The forensics questions.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Serial: Season 01 Discussion - This American Life meets True Detective
- Thread starter Malyse
- Start date
- Status
The forensics questions.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
That's from the last 15 minutes.
e: I should've specified in my post that I found the first 15 minutes mostly worthless. I am interested in what she and her team can find wrt forensics. I am not interested in hearing someone's thoughts on socipaths, guilty vs innocent clients, serial killers, etc. when this person is almost totally unfamiliar with the case (in other words, the first 15 minutes of the episode).
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
I'm not sure why I'm in a tizzy over this. Based on listening to the podcasts and reading the appelate brief (2002 WL 32510997 (Md.App.) (Appellate Brief) Maryland Court of Special Appeals), I think he should've been found not guilty, so I fully agree with Deidre and her team.
However, I find it a waste of time listening to someone's gut feelings and opinions when they know very little about the case. Hell, even if she knew a lot about the case hearing her personal theories about guilty vs innocent behaviour would be a waste of time as you can find other lawyers and cops who have a completely different philosophies on the matter. If she was directly involved in the case, I would be more interested in hearing how she felt because it adds to the story. And her pop psychology on sociopaths was stupid and a waste of time too.
What else annoyed me? Oh right, her juggling metaphor: it's dangerous to grab onto one piece of evidence and create a case based on it, which is what law enforcement and prosecutors often do. But she is doing what defense attornies often do, suggesting that because one or two discrete pieces of evidence contradict or cannot be explain the overarching theory, the theory is wrong. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit, right? Nope.
However, I find it a waste of time listening to someone's gut feelings and opinions when they know very little about the case. Hell, even if she knew a lot about the case hearing her personal theories about guilty vs innocent behaviour would be a waste of time as you can find other lawyers and cops who have a completely different philosophies on the matter. If she was directly involved in the case, I would be more interested in hearing how she felt because it adds to the story. And her pop psychology on sociopaths was stupid and a waste of time too.
What else annoyed me? Oh right, her juggling metaphor: it's dangerous to grab onto one piece of evidence and create a case based on it, which is what law enforcement and prosecutors often do. But she is doing what defense attornies often do, suggesting that because one or two discrete pieces of evidence contradict or cannot be explain the overarching theory, the theory is wrong. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit, right? Nope.
She went to her because that team had experience on a case with a similar piece of evidence. I don't understand why her insights and thoughts about innocence, evidence, investigating, etc wouldn't be completely relevant to this show. Here's a person whose life has been committed to doing what the host of this show is doing...of course that experience is enlightening!
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
They spent the first 15 minutes speaking about a case she was clueless on. After her team had gone through the case with a fine tooth comb and actually understood it, their insights were valuable. Do you get where I'm coming from? It was a poorly edited episode with a bunch of fluff.
I think it was actually a needed interlude for some of the audience, myself included. Because most of the time this has been Sarah expanding and speculating on what the evidence means/doesn't mean, but here is Deidre with decades of experience putting it into stark relief just how shitty this case seems and why some of the thought processes that may cause you or I or Sarah to pause doesn't really make her stop and worry. I thought it was illustrative of the gap that experience brings into the picture.
It was probably the least informative episode in terms of "moving the ball forward", so-to-speak, but I did appreciate it. As long as here on out we get back on the case nitty gritty, I think it was a good and appreciated side trip that hopefully knocks something out of a tree (maybe they'll find something interesting later).
Edit: I even think her first fifteen minutes where she was discussing the case relatively blind (she just read Sarah's case notes by this point) was valuable. Because it told me what a lawyer in her positions immediate gut reaction might be, and how even this too might color perception of so much going on. I really enjoyed stepping through this whole process start-to-finish.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Fair enough. I did a bit of my own research on this case a month ago, so I'm probably not experiencing the show the way it was intended to be experienced. That said, I think this episode could've been cut by 10 or so minutes and slotted into another one. I think the quality of episodes has decreased as time as gone on, which makes sense since SK has said that by episode 4 or 5 we were caught up with her.
I can agree with you that the first 15mins were pretty weak, but I think you missed the detail where Sarah met with her after she'd gone over everything that Sarah had access to at the time. It was like a report on what she had found so far. It wasn't that Sarah was just asking Deidre blind, she had some knowledge of the case at that point and made comments specific to that. The idea to have her student team take a look at the case was a result of their meeting after she'd gone over the documents Sarah had sent to her.
Adnan Syed appellate brief
http://www.scribd.com/doc/244492976/Westlaw-Document-11-24-29
http://www.scribd.com/doc/244492976/Westlaw-Document-11-24-29
Knowing Jay's last name now, I couldn't help looking him up... he's got a public Facebook but this is his last post:
August 29 ·
My wife says I can't have a Facebook account any because she believes it unsafe for my family, and disrespectful.
Apprently he changed his name on Facebook today (Nov 6, probably because the next episode focuses on him), although it still comes up in a search because his real name is his profile's URL. lol
August 29 ·
My wife says I can't have a Facebook account any because she believes it unsafe for my family, and disrespectful.
Apprently he changed his name on Facebook today (Nov 6, probably because the next episode focuses on him), although it still comes up in a search because his real name is his profile's URL. lol
Dammit I wish I had not read that.
I think the timing was right to play this episode after last week's, when most people started to doubt Adnan's story. It served as a reminder for me that, despite swaying my opinion with each shift in the case, Adnan really was sent to prison with very little evidence tying him to the murder. Whether or not he's guilty is almost irrelevant - there just wasn't enough there to convict someone to such a harsh punishment, and he absolutely should not have gone to prison based on the evidence available.
Vincent Alexander
Member
This episode felt like a teaser. While I am excited to hear what the team finds out, I don't feel much of anything really happened. Kind of a short, crummy 35 minutes. I want to get back into the meat of it!
Like I said earlier, I'm glad forensics finally got brought up. We've gone waaay too long not hearing about findings at the crime scene. We've gotten some details here and there about what was found there, but nothing about the conclusions drawn from said items.
Like I said earlier, I'm glad forensics finally got brought up. We've gone waaay too long not hearing about findings at the crime scene. We've gotten some details here and there about what was found there, but nothing about the conclusions drawn from said items.
This was posted elsewhere... do we spoiler tag things in this thread?
Not sure what that last part means...
"Police recovered a page torn from a map in the rear seat of the victim's, Hae Lee, vehicle. (1/31/00, 58). The page included the map area of Leakin Park, the location where Lee's body was found. (1/31/00, 60). Syed's fingerprint was found on an identification card in the glove compartment of the car. (2/1/00, 24-25).' Syed's palm print was found on the back cover of the map recovered fi-om the car. (2/1/00, 27). Syed's fingerprints were also found on floral paper recovered fi-om the back seat of the car. (2/1/00, 29). Two hairs recovered from the victim's body matched Syed's physical characteristics, but did not match his hair exactly. (2/1/00, 117)."
Not sure what that last part means...
One thing from Episode 6 that they really didn't spend time on was the note from Hae to Adnan, and Adnan and some girl writing to each other on the back of it. And then on the top there was something written in pen about killing? The narrator glossed it over like "out of some bad mystery novel"... well that doesn't mean it's not real? She doesn't mention it again! The friend says she didn't write it. Did she ever ask Adnan about it?
.That was the weirdest oversight to me. I mean, they can compare the handwriting perhaps to see if it's Adnan's or whatever? It's not super significant evidence in either case, but in a case where it's this thin in the first place...
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
I might be imagining things because I listen to this podcast while driving to work in the morning, but didn't she mention they analyzed the ink and handwriting and determined it was Adnan's? I could be getting this from the apellate brief as well. Or just making it up.
If the prosecutor used the cell tower data selectively to match Jay's storyline and place Adnan at Leakin Park, it would make Adnan appear guilty. Remember, we are hearing the evidence differently than the jurors.
If they did I certainly missed that. That would be pretty odd indeed. Not "convict and send to prison" odd, but... things are getting odder odd.
Buttonbasher
Member
Is episode one working for anyone through the Apple Podcast app? It isn't for me, and I finally have a chunk of time to listen to this podcast...
Well you're being presented different and more "evidence"--a lot of which would've been inadmissible--twenty years after the fact in the context of your car/home instead of in a courtroom.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
Indeed.
Short documentary on how strange and seemingly sinister things may end up being benign: http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001183275/the-umbrella-man.html
Spoiler tagged anything that come from independent research of things not yet covered on the show.
If all else fails, you can stream it through the website.
PassiveObserver
Member
Yeah please definitely spoiler tag any independent research people are doing. I'm here to experience Serial as a weekly story as it's being told, not to dig into the case myself. Definitely an interesting medium, this season long podcast.
Vincent Alexander
Member
They haven't said. I'm sure we'll find out eventually.
I don't think you have to spoiler your own predictions, as long as they aren't based off of information gathered outside of Serial.
That is absurd - you're not interested in qualified discussion about the exact broader themes the show is investigating? This is a piece of journalism, taking it from the specific to thw general is precisely what should be a goal. General observations from someone with deep experience gives great insight to the listeners comprehension of what we're dealing with.
The incident in that video was perfectly reasonable, it's not like the umbrella man had any connection to JFK or knew he was going to be assassinated, or that merely carrying an umbrella has anything to do with killing someone anyway. If Adnan really wrote something about killing Hae in pen on a note that she had written to him about their break up, that's about as benign as Casey Anthony doing internet searches on how to chloroform a baby. For the narrator to dismiss it as too obvious, something out of a bad mystery novel, is ridiculous.
It hasn't been mentioned. He currently lives in
Los Angeles CA with his wife and kid
Just caught up after relistening to every episode. You know that red fibre found by Hae's body? Didn't Jen say when she saw Adnan and Jay after they buried the body that Adnan was wearing red gloves?
Doesn't necessarily mean what she said was true but it could mean she knew red gloves were involved somehow.
Doesn't necessarily mean what she said was true but it could mean she knew red gloves were involved somehow.
I agree completely. I thought it was a great episode.
PassiveObserver
Member
This was one of the more This American Lifey episodes.
Lol. I know how you feel, but it was the proper length.
backflip10019
Member
It was kind of a waste of time. I'm still waiting for Adnan's side of the story -- or at least who he thinks killed Hae. He must have a theory about what happened. He can't have spent 10 years in jail and not thought about it.
I also want Sarah to address why she hasn't gotten in touch with Jay. I'm sure he's turned her down, but I don't think she's even mentioned that she reached out to him. And it's crazy to me that she hasn't looked into Don more intensely. Sure, his alibi of working at Lenscrafters might seem ironclad, but I don't trust him. He's older, he's dating Hae at the time, and who knows, maybe he slipped away for an hour (during his lunch break?).
Also on the Jay subject, I don't want to post it here as I don't want to turn this into a witch hunt, but I'm about 90% positive that a friend found his Facebook.
It seems like the show wouldn't have actively talked about Jay so much, especially in such a way that seems to paint him guilty, if he was still alive or if they were using his real name. They've already changed other peoples' identities...
Just a guess, I haven't read anything external to the show. But I think Jay might be dead
Just a guess, I haven't read anything external to the show. But I think Jay might be dead
PassiveObserver
Member
Forrreal. I don't want to know about Jay until Sarah tells me about him. Let's keep Serial Season 1 discussion in here and Adnan Syed vs. State of Maryland discussion elsewhere.
Vincent Alexander
Member
Oh shit. She did say red gloves, didn't she? I completely forgot. I think Red just blew this case wide open.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
askbask, you are absurd because that's not what I was arguing at all (and I have said the last 15 minutes was useful). I took issue with the amount of time devoted to the ramblings of a person unfamiliar with the case (it's been pointed out she read some of the case files before speaking to Sarah -- if so, then I have an even dimmer view of her), and I also pointed out a few issues I had with the substance of her arguments. Here's another issue: she brings up the fact that most guys don't kill their ex-girlfriends, as if that exculpates Adnan. Unfortunately, when exes are murdered, the probability that it was their ex is higher than if it were a stranger.
Perhaps I will re-listen to the episode tomorrow and write up a post that eviscerates the nonsense Deirdre said in the first 15 minute so you can better understand why I found the discussion a waste of time and far from a "qualified discussion" from someone with "deep experience." Her 26 years of experience and involvement with the Innnocence Project mean very little to me if she's talking shit.
Yeah, the "bad mystery novel" thing made me raise an eyebrow as well when I was reading it. However, the note read "I am going to kill." It didn't say Hae. And I don't know if it was proven to be Adnan's writing/ink anyway -- I think I might have imagined that to be the case.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
I won't, but her factually wrong claims irritate me. She is essentially a layperson at spotting liars (is ANYONE an expert at this?) and identifying sociopaths. I will briefly elaborate on the latter point.
She claims that it's highly unlikely you will encounter a charming sociopath because "you're just not that lucky." She's not a psychologist or medical professional. If she had any training in this realm, she would know that 2 - 3% of the general population are sociopaths and about 1% qualify as psychopaths, so she's likely met many sociopaths in her everyday life. In prisons, between 15 - 25% are psychopaths, and even more qualify as sociopaths (anywhere from 20 - 75%). I am not using these two terms as synonyms because psychopathy means something different in the criminal justice setting -- it is used as an excellent predictor of recidivism. Anyway, I am rambling. My point is, in a prison setting a large percentage of the population are sociopaths, and a fraction of those will be of the charming, glib variety Deidre mentions.
And she's saying she never gets them as clients claiming they're innocent, and that Sarah most likely wouldn't have gotten that here, either. I don't know why anything you just said would contradict that.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
How does she know that?
How does she know she doesn't get charming sociopaths as clients? Uh...because that's probably something you would find out as you're trying to prove their innocence? And as she said people don't usually hide such a condition all of their lives until the moment they commit a crime.
- Status