Even more contradictions.
I do appreciate that he didnt want his grandmother to be in jeopardy for his dealing weed… and “dont trust cops” and everything.
My biggest apprehension about the case is the timing. But I blame that mostly on the cops who were, imo, focused more on creating a story than finding the truth. Seems like the “holes” in the story can be linked back to shoddy police work, and that is something I have no problem questioning. Or to put it differently, I think maybe this wouldnt have been such a confusing case if the detectives did a better job.
I recommend reading the entire Intercept piece. The entire case, as Sara Koenig depicted it in Serial, revolves around Jay’s credibility, not just as a witness but as a human being. I mean either he made up Adnan’s involvement or Adnan’s guilty as charged. No two ways about it.
I’m curious why he chose not to talk with Koenig but chose to with The Intercept. I hope the second part might explain his circumspection towards the podcast. Otherwise, this lends a lot of credibility to Jay that seemed lacking previously and rounds him out better. His explanations for the inconsistencies are plausible. His explanations for his role and how the circumstances came to be are extremely plausible. He comes off as very credible in this piece thus far.
Any and all contradictions are great news for Sarah Koenig.
Serial: Season 3 soon to be announced.
Well, for starters, The Intercept isn’t sponsored by Mail . . . Kimp?
Or, his explanations for the inconsistencies just make it more plausible that he’s a (hyperbole alert) lying cheaterhead. He’s already said he was lying about his involvement, but was persuaded to cooperate when the cops said they weren’t interested in prosecuting him for drugs. It seems plausible that said cooperation could take the form not of telling the truth about the murder, but rather corroborating the detectives’ theories about the murder.
Picture this: the detectives are sure Adnan did it (after all, it usually is the boyfriend/husband), they just don’t have enough evidence to convict, so they lean on Jay to fill in the holes in their case. It wouldn’t be the first time the ends justify the means, so to speak.
I could see it happening either way.
I think that’s a large part of the appeal of the podcast and what sucks people into this case. There’s no smoking gun. A lot of it boils down to precariously balanced “he said/she said” arguments and circumstantial evidence that could mean one thing, or more-or-less its opposite, depending on how you look at it. We just don’t have enough information to come to a definitive conclusion, and our minds, pattern matching machines that they are, can’t resist trying to fill in the blanks, to extract the signal from the noise.
On the other hand, I kind of feel like it’s all fun and games (to speculate) until you remember that Jay and Adnan are real live people and Hei was really murdered. Which makes me feel ambivalent about even posting this.
He’s already said he was lying about his involvement, but was persuaded to cooperate when the cops said they weren’t interested in prosecuting him for drugs. It seems plausible that said cooperation could take the form not of telling the truth about the murder, but rather corroborating the detectives’ theories about the murder.
There’s a world of difference between fudging the truth like withholding information or little white lies by Jay to protect others close to him AND fabricating whole cloth a story (or even corroborating a theory by the detectives) about Adnan’s involvement in a murder – to send the guy away to prison, potentially for life. That’s a leap most don’t take. All other evidence aside, Jay’s credibility is the smoking gun. If Jay’s telling the truth about what happened, Adnan is guilty as sin. If Jay’s lying, Adnan’s innocent.
Jay is now credible enough to me to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Adnan snapped and had a psychotic episode. Adnan may not even remember it or may be keeping it repressed. The cops got their man, if you ask me. Whether he’s worthy of parole and how our criminal justice system treats rehabilitation and recidivism is an entirely different topic.
Over seven million businesses all over the world use a male chimp to send email, hi5s, etc.
I agree that the case hinges on Jay’s testimony, but if you can reasonably doubt his credibility then it’s hardly a smoking gun, strictly speaking (to me, “smoking gun” means hard evidence, the kind of proof that needs no interpretation or explanation).
At that time, even among his friends, Jay had a reputation for embellishment, for inserting himself into stories. Maybe he told a self-serving little white lie, something that seemed to him like he was only protecting himself, but to the detectives seemed like he knew more than he was letting on, and it spiraled out of control from there.
Again, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. It just seems weird that we can say, oh yeah, I can understand why Jay would’ve lied at first and that makes him totally believable now. And we can say, oh yeah, if Adnan killed her, of course he’d lie about it protect himself. But we can’t say, oh yeah, it makes sense that he’d tell the truth if he didn’t kill her? Like we could believe he was innocent if he had a better story with an airtight alibi, but since his story is so unsatisfying…
I guess I wouldn’t be surprised if Adnan did it. Maybe the cops did get their man, and I’m just uncomfortable with how they did it.
Yeah, this is an example of, “even if Adnan did it, should he have been convicted?”. Or put another way, is it better to have a guilty person walk than an innocent person imprisoned?
Adnan may have committed murder, but the US justice system should not have convicted him. Based on Jay’s testimony, retractions, and " white lies" I believe there is reasonable doubt.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.