Speaker 1: Hello, it is Ryan, and I was on a flight
Speaker 1: the other day playing one of my favorite social spin
Speaker 1: slot games on chumbacasino dot com. I looked over at
Speaker 1: the person sitting next to me, and you know what
Speaker 1: they were doing. They were also playing Chumba Casino. Coincidence,
Speaker 1: I think not everybody's loving having fun with it. Chumba
Speaker 1: Casino's home to hundreds at casino style games that you
Speaker 1: can play for free, anytime, anywhere, even at thirty thousand feet.
Speaker 1: So sign up now at Chumbuck Casino dot com to
Speaker 1: claim you're free. Welcome bonus, that's Chumbu Casino dot com
Speaker 1: and live the Chumba Lane.
Speaker 2: No person ness, every dropo whaby by lost in terms
Speaker 2: conditions eating plus.
Speaker 1: Hey guys, it is Ryan. I'm not sure if you
Speaker 1: know this about me, but I'm a bit of a
Speaker 1: fun fanatic when I can. I like to work, but
Speaker 1: I like fun too. It's a thing, and now the
Speaker 1: truth is out there, I can tell you about my
Speaker 1: favorite place to have fun, Chumbuck Casino. They have hundreds
Speaker 1: of social casino style games to choose from, with new
Speaker 1: games released each week. You can play for free, anytime, anywhere,
Speaker 1: and each day brings a new chance to collect daily bonuses.
Speaker 1: So join me and the fun. Sign up now at
Speaker 1: Chumba Casino dot com.
Speaker 2: No person has every day by lost each conditions eighteen plus.
Speaker 3: Judy was boring Hello, then Judy discovered chumbacasino dot com.
Speaker 4: It's my little escape.
Speaker 3: Now Judy is the life of the party.
Speaker 2: Oh baby mama is bringing home the bacon.
Speaker 5: WHOA, take it easy, Judy up.
Speaker 3: The Chumba life is for everybody, So go to chumpacasino
Speaker 3: dot com and play over one hundred casino style games.
Speaker 3: Join today and play for free for your chance to
Speaker 3: redeem some serious prices.
Speaker 1: Jump Chumpacasino dot com.
Speaker 2: Noe's necessary weight. We're comitted my eighteen plus terms and
Speaker 2: condition to plu see what's every details.
Speaker 4: With the Lucky Land slots, you can get lucky just
Speaker 4: about anywhere.
Speaker 3: This is your captain speaking. We've got clear runway and
Speaker 3: the weather's fine, but we're just gonna circle up here
Speaker 3: a while and get lucky. Oh no, nothing like that.
Speaker 3: It's just these cash prizes add up quick, so I
Speaker 3: suggest you sit back, keep your trade table up right,
Speaker 3: and start getting lucky.
Speaker 4: Play for free at Lucky Landslips dot com are you
Speaker 4: feeling lucky? No purchase necessary void We're prohibited by Law
Speaker 4: eighteen plus terms and can supplying. See website for detail.
Speaker 6: Radio.
Speaker 5: You are now listening to True Murder, the most shocking
Speaker 5: killers in true crime history and the authors that have
Speaker 5: written about them Gasey, Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker DTK. Every
Speaker 5: week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and
Speaker 5: infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with your
Speaker 5: host journalist and author Dan Zufanski.
Speaker 6: Good Evening. In nineteen ninety nine, the body of Hayman
Speaker 6: Lee was found in a shallow grave in Baltimore's Leacoln Park.
Speaker 6: Six weeks later, her ex boyfriend Adnon Sayd was arrested
Speaker 6: and charged with her murder. The state's case against Syed
Speaker 6: hinged entirely on the testimony of Jay Wilds, who said
Speaker 6: that he had been with Syd on the day of
Speaker 6: the murder and that he had assisted with the burial
Speaker 6: in Lincoln Park. At trial, the prosecutor argued that although
Speaker 6: Wilds had repeatedly given false and inconsistent statements concerning the crime,
Speaker 6: his story was corroborated by Adnan's cell phone records. Said
Speaker 6: was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life
Speaker 6: in prison. Wilds pleaded guilty to accessory after the fact
Speaker 6: and was released without serving a day in prison. Last year,
Speaker 6: the creators of This American Life covered Syd's story in
Speaker 6: the popular podcast serial. In order to better visualize the
Speaker 6: events that were being described on the show, attorney Susan
Speaker 6: Simpson put together a series of maps comparing the location
Speaker 6: data from the cell records with the various witness statements
Speaker 6: concerning the location of the phone throughout the day on
Speaker 6: which Haylee was murdered. The results showed just how fragmented
Speaker 6: and incoherent the prosecution's case was, as none of Wilde's
Speaker 6: multiple stories can be reconciled with the cell phone data.
Speaker 6: It also highlighted many of the gaps in the prosecution's
Speaker 6: evidence and showed how numerous witnesses who could potentially have
Speaker 6: confirmed or denied Jay's stories were never contacted by investigators.
Speaker 6: The focus of the program This Evening is serial the
Speaker 6: Ongoing Story with my special guest, attorney and blogger Susan Simpson,
Speaker 6: and I would say welcome to the program, Susan Simpson,
Speaker 6: but there may be some technical difficulty. I apollogize to
Speaker 6: all the critics who bring it up that I should
Speaker 6: be editing this portion of the program. I hope to
Speaker 6: God for everyone's sake. Susan comes on right away. I
Speaker 6: gotta say, sometimes it just are even problems on this
Speaker 6: end technically on blog talk radio, trying to maintain a
Speaker 6: thousand programs at one time simultaneously, I believe, or at
Speaker 6: least hundreds of programs simultaneously. So sometimes that technology goes away.
Speaker 6: Sometimes there are other problems. But that is a problem
Speaker 6: that occurs occasionally, and so we may be having that
Speaker 6: right now for those of you have lived on another planet,
Speaker 6: I guess, but not everyone is aware of. Here we go,
Speaker 6: Thank God. Susan Simpson. Good evening, Susan Simpson. Hello, thank
Speaker 6: you very much for agreeing to this interview. Did the
Speaker 6: intro and I was telling the audience that we were
Speaker 6: waiting for you to connect and sometimes they're just technical difficulties.
Speaker 6: But welcome to the program, and thank you for greening
Speaker 6: this interview. Susan Simpson.
Speaker 7: Thanks for having me. I got the Scott figured out finally.
Speaker 6: Ah, thank you, thank you very much, and thanks to
Speaker 6: your audience. The audience will be thanking you as well
Speaker 6: if we have to be subjective to minutes of me improvising. Now,
Speaker 6: tell us a little bit, Susan Simpson, about your background,
Speaker 6: because it is actually quite important. I mentioned in the
Speaker 6: introduction that you were an attorney, So tell us about
Speaker 6: your legal background and your blog, The View to LL two,
Speaker 6: and explain that what the name is about briefly, and
Speaker 6: tell us a little bit about you and your blog
Speaker 6: that you run well.
Speaker 7: The View from LL two is a blog that one
Speaker 7: of my friends from law school I started we graduated
Speaker 7: in two thousand and nine. It was mostly just a
Speaker 7: way to keep talking about things to talk about in
Speaker 7: law school and sort of nerd out even though we're
Speaker 7: no longer in classes, and it's mostly been about economics,
Speaker 7: international law, random topics. And for the past year or
Speaker 7: so I've been carrying on a loan and as my
Speaker 7: co bogger had to step down for professional reasons, and
Speaker 7: when sale came out, I decided to start writing about
Speaker 7: that as well. Professionally, I'm both a criminal and civil litigator.
Speaker 7: My background is primarily civil, as well as one year
Speaker 7: of criminal appeals experience, and currently I'm doing white collar crime.
Speaker 6: Now what what intrigued you about this story for all.
Speaker 6: I mean, again, you just mentioned that this isn't you
Speaker 6: know primarily you didn't set out this blog to comment
Speaker 6: on Cereal, but when this case started, So what was
Speaker 6: it about this case initially? And I guess you've learned
Speaker 6: a lot more in the following year that you've been
Speaker 6: involved with this, But tell us what initially really interested
Speaker 6: you in this case.
Speaker 7: Actually, I had a a friend of mine or a
Speaker 7: former friend of mine not too long ago, did something
Speaker 7: pretty horrific, And when I was sort of going through
Speaker 7: the process of trying to figure out how she'd done
Speaker 7: that and how to explain her actions, I kept coming
Speaker 7: across pages of referenced Cereal, which I thought was a
Speaker 7: fictional at first, and I finally figured out it was
Speaker 7: a real story. And basically because of my own experiences
Speaker 7: with having a friend who did something that seemed impossible
Speaker 7: for them to have done, I started listening and there's
Speaker 7: a lot I felt the show didn't cover and I
Speaker 7: wanted to explore it further.
Speaker 6: Okay, now for some of the people that may not Again,
Speaker 6: we have a big international audience, so and again I've
Speaker 6: just heard about Cereal. Certainly not a year ago, so
Speaker 6: I'm pretty sure that other people like myself might not
Speaker 6: have heard of it till recently. So if we can,
Speaker 6: because we've only got about an hour or a little
Speaker 6: bit more than an hour. But let us recap the
Speaker 6: actual case itself in terms of introducing who Hayman Lee was.
Speaker 6: An Adnan sayed, first, tell us about who these people
Speaker 6: are before we get to the actual murder itself, and
Speaker 6: then we'll just do sort of a brief because we
Speaker 6: can't get into the exploration that Cereal did certainly, and
Speaker 6: even that you've done on your blog. So tell us
Speaker 6: a little bit about these two characters, starting off with
Speaker 6: Hayman Lee. Who was Hayman.
Speaker 7: Lee Haman Lee was an eighteen year old high school student.
Speaker 7: She was a student at Woodlawn High School in the
Speaker 7: West side of Baltimore. She had been in a relationship
Speaker 7: sort of off and on with Anansi ed since April
Speaker 7: nineteen ninety eight. They began dating after high school dance
Speaker 7: and then after one or two breakups, they broke up
Speaker 7: for good around December mid December nineteen ninety eight. At
Speaker 7: that point, she began dating one of her co workers,
Speaker 7: and Adnan also began dating or seeing other girls that
Speaker 7: he met in the neighborhood. And then approximately three four
Speaker 7: weeks later and on January thirteenth, nineteen ninety nine, Hey
Speaker 7: went missing after leaving school one day and was later
Speaker 7: Her body was later found in a park on the
Speaker 7: west side of Baltimore called Lincoln Park, buried in a
Speaker 7: shallow grave.
Speaker 6: Now tell us you basically give us a little outline
Speaker 6: of who she was. Now tell us about the actual
Speaker 6: day that she goes missing, and who reports are missing,
Speaker 6: and how do they know she's missing, and how do
Speaker 6: police proceed after this initial missing report.
Speaker 7: The first sign that she's missing is when she fails
Speaker 7: to appear at a daycare to pick up her young cousin,
Speaker 7: which was, according to different statements, was supposed to be
Speaker 7: sometime around three fifteen or three thirty. Woodlawn High School
Speaker 7: got out at two fifteen that day, and there were
Speaker 7: reports of seeing Hey on campus anywhere from around about
Speaker 7: two point thirty to about three or even three fifteen.
Speaker 7: There's conflicting statements there. It's unclear exactly when she left,
Speaker 7: but in general it seems that somewhere between two forty
Speaker 7: five and three o'clock when she actually left campus, where
Speaker 7: she went then or what happened next, Uh, there's very
Speaker 7: little idea. Approximately three thirty through forty five, the daycare
Speaker 7: calls one of Hay's relatives and says that the cousin
Speaker 7: still there hasn't picked up. So then Hayes's grandmother goes
Speaker 7: and picks up the girl from daycare, and about two
Speaker 7: hours later, three hours later, around six o'clock, hayes brother
Speaker 7: calls the police reporter missing. The Baltimore County Police take
Speaker 7: a statement, makes some call to Hayes's friends, including tad non,
Speaker 7: don't learn anything, don't do much then, and let it go.
Speaker 7: She does not reappear, and initially none of her friends
Speaker 7: are concerned because there is a big ice storm that
Speaker 7: comes in the following that night, and there's no school
Speaker 7: on the fourteenth or fifteenth, and there's a holiday the
Speaker 7: Monday the next week, so it's not until Tuesday that
Speaker 7: they're back in school. And only about Wednesday, a week
Speaker 7: following her murder, that her friends start to come alarmed
Speaker 7: and it becomes clear that something seriously wrong has occurred.
Speaker 7: On February ninth, after a search has come up empty
Speaker 7: for her, a man driving through Lincoln Park pulls over
Speaker 7: and according to him, to take a leak at the
Speaker 7: side of the road. When he does that, he finds
Speaker 7: a body, which he reports the police.
Speaker 6: Now what do police do with this report? What do
Speaker 6: they do with this crime scene itself? And what do
Speaker 6: they establish from that crime scene? Forensically?
Speaker 7: It takes him about well, initially, they when they get
Speaker 7: to the scene, they find a very shallow grave about
Speaker 7: six inches it's unclear. There's no indication that tools were
Speaker 7: used to dig it. They're not sure what happened. They're
Speaker 7: not sure why the spot was chosen. It's approximately one
Speaker 7: hundred and twenty seven feet off the road and a
Speaker 7: very visible section of wooded area. You're still clearly inside
Speaker 7: of the cars from where her body was found. It's
Speaker 7: not secluded area whatsoever. They don't find well, they find
Speaker 7: assorted potential evidence of crime scene, things like spent casings,
Speaker 7: a rope, but it's unclear if any of these are
Speaker 7: connected to the crime. Her body itself is mostly covered
Speaker 7: with dirt and a few large rocks, but she's still
Speaker 7: somewhat visible, barely, which mister s the man who found
Speaker 7: her somehow saw. They do find forensically, they find some
Speaker 7: hairs that don't belong to her, and some fibers they
Speaker 7: can't identify. But other than that, very little forensic evidence
Speaker 7: of recovered. After they recover her body the following day,
Speaker 7: she's identified your fingerprint evidence, her family's notified and an
Speaker 7: announcement is made and at that point a search begins
Speaker 7: or the investigation begins. Initially, they did not appear to
Speaker 7: be any suspects that are high on their radar, on
Speaker 7: the cost radar, but then on February twelfth, an anonymous
Speaker 7: call was made by, according to the police notes, a
Speaker 7: young Asian male who told him to start looking at
Speaker 7: Adnanciat and said that he had been responsible for the
Speaker 7: murder and that on Non's friend Yasser could tell them
Speaker 7: more about it. That's when the police start their investigation
Speaker 7: into Adnan's role, and essentially when the police stop investigating
Speaker 7: anyone else.
Speaker 6: Now you're doing an exploration of this, and so does
Speaker 6: Sarah Kanic to a certain extent as well. Who's this
Speaker 6: mister S. We don't have to give his name or anything,
Speaker 6: but who is mister S? Is there? You know, in hindsight,
Speaker 6: everybody's a great investigator. But did anything strike police unusual
Speaker 6: about mister s was he investigat at all? I mean,
Speaker 6: isn't that somewhat routine to at least this person found
Speaker 6: the body. Was there anything suspicious at all? Is what
Speaker 6: I'm trying to ask.
Speaker 7: There was a lot of vises passed him. He was investigated.
Speaker 7: They gave him two polygraphs because he failed the first one.
Speaker 7: He was a maintenance man, essentially at a nearby college,
Speaker 7: and his story was that he just needed to relieve
Speaker 7: himself in the wood while driving back to work one day,
Speaker 7: and he happened to wander off the road and find her.
Speaker 7: The police were skeptical about this, with good reason, because
Speaker 7: she was Despite the shallow grave, she was very well
Speaker 7: covered and it does not seem very probable that someone
Speaker 7: just passing by would have seen her, or that under
Speaker 7: the circumstances he was in the woods, he would have
Speaker 7: found her grave site. But that's the story he sticks with.
Speaker 7: And after a second polygraph in which the person asking
Speaker 7: the question changed the questions entirely and stopped asking questions
Speaker 7: about what he knows of the murder and only asked
Speaker 7: him if he knows about how she died, he manages
Speaker 7: to pass and they write him off as a suspect.
Speaker 7: There's a lot of different speculation about how mister S
Speaker 7: could have found the body. One theory I've heard that
Speaker 7: I tend to favor is that perhaps mister S had
Speaker 7: seen something related to the burial while driving through at
Speaker 7: some point, or had been passing by and had seen
Speaker 7: activity in the woods. Because again, her body was not
Speaker 7: far from the from the Lincoln Park Road, and with
Speaker 7: the leaves gone for the winner, they would have been
Speaker 7: fully visible whoever was there trying to dispose of the body,
Speaker 7: So it's possible he just saw that activity and later
Speaker 7: came by to figure out what's going on and found her.
Speaker 7: Or it's possible that his story about taking a bathroom
Speaker 7: break was true too, although I'm skeptical of that.
Speaker 6: Now. Actually, everything happens fairly quickly, not immediately, but fairly quickly.
Speaker 6: So when police actually first spoke to ed Nan, did
Speaker 6: he did it seem that he was in their sites
Speaker 6: sort of like sort of odds wise that it's either
Speaker 6: the boyfriend or the ex boyfriend or somebody you know,
Speaker 6: typically that's where the suspect would be. But was he
Speaker 6: in police sights when he first was questioned? And what
Speaker 6: did he say when he was questioned first by police
Speaker 6: on the telephone.
Speaker 7: The first questioning, I guess would be the what happened
Speaker 7: the night of his appearance? And that was the route
Speaker 7: routine questioning by the officer from Baltimore County Police. He
Speaker 7: was conducting the missing person investigation at that point. There
Speaker 7: were no suspects on the official record. It was a
Speaker 7: routine call to ask if he knew where hey was,
Speaker 7: and there was nothing more to it at that point.
Speaker 7: Later on, I believe, on February first, a different Baltimore
Speaker 7: County Police officer has a fairly routine conversation with her,
Speaker 7: like he did with a lot of her friends, and
Speaker 7: he asked, well, when'd you see her? What was going on?
Speaker 7: What have you heard? And on makes a general statement
Speaker 7: saying he left saw her at school. The cop does
Speaker 7: not ask anything about what happened later that day, what
Speaker 7: he had done, are where he'd been, and leaves it
Speaker 7: that At that point, it seems like they may have
Speaker 7: been looking more into his current boyfriend at the time
Speaker 7: of her disappearance, Dawn, but they can quickly rule out
Speaker 7: Dawn due to his He was at work that day
Speaker 7: and he has employment records showing that he was at
Speaker 7: his place of work and had not left during the
Speaker 7: time she disappeared, so they ruled don out and then
Speaker 7: they started to focus more heavily on ad Non. They
Speaker 7: have a second statement planned where they want to meet
Speaker 7: with him and get a longer statement set for February
Speaker 7: ninth or tenth, but when they find Hay's body, they
Speaker 7: cancel that and they don't talk to him again until
Speaker 7: I believe February twenty sixth, And at that point they're
Speaker 7: starting to heavily focus on him because on February twentieth, nineteenth,
Speaker 7: somewhere around there, the police decide to request ad on
Speaker 7: cell phone records, and they also request the same time
Speaker 7: a list of all cell towers in the area. The
Speaker 7: facts comes back from AT and T a couple days later,
Speaker 7: and in February twenty six twenty second they realize that
Speaker 7: on the day of Hayes's appearance, ad None had two
Speaker 7: phone calls that originated on the cell phone tower that's
Speaker 7: located just to the north of Lincoln Park. Once they
Speaker 7: see that, and then becomes their suspect full on, and
Speaker 7: they pursue leave, leading to him only and pretty much
Speaker 7: no one else from that point onwards is ever a suspect.
Speaker 6: Now, there's a lot to explain in this story. Here,
Speaker 6: it's incredible this how this keeps unraveling and unraveling and
Speaker 6: more and more questions. Let's let's talk about ad NaN's alibi.
Speaker 6: What does he say to police to help try to
Speaker 6: rule him out of potential witness What does he say?
Speaker 6: Where was he?
Speaker 7: So? One of the problems in this case is that
Speaker 7: there is no record anyone asking Adnan where he was
Speaker 7: pasted about five thirty until months after his arrest. There's
Speaker 7: no statement requested none given he's never gone on record
Speaker 7: until long after he's charged with her murder talking about
Speaker 7: where he is that point onwards. He does give a
Speaker 7: few statements about where he was prior to that time,
Speaker 7: and his story is that he last saw Hay at
Speaker 7: his last period on the thirteenth, and then afterwards he
Speaker 7: hung around school, went to the library and waits for
Speaker 7: track practice, which begun about three point thirty. At three
Speaker 7: point thirty, he went to track which was over at
Speaker 7: five thirty. Well, probably should back up here. There's a
Speaker 7: third character in the story that is pretty important, and
Speaker 7: that's Jay. Jay was a year head of Hay and Adnn.
Speaker 7: He graduated and he was dating one of Oddnan's best friends, Stephanie.
Speaker 7: Through Stephanie, Adnan and Jay had begun, in odd Non's words,
Speaker 7: uh kicking it per se, which basically meant they had
Speaker 7: a They smoked up together. They weren't close friends, but
Speaker 7: they would go and smoke marijuana and hang out. So
Speaker 7: on the day of Hayes's appearance, Adnan and Jay had
Speaker 7: hung out during odd nuns free period around noon, and
Speaker 7: then Oddnon had gone back to class, giving his car
Speaker 7: to j because Jay had asked to borrow the car
Speaker 7: so he could go buy a present for his girlfriend.
Speaker 7: When he did so, Odnan left his cell phone in
Speaker 7: the glove compartment because the students were not allowed to
Speaker 7: have cell phones on campus. So according to Odnon, from
Speaker 7: about noon onwards, Jay had both his car and by extension,
Speaker 7: his cell phone. So the rest of his day in
Speaker 7: Gulf going to class, going hanging out school, going to
Speaker 7: track practice, and then when track was over, he called
Speaker 7: Jay and actid he picked up, So according to add Noan,
Speaker 7: he Jay comes back about five point thirty ish, picks
Speaker 7: them up from track, and then the two of them
Speaker 7: decided to go visit one of Jay's friends who odd
Speaker 7: nons have ever met before, where they smoke weed and hang out.
Speaker 7: And after according to Adnan, after that, at some point
Speaker 7: he and Jay leave Kathy's and then eventually he drops
Speaker 7: off Jay somewhere he doesn't recall where, and then he
Speaker 7: goes to mosque, gets some dinner for his father was
Speaker 7: at the mosque for Ramadan, and then after mosque goes home.
Speaker 6: Now that can be corroborated that bit of evidence in
Speaker 6: terms of meeting up at the mosque and his father
Speaker 6: and that timeline.
Speaker 7: It seems like he was certainly at the mosque at
Speaker 7: some point, and he was definitely at Kathy's at some
Speaker 7: point that afternoon. Where his his alibi is less certain
Speaker 7: is what was happening earlier in the day, for instance,
Speaker 7: right after school. There are three witnesses who say they
Speaker 7: saw him on campus between about two fifteen and three, Debbie,
Speaker 7: Becky and Asia. And then there is the track coach
Speaker 7: who thanks He recalls sing a not at practice on
Speaker 7: a day that could have been that day, but when
Speaker 7: asked about it a couple months later, he cannot say
Speaker 7: whether the day he recalls talking to add on a
Speaker 7: warm day in January was in exactly thirteenth or not.
Speaker 7: So he does. He does have an alibi, and there
Speaker 7: are people who think they've seen him at certain times
Speaker 7: at places where he says he was. But given that
Speaker 7: this questioning happened most cases months later, people don't know
Speaker 7: for sure. The day they're calling is the day that haydsappeared.
Speaker 7: So the prosecution claims that he was not there at all.
Speaker 1: He's ryan here. And I have a question for you.
Speaker 1: What do you do when you win? Like, are you
Speaker 1: at this pumper, a woo, a handclapper, a high fiver.
Speaker 1: I kind of like to high five. But if you
Speaker 1: want to hone in on those winning moves, check out
Speaker 1: Chumbuck Casino. At chumbacasino dot com, choose some hundreds of
Speaker 1: social casino style games for your chance to redeem serious
Speaker 1: cash prize. There are new game releases weekly, plus free
Speaker 1: daily bonuses, so don't wait start having the most fun ever.
Speaker 1: At chumba Casino dot com.
Speaker 2: Billberg Nessaryily, I lost the terms conditions eighteen plus.
Speaker 7: Oh he was not at school. He was not a track.
Speaker 7: He was busy killing hay after school.
Speaker 6: Now let's talk about the prosecution, because if people don't
Speaker 6: know this case at all, they're going to have to go,
Speaker 6: I think, and do some background information because this is
Speaker 6: a confusing case because we're going to jump into this
Speaker 6: and see what was wrong with the case. And there's
Speaker 6: a big important story here because there's so much information
Speaker 6: now for so many people looking at this case, Innocent project,
Speaker 6: and so many people work on this. So let's talk
Speaker 6: about what the prosecutions. He was right from the very beginning,
Speaker 6: and that of course comes from the police. So tell
Speaker 6: us what the police thought, and then in relation, what
Speaker 6: the prosecution thought on how this went down and why,
Speaker 6: what was the motive, and at the end of this,
Speaker 6: tell us how Hayman Lee was actually killed.
Speaker 7: The motive. So the police start to center in on
Speaker 7: Adan after the anonymous call comes in telling them that
Speaker 7: he's responsible and she look at him. The police seemed
Speaker 7: to latch onto a Muslim honor killing theory, where something
Speaker 7: to do with odd Nun's religion, motive and domestic violence
Speaker 7: combined caused him to want to kill hay because she'd
Speaker 7: broken up with him when he had lied to his
Speaker 7: family to date her, and he'd not been a good
Speaker 7: Muslim to date her, and so apparently out of revenge
Speaker 7: for her making him not be a good Muslim and
Speaker 7: then breaking up with him. He kills her in a
Speaker 7: rage the detectives. There's one line in the reports where
Speaker 7: the detectives note how they went to go speak to
Speaker 7: a Hindu that was friends with a non in order
Speaker 7: to ask about Islam and find out more about it.
Speaker 7: So you can see the level of the investigation in
Speaker 7: terms of the religious angle. Oh, how offt key they were.
Speaker 6: Now with ut none, because we haven't really talked about this,
Speaker 6: and there is of course you're bringing up this issue
Speaker 6: that he was this Muslim that was hiding this relationship
Speaker 6: with this woman because he and he was attended mosques,
Speaker 6: so he was Again there's some I guess talk of
Speaker 6: that he had this religion that he was defying in
Speaker 6: his family, that he was defying by dating. But very
Speaker 6: much like Sarah Kanig did in yourself, you've looked at
Speaker 6: the evidence and he's an American, So tell us who
Speaker 6: he really was, and tell us about this theory I
Speaker 6: gain that you refute, and she refutes too, that this
Speaker 6: theory that the prosecution has on that this was based
Speaker 6: about his religion and his shame from his family and
Speaker 6: the lifestyle of the or the culture that he lived in.
Speaker 7: You know, the theory was never very coherent in the
Speaker 7: first place, so it's hard to even articulate what their
Speaker 7: idea this was. They make lots of references to be
Speaker 7: smirched honor and to persecution of women, and to sort
Speaker 7: of patriarchal, anti male society in which an honor killing occurs,
Speaker 7: even though this is not the context of when honor
Speaker 7: killing would be. It's never really explained in detail. The
Speaker 7: best summary of it is, well Islam. That's kind of
Speaker 7: as far as I got with it. Even people who
Speaker 7: think not as guilty don't really buy that anymore. And
Speaker 7: I've never heard anyone actually in today's discussion of the
Speaker 7: case actually buy into that whole theory, because it's just
Speaker 7: it's fogus. There's nothing there. He was an American, I mean,
Speaker 7: he was out smoking weed and Ramadan, that's the kind.
Speaker 7: He was a seventeen year old American kid from a
Speaker 7: Muslim background, Muslim faith and a text any background, and
Speaker 7: whatever happened that had a little or nothing to do
Speaker 7: with it whatsoever.
Speaker 6: Now tell our audience how Jay becomes involved, and then
Speaker 6: introduce Jen and tell us who Jen is in relationship
Speaker 6: to Adnan and to J tell us how Jay gets
Speaker 6: involved and what did the police tell us that story
Speaker 6: and what police do when they do do speak with J.
Speaker 7: So the police pull at non cell phone records, and
Speaker 7: the cell phone records show, like I mentioned earlier, that
Speaker 7: it's seven o nine and seven sixteen PM, two phone
Speaker 7: calls are received that originate on a tower called L
Speaker 7: six eight nine B, the Lincoln Park Tower, which is
Speaker 7: really close to where Hay was buried. The police then
Speaker 7: decide this is proof that none killed her. Hay was buried,
Speaker 7: then here's the proof they needed. And to top it
Speaker 7: all off, there's two later calls at six eight oh
Speaker 7: four and eight oh five pm that originated on a
Speaker 7: tower fairly close to where Hay's car was later found abandoned,
Speaker 7: So well, they don't even know that at the time,
Speaker 7: So right now at the stage investigation, all they're going
Speaker 7: on are these two phone calls that just happened to
Speaker 7: ping the tower that's near her body. The police also
Speaker 7: noticed looking at the callogue that there were an awful
Speaker 7: lot of calls made that day to a certain phone
Speaker 7: number or two phone numbers belonging to one person, Gen Pussitary.
Speaker 7: She is called far more than anyone else that day,
Speaker 7: I think seven times in all, and she's called at
Speaker 7: all times during the day, morning, afternoon, evening. His phone
Speaker 7: is calling her a lot, So the police decide they
Speaker 7: need to talk to her. They go to her house
Speaker 7: and say, we want to talk to you about Haley's murder?
Speaker 7: Can you tell us about it? And she initially says nothing,
Speaker 7: She balks, she gets a little bit panicked and quiet.
Speaker 7: She says, yes, she knew Haley. She was a year
Speaker 7: ahead of Hay two. She was in Jay's class, but
Speaker 7: she didn't really know Hey or on Non and the
Speaker 7: police ask her to come down to the police station
Speaker 7: later that day to talk. She agrees kind of reluctantly,
Speaker 7: but before she goes down to the police station, she
Speaker 7: gets her friend Kathy, and she goes to talk to
Speaker 7: Jay at the adult video store where he worked, and
Speaker 7: she and him have a discussion. There's different accounts of
Speaker 7: what they talk about. But after this discussion with Jay,
Speaker 7: she then goes back down to the police station, where
Speaker 7: she gives an official but very vague statement in which
Speaker 7: she says she knows Haley, she knows, she knows Jay,
Speaker 7: she knows that Hey was killed, by strangulation, which was
Speaker 7: not officially released yet, but she doesn't want to say
Speaker 7: anything else. At the end of the short statement the police,
Speaker 7: Jin asks the police in my suspect, and the police
Speaker 7: tell her everyone as a no one is So she
Speaker 7: goes home. The following day is February twenty seventh. Jin
Speaker 7: apparently freaks out. We don't know what happens, but she
Speaker 7: talks to her parents, tells something and they lawyer up.
Speaker 7: So that afternoon she goes back down to the police
Speaker 7: station with her mother and a lawyer and makes an
Speaker 7: official statement, and this time she acknowledges knowing more than
Speaker 7: what she said before. Her account is it's contradictory. It's
Speaker 7: a confusing mess. It's hard to say exactly what she's
Speaker 7: saying because she doesn't in seem to know. But she
Speaker 7: gives a story about how on the thirteenth, which the
Speaker 7: police tell her is the thirteenth, They give her the
Speaker 7: phone log and remind her of what they had occurred on.
Speaker 7: She says, well, yes, it's possible Adnan was calling the house.
Speaker 7: I don't remember that. We might have been calling Jay
Speaker 7: at my house. Jay's a friend of mine. We're good buddies.
Speaker 7: We hung out that day and Jay was over at
Speaker 7: my house with a cell phone waiting for Adnan to call,
Speaker 7: and when Oddnon called him on the cell phone, he left.
Speaker 7: And then Jen says that about four hours later, after
Speaker 7: some confusing phone tag between her and Jay on add
Speaker 7: on cell phone, she gets a request from Jay to
Speaker 7: pick him up at a nearby mall at around eight o'clock. So,
Speaker 7: according to Gen, she goes to the mall and Adnan
Speaker 7: drives up, drops off Jay, and Jay gets in her car.
Speaker 7: Odd None seems normal, Everything's fine. According to Gen, the
Speaker 7: only conversation they have is when a Nan says hey girl,
Speaker 7: and then drives off. When Jay gets in the car,
Speaker 7: he tells her that Adnan killed Hey and Jen. According
Speaker 7: to her and I quote, she asks him all the
Speaker 7: normal questions you would ask, who, what, where, when, why?
Speaker 7: And Jay doesn't really tell her no much. He knows
Speaker 7: some things that On then tells him about what happened,
Speaker 7: but he doesn't really know where the murder occurred, other
Speaker 7: than it was in her car. And then as they're
Speaker 7: driving away from the mall, Jay tells her turn around,
Speaker 7: go back to the mall. I have to go wipe
Speaker 7: down the shovels, so they go back. Jen never sees
Speaker 7: the shovels are shovel She's not sure how many there are.
Speaker 7: She never sees them, but she lets Jay off at
Speaker 7: a dumpster where he says he goes to wipe down
Speaker 7: some shovels for fingerprints and then gets back in the car.
Speaker 7: Things get confusing from there. Jin has about four different
Speaker 7: versions of the next events, but they all kind of
Speaker 7: involve at various times, a trip to see J's girlfriend Stephanie,
Speaker 7: a trip to throw away Jay's close, and then finally
Speaker 7: a trip to see Kathy again that evening. So after
Speaker 7: they talk to Gin and get this story from her,
Speaker 7: they decide the next person to talk to is Jay.
Speaker 7: So at this point, it's about eleven thirty pm on
Speaker 7: the twenty seventh, and they drive down to the adult
Speaker 7: video store and pick up Jay to get his statement.
Speaker 7: So they get back to the police station about twelve am,
Speaker 7: and they spend about forty five minutes to an hour
Speaker 7: talking off the record. We don't know what they say.
Speaker 7: We know that at some point during discussion, Jay tells
Speaker 7: them he's going to come clean, but we don't know
Speaker 7: what he comes cleaned about, because no tape recorder is
Speaker 7: turned on until about one am. At that point, when
Speaker 7: the tape record turned on, Jay gives a statement about
Speaker 7: how essentially how Odnon asks for his help and picking
Speaker 7: Odnon up after he committed the murder of Hey, and
Speaker 7: that Jay borrowed Adnan's car and cell phone so that
Speaker 7: after Adnan killed Hay, Adnan could call Jay and asks
Speaker 7: for a ride after it. According to the story that
Speaker 7: Jay gives us time, Adnon calls for a ride when
Speaker 7: he's downtown is short of down in the city at
Speaker 7: this sort of strip where they sell drugs, kind of
Speaker 7: near Lincoln Park. So Jay goes pick him up, and
Speaker 7: nod On says, hey, check it out, check it out,
Speaker 7: and he pops open the trunk and Hay's body is
Speaker 7: as Jay puts it. Pretzels up there, and Jay then
Speaker 7: recounts a very confusing story that involves them driving all
Speaker 7: around must Baltimore and making stops the very oos places,
Speaker 7: including Tasco State Park, smoking some weed there, discussing the murder,
Speaker 7: and then driving back to track practice, going to Kathy's,
Speaker 7: then baring her body in the woods. It doesn't match
Speaker 7: Jen's story in any respects except for the except for
Speaker 7: two things. One, both Jen and j insists over and
Speaker 7: over again that he went to pick Adnin up after
Speaker 7: he has murdered at three forty pm. And both of
Speaker 7: them say that Jay pick was picked up by Jen
Speaker 7: at the mall at around eight o'clock. Other than that,
Speaker 7: the details don't really match up between their stories.
Speaker 6: Now with this investigation, you say that she he grabs
Speaker 6: a lawyer, Jay has a and Jay makes statements to
Speaker 6: the police without a lawyer as well. Is that correct?
Speaker 6: And then then he does gain an attorney correct?
Speaker 7: What happens is they tell Jay that if he does
Speaker 7: not tell them that how ad Non committed this murder,
Speaker 7: they're going to charge him for Hayes death. So apparently,
Speaker 7: and this again is all off tape, so we don't
Speaker 7: know exactly what was said, but we do know they
Speaker 7: told him turn on ad no on else charging you.
Speaker 7: And here's a sheet where you can sign away right
Speaker 7: to an attorney and agree to talk to us. So
Speaker 7: Jay agrees to both those things and gives his statement.
Speaker 7: But unlike Jin, he has no attorney. There's no official
Speaker 7: deal going on other than that the Tectives promise him
Speaker 7: that if he turns on Hey, our turns on ad
Speaker 7: on on. He won't be charged with the murder.
Speaker 6: Now tell us about because it's very important I think anyway,
Speaker 6: and I wanted to ask you about this as well
Speaker 6: as that. The It always depends on what kind of
Speaker 6: lawyer you have in terms of experience, and sometimes a lawyer,
Speaker 6: a better lawyer comes from being very experienced, not being
Speaker 6: a very very junior duty counsel will say, so tell
Speaker 6: us about the Yeah, I'm jumping ahead a little bit here,
Speaker 6: but tell us about the lawyer that comes on board
Speaker 6: and what that lawyer doing the best for his client
Speaker 6: is trying to negotiate.
Speaker 7: So, in between February twenty eighth and trial, Jay gives
Speaker 7: four statements to the police. He does not have an
Speaker 7: attorney for any one of them. He agrees to talk
Speaker 7: without it. He signs a little forum waving it's right
Speaker 7: to an attorney and talks to them. At some point,
Speaker 7: Jay starts to get nervous and starts to want an attorney,
Speaker 7: which is reasonable of him, so he starts. This is
Speaker 7: probably around early fall, late summer. He starts calling the
Speaker 7: public Defender's office and asking to get an attorney. At
Speaker 7: that point he's infeigned well you can't get an attorney
Speaker 7: to you're charge, so he tries calling the prosecutor and
Speaker 7: tries to figure out what's going on. On September seventh,
Speaker 7: the cops come to his door unannounced, pick them up,
Speaker 7: and drive them down to the prosecutor's office, where the prosecutor,
Speaker 7: Kevin or Errick, says, this one I want you to meet.
Speaker 7: So Urick takes Jay to where he introduced him to
Speaker 7: his friend and Ben Roya, who is an attorney who
Speaker 7: sometimes handles criminal issues. She is a personal friend or
Speaker 7: acquaintance of Urick's and Yorick has personally reached out to
Speaker 7: her and said, Hey, I've got this person here who
Speaker 7: really deserves help. Can you come meet with him and
Speaker 7: represent him? She agrees, so they meet for the first
Speaker 7: time on September seventh. They Ben Roya and Jay sit
Speaker 7: down for about an hour long discussion with each other,
Speaker 7: and by the end of it, Jay's agreed to accept
Speaker 7: Benroya's counsel free of charge, and he's also agreed to
Speaker 7: enter a plebial with debate, which is absurdly quick. So
Speaker 7: he meets the prosecutor, meets his new attorney. It's been handpicked.
Speaker 7: They work out a plea deal. Then they instantly go
Speaker 7: out on the courthouse where they sort of enter in
Speaker 7: this plea deal, and they don't use the official way
Speaker 7: of doing it. It's a very unusual way of entering
Speaker 7: a plea. There's no proper facts, there's no agreement on
Speaker 7: the sentence range it's going to happen. It's it's kind
Speaker 7: of informal in some ways, and it's not very enforceable.
Speaker 7: It's more like a gentleman's agreement that Uric will not
Speaker 7: seek an overly harsh charge against Jay if Jay says
Speaker 7: what Uric wants him to say.
Speaker 6: Now, I thought this was one of the most important
Speaker 6: things that you've made in your in your blog, in
Speaker 6: your entries and your your postings. Is that and again
Speaker 6: it's a big accusation and allegation, but again you you
Speaker 6: provide the foundation for it. You say that with the
Speaker 6: interviews that he had, each subsequent interview, he would have
Speaker 6: a there was a gap, various time periods of gap
Speaker 6: where he'd have a pre interview and who knows exactly
Speaker 6: what was said in that pre interview, and then he
Speaker 6: would have an interview and they had four interviews, but
Speaker 6: each subsequent interview would have a pre interview and then
Speaker 6: an interview and each of those, and you go through
Speaker 6: it and you break it apart very much like Cereal
Speaker 6: does as well, but you do even more of an
Speaker 6: analysis in that the inconsistencies that are in those stories.
Speaker 6: And then you make the statement that they had plenty
Speaker 6: of time for the police to be able to give
Speaker 6: him enough information for him to be able to correct
Speaker 6: the mistakes that he did have in terms of the
Speaker 6: correct the mistakes that they did make, and so that
Speaker 6: he could have a statement at trial. And you say
Speaker 6: that he was interested because of part of that agreement
Speaker 6: was that if he were to be caught up in lies,
Speaker 6: then he would that agreement would be And again you
Speaker 6: said it was a gentleman's agreement. So if he were
Speaker 6: to be caught up in a lie or caught to
Speaker 6: be in a lie with this, that they would negate
Speaker 6: the agreement itself. How much credit or discredit are you
Speaker 6: giving to the lawyer though in maybe this guy didn't
Speaker 6: have this in terms of his own bright idea. How
Speaker 6: much of this is put out the lawyer's feet for
Speaker 6: doing this, negotiating, negotiating this with the help of the
Speaker 6: prosecution to be able to make this tailor made consistent
Speaker 6: statement at trial.
Speaker 7: One of the more concerning parts of the plea agreement
Speaker 7: is that it stays if Jay has lied in any
Speaker 7: single prior police statement, the deals no one void. This
Speaker 7: is the problem because Jay has already admitted in every
Speaker 7: single interview that he lied in the previous interview. So
Speaker 7: there's no question that Jay has lied well, and at
Speaker 7: least the first three he definitely lied, because in the
Speaker 7: last interview is like, oh yeah, I lied in the
Speaker 7: last one too, So there's no questions. The plea deals
Speaker 7: already no one void, which means Jay could have assumed
Speaker 7: and probably recently did assume that in order for this
Speaker 7: deal not to be totally worthless, he has to keep
Speaker 7: the prosecutor happy. At any event, The fact that Jay
Speaker 7: had given so many different and wildly different stories ought
Speaker 7: to have concerned the prosecutor when he was trying to
Speaker 7: get Jay to give a single story, because the other
Speaker 7: part of the plea deal was that Jay had to
Speaker 7: tell the truth a trial. But given how many different
Speaker 7: statements he's made, how is the prosecutor justsed to know
Speaker 7: what the truth is or to know if Jay has
Speaker 7: broken that part of the agreement. Also to go back
Speaker 7: a bit in the four statements he'd given, actually only
Speaker 7: the first two had a pre interview and then a
Speaker 7: recorded interview. The first interview was about an hour long
Speaker 7: pre interview and then the record seession. The second interview
Speaker 7: was a three hour pre interview and then the recorded session.
Speaker 7: The third interview has no recording whatsoever, but there are
Speaker 7: some police know about it. And the fourth and last interview,
Speaker 7: there is a one line page that says, on April thirteenth,
Speaker 7: the police pulled picked up Jay and spoke to him
Speaker 7: to resolve inconsistencies about locations. And that's it. There's no notes,
Speaker 7: we don't know what he said, will never know what
Speaker 7: he said because there's no more data about what happened
Speaker 7: in that fourth interview. So in between from the interview
Speaker 7: one to interview four, the story changes quite a bit,
Speaker 7: and you can see more than enough room for the
Speaker 7: prosecutor or for the investigators to discuss those changes with
Speaker 7: Jay and to help them along and exact it was
Speaker 7: actually a trial. As a detective that says, well, once
Speaker 7: we show Jay, the police showed Jay the phone records,
Speaker 7: he remembered things a lot better. So the cops themselves
Speaker 7: acknowledge that Jay's story changed directly in response to the
Speaker 7: phone lngs.
Speaker 6: They showed him the other thing that you're talking about too,
Speaker 6: because you really are talking about malfeasance here. You're talking
Speaker 6: about the prosecution being underhanded, doing things that are not normal,
Speaker 6: that they took a very weak premise motive and underhandedly.
Speaker 6: You know, I don't know, there's not any nice way
Speaker 6: of saying this, but this that they took information like
Speaker 6: the cell phone information. And you go and dissect this,
Speaker 6: because this is very very important, because they hinge this
Speaker 6: in the end on this, and the defense attorney cannot
Speaker 6: and ads ad and ads defense attorney can't counter this
Speaker 6: at all. So talk about cell phone records, talk about
Speaker 6: the technology itself. Tell us about this. This is incredible
Speaker 6: the investigation you've done to be able to explain this,
Speaker 6: So please explain that.
Speaker 7: So I think it's important to note first that I'm
Speaker 7: not accusing the the investigators prosecution of being underhanded themselves
Speaker 7: are not intentionally so I think they deceived themselves as
Speaker 7: much as they did anyone else. This is not a
Speaker 7: conspiracy they planned out. It was not something they decided
Speaker 7: one day. Oh hey, let's go try and get the
Speaker 7: innocent person in jail. It was them assuming, based on
Speaker 7: faulty evidence, they knew who their guy was, and then
Speaker 7: pursuing all routes, whether they were at good ideas or not,
Speaker 7: in order to get their case against him. So it's
Speaker 7: as you go along. It's not necessary, it's not It's
Speaker 7: definitely not a case of them trying to fabricate Evians
Speaker 7: are trying to falsely get this guy for a crime
Speaker 7: to know he didn't commit. They think he did it,
Speaker 7: and they want to make sure they have a witness
Speaker 7: who can say how he did it. So to make
Speaker 7: sure their witness can explain how their guy is guilty,
Speaker 7: they give him the info he needs. In this case,
Speaker 7: the info that Jay needed in order to give a
Speaker 7: story that could convict god Non came in the form
Speaker 7: of the cell phone records, both in the form of
Speaker 7: a cell phone the call records, which is who was called, when,
Speaker 7: how long the call was and the location data, which
Speaker 7: is the cell site tower that the call went through
Speaker 7: when it was made. So starting with the call logs,
Speaker 7: in the very first interview with Well, with with Jen
Speaker 7: and with Jay, the cops do tell them both, hey,
Speaker 7: look we have these calls that show you were talking
Speaker 7: to on and now on the day of Hayes's appearance,
Speaker 7: and we know that you were involved. Tell us how.
Speaker 7: But there's less coaching going on in Jay's first interview overall,
Speaker 7: because Jay only remembers three phone calls out of thirty
Speaker 7: one that occurred. So yeah, back off the bed again.
Speaker 7: There were thirty one phone calls made from on on
Speaker 7: cell phone from ten forty five through midnight and a
Speaker 7: day of Hayes's parents. So out of those thirty one calls,
Speaker 7: Jay only remembers two, are three in the first interview,
Speaker 7: and none of them matches cell phone data. They're all
Speaker 7: way off. So going into the second interview about a
Speaker 7: month later, the cops have the goal when they said this,
Speaker 7: they have the goal of trying to reconcile Jay's story.
Speaker 1: Hello, it is Ryan, and we could all use an
Speaker 1: extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we just to
Speaker 1: make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes,
Speaker 1: counting or steps, you know, all the mundane stuff. That
Speaker 1: is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino.
Speaker 1: Chumpbuck Casino has all your favorite social casino style games
Speaker 1: that you can play for free anytime anywhere with daily bonuses.
Speaker 1: That's you Brighten your Day Lowe actually a lot, so
Speaker 1: sign up now at Chumbuck Casino dot com. That's Chumbuck
Speaker 1: Casino dot com.
Speaker 2: Noe'p for necessary dally void where every Boy lost the
Speaker 2: terms conditions.
Speaker 7: Eating plus the physical phone records because they're just not
Speaker 7: matching up. The locations are wrong, the call times are
Speaker 7: way wrong, the people being called or wrong. So they
Speaker 7: show him the phone monson full and ask him to
Speaker 7: explain what was going on in each call, where he
Speaker 7: was when it was made, what it was about, and
Speaker 7: who he was talking to. And from the first interview
Speaker 7: to the second interview there is a c change in
Speaker 7: Jay's story. Suddenly he recalls just about every phone call
Speaker 7: that happened that day. Sort of he claims to recall them,
Speaker 7: but when the cops try and press them for details,
Speaker 7: it kind of ends up babbling and making up explanations
Speaker 7: that just sounds false. For instance, when trying to explain
Speaker 7: all the incoming calls that happened that afternoon, he talks
Speaker 7: about how Adnin calls just to say hi, or just
Speaker 7: check and see if the phone was on, or just
Speaker 7: to give him a heads up that he's going to
Speaker 7: call again in a half hour. So Jay is trying
Speaker 7: to make up explanations for all these calls, but it's
Speaker 7: pretty clear that the cops are showing him the log
Speaker 7: and saying explain this, and Jay is doing his best
Speaker 7: to play along with it. The problem is, even after
Speaker 7: the second interview, his story still isn't matching. To give
Speaker 7: one example, in Jay's first interview, he tells the cops
Speaker 7: that after dropping ad on On off the track practice
Speaker 7: after the murder, he then goes to his house to
Speaker 7: smoke a blunt and wait for aDNA to call. In
Speaker 7: the second interview, he changes the story suddenly. He says that, oh,
Speaker 7: he didn't go to his house. He after dropping ad
Speaker 7: On on a track, he went to a park and then
Speaker 7: he went to Kathy's house to smoke a blunt and
Speaker 7: then went to pick up ad On, which doesn't actually
Speaker 7: make any sense because when you start looking at the
Speaker 7: location data from the cell phone records, you can see
Speaker 7: that the phone call that was made after while add
Speaker 7: On is a track, which would be the four thirty calls.
Speaker 7: The calls around around four thirty forty eight. The cell
Speaker 7: phone site for both those calls is right next to
Speaker 7: Jay's house, so his original story about being at his
Speaker 7: own home actually kind of makes sense. The time is wrong,
Speaker 7: he says, it takes place about an hour and a
Speaker 7: half later than it really did, but the location for
Speaker 7: once and probably the only time in the stories, actually
Speaker 7: matches it cell phone records. And then in the second interview,
Speaker 7: he mysteriously changes his story to be completely wrong. He
Speaker 7: now claims he's at Kathy's which is different part of town,
Speaker 7: different tower, nowhere near the tower that does originate for
Speaker 7: those calls. And this this part had bothered me for
Speaker 7: a while because most of the time when Jay's story
Speaker 7: change changes, it changes to match a cel phone records.
Speaker 7: This is the one time when he's changed a story
Speaker 7: to contradict the cell phone records. But what it turns
Speaker 7: out actually happened is that the cell phone data that
Speaker 7: cops were working with was wrong. The cops erroneously believed
Speaker 7: that the calls that happened while Atam's at Track had
Speaker 7: originally on a tower that was next to Kathy's apartment.
Speaker 7: They weren't. The tower was not it was three miles
Speaker 7: north of there, but the cops thought wrongly that it was,
Speaker 7: so in a second interview they go in and say, hey, look,
Speaker 7: we know you're lying. You're not at your house. The
Speaker 7: cell phone records clearly show you were somewhere in near
Speaker 7: cafe's when these calls happen, So tell us where you were.
Speaker 7: And then Jay says, well, the Cathy's, because that's what
Speaker 7: the records show. So you can see how the cops
Speaker 7: made them change a story, even though his story was
Speaker 7: probably more accurate and could have been more correct the
Speaker 7: first time around.
Speaker 6: Now you also talk about what happens at trial with
Speaker 6: the cell phone expert and that you say that again
Speaker 6: when I say underhanded, you could you could term it
Speaker 6: whatever you want. I will. I will take the heat
Speaker 6: for underhanded. Where you talk about two out of the
Speaker 6: eleven documents are given as part of discovery to the defense,
Speaker 6: but the other and nine are given orally in an
Speaker 6: oral account which helps the prosecution and contend tell us
Speaker 6: about that.
Speaker 7: What you contend with that, well, I'll agree that part
Speaker 7: was underhanded too. That was discover. They were essentially trying
Speaker 7: to deprive the defense of any information that would allow
Speaker 7: them to counteract the cell phone experts testimony. So as
Speaker 7: a backstory, The cell phone expert was retained by the
Speaker 7: prosecution in order to test thirteen separate sites around West
Speaker 7: Baltimore that were sort of relevant to this case, and
Speaker 7: they wanted the cell phone expert to find out where
Speaker 7: a call from these locations are, which tower they would
Speaker 7: originate on, so that they could figure out if their
Speaker 7: theory of the case match the cell records. So they
Speaker 7: drive the expert around and he uses test equipment to
Speaker 7: take readings at all these sites. And then when the
Speaker 7: prosecution has to disclose the result of this testing to
Speaker 7: the defense, what they do is not provide the results,
Speaker 7: which were computer generated, have GPS location, and show in
Speaker 7: detail what the results were. They provide a brief one
Speaker 7: page summary of the experts oral statements. What this essentially
Speaker 7: means is that as they drove around, they had the
Speaker 7: expert readout select results from his computer and then toss
Speaker 7: out all the computer records, so they didn't keep what
Speaker 7: the computer found. They didn't keep the actual location data
Speaker 7: they had required. They just use what he told them
Speaker 7: orally in the car driving around, wrote some of those
Speaker 7: numbers down and gave it to the defense. They did
Speaker 7: keep the computer data for two of the locations, they
Speaker 7: tested that was Kathy's house and a park near Jay's house,
Speaker 7: which is significant because one both of these locations have
Speaker 7: little to no relevance to the murder whatsoever. And there's
Speaker 7: the two locations farthest from Lincoln Park. What I suspect
Speaker 7: and can't prove they could never prove now, is that
Speaker 7: the reason they chose these two irrelevant locations to actually
Speaker 7: say the computer data was because for every other location
Speaker 7: the Lincoln Park tower reached. So if they had disclosed
Speaker 7: those maps, it probably would have shown that the park
Speaker 7: tower EL six State nine B did have a signal
Speaker 7: somewhere outside of Lincoln Park, since the prosecution's entire case
Speaker 7: hinged upon proving that Adnan was in Lincoln Park when
Speaker 7: the EL six State nine B tower was pinged, having
Speaker 7: proof that a call made from somewhere completely not Lincoln
Speaker 7: Park ping that tower would have killed their case. So
Speaker 7: I don't know that's what the case is. I don't
Speaker 7: know that EL sick Sat nine B definitely reached those locations,
Speaker 7: but the fact that prosecution chose to only disclose the
Speaker 7: two maps farest from Lincoln Park does just there's a
Speaker 7: reason they were scared of having naps of self reception
Speaker 7: from close to Lincoln Park and get into the hands
Speaker 7: of defense.
Speaker 6: Well, you know, you're a criminal attorney. Let's you know,
Speaker 6: we have some more time here to look at this case.
Speaker 6: But overall, they didn't have They had a shaky case
Speaker 6: that they took to a jury. They had a defense
Speaker 6: attorney that seemed to be confused and not very concise
Speaker 6: in her arguments. And yes, one pell of an annoying voice,
Speaker 6: I got to.
Speaker 7: Say them, it's true.
Speaker 6: You know, the opposite of charming, I would think, I
Speaker 6: mean really so obviously I think, you know, and I'm
Speaker 6: not a lawyer. But having looked at a lot of cases,
Speaker 6: which was one of the more interesting things is with Sura,
Speaker 6: Kanig interviewed or hired pardon me, a private detective to
Speaker 6: look at the case, and he said something that was
Speaker 6: surprising to her but not so surprising me. He said, overall,
Speaker 6: when he looked at the case, yeah, this is the
Speaker 6: vast majority of cases are done like this. This doesn't
Speaker 6: look like something that isn't done almost routinely. So he's
Speaker 6: seen better, he's seen worse, but it wasn't so bad
Speaker 6: in terms of you know, I think a lot of
Speaker 6: people and maybe some people are naive that lots of
Speaker 6: things don't fit, and prosecution takes a lot of cases
Speaker 6: to a jury with sort of far flung motives, or
Speaker 6: let's put it this way, very unsubstantiated motives, unprovable motives.
Speaker 6: Will say weak cases taken to a jury oftentimes, so
Speaker 6: I might, I guess you should get a question out
Speaker 6: of that. But what I thought was that this case
Speaker 6: is obviously a case where there's reasonable doubt in regarding
Speaker 6: Adnad's guilt. But I I really like to look at
Speaker 6: a case and say, what do you think in terms
Speaker 6: of guilt and tell us what you think after this year.
Speaker 7: Jim Trainam is the expert that they taught. He talked
Speaker 7: uh can't talked to and he did say that it
Speaker 7: was an above average investigation in terms of trying to
Speaker 7: track down the suspect, and they did a lot of legwork.
Speaker 7: They did a lot of research. They didn't just write
Speaker 7: this one off. They try to prove a case. But
Speaker 7: even Jim Trainam agreed when he was asked about what
Speaker 7: he thought overall the state's case, that there were holes
Speaker 7: here that were bigger than normal. This was not an
Speaker 7: average case because the prosecution's case never came together. There
Speaker 7: was always huge holes in it that couldn't be explained
Speaker 7: and shouldn't have been there if their theory was right.
Speaker 7: And the obvious explanation is that the theory was never
Speaker 7: right because their star witness, Jay was perjuring himself constantly
Speaker 7: on the stand. Jay has fully acknowledged now in a
Speaker 7: recent interview that he lied his butt off it both
Speaker 7: had ons trials. Everything said essentially other than the fact
Speaker 7: that Oddnan killed Hay was a lie, and he was
Speaker 7: happy to acknowledge us because as he had, his reasons
Speaker 7: for lying. So it's pretty clear, whether you think Adnan's
Speaker 7: guilty or innocent, why the state's case was such an
Speaker 7: incoherent mess, And that's that it's all based on lies.
Speaker 7: It's all based on Jay's lies. It's all based on
Speaker 7: Jay's nonsense, crazy manufactured statements. The problem is that that
Speaker 7: leaves us with basically where we started. Jay could be lying,
Speaker 7: and add none can still be guilty, or j could
Speaker 7: be lying because Adnan's innocent and Jay's just trying really
Speaker 7: hard to hide up to hide who's actually responsible. And
Speaker 7: in the end, Jay's stories just don't get us anywhere.
Speaker 7: They're too incoherent, they're too contradictory, they are too provably
Speaker 7: false to provide any basis for explaining how Hay died.
Speaker 7: And since the investigation stopped as soon as odd non
Speaker 7: identified as the prime target, there is no other research
Speaker 7: or contemporaneous information concerning who else might have killed her,
Speaker 7: or hell she might have died, So we're less a
Speaker 7: black hole in terms of actual evidence here of what
Speaker 7: might have happened, because the state's whole case was based
Speaker 7: on investigating a lie, but they did not allegedly know
Speaker 7: is a lie at the time, so the data they
Speaker 7: have doesn't match up with anything, and the data we
Speaker 7: have now is trying to piece together a fifteen year
Speaker 7: old story. Basically, there's really hard to give a firm
Speaker 7: answer here because we don't have the evidence. We're not
Speaker 7: ever going to have the evidence short of the confession,
Speaker 7: and trying to figure out exactly what did occur is
Speaker 7: a fool's.
Speaker 6: Errand is there enough evidence to say that at least
Speaker 6: one of the two was a participant in the murder?
Speaker 6: And if so, which one does the evidence conclude was involved?
Speaker 7: Jay was participant, There's still some arguments that he was
Speaker 7: giving a false confession entirely and had no involvement, And
Speaker 7: I can't say that's totally impossible, but I don't find
Speaker 7: it very plausible based on what we know. The big
Speaker 7: fact quote unquote is that Jay knew where Hayes car was.
Speaker 7: He led the cops to where Hayes car was abandoned,
Speaker 7: which the cops had apparently not found, even though it
Speaker 7: was near LinkedIn Park. So we can say with some
Speaker 7: confidence that Jay was involved somehow in the cover up
Speaker 7: of the murder, but we don't actually have anything linking
Speaker 7: j to the murder itself, and I don't think we
Speaker 7: can say. We definitely cannot say that Jay was responsible
Speaker 7: for it, and I don't really have an opinion if
Speaker 7: he was or not, because the evidence is too vague
Speaker 7: and can go either way. At this point, I think
Speaker 7: God knowns innocent, but that's most years old. Of the
Speaker 7: way the investigation was carried out. If Adnan was guilty,
Speaker 7: the prosecution should have, my dumb luck, stumbled on some
Speaker 7: kind of evidence to support that, And the fact that
Speaker 7: their investigation consistently found things that did not lead to
Speaker 7: his guilt just to me that the reason they couldn't
Speaker 7: find anything is because it wasn't there.
Speaker 6: Now you talked. It's incredible this story itself in terms
Speaker 6: of what Jay says and his friend backs him up.
Speaker 6: I think Josh where he talks about why on Earth
Speaker 6: Adnan would have done this and then recruited Jay and
Speaker 6: Jay would have agreed to it. So tell us what
Speaker 6: Jay's version and his friend's version of why on Earth
Speaker 6: Jay became involved.
Speaker 7: Jay's versions for why it helped start with his first
Speaker 7: story ever, is that Odnon threatened to expose his weed
Speaker 7: dealing business if he didn't help Adnan bear a Hayes's body,
Speaker 7: and Jay was allegedly so scared by this that he agreed.
Speaker 7: Because the guy with a body in a trunk is
Speaker 7: going to threaten to turn you into the cops, I
Speaker 7: don't know. Jay says he believed it, so must be true.
Speaker 7: Later on, and like in the recent interviews he's given,
Speaker 7: he says that the reason he helped out was because
Speaker 7: he was scared of getting his family in trouble with
Speaker 7: his drug operation. He's vague on details and just kind
Speaker 7: of leaves it as this sort of this kind of
Speaker 7: a martyr complex really like he did he buried his
Speaker 7: body in order to save his grandma is what it
Speaker 7: comes down to, and there's no real coherent story behind it.
Speaker 7: There's no way to explain it logically. Because Jay was
Speaker 7: not afraid of ad On, there was no reason to
Speaker 7: be afraid of If Anan could have threatened Jay, he
Speaker 7: would have known not to do it. So whatever reason
Speaker 7: Jay helped, he's never said it. If Ann did kill
Speaker 7: Hay we still don't know why Jay decided assistant to
Speaker 7: cover up.
Speaker 6: Is there any link whatsoever? I know that the police
Speaker 6: didn't make any and certainly the serial program didn't allude
Speaker 6: to or point to. Is there any connection whatsoever, any
Speaker 6: possibility that there was a connection between uh hey Man
Speaker 6: and j.
Speaker 7: Well.
Speaker 6: The reason they didn't be connected.
Speaker 7: They were connected, and they were classmates, they had had
Speaker 7: classes together, they had mutual friends together, they knew each other,
Speaker 7: they weren't friends. Most of the connection comes from Hayes'
Speaker 7: relationship with odd no On and through odd Ons definite
Speaker 7: and through Stuffy J. So there's no close relationship there.
Speaker 7: And I do think Jay is the lynchpin. He's a connection,
Speaker 7: even if he's not responsible for the murder. Something about
Speaker 7: him was a connection that led hay to whatever happened
Speaker 7: On that day. There is speculation for why Jay might
Speaker 7: have had a motive. I don't really give much of
Speaker 7: it credence because everything's so vague here. It could be true,
Speaker 7: it could not be I don't think it's worth spending
Speaker 7: time worrying about it. One of the more common themes
Speaker 7: are common stories is that Jay was jealous of odd
Speaker 7: Non's close relationship with Stephanie, because Stephanie and odd Non
Speaker 7: are really good friends and used to date, and so
Speaker 7: apparently Jay was jealous of that and decided to kill Hay.
Speaker 7: But that doesn't really make sense either. If I had
Speaker 7: a guess, I think a drug connection is going on.
Speaker 7: That's that's what a lot of the evidence seems to
Speaker 7: lead back to. But that's definitely not the only answer,
Speaker 7: and it could turn out to be a lot of
Speaker 7: different things that happened. Again, the number of possibilities here
Speaker 7: has never been narrowed down. Someone had a thought experiment once.
Speaker 7: I thought was a pretty useful way of showing how
Speaker 7: little we know. And that's just if you could choose
Speaker 7: any location in time on January thirteenth, where you could
Speaker 7: have a camera for fifteen minutes and see what happened there,
Speaker 7: where would you choose to go, and there's nowhere to like,
Speaker 7: there's no place you could choose to look at and
Speaker 7: try and figure out this case. We don't know where
Speaker 7: she died. We don't know how she died exactly. We
Speaker 7: don't know when she died. We don't know what time
Speaker 7: she was buried. We don't know where she was kept
Speaker 7: in between the murder and the burial. We don't know
Speaker 7: where the actors were at various times. Even with a
Speaker 7: magic camera that could show you fifteen minutes of any
Speaker 7: place in Baltimore on that day, it is very unlikely
Speaker 7: you could solve the crime.
Speaker 6: Well, you know what I found interesting too, just very
Speaker 6: much like you make the case that the prosecution manipulated
Speaker 6: the information, gave it back to their witness, and then
Speaker 6: massaged it into a form that they could work with
Speaker 6: that work with certain things, work with their theory. There
Speaker 6: seemed to be and I'll get your response to this,
Speaker 6: Jen and Josh, it seemed to be people. Again. Jay's
Speaker 6: story doesn't make very much sense. Adnin's story and response
Speaker 6: doesn't seem to make that much sense. And these witnesses
Speaker 6: don't seem to make that much sense when they're doing
Speaker 6: stories that are supposedly going to help their friends. We
Speaker 6: talk about with Josh saying that and backing up the
Speaker 6: story from Jay, which seemed unlikely from the characterization of
Speaker 6: Adnon and who Ja it really was that he was
Speaker 6: so terrified of what Adnan might do? Is there? What
Speaker 6: do you think about the friends' connections and some of
Speaker 6: their stories.
Speaker 7: I think obviously the friends are relating what they've been told,
Speaker 7: So it's really difficult from our position now to differentiate
Speaker 7: between the friends that are just repeating what they heard
Speaker 7: and the friends who are distorting the stories trying to
Speaker 7: protect something. So I mean Jen, for instance, I full
Speaker 7: on I completely believe that she was asked by Jay
Speaker 7: and she agreed to give a false alibi for where
Speaker 7: Jay was on the afternoon of Hayes murder. Because their
Speaker 7: story is both that he was at her house until
Speaker 7: three forty pm. That's proveably false through a bunch of
Speaker 7: different ways, so he wasn't there. She's lying about that,
Speaker 7: he's lying about that. They clearly work together to have
Speaker 7: an alibi, but we don't know why Jin agreed. Jen
Speaker 7: could have agreed because she wanted to make sure her friend,
Speaker 7: who is innocent in a murder, didn't falsely get accused
Speaker 7: of it, or she could be giving a false alibi
Speaker 7: because she knows he's yealty, he wants to help him.
Speaker 7: So even we know that people are lying, we still
Speaker 7: don't know why. And I think it all goes back
Speaker 7: to the investigation and how the cops had one theory
Speaker 7: centered in on it and looked only there the rest
Speaker 7: of the time. As a result, the data we have
Speaker 7: is so limited that we can't rule out any hither theory.
Speaker 7: I mean, we can rule out the story at trial.
Speaker 7: We know enough to disprove what they claimed happened at trial,
Speaker 7: but we can't really disprove anything else.
Speaker 6: And what is the status of Adnan's appeals? Does he
Speaker 6: have any Is there any more options for him? Is
Speaker 6: there anything left for him to look forward to? Is
Speaker 6: there any appeals left? Tell us what his status is.
Speaker 7: So the current appeal that's ongoing is it was an
Speaker 7: appeal based on well in part on ineffective assistance of council,
Speaker 7: based on Adnon's attorney's failure to call an alibi witness
Speaker 7: who saw him at the library at two forty five pm.
Speaker 7: That appeal was denied in January last year. It's recently
Speaker 7: the defense filed the motion to reopen it, and most recently,
Speaker 7: as you may have heard, the defense filed in affidavit
Speaker 7: from the alibi witness, Asia McLain, and which she stated
Speaker 7: that one she stood by her alibi story that she'd
Speaker 7: seen adn On in the library at two forty five
Speaker 7: when the prosecution claimed a trial that he had killed
Speaker 7: her before two thirty six pm, and two that the
Speaker 7: reason she hadn't come for sooner and that she hadn't
Speaker 7: actually given the story at trial was because and why
Speaker 7: she hadn't given it in a previous appeal was because
Speaker 7: she'd spoken to Europe, the prosecutor, and he'd convinced her
Speaker 7: not to so based on that affidavit, they're trying to
Speaker 7: have his ineffective sense of counsel appeal upheld. The latest
Speaker 7: update there is that the prosecution has filed a motion
Speaker 7: to strike the update from the record, claiming it was
Speaker 7: filed too late. So it's not clear how that's going
Speaker 7: to get resolved. If that appeal fails, there are other options.
Speaker 7: He could potentially file a federal appeal. There's other state
Speaker 7: level claims he can make. His best hope, although who
Speaker 7: knows how likely it is. Is his options toe the
Speaker 7: Innocence Project, who have taken on his case and are
Speaker 7: looking into possible DNA evidence that may still exist. If
Speaker 7: they can find that the DNA evidence still say somewhere
Speaker 7: and the police files, and if they can test that
Speaker 7: and have a match to someone else, that would be
Speaker 7: his best route to freedom. But there's a lot of
Speaker 7: steps there. One finding the evidence to actually having DNA
Speaker 7: on it, and three actually from the court allowing them
Speaker 7: to test it, but then going back to the DNA evidence.
Speaker 7: That's another good example of how the prosecution failed here
Speaker 7: so horribly, because Jay told the cops from day one,
Speaker 7: when he's discussing his imaginary conversations with ad Non, that
Speaker 7: Adnan told him that he was worried that there was
Speaker 7: forensic evidence under his fingernails. He was worried that she
Speaker 7: had scratched him somehow, and there was evidence that he'd
Speaker 7: killed her under her fingernails. And yet the prosecution never
Speaker 7: tested that DNA evidence. They put it on hold and
Speaker 7: decided not to test it, which I can't I cannot understand.
Speaker 7: Even forensic dneral is there, it's usually a long shot.
Speaker 7: But when you have a witness, saying that the defendant
Speaker 7: was worried there was DNA evidence under the victims's fingernails.
Speaker 7: Why wouldn't you test it?
Speaker 6: All right? How important is Asia McLean's affidavit in light
Speaker 6: of her believability that she wasn't asked by the prosecution
Speaker 6: or police, It wasn't followed up, It wasn't the defense
Speaker 6: didn't have a chance to even know about this. So
Speaker 6: how important is that?
Speaker 7: Actually, it's not the prosecution ever knew about her. The
Speaker 7: cops never talked to her. It's not them who knew
Speaker 7: about her. It was adn On. She contacted Adnan and said, look,
Speaker 7: I saw you there. We were there at the library.
Speaker 7: Let me know if you need me. And Adnan passed
Speaker 7: the information on to his attorney and she ignored it.
Speaker 7: She just ignored it. She flat out didn't call Asia,
Speaker 7: didn't follow up, didn't find out what's going on, didn't
Speaker 7: even try and figure out if she was a useful
Speaker 7: out by witness, which you can't do. I mean, that's
Speaker 7: when it comes to an EFFECTI assistance of counsel. There's
Speaker 7: a lot of leeway. Attorneys can have strategies. Just because
Speaker 7: you're wrong, don't mean you're in effective. But the one
Speaker 7: thing you always have to do is to investigate. You
Speaker 7: have to talk to an aliby witness and find out
Speaker 7: why or why not they're useful for the case. So
Speaker 7: I think she's believable. I think she's I think she's
Speaker 7: totally honest. I have no reason to doubt her. The
Speaker 7: biggest problem with Asia in terms of solving the case
Speaker 7: is that, even though I think she very much saw
Speaker 7: Adnin in the library at two forty five PM, her
Speaker 7: testimony is only only relevant based on the prosecution's fantasy,
Speaker 7: fairy tale timeline of events because the prosecution claims Hay
Speaker 7: was dead at two thirty six, So in that case,
Speaker 7: Asia's crucial her testimony disproves it entirely. The problem is
Speaker 7: no one actually believes prosecution. Everyone knows that the prosecution
Speaker 7: was making it up when they claimed Hay was dead
Speaker 7: at two thirty six. So in reality, in a world
Speaker 7: where the evidence shows that Hay was almost certainly killed
Speaker 7: from between three PM and three point thirty, having a
Speaker 7: solid alibi for two forty five PM isn't factual proof
Speaker 7: that a nons inoscent. It is, however, very useful evidence
Speaker 7: for showing this attorney was ineffective and that he did
Speaker 7: not get a constitutionally fair trial because of her failure
Speaker 7: to investigate.
Speaker 6: So inadvertently that will have worked out, possibly for.
Speaker 7: In some respects. I mean, it would be better for
Speaker 7: him if she looked it up back in nineteen ninety nine.
Speaker 7: But it's not technicality. I mean, this is a songn
Speaker 7: it won. The prosecution claims that Hey died at two
Speaker 7: thirty six, So it's not a technicality for someone to
Speaker 7: be shown to have a failed defense due to the
Speaker 7: fact that her his attorney didn't show that he could
Speaker 7: not have killed her at two thirty six. And second,
Speaker 7: this is one problem with Christina Guidier's entire defense. This
Speaker 7: is not the only one.
Speaker 6: What other parts of her strategy were lacking significantly.
Speaker 7: My biggest criticism of her is her failure to stop
Speaker 7: the prosecution from playing the games that was playing. The
Speaker 7: prosecution made late and incomplete disclosures at every stage of
Speaker 7: the game. They did not give important information, They withheld information,
Speaker 7: and she mostly rolled over and took it. She thought
Speaker 7: back at some point she would try, and she filed
Speaker 7: a couple motions to compel. She did try at some
Speaker 7: places to get the information the state was withholding, but overall,
Speaker 7: given how much they were worth holding, she was inexplicable
Speaker 7: in her failure not to pursue it further. As a result,
Speaker 7: going into both trials, she had no idea what was coming.
Speaker 7: In some respects, she didn't have the full timeline, she
Speaker 7: didn't have Jay's statements, she didn't know that Jin was
Speaker 7: a witness. She didn't know anything in some respects. So
Speaker 7: for me, like as an attorney, strat wise, that was
Speaker 7: her biggest failure. If she had simply followed up, fouled
Speaker 7: whatever it took to force the prosecution to play fair,
Speaker 7: he would have been in much better shape going into
Speaker 7: trial in terms of actual given the lack of discovery.
Speaker 7: In terms of she did a trial, her cross examinations
Speaker 7: were meandering, to put it nicely, And what kind of
Speaker 7: killed me reading the transcripts now, is that Giddy Airs
Speaker 7: was a smart woman. You can see there's so many
Speaker 7: times where I've seen in the transcripts that she saw
Speaker 7: a problem in the case. She clearly identified something that
Speaker 7: was hugely important, like, for instance, the fact the lividity
Speaker 7: living mortis in the body did not match its positioning
Speaker 7: in the grave. She solved that as a problem, and
Speaker 7: she tried to question the medical examiner about it. And
Speaker 7: I didn't even realize that was a problem, and I
Speaker 7: went back to bed it and I'd completely overlooked the
Speaker 7: fact that Giddierre's was trying to get that out. She
Speaker 7: was trying like she Her questioning shows she knew that
Speaker 7: this disproved the state's case and she wanted to question
Speaker 7: the medical contaimer about it. But she keeps losing her
Speaker 7: train of thought, she keeps the question that follows it
Speaker 7: up is never there, and so even though she starts
Speaker 7: bringing these huge important issues up and saw them, she
Speaker 7: never delivers.
Speaker 6: There was some talk that she was a little bit
Speaker 6: different in terms of effectiveness, in terms of energy and
Speaker 6: maybe even focus from one trial to the next.
Speaker 7: So I do fully believe that. I think there was
Speaker 7: two huge problems here. I think that one, she was
Speaker 7: being unethical and how she handled clients funds. I don't
Speaker 7: see a way around that. She was very unethical, and
Speaker 7: what she did to clients, how she treated them, how
Speaker 7: she approached cases. She took money, didn't do the work,
Speaker 7: she didn't retain experts, she didn't follow up on witnesses.
Speaker 7: She was clearly unethical, and I think intentionally so. On
Speaker 7: the other hand, I think she was also actually sick
Speaker 7: and struggling, and I think that shows up in the
Speaker 7: cross examination where she was trying and she wasn't trying
Speaker 7: to get her clients in jail, but she was phoning
Speaker 7: it in on the preparation, and then when it came
Speaker 7: to trial day, she didn't have the health or the
Speaker 7: energy or mental resources to follow through. Perhaps early in
Speaker 7: her career it wouldn't have mattered she hadn't done the
Speaker 7: backwork because she was a good trial attorney, but at
Speaker 7: this point when she was representing Adnan, she just lacked
Speaker 7: the ability to make points. And I think that's the
Speaker 7: part that came from her illness and not her unethical behaviors.
Speaker 6: So combined with the two elements of this, that the
Speaker 6: potential DNA, and what I've read anyway, and what I
Speaker 6: know of is that it's good to have another potential
Speaker 6: perpetrator instead of just trying to exonerate yourself. It is
Speaker 6: ideally good to have someone else. But combined with the
Speaker 6: two things, again, it's hard to predict, and appeals rarely
Speaker 6: are successful. You think some ground for appeal.
Speaker 7: Here it's always a long shot, and odd non's better
Speaker 7: off than most. He has a better chance than most,
Speaker 7: but it's always going to be a long shot, which
Speaker 7: is why I said his best hope is for the
Speaker 7: Innocence Project to come through, find the DNA and test it.
Speaker 7: There is potential that if the evidence still exists and
Speaker 7: hasn't been discarded, it could be rewarding, especially given Jay's
Speaker 7: statements about the killer being concerned about DNA and the fingernails,
Speaker 7: and the fact it was never tested before. So there
Speaker 7: is something to hope there, but it's far from guaranteed,
Speaker 7: and his other appeal options are slow and not necessarily
Speaker 7: going to be helpful in the end. If he goes
Speaker 7: that route and ultimately got free, it's still the years
Speaker 7: because there's appeals from the appeals. I think his current
Speaker 7: appeal likely will not succeed, which means he'll either have
Speaker 7: to start a new one or go through a federal appeal,
Speaker 7: and all that takes time.
Speaker 6: Sure did the huge success of serial, the podcast, twelve episodes,
Speaker 6: the investigation, and then of course what led up to
Speaker 6: the Innocence Project becoming involved. Maybe it's a rhetorical question
Speaker 6: was this serial good for add none.
Speaker 7: Absolutely absolutely, I know that he that. On the one hand,
Speaker 7: it's going to be difficult for adding On and anyone
Speaker 7: involved with him, because Sarah Canning was putting on a story.
Speaker 7: It was an investigation. It wasn't entertainment, but it wasn't
Speaker 7: a prpiece either. It wasn't all favorable to add On
Speaker 7: and it shouldn't have been. And she gave a thoughtful
Speaker 7: and through well as much she could have been thorough
Speaker 7: investigation of the evidence. So there was some stuff looks
Speaker 7: damaging to add On the cameout, but none of that
Speaker 7: is outweighed by the fact that it's now gotten massive
Speaker 7: attention and popularity. And as much as the appellate system
Speaker 7: is designed to be more insulated and not sway to
Speaker 7: a popular opinion, there's no way it doesn an effect
Speaker 7: the judges. The judges and their clerks, they're listening to this,
Speaker 7: they know about it, they're paying attention, and even though
Speaker 7: they would never acknowledge that it affected their decision anyway,
Speaker 7: it absolutely is going to.
Speaker 6: You know, I've done this program for about five years
Speaker 6: and I do we do cases of wrongful conviction, and
Speaker 6: then of course there's authors that have on Michael Grees
Speaker 6: back the innocent killer, really profound case where a prosecutor
Speaker 6: had to go back and get a person out of
Speaker 6: prison that was wrongfully convicted and in the end they
Speaker 6: went back as a really gruesome killer. But anyway, my
Speaker 6: point is is that there are so many profound and
Speaker 6: blatant wrongful convictions that I have just you know, touched
Speaker 6: on in the last five years. What does it hold
Speaker 6: for the future of wrongful convictions that something like this
Speaker 6: has caught the attention of the public in such a
Speaker 6: big way.
Speaker 7: That would be the greatest thing SAYLA could do if
Speaker 7: it could not just for add nonce case start some
Speaker 7: kind of reform in general, are just attention to the
Speaker 7: fact because so often people assume someone's convicted they're guilty,
Speaker 7: and usually they are. But I think for the first
Speaker 7: time through cereals entered the public consciousness that people are convicted,
Speaker 7: they aren't there for the great reasons and they're actually innocent.
Speaker 7: And having that sort of public awareness will be reflected
Speaker 7: in the polls. And I think that there's definitely room
Speaker 7: for political campaigns now to try and focus on this issue.
Speaker 7: As before, you're not going to have wrongful convictions be
Speaker 7: any kind of winning cause in politics.
Speaker 6: What I found interesting too is that Sarah Kanig and
Speaker 6: the Serial podcast brought in which is rare. I mean,
Speaker 6: you do get interviews with jurors, but these were profound
Speaker 6: interviews with a couple of jurors. That man. One jur
Speaker 6: in particular, I thought, geez, they missed the whole trial.
Speaker 6: They were there the first day, but it seemed that
Speaker 6: they missed the whole thing. They summarized the first day
Speaker 6: and the theory, but I think they slept through the
Speaker 6: rest of it. But what I think is the service
Speaker 6: that Sarah and Serial podcast has brought is a big
Speaker 6: audience that weren't necessarily. They didn't think they were true
Speaker 6: crime fans, and now I guess they think that they
Speaker 6: are true crime fans by virtue of this serial. But
Speaker 6: maybe people will be a little more open minded to
Speaker 6: the idea of this trusted and judicial system is maybe
Speaker 6: not as shouldn't be as entrusted as you might have
Speaker 6: thought all those years. And it brings up the problem too,
Speaker 6: is that you listen to Jay, you listen to some
Speaker 6: of his friends, you listen to Adnan, and you're going,
Speaker 6: I don't know, because there's so much subjective evidence as well,
Speaker 6: that can really confuse you. That I think people are
Speaker 6: realizing the complexity of a true crime book that even
Speaker 6: after an hour of discussing it, you just barely scratch
Speaker 6: the surface of the story itself, never mind the issues
Speaker 6: and never mind the possibilities, especially when it's not clear cut,
Speaker 6: which is meant many times who's a killer.
Speaker 7: Is agree entirely. I think one of the best parts
Speaker 7: for me about serial has been being able to discuss
Speaker 7: the case my non lawyer friends, because usually discussions of
Speaker 7: cases I have are with other attorneys with people similar mindset.
Speaker 7: So Cyriel was the first time where my friends without
Speaker 7: legal background, like, we've had long discussions about a legal case,
Speaker 7: And for me, it was fascinating to realize, just as
Speaker 7: an attorney, how insulated my mindset is, or just how
Speaker 7: things I know about the legal system and failings I
Speaker 7: fully expect to see didn't phase me at all. And
Speaker 7: my friends are just asking, wait, they can do that,
Speaker 7: that's allowed, this is what happened in real life, and
Speaker 7: I'm like, yes, this is actually how system works. And
Speaker 7: for me it was eye opening to realize I'd forgotten
Speaker 7: that that it's for most people who are not involved
Speaker 7: in it. Every day. They have a more idealistic view
Speaker 7: of what's going on. And Cyril is a really good
Speaker 7: exposure to the sausage making process, I guess.
Speaker 6: So to speak, Yeah, well, the imprecise system that it
Speaker 6: really is. Because we yeah, we love law, and I
Speaker 6: love law and order. I mean, I've got cable just
Speaker 6: and watch that every day. I love law and order.
Speaker 6: But that gives you a false impression of the precision
Speaker 6: that every trial has and the conclusions and the and
Speaker 6: the ethical morality behind all of this, and these people
Speaker 6: taking these cases home, Like you say, sometimes it's just
Speaker 6: a sausage factory and there's conclusions left to and people
Speaker 6: just sort of know, they believe they know who did it.
Speaker 6: And because it isn't very precise, and because not all
Speaker 6: the protocol is is tended to one hundred percent, it's
Speaker 6: kind of rough. It's certainly not as slick and precise
Speaker 6: and nice as we see on television. So I think
Speaker 6: that's what people are realizing too, that you can be
Speaker 6: an amateur sleuth. For these twelve episode you can read
Speaker 6: your blog and still not have any more of an
Speaker 6: answer than you or I has, as non guilt or
Speaker 6: Jay's guilt or really really what happened.
Speaker 7: I think what Law and Order and shows like that
Speaker 7: fail to convey is the way the system is just
Speaker 7: like any other, a bureocracy, with people trying to serve
Speaker 7: their own interests. And that's not to insult it's that's
Speaker 7: how everything works. But sure law and order does not
Speaker 7: convey that. You've got police with pressures against them to
Speaker 7: try and solve crimes. You've got prosecutors with heavy case
Speaker 7: loads who have to be honest, mostly vast macharity of
Speaker 7: the time guilty defendants, and they're trying to make sure
Speaker 7: that some splictive instorney doesn't try and get their clients
Speaker 7: acquitted wrongfully. And then you've got judges who have heavy
Speaker 7: place with caseloads too, and they're busy, and they're sometimes
Speaker 7: going to take the prosecutor's word for it just because
Speaker 7: they assume the prosecutor's not going to state the case
Speaker 7: wrongly to them. So at every level there's no need
Speaker 7: for wrongdoing. It's just people try and do their jobs.
Speaker 7: But the way everything's set up and the way the
Speaker 7: system is set up, these results do happen because people
Speaker 7: are trying to get their job done, and sometimes that
Speaker 7: involves cutting corners when I thinks someone's guilty and should
Speaker 7: be in jail.
Speaker 6: Well, it certainly is a fantastic illustration of true crime
Speaker 6: at its finest in terms of there are so many
Speaker 6: people that roll up their sleeves in the investigation and
Speaker 6: yet still and you talked about all the people that
Speaker 6: weren't lawyers that were engaged because of this and what
Speaker 6: I found, and this is what I found in the
Speaker 6: last five years, that there's so many people out there
Speaker 6: that aren't attorneys necessarily that really have a grasp of law.
Speaker 6: And it must come from reading some of these books
Speaker 6: itself and watching these programs, and just who knows exactly
Speaker 6: how they got to that point. There are some people
Speaker 6: that are certainly naive, but there's certainly a certain camp
Speaker 6: that understand I think the principles of law that yet
Speaker 6: are still enraged, outraged, disappointed.
Speaker 7: Or.
Speaker 6: Are asking for, you know, the prosecution and the entire
Speaker 6: judicial system to conduct itself according to the principles that
Speaker 6: it says that it does, because otherwise we can have
Speaker 6: problems like this. I'm sure that the Serial program has
Speaker 6: not been good for the prosecution in Baltimore when you
Speaker 6: know so, I mean, it's all I think it's a
Speaker 6: good thing for fans, and I think it's just a
Speaker 6: good thing for justice in general. By doing the more
Speaker 6: in depth analysis into some of these.
Speaker 7: Cases, there's a disin lissionment going on, which is valuable
Speaker 7: and needed. At the same time, most prosecutors do great
Speaker 7: jobs every single day. This is not it's not as
Speaker 7: simple as prosecutes are corrupt, because they're not. Some are,
Speaker 7: like in any area, But for the most part, prosecutors
Speaker 7: have a very hard job, and they're understaffed, under budget,
Speaker 7: and they do a hard job every day, and they
Speaker 7: do the right thing most of the time. The problem
Speaker 7: comes from a system that assumes that they will always
Speaker 7: do that are assuming they have some sort of immunity
Speaker 7: from doing a lesson thorough job. So there's a balance
Speaker 7: to be had there for sure. But at the same time,
Speaker 7: I think right now more exposure to the problems in
Speaker 7: the system is needed, absolutely.
Speaker 6: And I want to thank you and commend you for
Speaker 6: your analysis of it as well, because it's a very
Speaker 6: complicated case. And I think having listened to the twelve episodes,
Speaker 6: I could listen to them again a few times. And
Speaker 6: I think that's what other people have done too, and
Speaker 6: so many amateur sleuths have again rolled up their sleeves
Speaker 6: and said I'm going to weigh in here and try
Speaker 6: to find out. And the incredible amount of posts and
Speaker 6: commentary on this has been incredible. I want to ask
Speaker 6: you about LLL two and a little bit more about
Speaker 6: the blog itself and your commentary, and how much attention
Speaker 6: you've had from you engaging and speaking and discussing about
Speaker 6: the serial podcast itself.
Speaker 7: It's definitely been interesting to have. I mean, usually I
Speaker 7: read about really obscure topics, which I enjoy. I've written many,
Speaker 7: many pages about very tiny details and international procedural law,
Speaker 7: which I enjoy. But I'm not going to get many
Speaker 7: readers for which I'm fine with. But it's fun to
Speaker 7: have readers too, and it's interesting to have. It's a
Speaker 7: weird tension because I feel like in some places I've
Speaker 7: gotten undue weight and well out out of theory, and
Speaker 7: I think it'll probably get I don't want to say
Speaker 7: uncritically accepted, because I think I'm right, and I'm you know,
Speaker 7: I believe I'm right. But there's less pushback than I
Speaker 7: think there should be. Because I work hard at developing
Speaker 7: my theories and my analysis of the law. But I
Speaker 7: think what Cereal has been so great about is getting
Speaker 7: so many amateur slews, like you said, and they have
Speaker 7: some really great like everyone has really great ideas, Like
Speaker 7: there's bits and pieces coming from everywhere, and I definitely
Speaker 7: don't want to joining to stifle that.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Absolutely, Yeah, I think it's a it's a great
Speaker 6: addition to the serial podcast is as much as they
Speaker 6: can cover in that great amount of time, and I
Speaker 6: know we I cover quite a bit in with with
Speaker 6: an author in an hour or an hour and a half,
Speaker 6: as opposed to typically some of the interviews that they
Speaker 6: might do on other you know, could trust radio or television,
Speaker 6: which is just maybe ten minute interviews or less. But
Speaker 6: I think the more discussion absolutely.
Speaker 7: The absolutely And I think I was going to say,
Speaker 7: the fact that the jury convicted a one in two
Speaker 7: hours always blows me away thinking of all all the
Speaker 7: really good discussion off the twelve pisode of the podcast,
Speaker 7: for all of that to exist and for a jury
Speaker 7: to come back with a verdict in two hours blows
Speaker 7: me away.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and it seemed incredible. But that's again what I
Speaker 6: found was when they interviewed the two she had the
Speaker 6: brief interviews with the two jurors, I really did shake
Speaker 6: my head in terms of it was such a complex case. Again,
Speaker 6: it wasn't a case where I mean really it was
Speaker 6: a technical case, so that there was these main issues
Speaker 6: that they had to had to deal with, and when
Speaker 6: you just had a very very brief interview, it was
Speaker 6: very telling that these people were not the best jurors.
Speaker 6: And you know, at least for the events especially, they weren't.
Speaker 6: They weren't good choices for the defense, that's certain.
Speaker 7: They didn't get it.
Speaker 6: Yeah, in two hours. It's very very rushed judgment, I
Speaker 6: would think, regardless of you know, especially for a case
Speaker 6: like this, it seems a lot more complex. I wanted
Speaker 6: to thank you. I wanted to thank you for coming
Speaker 6: on and talking about the view from L two. If
Speaker 6: people are interested about this your blog and some of
Speaker 6: your work, tell us how they might contact you and
Speaker 6: do you Are you interested in Facebook friends?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 7: I'm my blog is that view from L two dot com.
Speaker 7: Right now, it's mostly serial, but if you try and
Speaker 7: follow me, I promise there will be much more boring
Speaker 7: stuff eventually, and you can front me on Facebook at
Speaker 7: I think Facebook dot COM's last two cents but I
Speaker 7: don't remember that. But yes, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 7: It's been great fun.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much, and I hope to hear from
Speaker 6: you again soon. I'm sure you'll be tackling something again,
Speaker 6: quite big. You might say boring, but I think might
Speaker 6: be very big, and then we might hear from you again.
Speaker 6: So I want to thank you very much. You have
Speaker 6: a great night.
Speaker 7: Thank you you too, Thank you, good night.