Serial's Adnan Syed Exonerated?

⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.lin... ⚖️
Serial took a deep dive and now Adnan Syed is free. 🍋 Go to legaleagle.lin... to get 60% off of HelloFresh plus FREE shipping at (code: LEGALEAGLE60)
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.lin...
🔔 Give Mr. ScowlOwl a sub! / @scowlowl
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.lin...
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: [e-mail]
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.lin...
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.lin...
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.lin...
Facebook: legaleagle.lin...
Tik Tok: legaleagle.lin...
Instagram: legaleagle.lin...
Reddit: legaleagle.lin...
Podcast: legaleagle.lin...
OnlyFans legaleagle.lin...
Patreon legaleagle.lin...
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at [e-mail]
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers

[@LegalEagle]

⚖ What should we cover next? 🍋 Get 60% off with Hello Fresh using code LEGALEAGLE60 legaleagle.link/hellofresh

[@krybling]

hmm you need money i can buy you something to eat if you want

[@James-ju1wb]

What about the possible Special Counsel if Trump starts running for office while legal cases are proceeding? Or what happens to his political bids if he's convicted? Can he be re-elected President and then be convicted?

[@ElevenBird]

On theme you should look at the case of Joey Watkins

[@johnnamorton6744]

Ild love for you to cover the court case in Kentucky where the state took children from a mother because she mouthed off to the worker. The Federal Court overturned the termination because the state violated her constitutional rights.

[@kristinalapp388]

On the podcast trend, a video on the Flores trial, which is covered by the Your Own Backyard podcast would be fascinating

[@jessemeyer3052]

One thing I found legally odd about this case, according to what I've read: In 2019, the Maryland court agreed that Syed had deficient legal council, but also ruled that he could not challenge the cell phone records because that issue was not raised in the first trial. This is puzzling to me, since the latter seems directly related to the former.

[@patrickdix772]

It seems a bit crazy that not challenging a piece of evidence during a trial prevents you from challenging it in a later appeal, when new information may bring that evidence into question.

[@Matrim42]

Yeah, the purpose of that rule is to keep people from attempting to relitigate the entire case on appeal, but when council is found deficient they really should just grant a new trial full stop. There’s just too much that can get screwed up when a lawyer is incompetent.

[@teelo12000]

Also maybe nobody knew about questioning the technology in 1999 because the flaws in the technology weren't known back then. Technological developments should matter.

[@lukes9192]

They argued that the counsel was deficient *because* they didn't question a witness as they should have. Appeals court decided that the reason they were accused of being ineffective didn't impact the outcome. It doesn't seem reasonable to me that the fact that they agree that a move constituted deficient performance would mean they will now assume that every other unrelated decision that a lawyer makes now also constitutes deficient representation. It's not like "oh a lawyer made a critical error that could change the case, must be that they have no idea how to lawyer and every single decision they made was unacceptable". If they could show that the lawyer had been notified about issues with the phone records and didn't follow up or look into them at all, maybe they could use inefficient assistance to bring it back it, but a lawyers choice of legal strategy doesn't fall under that umbrella.

[@Olsenator]

@@teelo12000 that’s a good point. Law is fun

[@KyunaCookies]

I think, innocent or guilty he should not have been found guilty with as little that they actually had. There was so much internal bias during every single part of the investigation

[@norge0209]

This was exactly my thought. I couldn’t decide if I’d render him innocent or guilty because I didn’t feel I had enough evidence. I’ve still never decided if he did it for not, and that’s not up to me. I just keep thinking “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There are so many doubts.

[@richardommundsen2417]

@@norge0209 yeah. I think he did it. I don't think they had enough to convict

[@kleeklee4572]

He did it. He did it for sure.

[@floating_in_glass]

​@@kleeklee4572 If it's so clear he did it, then it should have been easy for the state to build a solid case. We can't just put people in prison because we're convinced they committed a crime. Even if we're positive, if we don't have the evidence, then they walk. Tbf, we put people in prison on shakier cases than Syed's, but that doesn't make it "just."

[@TheBoogerJames]

that was my thinking as well. regardless of actual guilt, the prosecution was severly lacking and I never thought that they proved his guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[@Mrinsecure]

The Adnan Syed case lays out, better than almost anything I've ever seen, all the ways that things can go wrong during a criminal case. Witnesses can be self-serving, evidence can be botched or misinterpreted, lawyers can screw up or engage in shady behavior, and technology never, *ever* works the way you think it should.

[@ginnyjollykidd]

A case for the law books, for sure. Perhaps the basis for law school curriculum for decades to come?

[@ZombiZohm]

The technology works fine for what it was. It's just that newer technology has come out since then that is more refined and accurate. Maybe someday technology will be accurate enough that we will know the truth

[@parkinfurkmaz2877]

Uhh did we watch the same video? Jay Wilds still maintains his position and Asia McClain has nothing to gain from her proclamation (neither do the classmates that say she's lying), there was no evidence to botch, the lawyers here didn't engage in shady behaviour during this case, technology worked as intended?

[@pennyether8433]

Yet another arm-chair investigator assumes the justice system, and the dozens involved, are all wrong... without knowing f-all about the actual case. Look at the actual evidence and the testimony. Witness was shown the body and told the manner in which the victim was killed. Witness told this to yet another witness. Both witnesses told investigators that the victim was strangled (and where her car was) before this was even known to the public or the investigators.

[@takanara7]

Yeah and if you're poor and can't afford good lawyers no one will even bother checking any of that stuff.

[@srg24601]

What I find most depressing is there's no "good" ending. If he's guilty and now benefitting from technicallities, then a murderer is loose and the victim's family has to live with knowing he won't be fully punished. If he's innocent then he's lost years of his life due to an unfair bias against him and if anyone looks him up thry're going to find a bunch of true crime podcasters saying he's killed someone. Plus the real perpetrator has faced no consequences. It's just sad all around.

[@JNB0723]

Exactly my thoughts. Although, I stand with Lee's family in thinking Adnan killed her. Just my opinion tho and nothing more than that!

[@EebstertheGreat]

If he was guilty, he still spent 23 years in prison for a crime he committed as a child. I know people have different ideas about what constitutes adequate punishment, but that's not nothing.

[@amshermansen]

@@EebstertheGreat Yeah that's something at least - That timeframe is roughly considered "Life" in parts of Europe, unless there are circumstances.

[@Jasmixd]

@@EebstertheGreat Yup, as a European, I'm honestly shocked how frequent life sentences are in the US. For comparison, in my country, which is home to around 8 or 9 times less people than America, we don't even have half a thousand of prisoners for life. In the US that number is bigger than 200 000 from what I could find, so more than 40 times the amount, and that's already taking the population difference into consideration! Heck, there's only two times as many prisoners for life here than there are death row inmates in the US (both per capita). I assume justice is ubiquitous, so how come? Is it really just the difference in crime levels? This comment turned into something of a semi-related rant, I'm sorry for that, but I still wanted to share what I found out.

[@EebstertheGreat]

@@Jasmixd There may be differences in enforcement (i.e. the fraction of criminals caught, convicted, and sentenced) and in criminality (i.e. the number of crimes committed), but I expect the biggest difference is in the length of sentences. The U.S. has some of the longest prison sentences on the planet. It's not really the life sentences that are the biggest contributor, it's all the other felony sentences, which can often exceed 20 years, particularly for repeat offenders. A repeat thief in Ohio can theoretically get a sentence of 21 years for a single offense. In some states, repeat drug offenses can lead to sentences of 30 years or more, which is basically a life sentence. Most people don't serve the entire sentence behind bars (with up to half served on parole), but some do, and either way it's an incredibly long sentence. Capital punishment is even worse, albeit very rare in all states except Texas. That's not just for murder or treason either. I was shocked to learn that aggravated kidnapping is a capital offense in many states.

[@ZoeAlleyne]

I have kept away from this case due to the uh... social media "investigators" who are often little more than gossips on reddit, so it was good to see a simple legal breakdown.

[@ZoeAlleyne]

@Ben Smith you are so lucky, I envy you. I love "true crime" but steer clear of true crime podcasts and the like because honestly most of the time the fandoms for them are...too extra for me, but didn't manage to avoid hearing about this one.

[@x808drifter]

@Ben Smith Neither have I.

[@CzolgoszWorkinMan]

@Ben Smith second most popular, after the adam friedland show (and its predecessor)

[@AlyssaTheGeek]

@Ben Smith I live in Baltimore and I only heard about it because someone told me to avoid going past the courthouse the day he was freed. It was wild.

[@TheCinder24]

The podcast was good. It showed how convoluted the case was and that the evidence could be interpreted many ways. I just came away from listening to it thinking he did not get a fair trial, not that he was innocent.

[@marvellousm]

I was left feeling very ambivalent after Serial ended. I wasn't convinced that Syed was necessarily innocent, but I definitely felt that his trial was utterly inadequate in proving he was guilty. My heart goes out to the victims' family, I feel like they have been utterly disregarded in their grief as people got caught up in the sensationalist aspects of the case. In the end that poor girl is still dead.

[@Les020519]

I agree with your sentiment. The issue I’m left with is that in our country, you are innocent until proven guilty. This case shows how someone can be convicted of a crime that the state has not truly shown guilty with substantial evidence. How many have been subject to capital punishment in much the same way? It’s scary if we allow someone guilty to walk the streets but it’s also injustice if we allow someone to rot in prison for something they did not do. That’s why we’re supposed to rely on the rule of law, and in this case I’m just not sure that the prosecution did the right thing. It seems more that they relied on bias about who he is culturally rather than evidence that proves his guilt. Unfortunately there are only victims in this case and I wonder if that would have been the case had investigators done their due diligence.

[@takanara7]

@@Les020519 Poor people get way less legal work done on their cases then Adnan did. If the same standard were applied to them like 95% of cases against poor people would have to be thrown out.

[@Les020519]

@@takanara7 Agreed. It’s why the rich rarely face consequences at all. On top of that our bail system operates in much the same way. These who have money, no problem.

[@dlouc100]

I felt the same. There has since been new info about the case though that has absolutely convinced me he is innocent

[@stevenmclennan1953]

That's pretty much how I felt after the podcast. It didn't really highlight his innocence, but identified the shitty trial he got and his temperament as a person more than anything.

[@aqwthetroop]

Wait. The only evidence you need to convict someone for murder, a potentially lifelong sentence, is: a proper motive, an unreliable alibi, and some evidence that you *maybe* may have been in the vicinity of the victim within the timeframe of their death? That's insane.

[@sicksock435446]

Don't forget an unreliable witness who was (probably) coerced into testifying by the investigators. Remember Wilde was facing a decade and change himself for dealing marijuana.

[@meinelust]

Reading between the lines, also skin color.

[@oldvlognewtricks]

Welcome to the stupid side of US criminal procedure

[@guitarsoupify]

@@meinelust Yes, this story doesn't happen to white christians.

[@elkosins1686]

Oh and religion apparently

[@rezavojdani5908]

Whether you think Adnan is truly innocent or not is besides the point. Just based on the evidence presented, he should not have been convicted. The case had all the hallmarks of bad criminal investigation practices: poor/misuse of technical forensic evidence (cell phone records), conditional and shaky testimony from Jay that was based on reduced charges for other crimes, failure to record Jay's initial interrogation, tunnel vision on a single suspect... It is a good thing for all of us when bad convictions are overturned and the government is forced to reckon with its mistakes and encourage better practices.

[@CT_Taylor]

Its true that its a good thing when they overturn bad cases, but the amount of bad cases doesnt go down from it... they are encouraged to keep going because of the supreme court removing remedies and deterrents based on legal fiction

[@RabblesTheBinx]

​@@alexham7356 I mean, it's possible that the real killer was arrested for an unrelated crime and is in prison, but yeah, chances are that whoever killed Lee is currently not in prison.

[@AlyssaTheGeek]

Let's also add "a heavy dose of racism" to the list of bad criminal investigation practices while we're at it.

[@tophers3756]

Well, that's certainly your opinion.

[@shaunmcisaac782]

@@alexham7356 If the real culprit is the "serial sexual assaulter" that person is likely already in jail for something else.

[@Money4Nothing]

I'm an electrical engineer and I remember reading the AT&T Expert Witness testimony about the cell calls at 7 PM. He vastly overestimated the reliability and precision of triangulation technology available at the time. The defense should have been able to have an expert witness shoot down this testimony, but the prosecution was able to use it as if it was fact. Not good.

[@Dragon7398]

Not mentioned in this video, but the original expert witness was in the most recent hearings, testifying against the prosecution, and noting that his first testimony was based on bad facts.

[@ZombiZohm]

Are you coming from this with a prospective from the future or a perspective from that time. Was he vastly overestimating the reliability of a cell Trace even for the time or would technicians just have not known any better

[@MisBabbles]

@@ZombiZohm I'm not the person you're asking, but I worked for a cell company in the early 2000s and even at the sales level it was common knowledge that triangulation of towers being accurate was bull. I had it explained like this: your call goes to the closest tower, except if there's a lot of traffic, then it goes to the next one with capacity. Take that explanation for what it's worth, but pretty much tower ping accuracy is only in the movies.

[@rjr81]

There are other reasons to think the critical incoming calls aren't useful for determining location, but the bad assumption that strongest signal in an area around a year later was the one his phone would have used often gets overlooked.

[@rjr81]

@@ZombiZohm It was more an issue of the prosecutor overstating the expert's findings, turning a finding that the evidence is consistent with this conclusion into the evidence proving that conclusion to the exclusion of others (he could be there versus he had to be exactly there). However, there also was a problem with the technician not being aware of specifics of the way the data was recorded because his expertise was in the radio signals. Once seeing the disclaimer about incoming calls, he acknowledged that he couldn't make any findings about them anymore.

[@CLKagmi23]

I must admit what I immediately thought when this case was being described (first time I'm hearing about it) was the sheer number of times I've been investigating a crime story and found out that the "witnesses for the prosecution" were literally all people who were in legal trouble themselves and had almost certainly been offered plea deals by police in exchange for their testimony towards conviction. There are SEVERAL prominent cases like this where someone has been convicted of a murder but it turns out the "eyewitness testimonies" do not agree with each other and it also turns out that literally all of the eyewitnesses were facing potentially life-destroying consequences for their own illegal activities from the same police department or prosecutor when they agreed to testify against the suspect. What's particularly infuriating is that this most often happens to low-income suspects who have associates in the drug trade or sex work, while wealthier criminals are usually basically immune from having police and prosecutors coerce witnesses to testify against them because their associates and neighbors have less to fear from law enforcement and the courts.

[@swistedfilms]

If you want a little more context on innocent people being convicted then look up the speech R. Budd Dwyer gave on the day that he died. He was absolutely positive that the state had executed innocent people. Content warning: the speech ends with his death, so turn off the video as he's handing out the various envelopes to people in the room.

[@poiu477]

Don't forget that most of the time those activities are things that shouldn't be illegal like drug use. The state has no business telling adults what substances they use. Especially when the majority of used recreational drugs are less harmful than alcohol. “You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” ~ John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon

[@Melesniannon]

@@poiu477 Where's that citation from?

[@poiu477]

@@Melesniannon "Dan Baum, the author of 1996's "Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure," wrote in Harper's Magazine in 2016 that while researching his book, Ehrlichman gave a reason for the war of drugs that had little to do with protecting Americans from reefer madness."

[@poiu477]

@@Melesniannon So, from an article in Harper's, by an author who interviewed Ehrlichman.

[@austinluther5825]

Thank you SO MUCH for mentioning the DNA at the end. I'm a laboratory scientist and while DNA evidence is good evidence to have, it is not the smoking gun that some people think it is. And absence of DNA is definitely not proof that someone wasn't involved. There are so many reasons that DNA wouldn't be detected on a piece of evidence. I was actually almost brought on as an expert witness in an estate dispute that I performed the DNA analysis for. They ended up settling so I didn't have to testify.

[@kellyalvarado6533]

Was on a jury once where defense tried to make a point that neither the defendant's DNA nor fingerprints were on the gun. Which was an absurd point since prosecution stated gun was in a small bag (a Chivas Regal liquor bag). Interesting experience being on that jury!

[@austinluther5825]

@@kellyalvarado6533 I'm not a lawyer, but it was probably a good strategy for the defense. It doesn't prove the defendant didn't handle the gun by itself; hope there was more evidence to back up that claim. That's the thing. It's not about finding the one magic piece of evidence. You want as much evidence as possible and reconstruct the scene as best you can. There's a fascinating case where a Washington state resident was arrested for a bombing in Paris because fingerprints matching his were found at the scene. The man had never left the US in his entire life and had alibis to the moon and back. Eventually an Algerian national was apprehended for connections to an extremist group and his fingerprints also matched those of the Paris bombing, which he completely confessed to being a part of. The Washington guy was held by police for weeks because he just happened to have nearly identical fingerprints to a man halfway across the world.

[@kellyalvarado6533]

@@austinluther5825 The whole case was that he was in possession of the gun. It wasn't that he *used* it for any crime. Police claimed it fell out of his pocket while they were chasing him. That was literally the entire case. It boiled down to the word of one police officer saying that's what he saw. Defense was essentially arguing that if there was no DNA or fingerprints then he couldn't possibly have been in possession. Which is simply a silly argument.

[@austinluther5825]

@@kellyalvarado6533 Wow. Yeah, that's not a lot to go on either way.

[@pennyether8433]

Hey, Mr. Scientist, why not mention that it was touch DNA that has a very short shelf-life and would not survive well at all given the body was buried in the wilderness for a month, and that the evidence was 20 years old and not stored in a manner which would preserve touch DNA since that technology didn't exist at the time?

[@DanteAtropos]

Why do I have a feeling this poor woman death will never be cleared up? The police and the court have really failed the community.

[@pedrogarcia8706]

I think only like 6% of murders are solved in the US. Check me on those numbers but either way it's not a lot. EDIT: it's closer to 50% my bad

[@thatjackal74]

@@pedrogarcia8706 still not great

[@GarrettPetersen]

Multiple DNA profiles, though. They have what they need to find the killer. Only question is whether they will.

[@teelo12000]

I theorise that like a lot of murders, it will eventually be conclusively solved, just not in our lifetimes. It will require technology that hasn't been invented yet.

[@teelo12000]

@@GarrettPetersen I thought about this. DNA on shoes is questionable, though. Do we know what it was? Blood? Skin flakes? Sweat? Blood could be worth an investigation, but anything else could have come from anywhere. She had been in a school. Skin flakes and sweat are slashing around all over the place while the students are in close quarters. And gravity does its thing as usual. Shoes could have picked up anything off the floor/ground.

[@JeffNichols_pgh]

I'm not sure who killed Lee. However the part of the story that never sat well with me was Jay's piece. By Jay's own account, he and Syed were not great friends. Sooo, you have a casual weed-smoking friend and you not only keep quiet about a murder that person confesses to you (including showing you the body), but you then help that person dispose of the body, making you an accessory to murder? Whether Jay was dealing weed or not, I don't think anyone would actually act that way.

[@ccggenius]

I mean... maybe he was high?

[@frozenheart7133]

@@ccggenius I don’t think being high makes you more likely to hide a body. Unless there was a promise of Doritos 😂

[@takanara7]

> Sooo, you have a casual weed-smoking friend and you not only keep quiet about a murder that person confesses to you He didn't keep quiet about the murder at all, that's how Adnan got caught. He had been telling people about what happened, and he talked to the cops about it once they interviewed him.

[@picklefish74]

I think Jay killed her. All of the info about what Syed had done, came from him.

[@EMurph42]

@@picklefish74 sounds logical to me. Benefits him to put it on another manas well.

[@Seek1878]

This is one of those cases I'm honestly 50/50 on whether he's guilty or not. But what is a fact is that his lawyer was horrible.

[@robertjarman3703]

If it is 50/50, then by definition you have not proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and anyone familiar with American law knows that is the standard.

[@toddr2265]

He wasn't very helpful in his own defense either.

[@davechongle]

im just hearing of this case from this video, and i cant decide either. the legal eagle special indeed.

[@HaruHoneybun]

So what you mean to say is that you believe he's innocent, because you've not been shown enough to convince you for sure that he's guilty. There is no 50/50 about this, you are innocent until proven guilty, unless you disagree with that notion?

[@mckernan603]

It goes a little deeper: his lawyer actually wasn't horrible, and it was his second lawyer. Cristina Guttierez was simply used as a scapegoat by Rabia Chaudry which led to Sarah Koenig/Serial imparting us with that narrative. The Asia letter (the basis of the motion to vacate) was actually a mis-dated forgery, and Guttierez rightly rejected it.

[@greenmind3488]

The unbiased legal view is always refreshing. Honestly, what it sounds like is that this case was a mess on both ends. I'm honestly not convinced if he's innocent or guilty, but I do think there is reasonable doubt. There's too many variables up in the air to be 100% certain.

[@christopheraplin]

Yeah, I agree. Reasonable doubt is a strong standard, but having Wild testify that he saw the body and then relayed that information to another person at the time would be pretty damning on its own (and he hasnt changed his story about seeing the body).

[@FieldMarshalFry]

And if there is reasonable doubt, then the legal standard is they must go free

[@loke6664]

I kinda think he is probably guilty, but there are reasonable doubts and mainly so since both the prosecutors and the defense investigations were pretty poorly done. It is certainly worth having someone competent dig a bit, if he actually is innocent that means there is a murderer walking free which I think we can all agree is bad or new evidence might prove he is guilty. I don't think someone else DNA on the shoes means someone else must have killed her though, there are plenty of reasons why someone's DNA would end up on the shoes. On the underwear is one thing, that is pretty hard to explain away but they found nothing there.

[@state_song_xprt]

That was my takeaway from the podcast. I can't confidently say he's innocent but it seems like there's reasonable doubt here, hence the whole podcast about it.

[@alisonstevens7376]

Please listen to Undisclosed and/or watch the HBO documentary. When I first listened to Serial I came away thinking that there was reasonable doubt but that he may well have done it. An actual, in depth look at the case shows that Syed is innocent. Jay Wildes was a young and vulnerable black drug dealer who was threatened and manipulated by Baltimore cops into closing their case. His entire story was made up - it doesnt fit with forensics such as lividity and DNA. The other witnesses supposedly corroborating his story have been debunked. Multiple cases prosecuted by these same cops have been found to be wrongful convictions for similar reasons. This was a not-uncommon practice in the Baltimore PD. Some cases are legitimately hard to parse even when looked at closely - this isn't one of them. I really wish people would stop making statements about the case without doing actual research.

[@Matrim42]

“What we’re those reasons [that other known suspects weren’t pursued]?” Oh, that’s an easy one. Because investigators already decided they had their man. There are countless examples of police and DAs not following up other leads or suspects because they think they’ve already got a case so why muddy the waters? Police and prosecutors, on the whole, aren’t concerned with the truth of the matter, they care about closing cases and getting convictions.

[@osama4318]

I know literally nothing about the Syed dude or the case in question and have no preconceived notions regarding any of it but the lawyer with a KZbin channel that makes short videos about how the LE is untrustworthy saying that shit without expounding on it is weird af

[@RisingSunfish]

One thing he didn’t mention that the podcast did was that one of the detectives was apparently charged with misconduct a few years after the trial? Not for the Syed proceedings, but it still throws suspicion on how everything was handled by the police in this investigation.

[@rjr81]

Exactly. Corrupt police who only care about getting their arrest and conviction will not do anything that might reveal evidence that could ruin the story they are working with at the time. Just look at what happened when they misread the cell tower data for a bit. It wasn't relevant to the murder whether they were in a particular area at that time, but it was important for the case that Jay's story matched the cell tower locations. When it didn't, they pressured him into saying they went somewhere that matched where they believed they had to be and then when they realized their mistake, they had to pressure him to say that he was mistaken again.

[@4203105]

@@RisingSunfish he wasn't just charged. Multiple of his cases were thrown out because it was proven that he intimated witnesses, threatened to pin drug charges on them of they didn't say what he wanted them to, etc. Sounds familiar? It should, because the only witness in Syed's case was a known drug dealer who got no jail time after he agreed to testify.

[@Les020519]

Attorney Generals, Governors and Mayors are elected officials with a pressure to convict so that their communities “feel safe.” They don’t in fact have to be safe. I’m not sure what the answer is, but it just seems that their incentives may not be aligned with the “innocent until proven guilty” belief our justice system seems to purport.

[@chefmdecamp]

Can more news be like this, where an expert just lays out the facts without frothing into opinions?

[@Retroactive_R]

People don’t often pay for the truth, just what they want to hear. Bias is unavoidable when it comes to wider reaching news coverage.

[@LuisSierra42]

Wouldn't make money

[@Alexander-cg1ey]

There actually is a lot of that if you bother to look for it

[@daf15]

Theres a difference between news, opinion/editorial, and expert analysis (expert opinion). the cable news channels (somewhat purposefully) make this confusing to the viewer.

[@JoshuaJayMusic]

I think people often forget that there are many people who commit murder and get 10 to 15 years sentences. He sat in jail for over 20 years, that's the entire reason it was dropped. He essentially served his time, the new DA would look silly spending millions on another trial for him that would likely fail. Much easier to just let hin out knowing he did a murder sentencem

[@kingdaymon6433]

Also he was a minor at the time all of this happened so it's insane that a 17-year-old can get a life sentence in the first place.

[@ginnyjollykidd]

I agree he did a murder sentence.

[@alisonstevens7376]

I mean. The prosecutors said they were letting him out because they believe he is innocent. Do you know some secret information that they are lying about their motives?

[@ZombiZohm]

I don't exactly see him on talk shows or social media proclaiming his innocence. The best thing to do after all this time would be to try to quietly live his life and hope this whole nightmare Fades away Unless technology greatly advances this will just be another unsolved mystery

[@alisonstevens7376]

@@ZombiZohm The investigation is ongoing with multiple viable suspects. As far as cold cases go I think there is a real possibility of it being solved. It was never properly investigated in the first case because the cops immediately decided Syed did it. Some of that investigation can happen now.

[@mootneyvlogs6677]

It kinda feels like Adnan was prosecuted based solely on: motive, opportunity and some dude saying he did it. That's flimsy as hell

[@4203105]

And even the motive is super flimsy.

[@divideby000]

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you THE most brutal transition to a HelloFresh ad in human history.

[@UnreasonableOpinions]

This is the thing about true crime audiences. What the audiences says they crave, and may even believe they crave, is justice. What they actually crave is emotional satisfaction - the satisfaction of finding a thing they can label as true, the satisfaction of finding the 'real [insert crime]', the satisfaction of karmic reprisal of consequences befalling someone who sought to evade them. This is normally fine - these are some of the reasons we've been telling stories since before we could write - but they have very real problems whenever they step onto the territory of actual crimes with real consequences. Justice is hard enough to come by in the justice system; the best you can usually hope for is for the scales to be tilted slightly closer to where they would have been before the crime. But emotional satisfaction is completely absent. The best possible outcomes is that someone who was innocent and had their life destroyed gets the slight vindication of being found not guilty and the reduced harm of no longer facing a prison sentence, or that someone who has done irreparable damage to lives has some damage done to them and will do less damage to others in future. There's no satisfaction to be found there. We don't get the 'truth', we get the vast scope of reality reduced to two perspectives with limited information forced to batter against each other to find the winner. We don't get the certainty of finding the 'real killer' since even the cleanest cases will always have elements of doubt or incompletion. We don't get the satisfaction of karmic reprisal, because the best you can hope for is for some damage to be done to the person who seems most to blame, and nobody to be made better. That is what makes the true crime genre dangerous - people who are crusading for emotional satisfaction are going to manufacture it for themselves. When audiences want a killer, they will find the least-worst fit and assign them as killer regardless of how bad the evidence is. When audiences want conclusive evidence, they will identify the evidence that seems the most relevant and assign it as conclusive regardless of how relevant it actually is. When audiences want a clean narrative that explains it all, they will put the pieces that fit together most neatly and assign it as a conclusive explanation based entirely on its elegance - never mind that elegance and reality are simply not the same thing. Worst of all, because they believe this quest for emotional satisfaction is actually a quest for justice - and therefore inherently justified - it can become a crusade. When you seek to dissuade them from doing damage in the quest for satisfaction, you are seen as denying the world justice, and if need be must be removed or destroyed - in the most extreme cases up to and including the very victims of crime that these audiences proclaim themselves to be seeking justice for. This is the responsibility that true crime journalists bear. You know going into every case that you may find yourself at the head of a large and voracious audience. You know how easy it is to feed the audience and create a crusade, even by accident. You know that by far the best way to short-term success and profit is to manufacture and steer this crusade. You know that the most successful formats - sharp twists, fast answers, clean narratives, obvious villains - are the least realistic, and inflict the most collateral damage. And you know that the only way you can actually make a difference in a case is to cause disruption, and that the more you disrupt the less you can predict where the consequences will fall. It's incredibly hard to balance, and so easy to slide that you can do it by degrees or even by accident, without realising. You are bearing the responsibility for the irrationality of others, and the only way to offload that responsibility is to have no audience at all. The Serial podcast is often held up as one of the best examples of casual True Crime investigation in terms of thoroughness and responsibility - and the sad part is that it is leagues ahead of most. When this is the best you can reasonably expect, and this is as good as it is, it speaks very poorly of the... genre, if you like.

[@mantasr]

He's absolutely guilty

[@collydub1987]

It's been a while since I watched a documentary on it, but yeah, I remember thinking at the time that he was definitely guilty

[@ProfHoff]

Thank you for your in depth explanations and amazing creativity regarding complex legal issues! You always treat your audience with respect on this channel while informing them.

[@carlfeibusch9308]

Being from Baltimore county just a few minutes from all of the places mentioned it’s super interesting to hear this summary and perspective outside of the context of being local. When talking about all of this it always feels like people know someone involved or something similar so it’s hard to just talk about the proceedings

[@LockelyFox]

Something that I didn't hear covered here is the reputation of the investigating police on this case after the fact. The detectives on this case had other life sentences overturned for fabricating evidence and railroading people into confessions that they didn't do. I don't know who did it, but Jay wasn't a trustworthy witness and the physical evidence was completely absent. I'm not certain whether he is guilty or innocent, but I am certain that Adnan did not get a fair trial.

[@alisonstevens7376]

Yes, the police seem to have a pattern of wrongful convictions, which I wish more people were talking about. What do you think of the lividity evidence and Kristi's story?

[@pennyether8433]

Your claims are untrue. There were only ever non-corroborated rumors of ONE investigator doing something somewhat crooked on OTHER cases way in the future. But, go ahead, cry me a river for a murderer. It doesn't change the actual evidence.

[@LockelyFox]

@@pennyether8433 Ritz also worked the case of Ezra Mable, who was exonerated of murder after 10 years, and the case of Sabein Burgess exonerated of murder after nineteen years in prison, where he withheld an interview of another man confessing to the murder, and was the lead detective in the case of Malcolm Jabbar Bryant, also wrongly convicted of murder and exonerated after seventeen years (including many years of appeals for DNA testing (which was fought tooth and nail by the State). In another case, appealled in 2002, judges noted that “Detective Ritz candidly acknowledged that he intentionally withheld the reading of the Miranda warnings during the first 90-minute stage of the interrogation”. Ritz left the BPD in 2012 “under a cloud”, after being named in Burgess’s lawsuit. He is not named in the BPD alumni website roll of honor for retired officers. But I'm sure that boot tastes incredible.

[@CPC36]

Syed killed that girl and has never admitted it; indeed allowed for people to lie about the victim, Jay and his case. I cannot believe a murderer walked free. Pathetic.

[@bravelyjake]

Y'know, as someone who classically supported the release of Adnan Syed, and largely still does, I wanted to thank you @ScowlOwl for the complete rundown, catching me up on years of happenings and feelings all around. I feel like you disclosed everything with a healthy focus both balance and brevity, while respecting both parties. In other words, if anyone gets mad at you, I don't think it's legit. Great job, and thanks @LegalEagle for having him on for this.

[@atiqrahman7289]

All charges against Adnan Syed have been dropped. Finally, after 23 years, it is about time to have justice for innocent ADNAN.

[@drcrocodile1]

Occam's Razor. Think about the insanely complex story you have to tell yourself if all the evidence against Syed is just amazing coincidence. He had obvious and clear motive, he wrote "I will kill" on her breakup letter, his cell phone pinged at both the burial site and the place the car was ditched. And a witness says he was shown the body by Syed. And he can't account for his whereabouts at the time of the murder. He sure is an unlucky guy. Obviously just a victim of a biased system.

[@Taj_Rahine]

I agree, it's baffling that so many people are somehow confused about this.

[@jb3nn3tt]

1. Cell phone data back then was largely unreliable, ask an engineer. The company even said so. 2. Even if the phone was actually at the site, Jay had Adnan’s phone . 3. Adnan had an alibi that the defense attorney never looked into, making him a victim of incompetent attorneys 4. Jay changed his story multiple times, even changing details as large as where the body was buried. If you had an event that large in your life, you wouldn’t forget these details. 5. Adnan didn’t care about breaking up very much. If I’m not mistaken, within a week he was already flirting with other girls. He was a ladies man, it was in his personality. He wouldn’t care about one that didn’t work out of the had others lined up. 6. Jay had an even better motive than Adnan. It’s obvious Jay did it.

[@psychospeech6189]

You have been brainwashed..​@@jb3nn3tt

[@jogo1666]

"The legal eagle thing, annoy every one that has a strong opinion" I love it

[@johanandersson7141]

Has this become a two-host show? If so (and if it’s with Spencer) I’m all for it! 👍

[@bobbyhamm4865]

I don't think those jurors from the original conviction understood what "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means.

[@ZombiZohm]

Seems like they did understand means, motive, opportunity, and no reliable alibi

[@lephtovermeet]

That's my take too. Seems plausible that Adnon killed Hei, maybe even probably, but undoubtable? Beyond any doubt? Far from it.

[@tupacalypse88]

@@lephtovermeet beyond any doubt isn't the bar

[@bobbyhamm4865]

@@paulthomas963 If half of me acts that way then how does the other half of me act?

[@shadowkestra]

Reasonable doubt is not the same as no doubt. The key word is reasonable. You can come up with farfetched explanations for doubt, but that is not the same as reasonable doubt.

[@PokhrajRoy.]

Devin and Spencer are an underrated comedy duo ❤

[@rybock]

Growing up in Baltimore County, having had a HS girlfriend who went to Woodlawn (about a decade before this), I know all these locations, and drove around them... and from my personal experience, I always had doubts about the timeline given how long it can take between locations... the roads and congestion sucks, and while one could look at a map and see Woodlawn is just around the corner from Best Buy, for example, it's not a 2 minute trip, it takes a lot longer than one would think. Same as to getting to the I-70 Park and Ride and to Leakin Park.

[@Seek1878]

They did accomplish the drive on Serial, but that's knowing every step and where to go to.

[@colonelweird]

I lived in Woodlawn around the time of this murder & drove past Woodlawn HS every day, but I don't remember hearing about this murder until Serial came out. You're right, the traffic was always a headache. The only big crime I remember from those days was when a guy held up a gas station/convenience store, and the owner pulled out a gun and they killed one another. This was about a block from where I worked, right next to the Double T.

[@mckernan603]

Really? It's 0.6 miles west on Security Blvd, 2 minutes easy. And Adnan was laughable claiming he didn't know where Leakin Park was... a total BS artist.

[@paradoxical_taco]

@@Seek1878 That drive by the folks on Serial proved to me that they didn't know enough about the method used to murder Hae to be doing a podcast on the case. Manual strangulation is very difficult to do & it’s not quick. I’ve learned this from watching and reading so much true crime and hearing that from cops, detectives, prosecutors, forensic experts, and medical examiners. According to the police timeline the Serial hosts used, Adnan had just moments to kill Hae. No one is arguing Adnan had ever committed a murder before Hae, so he would not have been an efficient killer if he had done it. Don’t think about how Adnan looks today; he’s much bigger because that’s how you survive in prison. At the time Hae was murdered, he was much trimmer. Adnan was a high school athlete, but so was Hae. Hae would have been able to put up a fight for sure, even if Adnan would ultimately be able to overpower her. But that means it would have taken some time for Adnan to kill Hae. This means that the police/prosecutor’s timeline simply doesn’t work. Adnan could have driven that route with a few minutes to spare, but to manually strangle Hae in that same time frame isn’t possible. Even if he was able to knock her out before strangling her (which he didn’t, as there were no other significant wounds on Hae), it still takes several minutes to kill someone by manually strangling them. Side note: I also don’t think Adnan had a motive. The prosecution said that Adnan’s and Hae’s families were both opposed to their relationship because both families wanted them to date people from the same cultural or religious heritage. Both had problems with their families when they were caught sneaking around and telling some white lies so they could see each other. The family pressure caused them to break up a few times (and breaking up & getting back together with a high school bf or gf is a common thing bc teens are fickle) before their last break up, which has been presented as having more finality to it. But do we know they wouldn’t have gotten back together if Hae hadn’t been killed? When Adnan says he had no reason to kill Hae because those breakups were due to family pressures and friends of both Adnan & Hae said they never really took those breakups seriously because they never lasted, I believe them.

[@mckernan603]

@@paradoxical_taco oh please, she was 120lbs and skinny. The breakup was due to Adnan being a pain in the ass and not accepting that she was over him. He called her a devil.

[@nickmurray2390]

Ever since i heard Serial it changed the way I approach viewing legal guilt. Yea it is possible or likely Adnan killed her. It is absolutely ridiculous to say there was enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone who hardlines that he should be in prison has to be unable to imagine themselves in that scenario and they are okay with any miscarriage of justice of it doesn't impact their own lives. It is the same thing with people who support the death penalty, it is always based on the assumption they wont have to be the innocent person murdered.

[@oldvlognewtricks]

Easier to endorse totalitarianism if you assume it won’t happen to you

[@shadeitplease7383]

Another one that will make you question is Making a Murderer. The legal system is not to be blindly trusted, “facts” must be approached with a skeptically

[@mateohodge6998]

I'm terrified of being put in that predicament that's why I never talk to the police ever you get a lawyer because they will grill you as long as they please some people even take pleas or admit to crimes under duress just so they can go home

[@accountnotfound4209]

But who killed Lee? Its like that black baseball player who walked free of murder. Atleast this guy served 20 years in jailed

[@MateusAntonioBittencourt]

Exactly. There's not evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his guilty. The most they have is a bunch of inferences that shows is the mostly likely culprit. That is absolute NOTHING.

[@cmdrwilkens]

As a Marylander having a nice level headed take on the legal (and slightly dipping in to the political) issues around the exoneration has been super welcome.

[@micksbiggestfan4006]

My heart is broken for the victim and her family.

[@theknowlodge8294]

He’s so obviously guilty it drives me mad.

[@hypatiaalex]

with zero physical evidence and unreliable witness? he is nowhere guilty

[@ZabójczaŻaba]

@@hypatiaalex How as Jay Wilds unreliable? He only lied to protect people from being involved in this ****, like his grandmother.

[@stephenspackman5573]

This is all so bizarre. The witnesses all seem grossly unreliable and the motive seems contrived. It's not clear whether or not there was opportunity, but if “there may have been an opportunity” is the standard for conviction, we are not meeting the legal standards of the Spanish Inquisition, much less those of a modern democracy. So-in what way is this controversial? Why aren't lawyers willing to stand up for “innocent until proven guilty” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” in this case? That's what I'd really like to hear discussed.

[@norge0209]

They definitely should’ve informed the victim’s family ahead of time. That’s so messed up. NOTE: This is not about vigilante justice! It’s about common decency for the victim’s family who has to start reprocessing after 23 years. Not everything is about legality!

[@stephenspackman5573]

Why? They were in no danger and had no evidence to contribute, so what does the case have to do with them? They lost a daughter, and that's truly sad, but she could as easily have stepped into a well or crashed her car. The idea that the victim's family should get to decide who's guilty or what to do about it is barbaric. The rule of law is intended to supersede revenge.

[@norge0209]

@@stephenspackman5573 I didn’t say the victim’s family should get to decide anything. It’s pretty shocking to find out the person you believe has killed your child has been let out of jail. It’s common courtesy.

[@norge0209]

@@stephenspackman5573 How can you say “What does the case have to do with them?” There would be no case without their daughter.

[@stephenspackman5573]

@@norge0209 What would you do with that information? Arrange a reception? I'm truly not understanding what good comes of this idea.

[@norge0209]

@@stephenspackman5573 I’m truly not understanding why you don’t understand this. Have you ever lost someone tragically? It’s so they can get mentally prepared for their lives to turn upside down again.

[@ayyylmao101]

ScornOwl 💀 This episode was an awesome dressing-down, thank y'all!

[@Matt_The_Hugenot]

Seems to me Syed was being asked to prove his innocence. Prosecuters just went for the easiest suspect to convict based on his background rather than admitting they didn't have the evidence to secure a conviction.

[@4203105]

I mean it's Baltimore. That was their whole thing. Apparently "the wire" is almost a documentary.

[@jabberwocky8113]

Watch the Real Justice Warrior. He explains Adnan's guilt clearly. Also, Adnan called Hae Min everyday then abruptly stopped calling her the day she disappeared. Why? Because he knew she was dead.

[@WillAsplund]

abhorrent that so little evidence is enough to convict someone of first-degree murder. the maryland AG/DA should be ashamed.

[@sethdracanseth601]

On top of that his race and religion were used against him at the trial.

[@andrasfogarasi5014]

The AG/DA does not convict people, a judge and jury do. There's where the problem lies.

[@WillAsplund]

@@andrasfogarasi5014 the AD/DA brings the case. They never should have brought this case with such little evidence. I said what I said.

[@4203105]

@@andrasfogarasi5014 the jury can only decide on what is presented at trial. Here both the DA and police tempered with witnesses and experts (threatening Jay with drug charges, withholding the fax cover sheet for the cell records from the expert). The case was still extremely thin, and the jury shouldn't have convicted, but most of the blame lies with police and prosecutors.

[@MichaelKollman]

@@sethdracanseth601 This was pre-9/11, dumb@$$

[@gimpleg9913]

I don't see how this is even controversial. The only part that is controversial to me is the rarity of which convictions are overturned.

[@Capnmax]

"Gutierrez died in 2007" (Flashes chyron stating she suffered fatal heart attack in 2004).

[@s0niKu]

Anyone who's interested in this and hasn't already should check out the Undisclosed podcast. It's made by an attorney close to the case and goes a lot deeper into all the evidence in ways Serial didn't have the ability to. I found it a lot more interesting than the original podcast because of how it got into all the nuts and bolts of the case rather than just the feelings and opinions of people around it.

[@GarrettPetersen]

I second this ☝️

[@CJMGalaxy]

I couldn’t get through Serial because they were so good at spinning a narrative and jerking the listeners' emotions around that it felt as if they were treating it like fiction. Maybe Undisclosed will be more suited to my tastes, when it comes to true crime I'm an evidence guy - these are real people's lives, and treating them like a story seems deeply inappropriate to me.

[@alisonstevens7376]

@@CJMGalaxy yes, I think Undisclosed will be much more your speed. While I liked Serial when it first came out, you are absolutely right. Learning more about the case showed me that Serial approached the case prioritizing storytelling far above journalism. Undisclosed has been in part responsible for 10 exonerations across the US. They are the real deal

[@samanthaandmichaelwhitacre6564]

I scrolled way too long before seeing this! “Adnan’s Story” is also a good summary of his case

[@erinelizabethmsw5137]

Same. Loved it!

[@gretahelphrey7842]

I’ve just watched this episode for the first time and need to watch at least once more. So much content covered so quickly. (I wish KZbin had a speed setting.) Nevertheless, what concerns me more than the guilt or innocence of Adnan Sayed is the justice system we all depend on to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. And the fact that we may not get both no matter how careful we are. I want a system that protects the rights of the innocent even if this means the guilty may sometimes go free.

[@bengardner8639]

KZbin does have a speed setting, what are you talking about?

[@snakevenom8136]

KZbin does have a speed setting

[@nybbThering]

youtube does have a speed setting, look in the gear icon

[@gretahelphrey7842]

Thanks to all who shared that KZbin does have a speed setting. I’ll get on it right away.

[@platanoluver]

I think what i find strange about Asia's sighting of Adnan at the library is that, he never places himself there. I find it strange and i would suspect thats why his original lawyer never looked into her as an alibi witness.

[@JadeyCatgirl99]

Doesn't a criminal conviction (especially for murder) require an overwhelming amount of evidence? Motive, and opportunity are of course relevant, but they don't prove the overt act of murder happened. There was only one witness, and it sounds like there was very little forensic evidence at the trial. I won't pretend to know what actually happened that day, but it does not sound like the prosecution proved Syed's guilt beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. Am I missing something major here?

[@stevesether]

You're missing the fact that this is a 27 minute KZbin video, not a multi day or week trial. They aren't going to give you ALL the evidence. And obviously just watching a person testify themselves can tell you a lot if you believe them or not. A trial isn't just words on a page. Criminal convictions only take enough evidence and testimony to convince 12 people of someones guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 12 people that then talk to one another and argue back and forth. Real world criminal cases aren't like an episode of CSI with all that forensic evidence.

[@Tedfufu]

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not a shadow of a doubt. Syed had no alibi, had a reason to want that woman harmed, had a witness and some strong circumstantial and testimonial evidence linking him to the crime and the Jury believed that he did it. His lawyer failed him and didn't do a good job at defending him at all.

[@nine9nine9]

Part of it was his lawyer being awful, the other could also be racism.

[@4203105]

@@Tedfufu he really didn't have a motive. Also the lead detective has a bunch of his cases overturned. One of which was because he blackmailed witnesses with drug into false testimony. Sounds familiar? Of course the jury didn't know that at the time but for me now that alone throws more than reasonable doubt on this case.

[@anthonyhenderson8632]

@@4203105 His motive, in Hae Min's own words taken from her diary, was that he was controlling, possessive and refused to accept the fact that she had broken up with him. He reportedly told Jay Wilds, and allegedly told his mentor, Bilal Ahmed, that he would kill Hae Min. He also wrote the words, "I am going to kill" on a break up note Hae Min had written him. This along with the other circumstantial evidence seems pretty damning to me.

[@sicksock435446]

Really liking these crossovers... guest episodes? Very good so far.

[@shkotayd9749]

All I can get from this is its a clusterfuck of "he said, she said" now and not a lot of evidence, and a bunch of probable claims from many that contradict each other. He may have murdered the girl, and it looks like ScowlOwl leans that way. But I would guess no prosecution can meet that bar presently. And that shes under indictment of her own.....not good.

[@thething1710]

Adnan Syed is innocent. Look up the Undisclosed podcast for details, and the police are looking into 2 suspects that had motive and means to kill Hae Min Lee.

[@shkotayd9749]

@@thething1710 kk will check it out! Thanks!

[@helpyourcattodrive]

He did it.

[@SeanTheOriginal]

Just to be clear, he literally spent 23 years behind bars because "Yeah, he COULD have done it".

[@rjr81]

Worse. Because "Yeah, he COULD have done it based solely on what prosecutors said without giving the defense time to research and rebut those claims."

[@Mark-zk3gu]

Could is not the correct word to use. If you go over every single bit of circumstantial evidence, it really does not look good for him. In a civil court he would most certainly be found liable. My point is, he PROBABLY did do it, though I do think reasonable doubt exists.

[@whatsup3270]

and all the evidence pointed to him, and he had a motive. He did the crime, 20 years was too much for a 17 year-old in love. He should have done 10 years for second degree murder

[@pennyether8433]

Absolute dunce. Every single piece of evidence points to his guilt, and none of it provides any reasonable doubt. Go listen to some more NPR and pat yourself on the back for being a little arm-chair justice warrior. Pathetic.

[@paulashla]

@@Mark-zk3gu I mean the standard of proof is explicitly higher in criminal cases than civil cases. So I am not sure why your comment is relevant?

[@TakeruTakashi]

As someone who never heard of this case, I would love a movie about it telling everything we know and especulate about it without ever taking a side, to keep the audience thinking. It would be magnificent

[@DrLongWang]

Very surprising Syed's lawyer got disbarred, from what I understand that's pretty hard to do.

[@eklectiktoni]

that story is interesting in of itself actually if you look it up

[@haldosprime3896]

You’re doing good work, Spencer. Stay strong while Devon keeps putting you in the hot seat.

[@Chef42]

Regarding the editing: Making a cut at every beat (or breath) to zoom in or out feels unnecessary and is distracting. I find myself watching that so much that I am loosing track of the points being made. However, I still think this is just one more great episode! Thank you!

[@lobachevscki]

This was pleasant surprise of a video, it really was. You should cover more cases outside the internet/youtube sphere.

[@dakotaloven1362]

Him being guilt just does NOT make sense and the friend and witness sounds very suspicious

[@morpheus_uat]

the dude has a hotline directly connected with Spencer, he doesnt even has to dial!

[@sigheyeroll]

As someone who knows absolutely nothing about this case, I can't be offended just informed. And yay, more Spencer!

[@clintharrisjr.6999]

The drug dealer guy muddied the waters to the point where we don't know what happened. That's the prosecutors fault for bringing an unreliable witness right?

[@4203105]

Yes. Also the police's fault for feeding the drug dealer the story in the first place.

[@Phlimbob]

I think anyone who has been sincerely following this case can say Adnan may be guilty or innocent, but his trial was messed up and he could not have been found guilty in a reasonable trial since there is so much doubt left.

[@alisonstevens7376]

Based on that statement it sounds like you've done your research on the case. What do you think of the lividity evidence and Kristi's story? Because, as someone who has been following the case for years, I haven't reached the same conclusion. So I'm curious

[@buckstarwell7938]

A good summary…until the end. It was irresponsible to ignore Jay Wilds’ Intercept interview, and the core of the doubt in this case.

[@natashalawely2900]

Based on what was recapped here, Syed shouldn't have been convicted in the first place because there is still reasonable doubt of his guilt (actually, quite a lot of reasonable doubt). Most of the people I spoke to in Baltimore county at the time of his release were either lukewarm or happy about it. There are a whole host of issues with this case, but there ultimately isn't enough to say that Syed did or did not kill Hae Min Lee.

[@choicedecision]

As you described, this is a gross overview of the case, but an element that might have been worth mentioning were the police investigators involved, and who were the ones to interrogate Jay Wilde. That they were known for having been involved in other instances in poor police handling reflects poorly on how they acted in this trial, which could have been seen as bias and, as someone else posted, tunnel vision in a single suspect

[@RisingSunfish]

Yeah, I was waiting for this point to come up. 🫤

[@rjr81]

@@RisingSunfish Same. It was noteworthy that the prosecutor was willing to acknowledge his corruption as a reason to doubt this case. They tend to hate to acknowledge that police lie just to get better stats.

[@4203105]

"poor police handling" is an interesting euphemism for blackmailing witnesses into giving false testimony.

[@choicedecision]

@@4203105 couldn’t remember the exact details but they were known to coerce witnesses

[@4203105]

@@paulthomas963 I maintain I helped you bury the body. I think you should be arrested.

[@ThangPlants]

I like how Devin doesn't even need to dial the phone to make it ring.

[@zeekaywalker9232]

That's because telephones are afraid of Chuck Norris and Chuck Norris is afraid of Devin, so no dialing needed.

[@senorchewie]

Dropping that hello fresh ad after that case was almost as tasteless as their food.

[@thomasglover7937]

It was Adnan. He got a fair trial. The cops weren’t crooked. The only mystery to the case is jays level of involvement. To anyone who thinks he didn’t do it, well done, you’ve been played

[@hypatiaalex]

with zero physical evidence and unreliable witness? he is nowhere guilty

[@frankied.roosevelt6232]

I love that Spencer keeps coming back!!!! I loved his Tom Cruise series commentary with you and love that he keeps coming back!

[@vicariousfool]

Motive and Opportunity alone doesn't actually sound very convincing. It seems like a standard, that when paired with a lack of responsibility on law enforcement and prosecutors to pursue alternate theories, damn near guarantees that innocent people *will* be convicted. Shitty people in rural areas will afford having dozens of enemies that all satisfy the simple conditions of hating a moron and having the time to end them. This is quite disappointing.

[@keyofallworlds7549]

I can’t say if he did or didn’t do it, the point is that he didn’t get a fair trial because of a crappy lawyer, prejudice for his religion and ethnicity, not looking for other suspects, and cause his ex-friend was scared enough to fabricate anything in order not to get in trouble for dealing drugs. Regardless an innocent person was killed and her family may never get justice.

[@subtlehyperbole4362]

Serial made a lot of things seems much more ambiguous than they actually were. The undisclosed podcast has a ton of information that really clears up any doubt about whether he did it or not. Spoiler: He was at track practice that day, on time, alibi’d by his track coach. Jay had nothing to do with the crime whatsoever but was pressured to testify against Adnan to save his own ass. Jen lied for Jays sake because once he was involved, if he had a change of heart, he would’ve been charged instead. As far as who actually did do it, the current boyfriend Don seems like a good suspect. His mother was his alibi (she was the manager at LensCrafters who vouched for him) with demonstrably edited time sheets. That doesn’t make him for sure guilty-I could see my own mother doing something absolutely stupid in a desperate attempt to save her son - but he wasn’t investigated pretty much at all because the police decided something about Adnan made them suspicious. The rest of the “case” was built from there. Undisclosed isn’t quite as entertaining as Serial was, but when I found out just how much Sarah Koenig exaggerated the ambiguity for the sake of being more of a mystery was a bad look.

[@keyofallworlds7549]

@@subtlehyperbole4362 Thank you so much for the info!

[@alexharker7223]

I can remember finishing Serial and thinking he was probably guilty but the case was extremely flimsy and he probably deserved to go free not having been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. But then, I listened to the follow up podcast Undisclosed which takes a much, much deeper dive into the evidence and left that thinking he was 100% innocent. I wish they could somehow give Jay complete immunity from any repercussions and interview him again in a low-stakes setting. Just tell us if the burial story is true for no reason other than to clarify the record and bring the truth to light.

[@Freyas01]

Yeah, some of the stuff from Undisclosed where they dive into Jay's testimony with it's inconsistencies and how it's extremely likely that it was coached by the police to fit their timeline they made up based off the cell tower data really made me question the conviction. I'm not certain that Adnan is innocent, but I can't imagine finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with the evidence that the police had against him, especially looking back at how unreliable all of the evidence against Adnan was.

[@Pystro]

If the story was made up, Jay Wilds might still hang on to it, just to avoid admitting that he's a liar. But if he admitted that it was a lie, it would be huge.

[@alexharker7223]

@@Pystro Exactly. If he maintained his story we’d still be in the same position as today. But if he admitted it was a lie under police coercion that would be a bombshell.

[@anthonyhenderson8632]

@@alexharker7223 Problem is Jay has consistently stood by his story and calls Adnan a coward for never admitting his guilt. Also, Jay Wilds is the only person that has admitted to their role in this crime, which I think actually adds to his credibility. It is very clear that Adnan was at least involved in the death, however he refuses to accept guilt.

[@gouachegirl6115]

Uhmmm…. That was… weird? I never heard of this case before (not from the US) and the presentation here left me with a million questions. Like: - Was being called by the defense the only way that potential alibi witness would be called in court? If she felt she‘d have something to say, would she not make a report to the police and would it not have been then automatically part of the case file and brought up in court? - If I understand it correctly, Wild‘s testimony was quite relevant to convicting Syed. But not only was this Wild someone who had problems with the law, he helped to dispose of the body? Isn‘t that a crime in itself? And how did the police make sure that it was not him who killed Lee and blamed it on Syed? Or possibly both? - Why would not finding his DNA on her shoes exonerate Syed? - While even in an age of DNA evidence, motive, means and opportunity remain vital to proving a case, I don‘t see how proving that somebody would have a perceived reason to kill somebody, the way to do it and the opportunity to do it equals guilt without proving that these points can‘t apply to somebody else. Otherwise, all you would have shown is that somebody could have done it, not that he did do it, right? - From how I understand it, a basic point of the American judicial system is, that once a case has been ruled, you might appeal it to a higher court and there is a way to a new trial if the defense counsel grossly neglected his/her job. But a case cannot be reopened against somebody or to exonerate somebody if new evidence turns up, correctly? I admit, I fail to see the wisdom in that and find it rather… disturbing.

[@Dragon7398]

The primary thing not explained in this video: The information on the other suspects is a Brady violation. The State had this information about other possible suspects, and faults in their evidence, that they (knowingly or not) withheld from the defense. As such, Adnan *should* have received at least another trial due to the previously 'Undisclosed' evidence. With that, and other faults in the case [the State's cell phone expert choosing to now testify in favor of the defense, the new DNA evidence, and Jay's frequent shifts in story], along with, yes, the political reasons for doing so, the State chose to fold the case.

[@chris.hartliss]

It's so sus that when the cops were feeding Jay information, they added red gloves to his story for the exact reason you're seeing now. Lol

[@AngelTorres-gm2bm]

Why did Jen know this stuff then?

[@MrMartinSchou]

Why would the opinions or feelings of a victim's family members matter in a court of law?

[@floraposteschild4184]

They speak for the dead, when the prosecutors and politicians won't.

[@MrMartinSchou]

@@floraposteschild4184 Again, why should that matter? Courts should be about justice, not revenge, forgiveness or other feelings that a victim or their family may or may not have. Your personal feelings towards that the person being found guilty or not guilty or should have no bearing on that finding, nor should they have any bearing on whether charges are filed or dropped.

[@MusicVersa]

The real scandal here is that you can put a 17-year-old in jail for 23 years. That's insane.

[@gtarrant2000]

No they put a person who was found guilty of strangling a woman to jail for 23 years

[@MusicVersa]

@@gtarrant2000 No? So he wasn't a teenager?

[@gtarrant2000]

@@MusicVersa the no wasn't a random 17 was put in a jail. A person who was found guilty of committing a murder was put in jail. I'm not sure why being 17 has anything to do with this "scandal". Assuming you've reached or passed that age, I imagine you probably understood the gravity of killing someone or the moral wrongness of strangling a person. Thinking that saying someone is 17 so they didn't know any better and should face a reduced penalty is poor argument. I'm looking forward to seeing you advocate against the punishment given to some school shooters that were teenagers.

[@MusicVersa]

@@gtarrant2000 Where did i say it was a random person? No developed nation in the world does this to adults, let alone children, except the US.

[@gtarrant2000]

@@MusicVersa did you actually ever look up life sentences across the world before made that statement? Because that is factually incorrect.

[@origal-shimony3776]

Loving These Scowl Owl Videos, Great Job Spencer

[@ArmageddonAngel]

I'm sure someone has done Devin and Spencer fanart where they are like The Blues Brothers on a mission from Jurisprudence. Or if there isn't, there should be.

[@bertcornelissen6294]

Maybe some Eagle/Owl slashfic? "Drop those legal briefs and show me your evidence, Spencer!"

[@scramboozled]

I feel like your profile/icon graphic changed. If I'm just late to the party or unobservant, wanted to compliment it! Very clean and sharp in my feed. 😎 Love your videos!

[@Gilsao157]

The way I see it, Adnan could have gone and killed his ex or he could be stuck in a bathroom with a bad case of diarrhea. There is no way of determining which one it is beyond a reasonable doubt

[@cerithompson2957]

if people want to see an experienced homicide detective’s review of the case, see the book ‘Adnan Syed Tainted Justice' by Robert Bolt. Was a real eye opener and loved how it was broken down so it was understandable. Still amazed at how much he picked up on that so many 'professionals' missed. Definatley worth a read!!!

[@Interceptor810]

Im really happy that you made a video about it. Im convinced there's lots of people like Adnan in prison for crimes they likely didnt commit or get a really bad defense

[@kingswarthy]

And a bunch haven't been convicted at all. Sometimes staying years locked up without a proper trial.

[@Interceptor810]

@@kingswarthy while theres actual criminals like all those killer cops and white collar criminals who get merely a slap on the wrist

[@liamscott1905]

Adnan did do it.

[@Interceptor810]

how can you be so sure? Im not saying he didnt but I am convinced he's innocent

[@liamscott1905]

@@Interceptor810 You're not saying he didn't do it but you think he's innocent of it? What ?

[@Stoneabba9999]

Why did Adnan tell someone at school that his vehicle was in the shop on day of murder? Highly suspicious

[@GrinerB]

It's unfortunate that Lee's family is essentially unconcerned with the strong likelihood the actual killer wasn't Adnan. I've never had a family member murdered but I don't think I'd find comfort in just anybody being in jail for it...

[@MichaelKollman]

Lol they were in the courtroom, you jackass. They saw all the evidence. Heck, when Adnan was released, they were asking for evidence for why he was released...

[@ExposeDrift]

He’s guilty. Motive, opportunity and more than enough circumstantial evidence.

[@hypatiaalex]

with zero physical evidence and unreliable witness? he is nowhere guilty

[@ExposeDrift]

@hypatiaalex there’s zero physical evidence of anybody killing her, but we know she killed and as I already stated, Adnan had motive, opportunity, no alibi and overwhelming circumstantial evidence against him… anyone who’s actually looked through the evidence reaches the same conclusion. Literally every court he’s been in has found the evidence against him to be enough. People like you need to learn how to think.

[@ExposeDrift]

@@hypatiaalex there is no physical evidence of ANYONE killing Hae, yet still we know she was killed, so it's a mute point. Jay might be a liar but his testimony is corroborated by Jenn Pusateri who was and still is a credible witness. this is the evidence: The witnesses corroborated story which they all stick by to this day (there's no evidence of coercion and no plausible reason to willingly implicate themselves in a murder especially when they wouldn't know if Adnan had an airtight alibi which would invalidate their story) The cell tower data placing him in incriminating regions. Adnan's lack of an alibi despite everyone talking about it and him being contacted by police the day after ‘the love of his life’ is last seen alive. Adnan's MANY inconsistencies regarding that day in school. Adnan's clear motive to strangle an ex who’s got a new guy 13 days after dumping him. Adnan writing I’m going to kill on the back of the breakup letter. The fact he was calling/emailing Hae 'the love of his life' everyday up until the night she was murdered and made no attempt to call/email afterwards (even though other friends did - except for Don). Hope this helps.

[@ExposeDrift]

@@hypatiaalex There's no physical evidence (for Adan or anyone else) but there's an overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence that adds up. Jay is a liar but his testimony is corroborated by Jenn Pusateri, who is credible. It's idiotic to imply she would implicate herself in a murder by blaming Adnan without knowing if Adnan had an alibi...

[@dalailarose1596]

Trying not to yell about how the lividity of the victim's body disproves all the prosecution's claims 😅 Thanks for making a pretty balanced video tho!

[@a1ntcry1noveru]

do tell!

[@jayfromaz]

I've served on a couple of juries. Might take away was that all you have to do is convince a jury and innocent people can be found guilty. By the way, in my last two jury cases we did find the defendant guilty. The problem in the second case is basically the defendant admitted to what she did in court. But she had a good reason. No, she didn't. The first case was a lot harder. It hinged on one witness and family members who had set the time line. Of course the defendant testifying did not help his case at all. So the combined testimony was fairly compelling. But what if the defense lawyer hadn't done their due diligence. We don't know whether they did or not. There were people that we as a jury thought he should have called. We don't know why he did or did. Maybe he had a good reason. So we could only use what was presented to us in court.

[@brianb.6356]

If you weren't convinced, you shouldn't have convicted. A jury can't gather outside information, but "this defense attorney hasn't called a bunch of people who we think would probably be exculpatory if they were called" isn't outside information. That's stuff you observed during the trial.

[@jayfromaz]

@@brianb.6356 We can't use outside information in a jury. I was just pointing out that other witnesses weren't call. Don't know what they would have said one way or the other. With the information we had it was enough to find and guilty of two of the three counts. The third count was because the prosecution witnesses stories were not consistent. The stories in the first two were consistent.

[@batmansk6]

One of the biggest issues for me has always been the motive, it just doesn't make sense.

[@MichaelKollman]

Lol how? It's a motive as common as the dawn of time:sexual jealously.

[@Atomsk359]

All I know is after they won the appeal the first time he was offered a plea deal with only four more years, If I had spent half my life in prison I would have taken that deal even if I was innocent.

[@edbangor9163]

This highlights the problem with shoddy police work. Innocent people will end up behind bars and guilty murders will be released on a technicality. Whether Syed is guilty or not, a lack of careful forensics she inflammatory comments from the DA can undermine any case

[@Bacteriophagebs]

Both police and DAs have a tendency to fixate on a suspect and do whatever they can to convict that person, even if evidence surfaces indicating that someone else committed the crime. This leads to wrongful convictions and actual criminals going free on a regular basis.

[@GOGOROBOv2]

didn't Serial do a heavily editorialized recollection of the story?

[@erickzuniga3113]

I really hope I never have to be involved in a jury decision in a case like this.

[@alanacrail3244]

I feel the same way. I see so many people say that they want to serve on a jury for a murder trial but to me that sounds awful. First of all I wouldn't want to have to hear the gory details but also I just know I would lay in bed every night worrying I made a mistake. If we voted not guilty I would worry I let a murderer go free and if we voted guilty I would worry we had sent an innocent person to prison. No thank you.

[@clarabean2150]

All I learned from this is he did 20 years, and I have no idea if he is guilty or not.

[@aka_Ingmar]

This is controversial? This dude was wrongly prisoned for over 20 years without substantial evidence and a lot of muddy practice from the prosecution. This is controversial?!

[@MrKIMBO345]

Human emotions.

[@liamscott1905]

No he was rightfully convicted with airtight evidence.

[@hypatiaalex]

@@liamscott1905 with zero physical evidence and unreliable witness? he is nowhere guilty

[@SecretSquirrelFun]

Question - let’s just say, IF Adnan didn’t do it. How then was Jay Wild able to lead detectives to the car? I can think of several replies to my own question... but still.

[@GrayCatbird1]

If the case against him is weak or inadequate, then it follows that he shouldn’t be convicted. It doesn’t address whether he’s guilty or not, but it makes sense.

[@malikarao3520]

This is nuts. It’s like a movie where the producer forgot to add a few things that would make sense in the real world. If Adnan isn’t guilty due to a disaster of a trial, wouldn’t that mean Jay would be the next suspect? I mean he said he saw her dead body. I don’t get it.