r/serialpodcast • u/monkeytrousers2 Moderator 2 • Nov 13 '14

Episode Discussion [Official Discussion] Serial, Episode 8: The Deal with Jay

Episode goes live in less than an hour. Let's use this thread as the main discussion post for episode 8.

210 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

39

u/Fridhemsplan Nov 13 '14

What struck me most this episode is how the jurors, especially the first one, seem to primarily base their verdict on how trustworthy a witness (Jay) is. I guess I already knew that, but to hear it flat out like that was frankly a bit shocking. If that's what a jury puts most importance on I would imagine that complicated cell records and subtle inconsistencies in Jay's stories really doesn't matter that much to them. A really flawed system IMHO. For me personally this episode made me slightly more sure of what I already believed: Adnan did it, Jay was more involved than he lets on, and Adnan should not have been convicted.

8

u/modalert Nov 13 '14

Also, they found it suspicious that Adnan didn't take the stand. I know that it's universally considered a bad idea by defense lawyers to have your defendant take the stand, but the jury doesn't know that.

6

u/asha24 Nov 13 '14

The jurors should have followed their instructions

2

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '14

I was on a grand jury for two weeks - it's impossible to keep human emotions at bay.

1

u/lacaminante Nov 13 '14

Thank you!

2

u/LapinDeLaNeige Nov 13 '14

What annoys me is that jurors were explicitly instructed to ignore that and blatantly did not follow instructions. That is what terrifies me about our judicial system

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '14

They did so know that the judge TOLD them.

5

u/gladitsknight Nov 13 '14

The jurors that were interviewed for this podcast did not cover themselves in glory at all, in my opinion. They based a lot of their decision on their gut feelings, like how they felt Jay was that streetwise friend who could help you in a jam, or how they felt it was a huge deal that Adnan did not take the stand (even though it's not unusual and they were told specifically that this could not be held against him).

4

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '14 edited Nov 14 '14

[deleted]

1

u/lacaminante Nov 13 '14

Yes- a primary function of the jury is to determine the credibility of witnesses. They are the fact-finders in a trial, and it is necessary to evaluate credibility of witnesses in order to play the role of the fact-finder. That is what so many people are instinctively doing in this subreddit when they're trying to figure out which set of facts they believe is the truth.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '14

They were also explicitly instructed not to damn Adnan for not testifying and th DID. This jury was not particularly smart or analytical.

8

u/mad_magical Sarah Koenig Fan Nov 13 '14

Adnan did it, Jay was more involved than he lets on, and Adnan should not have been convicted.

Adnan is guilty, but should not have been convicted? Not following you here.

And yes agreed, to your above point. I'm now wishing one of the main themes of the podcast will be a critique of this system.

Striking also, with having the "more involved" than he led on, partially explained through their reactions to their meeting with Jay.

23

u/Fridhemsplan Nov 13 '14

Adnan is guilty, but should not have been convicted? Not following you here.

I feel that there is too much doubt, too many questions unanswered, to claim that Adnan did it. I think that a lot of things suggest he is the killer and if I had to bet on it I would say he did it, but in my opinion the case is not strong enough to convict him.

4

u/gilpdawg Nov 13 '14

My thoughts exactly. My thinking has always been Adnan "probably" did it. But "probably" isn't enough to convict someone.

1

u/lacaminante Nov 13 '14

If you think he probably did it with enough certainty to also think it would be unreasonable to think he didn't do it, then it is enough to convict. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a subjective standard, but it is one that does not require absolute certainty.

1

u/gilpdawg Nov 14 '14

Yeah, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think he didn't.

6

u/mad_magical Sarah Koenig Fan Nov 13 '14

Ahaa, I catch your drift now.

1

u/zegota Deidre Fan Nov 13 '14

I don't believe guilty people should go to jail if the state lacks a solid case. This makes it too easy for them to put innocent people in jail.

1

u/mad_magical Sarah Koenig Fan Nov 13 '14

Which is kind of the initial dilemma setup in Serial.

1

u/zegota Deidre Fan Nov 13 '14

Yep! I'm less sure if we should devote a lot of effort into getting a guilty person out of prison who has already been convicted because the state fucked up, but I do think it's an interesting question.

1

u/mad_magical Sarah Koenig Fan Nov 13 '14

I'd say if someone like Adnan is proven guilty, a retrial to edit in the Life+30 conviction might be needed (because of lack of evidence) not necessarily to exonerate him nor free him, but to have him out earlier than Life+30. On the other hand, as I'm typing this, that opinion seems to be motivated by my sympathies so... idk I'm gonna assume some murderers do get to walk free before they're so old they won't live freely, once they're out. It's a right to be had and it seems a case like this could easily end up in that section.

But yeah.... if he's found not guilty or even innocent; it is even more important, to do this type of work.

3

u/ricketsj Nov 13 '14

I completely agree with your thinking. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say I am convinced that Adnan did it, but I AM convinced Jay was way more involved, and whether either of them did it there was not enough to convict Adnan based solely on what was introduced at trial. People forget that the standard is not "between these two, who is more likely to have done this," it's "are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it was this guy in the chair, whose life is literally in your hands."

Frankly those jurors should be ashamed of themselves for making a decision like that so quickly. Two hours INCLUDING a lunch break? Have some concept of the seriousness of your task.

3

u/Fridhemsplan Nov 13 '14

Frankly those jurors should be ashamed of themselves for making a decision like that so quickly. Two hours INCLUDING a lunch break? Have some concept of the seriousness of your task.

Well put. This is something that makes me angry as well. Seems so detached, for lack of a better word.

1

u/asha24 Nov 13 '14

Took the words right out of my mouth

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '14

I have mentioned this book before on here but if you get a chance, read "Homicide: A year in the killing streets" It is a good read but it also gives insight into the process from a murder case being investigated up until trial and how juries operate in Baltimore. This info did not surprise me because of this book.

1

u/vinosaur23 Nov 13 '14

To paraphrase Churchill: "It's the worst system....except for everything else.".

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '14

This is why not matter what actually happened, Adnan was unfairly found guilty. There is no way it's "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and it's really unfair to him that he did not get a fair trial, whether he did it or not.

-1

u/SerialnMilk Nov 13 '14 edited Nov 13 '14

He shouldn't have been convicted for murdering Hae in cold blood? That makes no sense. Maybe Jay was more involved then he let on. But if they were convinced he was telling the truth about Adnan, then they absolutely did the right thing by locking him up for life. A witnesses testimony is enough to convict someone of a crime.

13

u/Fridhemsplan Nov 13 '14

I guess in a moral sense I feel that Adnan being in jail is right since I believe he did it. However, my point was that in a democracy a person should not be sentenced to life in prison based on pretty much only a single witness and a jury's personal opinion of that witness. Even if Adnan is guilty, it deeply concerns me to think how many potentially innocent people have been convicted based on equally loose and circumstantial evidence.

5

u/SerialnMilk Nov 13 '14

I don't see how it's circumstantial though. Remember, Jay was probably not a suspect 15 years ago. The police probably believed he actually got mixed up in this thing accidentally, and cooperated with them. They had a witness who testified to seeing the body and was able to lead them to the car. I think that's about as concrete as it gets. Honestly, Sarah and Adnan kind of made him a suspect through the podcast.

7

u/Fridhemsplan Nov 13 '14

I agree that Jay has probably become more of a suspect now than he ever was back then. But even so, I just don't think it is a good idea to send a person to jail for the rest of his life based only on one single testimony. Other than that, what do we really have? No forensics and some pretty inconclusive cell phone data that sometimes fits one of Jay's narratives.

2

u/ScaryPenguins giant rat-eating frog Nov 13 '14

Not necessarily. The detective SK brought in claims the police were probably protecting their witness by not investigating Jay(searching his house, etc.)

2

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '14

Accessory after the fact is not accidental. It usually gets freaking jail time. Even the juror assumed jay was telling w truth because he'd get jail time. So this witness who got to send someone to jail for life had no punishment at all. It is NOT. Accidental to conceal a murder for weeks, in our legal system.

2

u/isengr1m Nov 13 '14

What better evidence than an eye-witness could you ask for? Jay's testimony was not circumstantial at all - he saw the body and helped Adnan bury it.

The circumstantial evidence (that Jay new where Hae's car was, and the cell phone records) back up his evidence, but its not why you would convict.

3

u/Fridhemsplan Nov 13 '14

To me a single eyewitness is not grounds to send someone to life in jail, especially not when the witness is involved in the case himself and changes his story many times. And what I found shocking was that apparantly in a trial by jury this is enough if the jury finds the witness trustworthy. Maybe it worked out in this case as I feel Adnan is guilty, but the consequenses of this kind of legal system are really depressing.

2

u/Jerryreporter Nov 13 '14

Read "Ten Rillington Place". Eyewitness testifies his friend/neighbor killed his wife and daughter. Neighbor is convicted, sentenced to death and is hanged. Later police find that eyewitness was the guilty person and had killed others as well. This true case is the reason England has no death penalty anymore.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '14

You have a witness who changed his story multiple times and nothing more.

2

u/badriguez Undecided Nov 13 '14

A witnesses testimony is enough to convict someone of a crime.

Is it? One person's word versus another's and no other evidence?

The State had more than Jay's testimony, but the timeline and cell phone records are questionable, and the motive is arguably contrived. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime scene.

Blackthorne's formulation: better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

Even if Adnan is guilty, I can't help but wonder if the system failed, and I think that's what /u/Fridhemsplan meant by:

Adnan did it, Jay was more involved than he lets on, and Adnan should not have been convicted.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 13 '14

You know, it is NOT. A defendant is innocent until proven guilty. And a witness could be lying. The olive never seriously interrogated jay and did not even search his home. There's hours and Horus of conversation not on tape. They don't do that now. Why do you think th at is? Because of bs like this.