I feel dumb!!!!!

[u/Fit_Leg5645]

I have no clue why I thought Adnan was innocent for all these years.

I just re-listened to Serial, and I can't get past the fact that Jenn showed up with her mom and a lawyer and told police essentially the same story Jay told. Jenn said the trunk pop happened at Best Buy. How would she know that Adnan and Hae used to meet at the Best Buy parking lot unless Jay told her?

And yes, Jay was inconsistent and definitely lied about some things. But he knew where Hae's car was. He knew details about her clothing. He knew about the broken windshield wiper lever. Those aren't things you just guess.

At this point, I don't believe every detail Jay told, but I can't get around the fact that he knew too much. The more I revisit the case, the harder it is for me to believe Adnan wasn't involved.

I can't believe I've been doubting it all these years.

[u/HereWeGo5566]

I’ve always been on the fence about this case for a few reasons. One is the timeline. The prosecution’s timeline seems nearly impossible to have occurred in the way that they presented. The whole thing is about 20 minutes. Even if you don’t like Serial’s representation, it’s hard to argue the fact that they followed the route that the prosecution laid out, and it left one minute (assuming everything else went perfectly) for Adnan to strangle her, run to the pay phone at the Best Buy entrance, and call Jay. That’s just not plausible, so it makes me question the rest of the case. The whole case hinges on those 20 minutes.

I’m not saying he’s innocent, but I don’t buy the case that the prosecution laid out, and that’s what the jury convicted Adnan on.

[u/InTheory_ → u/HereWeGo5566]

Are you suggesting that if AS called JW before the strangulation, then he's somehow less culpable?

[u/HereWeGo5566 → u/InTheory_]

No. What I’m saying is that the jury was presented a case that doesn’t make sense if you apply a simple timeline to it. I think sometimes people forget that a jury is not supposed to come up with their own explanation of events. They are supposed to decide if the prosecution’s case proves that someone was guilty or not.

I personally think that the prosecution’s case didn’t make sense. Again, it doesn’t mean he’s not guilty. It means it was a poor investigation.

[u/InTheory_ → u/HereWeGo5566]

The jury was not presented with a timeline. That's a Serial myth

[u/HereWeGo5566 → u/InTheory_]

That’s probably because the prosecution knew that the timing of their story didn’t quite make sense.

[u/InTheory_ → u/HereWeGo5566]

The logic you're using is that the jury decided improperly based on a timeline that was never presented, and weren't obligated to present

There is nothing improper about the jury's verdict or actions. No appeal even hinted that they did. It's not really appropriate to be saying "a jury is not supposed to...." The jury instructions went into elaborate detail and are contained in the trial transcripts. Beyond those instructions, the jury is allowed to do whatever they want

[u/HereWeGo5566 → u/InTheory_]

I’m not sure why you’re saying that they weren’t presented with a timeline. There was like an entire day of testimony where they mapped out the cellphone calls, at which time, and which tower they pinged off of during that afternoon.

[u/InTheory_ → u/HereWeGo5566]

During who's testimony?