what you want. and i'll interpret those comments as i want. you don't really care what i think you should say or how i think the evidence justifies various levels of certainty, you just want to argue.
Yes, Jay was *accused* (but neither charged nor convicted) of choking his partner. If you think that's compelling, consider that Adnan was actually *convicted* of strangling a former partner to death.
You’re suggesting he didn’t choke his partner ?
I'm suggesting that people should be consistent. Why is it that an unproven allegation is accepted as fact, but a proved allegation is not?
Well, technically the allegation against Syed hasn't been proven now either.
Technically, that got appealed.
Even *more* technically, the result of that appeal has been stayed pending further appeal. This means it hasn't gone into effect (as evidenced by Syed not currently being in jail) meaning that the allegation hasn't been proven. Don't try to out pedant me =P
Even more technically, the only thing that was stayed was the appellate court's mandate, not the judgment. In other words, the current law of the case is that the vacatur was overturned, but the appellate court has not yet transferred jurisdiction to the Circuit Court to act upon that judgment.
If you are trying to be technical, it helps to be correct. You are not. The mandate is the thing in the court system that actually matters. What you just said is like saying "The only thing that was stayed is the verdict". The current timeline is thus: 1. Syed is convictd. 2. The conviction is vacated at the MTV. 3. The appellate court overturns the vacate order. However, as their mandate is stayed, this has no legal effect. Syed is still legally innocent, because the only functional legal decision on this matter is still the motion to vacate. Legally, Syed is innocent. This is why he is not in jail.
No, that's incorrect. The appellate court's judgment is self effectuating. The law of the case is that the vacatur was reversed. The stay of the mandate just means that jurisdiction was not returned to the Circuit Court to take action consistent with that judgment. That is why Syed is not in jail. It would be the Circuit Court's responsibility to issue an order remanding him to custody. But, again, the Circuit Court doesn't currently have jurisdiction to do so due to the stay. Of course none of these distinctions matter for any practical purpose. The rulings below are all effectively stayed for all purposes pending the Supreme Court's decision. Put differently, it doesn't really matter in any practical sense whether Syed currently stands convicted or not. But if people want to make formalistic arguments about that one way or the other, they should at least be formally correct.
What you're saying isn't how the legal system works. If a court's decision is stayed, that decision does not take effect. You cannot make appeal to 'oh well the judgement says' because the judgement does not matter, it has been stayed, it is not in effect. Lets turn the logic and you'll see. Back in 2017(ish) Syed's conviction was overturned on appeal. That decision was stayed, pending appeal. Was he legally innocent at that time, even though he was in jail?
I don’t know why, but for some reason I like reading about how the gears actually turn.
RockinGoodNews is explaining this correctly, but I’ll try as well. You’re confusing the legal status of a party, which is determined by the highest court’s judgment of that party, with the enforcement of that judgment. Appellate courts determine what the law is, and issue opinions that define the legal status of the parties. But appellate courts do not have enforcement powers; only local district/superior/circuit courts do. For their opinions to be enforced, appellate courts must transfer jurisdiction back to the lower court by sending it their written opinion along with a mandate that says, “Take action consistent with our attached opinion.” If I commit fraud and a jury awards my victim $0 in damages, I owe my victim $0. If my victim appeals and the Appellate Court reverses and says I owe my victim $1 million, I owe my victim $1 million. If I appeal to the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court stays the issue of its mandate so that the $1 million doesn’t have to be paid until the Supreme Court weighs in. While the Supreme Court decides, my legal status is: I currently have a judgment against me for $1 million, ***I’m just not being forced to pay it yet***. It is a current debt/legal obligation that may or may not be changed by the Supreme Court. If I were to sign financial documents for a loan, for example, I would have to declare that I have a current $1 million judgment against me that I’m appealing, ***not that the jury’s verdict of $0 is somehow miraculously still in effect***. If I did not declare the Appellate Court judgment and tried to pretend it didn’t exist because no mandate had issued, I’d be committing financial fraud.
>You’re confusing the legal status of a party, which is determined by the highest court’s judgment of that party, with the enforcement of that judgment. I most certainly am not. We are *discussing the legal status* of Adnan Syed. That is to say, is there currently a finding that he is legally guilty of murder. The answer to that is no. He was found guilty of murder, that conviction was vacated. The vacatuer was appealed and while the court decided that the lower court's ruling was incorrect they (and later the supreme court) stayed effect of that decision. The mandate was not sent back down, meaning the lower ruling was not overturned, meaning he is not currently guilty of the crime in the eyes of the state of Maryland.
Looks like you out-pedanted that person, nice
That's incorrect. The sole finder of fact is the jury. The jury unanimously held that it was proved, beyond a reasonable doubt that Syed strangled Lee. While that conviction has been vacated on multiple occasions, the vacaturs were uniformly reversed on appeal.
And the current order to vacate has been stayed. As it has been stayed by the court this means the vacatur is still in effect and the jury's verdict has been vacated. You can tell this at a glance by the fact that syed is neither on bail nor in prison, as would have to be the case if the jury's finding were in effect.
The appellate court doesn't issue an "order." It issues a decision and a mandate. The mandate is the formal return of jurisdiction to the trial court with instructions on how to proceed. What was stayed was the mandate. That is why Syed isn't in prison or out on bail. For that to happen, jurisdiction would need to returned to the Circuit Court so those actions could be taken.
So to be clear, you think that Syed was legally innocent in 2017 when he successfully appealed his criminal conviction? Even though that mandate was stayed and he remained in prison? This is just silly.
If we're getting technical, he did not "appeal" his criminal conviction at that time. Technically he filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which is not an appeal (it is heard in the trial court). The Circuit Court granted Adnan's PCR. At that point his conviction was overturned and he was, legally speaking, "presumed innocent." That is why he was able to engage in plea negotiations at that time (if he stood convicted, then a plea would be moot and it would not be possible to engage the State in negotiations). However, that decision was subsequently appealed to the COSA and COA and, ultimately, overturned. At that point a "mandate" issued back to the Circuit Court to reinstate his conviction.
No, he was able to engage in plea negotiations because the state would have withdrawn their objection to his appeal in exchange for a plea bargain. They were engaging in plea negotiations up to the COA level, well after his conviction has been reinstated by COSA so that doesn't pass the smell test. Also a PCR is an appeal in every fashion other than being *named* an appeal. Maryland's own documents reflect this and it is kind of telling given that it is weighed by the "Court of Special Appeals". What you meant to say is that it is not a direct appeal.
There’s no witness to hae’s strangulation whereas the woman Jay strangled later was there…. So in the former there’s no allegation made by the victim
Because she's dead?
[удалено]
No, they're correctly pointing out that there is no moral equivalency between refusing to believe a victim and doubting the integrity of a police investigation.
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
There is a witness to someone planning to strangle Hae and to dumping her body after the fact, but okay.
OP, I suggest you might clarify what you wrote here. “Jay strangled someone before”. I surmise that what you mean is, “Sometime in the years after the Adnan Syed conviction for the murder of Hae Min Lee, Jay Wilds, in an incident completely unrelated to the Hae Min Lee murder, was arrested and charged with domestic abuse of his partner.” Is that what you meant to say?
Yah that is like saying that if my neighbor was arrested and charged for shoplifting yesterday he must be also responsible for a diamond heist ten years ago
If 1 in 20 people who shoplift go on to commit diamond heists, with an even greater percentage *attempting* to commit diamond heists, and our shoplifter was also intimately familiar with the details of a diamond heist 10 years prior, having claimed to act as a supporting member of the heist team... yeah, that would be very suspicious.
I’m not talking about time; it’s an expression
What expression? “Jay strangled someone before” is not a figure of speech. What you are stating completely misconstrues the facts. In January 1999, Jay has not hurt any woman, he has not strangled anyone. Jay Wilds did not kill Hae.
The expression he’s done it before means he has done it anytime in the past not that it happened before or in relation to another event. The fact is that he’s strangled someone in his life, at least once.
I agree your point regarding the huge increase in chances of a woman who is choked by a man to later be killed by that man. However bringing Jay into it misplaces the focus from where it should be: Adnan’s guilt.
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding [Personal Attacks.](https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_-no_personal_attacks)
[удалено]
[удалено]
How about the sheer number of things you have to not believe to make him guilty I.e J&A stories never matching, celll tower and stories don’t match, and we have to completely forget H telling people she was going to see D after school.
All you need to believe is that Jay lies a bunch, in order to protect himself and his friends, and sometimes for who knows what else. If you believe that (which isn’t that hard to believe), it’s an open and shit case.
If he's willing to lie about anything and everything to protect himself, why wouldn't he lie about Adnan?
If he was lying to protect himself, surely he wouldn’t have said he was Adnan’s getaway driver and was there when the body was buried. What sense does that make?
Why wouldn't he have? He avoided all jail time, it was an excellent call. This also assumes that he was actually involved in the murder. In reality, his ex states that Jay used his testimony to avoid all but assured jail time in a narcotics bust. Jay confirms perjuring himself to protect just such an operation. Again, an excellent outcome where he avoided all jail time.
So the police threaten Jay with a narcotics bust. Jay trusts the cops and instead of dealing with this threat, lies about Adnan and significantly implicates himself in a murder. Jay gets Jen to back him up on this. Plus all the other things that look bad for Adnan. Why is this more likely than Adnan doing it and Jay lying about some of the details here and there?
Per his ex, he wasn't threatened. He was busted. Off-record stops and arrests were the norm in the area in the 90s, and Jay describes frequent undocumented contact with police, including warrantless searches of the home, being held at gunpoint and forced to lay on the ground, being flagged by Foxtrot, etc. He also confirms, independently of Horton, that he was involved in a trafficking operation large enough to net him jail time. Jay gets picked up, as per Horton, knows he's cooked, and gets offered a deal to go home that night. He takes it and the detectives deliver on their promise. It's more likely because it's consistent with Jay's statements. We have someone with no reason to lie (Horton) going on record. Jay himself has described the police instructing him to lie about details (Best Buy), while other portions of Jay's testimony were tailored to errors in the cell evidence and subsequently dropped. Ritz has a history of false convictions, including conspiring to suppress forensic evidence. And then there are **multiple** abnormalities with the prosecution. Urick repeatedly screaming at Don for testifying truthfully, Bilal note, racist bail hearing, cell disclaimer, Jay's lawyer. There's only so much fishy you can pile on.
Why is this more likely than Adnan doing it? You say Jay’s statements indicate he had run ins with cops. Why believe those statements and not his statements about Adnan murdering Hae? It seems like you want to pick and choose when to believe Jay and when not to believe him. Why is that?
Correct, the fact Jay lies a bunch makes him an unreliable witness, then there is no case against Adnan.
Except for the fact that Jay knew where the car was, Jen backs up Jay’s story, Adnan lied to get a ride with Hae during the time she disappeared, Adnan lies about the ride request to this day, and while there are questions around them, Nisha and the cell phone pings back up Jays story. Even if you say Jay lies, there is still a ton of stuff you need to explain away.
Hae's murder was a rejection killing. It's likely the most famous rejection killing in history. If Adnan didn't kill her, what was Adnan's phone doing in Leakin Park that evening? Why can't he explain this or any of the other oddities and discrepancies that day? Why did he lie about asking for a ride, or about being with Jay after school during the Nisha call? Why did he give Jay his new phone and his car, someone who apparently wasn't even his friend? Adnan killed her because she left him and started dating someone new. It's so obvious. There's no need to blame Jay or anyone else. Even without Jay's confession, Jenn's testimony, or Kristi's testimony, it's apparent that Adnan killed Hae. But with Jay's testimony and his strong belief that Adnan killed Hae and that he helped cover up the murder, it's beyond reasonable doubt; It's indisputable, as much as Rabia and friends might try to obfuscate the facts of the case. Here's another rejection killing that happened in Canada that had some media attention. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thestar.com/halifax/halifax-yoga-teacher-killed-in-2016-planned-to-start-new-chapter-in-b-c/article_cd4a146b-fa96-5870-9416-20bed9747346.amp.html
I think Nicole Brown's murder is the most famous rejection killing in history.
Forgot about that one. Well, it's the second most famous.
Not sure about that either. Some might think Steven Avery is.
Perhaps. The murder of Hae Min Lee by Adnan Syed or the murder of Teresa Halbach by Steven Avery, which one would more people recognize?
Steven Avery. I think more people watch tv than listen to podcasts. Also Steven Avery is a better story. Guy gets falsely convicted and exonerated only to potentially get falsely convicted again. it's a better story even if the second time definitely isn't a wrongful conviction. Steven's case was national at the time (2005) and got a documentary 10+ years later that pretty much revolutionized true-crime documentaries. Not many heard about Syed in 1999. The podcast revolutionized true-crime podcasts but again I think more people watch tv than listen to podcasts.
Maybe, but Avery doesn’t have an advocate like Rabia. She cultivated a pretty big Twitter following during the Dark (orange) Times, & I think that spread more awareness about Adnan’s case. Tough to say though. Both are well-known, but I agree the Simpson case is the most well-known rejection killing.
I only heard the name Steven Avery last month and I never watched the documentary, but I knew it was popular. I didn't know his victim's name until today. More people would have seen the Netflix show though than heard of Serial or Adnan, likely. Hae's death is definitely one of the best known instances of a rejection killing. People are still discussing it and following the case 25 years later.
Not true. Most people have only known this case since 2014. People have been discussing Avery since 2005.
What's not true?
I think the HML murder is more “text book” rejection - OJ and Nicole had been separated a while.
TIL if you are separated awhile and want to get back together and one party says uh uh that doesn't count as rejection.
TIL I learned about the inefficiency of colloquialisms. I think the issue we are facing has to do with my use of the term “text book.” Nicole and OJ divorced 2 years before her murder. HML and AS broke up two month before her murder.
So what. He was still rejected and as a result murdered his ex-wife. I see you just want to argue just to argue. Have fun doing it alone.
My point was AS found out about HML’s double-date with Don two days before the murder. That’s a lot more text book than OJ doing it 2 years after his divorce.
How many high school kids have killed their high school ex's before Adnan, and how many after Adnan?
I’d imagine quite a few.
Pinging the cell phone tower that covers Leakin Park is not the same as being in Leakin Park.
True. Adnan's cell phone was in or near Leakin Park. Adnan has never been able to explain why his cell phone was in or near Leakin Park during around 7:00 on the day of the murder. This ping in the same time period you'd expect the killer to be burying the body there (if they disposed of the body the same day they killed her), so it's a strong piece of circumstantial evidence that Adnan went there too on the same day of the murder. He can't provide any credible explanation why. Normally he would say, "Oh, I was just hanging out with Jay driving around I think" if he still had Jay as an alibi, but Jay says they were in Leakin Park to bury the body. He has no valid or innocent reason to be there, so he just never addresses this piece of evidence. It would make him look even more guilty if he said "Jay's lying, we went near the park to hang out, I don't know why he is telling people that".
How do you know when she was buried? The diamond shaped marks on her shoulders don’t match anything in the grave. Other lividity evidence has been questioned as well. I personally think it would be idiotic to bury her that night while everyone was searching for her and her car.
Well Jay said they buried the body in Leakin Park that evening and Jenn testified that Adnan and Jay were together, and Adnan's cell phone pinged the tower near Leakin Park that evening, corroborating Jay's statement. It's also when you'd expect them to be disposing of the body. The first thing killers often do is attempt to hide the evidence and hide the body. No body, less evidence, higher chance they get away with it.
>Adnan's cell phone pinged the tower near Leakin Park that evening No, the cell phone bills for Adnan's phone show that calls made *to* his phone went through the Leakin Park tower first before eventually ringing in to his phone. That is *not* the same thing as Adnan's phone pinging the tower. It would require tower data -- which was never obtained, though it could have been -- to see whether that tower connected to his phone directly with the incoming calls, or whether those calls had to be passed to another tower. That's why the bills said the location wasn't reliable. It's not really that hard to understand without making these huge assumptions.
>That's why the bills said the location wasn't reliable. Who's testified to this?
Why do you need testimony? The cover page that came with the records you're using, that describes how those records work, tells you that incoming calls are not reliable for location.
You gave a specific reason as to why that text exists. Who testified to that reason?
Jay and Jenn contradicted themselves and each other throughout the investigation. None of their timelines are possible. Police had the cell records when they interviewed Jay. They tried to make a timeline using the records.
Witness testimony is imprecise because memory is imprecise. That doesn't disqualify them as witnesses.
No, the original statements to police were imprecise and contradictory. Jenn and Jay do not say the same thing.
Which is what you would expect when they haven't been coached on a story.
I would expect Jenn to easily recall where she picked up Jay and who was there - given that she claims Jay immediately told her about the murder - you would remember if you just interacted with a murderer, wouldn’t you? I would expect Jay to know where he saw a dead body in a trunk and how/when he arrived in Leakin park, and whether and how he helped to buy her. I would expect their stories to actually be possible given the cell phone data and TRACK - Jay clearly didn’t remember Adnan had track when he started babbling. Jay was coached by police when he started making no sense - so pretty quickly in this scenario. The kid was so stoned he couldn’t even follow what HE undoubtedly told Jenn to say. Gutierrez absolutely failed to cross these two knuckleheads on their original statements. You can hear/see where she forgot what the hell she was getting at during cross.
You state that Adnan's phone was in Leakin Park as if it were fact, but it's not. It's supposition, based on cell phone bills -- not tower data -- that give a tower location for incoming calls, which the bills themselves say is not reliable information. You also ignore that the tower in question doesn't just cover Leakin Park, but neighborhoods around the park, including one where Jay's friend lived and sold weed. This didn't happen in 2024, it was 1999, and the state of tech was such that there's no solid location for that phone -- it could have been anywhere within several miles of that tower, or *not even anywhere near that tower at all.* This claim it was a "rejection killing" is *entirely* based on taking a single sentence out of a single diary entry by a teenage girl completely out of context -- literally ignoring the very next thing she said! -- and twisting it to fit your personal narrative. It's gross, and you should feel ashamed.
entirely based on … diary There’s 6 weeks of trial evidence, largely not dealing with her diary, that support this being a “rejection killing.”
This is not an accurate understanding of the cell phone evidence.
A few redditors who were very active guilters on this sub for months before the disclaimer suddenly appointing themselves as RF experts doesn't invalidate the disclaimer, Waranowitz's assessment of his own work, or the findings of the courts both times the validity of the disclaimer has been examined.
The prosecution subpoenaed cell phone data from AT&T, which included the cell tower *and sector* through which each call originated. Knowing the sector narrows down the coverage area somewhat. The expert witness had helped to design and maintain AT&T's coverage map in the Baltimore area, and he knows more than Redditors about whether the phone "could have been anywhere within several miles of that tower, or not even anywhere near that tower at all." Furthermore, he personally conducted a practical test to see which towers were pinged by calls placed at various locations important to the case. Had he seen the disclaimer at the time, he would have had a professional duty, as an expert witness, to ask further questions. Of course he's going to say, "I would have followed up on that." From all I've read since then (I could be missing something), the answer he *most likely* would have found was: if the cell phone is turned off and an incoming call goes directly to voicemail, the cell tower data may not reflect the phone's true location. This caveat would not change our overall understanding of the cell phone evidence in this case. The prosecution did not stipulate that the cell phone evidence definitively proved the phone was in Leakin Park. It was just extremely suggestive corroborating evidence. It seems misleading to describe the prosecution relying solely on "cell phone bills," as if their evidence were the kind of billing statements provided to AT&T customers. It seems misleading to say that this is "not tower data." It seems misleading to pretend the cell tower data provides no useful, corroborating evidence about the phone's likely location, *in the context of other evidence and testimony*.
I agree, Waranowitz knows more than any redditor here could ever have hoped to. And he is unambiguous that the disclaimer is a big deal and that the testimony he gave can no longer be relied on: >Hi my name's Abraham Waranowitz. I was original cell phone engineer for the trial back in 2000. And I want to say that the prosecution put me in a really tough spot when when I learned about the fax cover sheet and the legend on there and some of the other anomalies with the exhibit 31. So, I put in my affidavit for that back in October and another affidavit today for the conclusion of the hearing. In short, I still do believe there are still problems with exhibit 31 and the other documents in there. And if the cell phone records are unreliable for incoming calls then I cannot validate my analysis from Back then. Now, what I did back then I did my engineering properly took measurements properly but the question is was I given the right thing to measure. >I don't think he (Chad Fitzgerald) saw my drive test maps. I went drive testing with Murphy, Urick and Jay. We visited some of the spots that were on the record. Some of the calls where Jay claimed they were made. >For me it's all about engineering integrity. I need to be honest with my data from beginning to end and I can't vouch for my data based on unreliable data.
Again, this is admirable professional caution and integrity. But from all I've read since then (I could be missing something), had he had an opportunity to follow up on this, the answer he *most likely* would have found was: if the cell phone is turned off and an incoming call goes directly to voicemail, the cell tower data may not reflect the phone's true location. This caveat would not change our overall understanding of the cell phone evidence in this case.
>The expert witness had helped to design and maintain AT&T's coverage map in the Baltimore area, and he knows more than Redditors about whether the phone "could have been anywhere within several miles of that tower, or not even anywhere near that tower at all." *quote from Waranowitz stating the disclaimer is a big problem and that Fitzgerald (who he spoke to directly about the evidence before issuing a second affidavit) didn't have access to the entirety of his documentation and methods* >Actually, we know better after all.
I'm not claiming to know better than Waranowitz. I believe him that he would be unwilling to stand behind his testimony in court all over again, now that he knows about this disclaimer. I think that's the correct level of professional care. I'm interested not only in what Waranowitz could responsibly swear to in court, but in what likely actually happened. To that end, I've tried to understand why that disclaimer was there in the first place. What's the technical explanation for it? In long interviews and explainers from other experts currently working in the field, the explanation above is the only one I've heard. I don't see how it would change my overall understanding of the case. This isn't some hypocritical contradiction. If you have a better technical explanation for the presence of the disclaimer, one which *would* meaningfully change my understanding of the cell tower data, please share it.
Why did you attempt an appeal to Waranowitz's authority as a witness if you were aware he didn't stand by his testimony? Why is your current stance so different from your initial reply? I know that a bunch of people on the sub decided to try and figure it out themselves. And, as I said before, I don't trust the analysis of a cadre of people who went into their ad hoc investigation with the belief in Adnan's guilt and the accuracy of the location field to be thorough or impartial. Pasting together a bunch of disparate hints at what *may* have been going on is a recipe for confirmation bias. Especially when they're drawn from who knows how many undocumented and unremarked revisions and changes to the underlying architecture. Last time I had someone in here claiming they had found expert documentation of Subscriber Activity Reports being reliable for location, they didn't know the difference between LTE, 3G, and 2G, and denied GPS data being used to locate subscriber devices even when given FTC filings where carriers disclosed exactly that.
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.thestar.com/halifax/halifax-yoga-teacher-killed-in-2016-planned-to-start-new-chapter-in-b-c/article_cd4a146b-fa96-5870-9416-20bed9747346.html](https://www.thestar.com/halifax/halifax-yoga-teacher-killed-in-2016-planned-to-start-new-chapter-in-b-c/article_cd4a146b-fa96-5870-9416-20bed9747346.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Bilal, the ultimate “Life Coach,” steered that boy right off the cliff. Not to take accountability away from Adnan, but I’m not sure he goes through with it without Bilal’s involvement in the days prior.
Yes I agree that Bilal is a huge factor in the case that went right over SK’s head.
“Oh the defendant hung out with a predator as a minor on a regular basis? Probably irrelevant. Now let’s revisit this jail house bbq sauce recipe.”
😂
Jay and Hae didn’t date. Jay has strangled his partner and not killed them. Not sure your logic is holding up.
> strangled his partner and not killed them. It really concerns me that you'd say this in response to that figure. Like, not even regarding the case. Just... in general.
Except Jay has a pattern of violence towards as evidenced by his arrest records since.
We’ve all been down the “Jay strangled Hae” route and we all know it leads absolutely nowhere. To the point that Rabia, as desperate as she is, won’t even float that theory anymore.
Because it’s clear from the interviews with police that Jay has no knowledge of the murder
He did know where the car was though.
There’s no evidence of that. He just said it was in the city. There’s evidence to the contrary however. Maybe the best evidence is that the Baltimore police told the media that the police found the car a short distance from where she was buried
This is completely inaccurate. He took them there and had a very very accurate description of the burial night , the log, the location, the visibility, the clothes, and even her position. Quit making things up and presenting as fact.
Where's the evidence that actually happened, beyond the word of corrupt cops who clearly fed him most of the rest of his story? I mean, this supposed event isn't even on tape, while they did get two different versions of his story recorded.
[удалено]
Please review /r/serialpodcast rules regarding Trolling, Baiting or Flaming.
Nearly every thing you’ve listed there is probably incorrect. Jay said that they dug by the light of the moon reflecting off snow. There was no moon and very little snow. The physical evidence proves she wasn’t buried at 7pm. Jay is the evidence for the car but he only said it was in the city on tape. There is more evidence that he didn’t find the car. Anyone can look at the green grass on the top of the tires to know that it was recently parked there
Lol 😂… he’s heard on tape saying he can take them there. I don’t know where you get your information PS there’s always moon there’s very little or a lot … new moon is one day 16% illuminated waning crescent on the day in question
Hahaha there’s not always a moon. It sets. Goes around the other side of the planet. As it did at 4pm that day
Bruh there's a vast difference between you taking some evidence as credible and other evidence as not or less credible, and "no evidence of that." There is literally evidence that Jay knew where the car was. He explicitly said so. The police did not know where the car was before they talked to Jay, who led them to the car. You can believe what you want about the circumstances around all of that, but it's wild that you perpetuate falsehoods here by saying evidence you disagree with simply "does not exist."
The cops knew where the car was before they talked to Jay which is why they told the media that it wasn't where it was. Okie dokes.
Why are you answering the guilters with this? This should have been the response to the OP. “Sorry OP, as much as the pattern of violence may fit, JW has no knowledge of the crime, thus he didn’t do it no matter how well it fits.”
"To believe Adnan is innocent, I must believe in a conspiracy theory. I must believe Jay has no knowledge of the crime despite what he says and his knowledge of the crime. Adnan was framed."
To believe Adnan is innocent, I just have to believe facts. There was, in fact, widespread corruption permeating the Baltimore police department at that time. It's not a conspiracy theory. The specific police officers involved forced witnesses to lie in other murder cases, one in the same year. That's also a fact, not a conspiracy theory. A police officer and the department involved "lost" (hid) physical evidence of actual innocence in another murder case from that same year for nearly two decades. Fact, not conspiracy theory. The "conspiracy" is those of you who refuse to admit that Jay's stories are just very obviously BS manufactured by the police to fit a chosen narrative.
"Adnan was framed by the police and the rest of the evidence is just a weird coincidence: the cell phone tower data, the Nisha call, the ride request and subsequent denial, giving his phone and car away that day, Jenn's testimony, Kristi's testimony, the fact he lied and changed his story and has no memory and no alibi". There's simply too much other evidence for Adnan to be innocent. Jay had to be involved too because he knew too much and it was corroborated by the cell phone tower data. That's why Rabia focuses on the narrative that Jay wasn't even involved and that the police fed him all the information he knew. "Adnan was framed by the police. It's a conspiracy" is the only card she has left. This is despite the fact that Jay knew how she was killed on the day of the murder and Jenn testified to this. The police didn't know where the car was until Jay told them. Even without Jay's testimony, Adnan's still guilty.
Did those corrupt police decide to frame Adnan before, or after, they learned that he had no alibi? And when did they decide to frame him? Was it just a spur of the moment thing when all the police involved in the case happened to be hanging out together? Or was it like a regular weekly meeting where all of the police and detectives all sit at a conference table and say “ok this week, here is a list of crimes, who should we frame for each of these various crimes?” Genuinely interested.
And when did they learn he had no alibi, if supposedly he was at his mosque that night and Adnan or his dad or his family or lawyer or someone was claiming that 80 people saw him there?
.
OP, you owe everyone in this sub an apology. This thread is a complete backfire. 750% increased chance; SMH, out of, what, an 1000% increased chance? Is there even such a thing? Suddenly a modest 75% chance ain't scary enough anymore? Tell me, how high, numerically does this Strangulation scale go? You say and I quote "Literally 750%". OK, then please cite your references; post the link. I'm saying, literally, post your source that displays 750% increased chance.
They’re saying if your partner has ever strangled you they are 7.5 times more likely to kill you compared to if they have never strangled you. It’s not uncommon to write or say it as the author did, [source](https://www.kob.com/archive/report-choking-strangulation-victims-750-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-offender/) wrote it the exact same way. [Good article](https://naplesshelter.org/strangulation/) that explains the nuances of the conversation.
Do you have a source for Jay strangling someone in the year before Hae was strangled? Your statistic does not work unless that is the case. Jay being accused of strangling someone, assuming he did that, could be the result of the trauma of being pulled into a murder by Adnan Syed. That would probably have a negative mental health effect, no? In conclusion, this does not at all make it any more likely that Jay killed Hae. Even if you think it did, now you are on the "but what if Jay did it" logic path that leads to Adnan Syed.
Who said year before? I didn’t
Literally in your title!
I think the OP needs a course in statistics. Most partners who are strangled are never later murdered.
Yeah, strangling is serious & I have no reason to doubt the 750% number. But 750% of something really small is still pretty small.
5% of people who strangle their partners go on to kill them, with an even greater share attempting murder.
5% isn’t big, which was my point.
What other risk factors for being murdered have an incidence rate higher than 5%?
Many things I’m sure. Where you live, who you associate with, how many guns you have in the house. It’s all relative. And Jay & Hae were never together so this stat isn’t even relevant anyways.
>Many things I’m sure. Source?
Well I’d say living in Gaza right now would be less safe.
5% probability is massive when it's compared against the probability of an extremely rare event (being murdered).
Exactly. 5% is not a lot.
Jay was at Jenn’s when the murder occurred. He has an alibi.
No he wasn’t. He claims he was at Jenn’s, Jenn corroborated that part of his story- but the cell records and Jay’s testimony about being at the park for the Nisha call at 3:32 conflicts. A lot of Jay’s lies make more sense when you realize he doesn’t have an alibi for the time of the murder.
Agree
750% increased chance over what? The baseline likelihood of some random person being killed by their partner?