Serial's Adnan Syed Exonerated?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- ⚖️ 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: devin@legaleagle.show
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 legaleagle@standard.tv
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
⚖ What should we cover next?
🍋 Get 60% off with Hello Fresh using code LEGALEAGLE60 legaleagle.link/hellofresh
hmm you need money i can buy you something to eat if you want
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?
On theme you should look at the case of Joey Watkins
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.
On the podcast trend, a video on the Flores trial, which is covered by the Your Own Backyard podcast would be fascinating
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.
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
@@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.
Let's also add "a heavy dose of racism" to the list of bad criminal investigation practices while we're at it.
Well, that's certainly your opinion.
@@alexham7356 If the real culprit is the "serial sexual assaulter" that person is likely already in jail for something else.
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.
A case for the law books, for sure. Perhaps the basis for law school curriculum for decades to come?
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
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?
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.
Yeah and if you're poor and can't afford good lawyers no one will even bother checking any of that stuff.
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.
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.
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
@@poiu477 Where's that citation from?
@@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."
@@Melesniannon So, from an article in Harper's, by an author who interviewed Ehrlichman.
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.
I mean... maybe he was high?
@@ccggenius I don’t think being high makes you more likely to hide a body. Unless there was a promise of Doritos 😂
> 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.
I think Jay killed her. All of the info about what Syed had done, came from him.
@@picklefish74 sounds logical to me. Benefits him to put it on another manas well.
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
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.
@@norge0209 yeah. I think he did it.
I don't think they had enough to convict
He did it. He did it for sure.
@@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."
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".
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.
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.
He wasn't very helpful in his own defense either.
im just hearing of this case from this video, and i cant decide either. the legal eagle special indeed.
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?
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.
“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.
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 UA-cam channel that makes short videos about how the LE is untrustworthy saying that shit without expounding on it is weird af
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
Easier to endorse totalitarianism if you assume it won’t happen to you
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
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
But who killed Lee? Its like that black baseball player who walked free of murder. Atleast this guy served 20 years in jailed
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.
Can more news be like this, where an expert just lays out the facts without frothing into opinions?
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.
Wouldn't make money
There actually is a lot of that if you bother to look for it
Theres a difference between news, opinion/editorial, and expert analysis (expert opinion). the cable news channels (somewhat purposefully) make this confusing to the viewer.
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
It kinda feels like Adnan was prosecuted based solely on: motive, opportunity and some dude saying he did it. That's flimsy as hell
And even the motive is super flimsy.
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.
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.
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?
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
Has this become a two-host show? If so (and if it’s with Spencer) I’m all for it! 👍
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.
I don't think those jurors from the original conviction understood what "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means.
Seems like they did understand means, motive, opportunity, and no reliable alibi
That's my take too. Seems plausible that Adnon killed Hei, maybe even probably, but undoubtable? Beyond any doubt? Far from it.
@@lephtovermeet beyond any doubt isn't the bar
@@paulthomas963 If half of me acts that way then how does the other half of me act?
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.
Devin and Spencer are an underrated comedy duo ❤
He's absolutely guilty
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
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 UA-cam 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.
UA-cam does have a speed setting, what are you talking about?
UA-cam does have a speed setting
youtube does have a speed setting, look in the gear icon
Thanks to all who shared that UA-cam does have a speed setting. I’ll get on it right away.
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.
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!
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.
@@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.
@@stephenspackman5573 How can you say “What does the case have to do with them?” There would be no case without their daughter.
@@norge0209 What would you do with that information? Arrange a reception? I'm truly not understanding what good comes of this idea.
@@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.
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.
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
Why did Jen know this stuff then?
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?
You're missing the fact that this is a 27 minute UA-cam 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.
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.
Part of it was his lawyer being awful, the other could also be racism.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
I second this ☝️
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.
@@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
I scrolled way too long before seeing this! “Adnan’s Story” is also a good summary of his case
Same. Loved it!
Just to be clear, he literally spent 23 years behind bars because "Yeah, he COULD have done it".
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."
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.
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
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.
@@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?
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
Really liking these crossovers... guest episodes? Very good so far.
"Gutierrez died in 2007"
(Flashes chyron stating she suffered fatal heart attack in 2004).
You’re doing good work, Spencer. Stay strong while Devon keeps putting you in the hot seat.
As someone who knows absolutely nothing about this case, I can't be offended just informed. And yay, more Spencer!
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.
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!
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.
Maybe some Eagle/Owl slashfic? "Drop those legal briefs and show me your evidence, Spencer!"
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.
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
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.
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.
@@thething1710 kk will check it out! Thanks!
Him being guilt just does NOT make sense and the friend and witness sounds very suspicious
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
Very surprising Syed's lawyer got disbarred, from what I understand that's pretty hard to do.
that story is interesting in of itself actually if you look it up
the dude has a hotline directly connected with Spencer, he doesnt even has to dial!
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!
do tell!
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.
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.
@@subtlehyperbole4362 Thank you so much for the info!
A good summary…until the end. It was irresponsible to ignore Jay Wilds’ Intercept interview, and the core of the doubt in this case.
Well done. Having listened to all the podcasts and read the habeas pleadings, y'all did an excellent job summarizing the history and IDing the issues that remain. Bravo!
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
with zero physical evidence and unreliable witness? he is nowhere guilty
Dropping that hello fresh ad after that case was almost as tasteless as their food.
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.
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
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.
The real scandal here is that you can put a 17-year-old in jail for 23 years.
That's insane.
No they put a person who was found guilty of strangling a woman to jail for 23 years
@@gtarrant2000 No? So he wasn't a teenager?
@@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.
@@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.
@@MusicVersa did you actually ever look up life sentences across the world before made that statement? Because that is factually incorrect.
I love how Devin is in the kitchen preparing a meal with a suit and tie on. Touche
Indochino's new line of cookwear
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...
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...
I really hope I never have to be involved in a jury decision in a case like this.
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.
Why did Adnan tell someone at school that his vehicle was in the shop on day of murder? Highly suspicious
Thank you for covering this! The case and evidence was difficult to follow with all the different theory’s out there. Also the DAs Marilyn Mosby motivations and criminal charges have an important impact.
Wow. I knew nothing of these events going into this video and my final impression is that this whole situation is a heaping mess.
It’s so wild how easy this case would be solved if it had happened in the last 10-20 years. Practically every school across the country has cameras and he would’ve been easily proven innocent if there was footage of him at the school at the time the prosecution claimed the murder happened
The thing I'll never get about this case is why it's basically become the poster child for a false conviction. While I think there's massive issues with the case as it was presented and he probably shouldn't have been convicted on the evidence given... even after listening to Serial and Undisclosed, I just don't see how he can be ruled out as a suspect either. There's just as much evidence that he killed Hae as there is evidence that he's innocent.
There's so many cases where it's much more clear that it's a wrongful conviction so... why did this one case, where you can essentially read the evidence in any direction, get so much attention? How many people, who HAD been proven innocent, were executed while this case was propped up?
Agreed. I think it's just because it became a media cause celebre, and there was the extra element of (possible) racial/cultural prejudice.
Wrongful conviction is not just that someone obviously innocent was railroaded. It’s also when someone of extremely dubious guilt is railroaded. In some ways he’s the perfect example of a he later, and if we want to deal with the ways the US justice system rams through convictions on bad evidence, we have to deal with the fact that people who may have done the crime still should not be in jail. They didn’t investigate the other reasonable suspects, they had no physical evidence, they had flawed technical evidence, and the conviction hinges on a witness who admits they were terrified that if they didn’t testify they and their family would face their own criminal prosecution. The dude may have done it, but dear god it doesn’t seem like that meets the definition of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. All you have to do is imagine what cop could have said to a scared teenage black dude, holding jail time over his head for something unrelated, and all of a sudden if you have a reasonable doubt that the sole witness is reliable then the case does not meet the standard.
The Devonia Inman case was far more clearly a gross miscarriage of justice. Murderville, the podcast that covered the case, was a much podcast imo as well. Yet I never saw a peep in the media about it.
I mean that's exactly the point, isn't it? Somebody doesn't have to be proven innocent for a conviction to be false.
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.
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.
At the 20:10 mark you state the Baltimore County prosecutors exonerated Syed. It should be Baltimore City, not county.
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?!
Human emotions.
No he was rightfully convicted with airtight evidence.
@@liamscott1905 with zero physical evidence and unreliable witness? he is nowhere guilty
My heart breaks for Hae Min Lee’s loved ones ❤ I personally think Adnan Syed didn’t commit the murder (but despite) that the fact that there is a chance that Hae Min Lee’s murder would never be brought to justice is so heartbreaking 💔
Edit: I’m sorry I worded it all wrong, it was like really early in the morning here in Sydney when I typed out this comment.
All I was trying to say was, now that Adnan is out, they need to put more focus and resources to finding the real murderer!
Wouldn't you want the correct person in jail if you were in the family?
So they should just put a random person in jail when they can't find the criminal monster?
@@sophiophile honestly i still think her younger brother had something to do with it.
@@sophiophile oh no of course not! I worded it completely wrong, I’m meant to say I think he is innocent and that I also feel so horrible for the family. That it doesn’t seem like the real murderer will be caught!
Honestly my heart breaks for Adnan as well, since I think he is innocent, he is a victim as well! Over 20 years of his life he can’t get back!
All I was trying to say was, now that Adnan is out, they need to put more focus and resources to finding the real murderer!
@@CodeDonut I’ve never heard about this take! What makes you think it’s the brother?
Excellent presentation, sir. Thank you for your effort.
"True crime" podcasts are terrifying. Hosts with no investigative experience or skill at narrating present nakedly slanted accounts of crimes, and millions of people suddenly think they're forensic experts -- and psychic, to boot. Public pressure dictates whether a case is re-addressed or not. The CoA is not the highest court anymore. The court of public opinion and random public interest is. This guy may have been poorly represented, but other people are as well. He got a second chance due to marketing, not unique merit.
My friends hate legal eagle cause after the Jan 6 insurrection I showed them his extremely impartial, unbiased, thought out, and measured analysis on the factual, legal breakdown of it all - complete with sources and case law - and they lost their minds. "SO HE'S SAYING HE'S GUILTY BUT SHOULDN'T GO TO JAIL?!" Well, no. "SO HE'S SAYING..." ok never mind good lord.
It's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He never should have been tried in the first place. No evidence except one witness who's a drug dealer to children and is afraid of going to jail himself. Never even gone to trial
He wasn't at witness, he was a co-defendant who gave damning testimony and admitted guilt to his role in accessory to murder. That's kind of a big distinction. Also, it is very clear that the drug dealer and Adnan are involved in a conspiracy together, the day Hae Min goes missing. This is evidenced by the numerous phone calls to each other that day, and that Adnan gave him his car, something he had never done before.
24:35 - Karl Popper - the fact that I have never seen a black swan isn't proof there's no black swan.
Can we get the guests name mentioned somewhere in the beginning of the video? Or in the description?
If someone told me a minor was sentenced to 20 years in prison for premeditated murder. I would not be surprised. Like, sure, i can see why they would want more. But even if he’s guilty, him being free now wouldn’t be that crazy.
A lot states have 17 as the age of culpability tho. Like you can be tried and sentenced as an adult no matter what. That being said, if Sayed had been white… yeah probably would’ve been out by now anyway.
The problem is that to get parole when sentenced for life you have to show remorse. If you insist you are innocent then you can't show remorse.
Nice job, ScowlOwl. Hope to see more of this type of content in the future.
Devin on a vacation or something? I missed it if he said.
@@dalpz205 Not that he mentioned. I think he is giving a friend a bit of a hand on getting started with the ruse being "too hot of a topic" or something. His first was a bit rough, but this was better.
@@idunnskuld1834 Thank you.
Its crazy to me that people are okay with sending a kid to jail for life without being absolutely sure they are guilty.
I love that Legal Eagle got a Crim expert.
Devon was fine at Crim law, but you could tell he hasn't handled a criminal case since law school.
Isn't the biggest question why Wild would have lied?
To quote everyone's favourite closing, is Syed guilty, probably, but probably isn't enough, anything less than beyond reasonable guilt must result in acquittal.
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.
"check the invoice" that's my new catchphrase. the aggression with which he said that... yeah. I dig it.
So while he looked at the evidence that was used to exonerate he skipped over so much that it gives the false impression that he likely did kill Hae. The prosecution did a lot of shady shit during the trial. In fact they were likely going to loose the first trial until it was declared a mistrial do to something his lawyer did.
Yes, but the focus on the video was the purported exoneration.
*picks up phone: "hey, buddy."
me: immediately starts laughing, knowing what's next...
"How do you put out more content with the least amount of work needed???....Just have someone else do it." - LegalEagle
People who say he is "Clearly guilty" or "Clearly innocent" really confuse me. To me it falls more into "While he is one of, if not the most likely person to have killed her, im also not sure that there is enough evidence to convict." The whole scenario is more of an indictment of the police proceeding and legal system which had a lot of flaws exposed that will continue to send plenty of innocent people to jail, and have plenty of guilty people walk free.
Attitude says it all. Don't you think?
The more I learn about the case the more I think he's actually innocent. So it's not 50/50 for me anymore like it was after listening to serial. It's more like 80/20.
Still, I don't know and likely will never know and you are right, people who are 100% convinced one way or the other are weird.
I'm one of the people who believes he is clearly innocent so I'm curious about your thought process that has taken you to a different place. What do you think of the lividity evidence and the confirmation that Kristi's supposedly corroborating evidence couldn't have happened on that day?
I love when ScowlOwl appears. He's awesome!
Who's phone did Syed use to call his own phone? Who is Jeff? Sounds like Wilds and Jeff pulled this off. But what would be their reason? What a messed up situation.
Honestly it comes down to proving beyond a reasonable doubt for me. This is the first I have heard about the case but to me it seems very messy. It seems there is basically no physical evidence and everything is based on eye witness testimony. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable so I am very skeptical of any of the testimony anyone gave in this case. They all had reasons to lie and any testimony given more recently is years after everything happened. It is very possible that the man did the crime, but I don't think they have proved it sufficiently.
You’re suffering from the CSI effect, indisputable physical evidence is incredibly rare in criminal cases, most convictions are done on the basis of multiple, independent accounts by witnesses of the crime or the aftermath
@@jordanrudderham7981 I'm not suffering on any kind of effect. I just recognize that witness testimony is not worth much.
@@jordanrudderham7981 The legal system's reliance on eyewitness testimony is a far bigger problem than the CSI effect. Eyewitness testimony is demonstrably unreliable under the best of circumstances. People are terrible at remembering details in general, and the more stressful the situation, the less they are likely to remember details accurately. Memories can be modified over time. The heuristics that people use to recognize faces are not sufficient to distinguish between similar-looking strangers. In the overwhelming majority of convictions that have been overturned due to new DNA methods/evidence (e.g. the work done by the Innocence Project), the conviction was based primarily on faulty eyewitness testimony.
What he didn't even mention is that the lead detective had a bunch of his cases overturned because of witness intimidation.
@@4203105 he probably didn't mention it as there might not be any allocations of such in this case, but that obviously adds even more doubt.
Outstanding summary. fabulous analysis.
I started listening to Serial after I was told that Limetown was partially inspired by it but didn't finish.
"Good" prosecutors can put "innocent" people in jail. "Good" defense attorneys can get them out. The facts as stipulated to the Judge/Jury and their opinion are ultimately the only things that matter. Not guilt, nor public thought.
Honestly, stories like this are a great argument in favor of abolishing the death penalty.
Uneducated Comment Right Here
Adnan bhai will not leave prison without $50 million check.
This was always morally complicated for me. I kind of live in a world where I am absolutely convinced he did it, while simultaneously being absolutely certain the prosecutors didn’t make that case, and he shouldn’t have been convicted.
I found myself advocating for the fact that a man I was convinced was guilty of murder should be released from prison… and it was at that moment I realized, I don’t know how defence lawyers do it. It put me in a quandary where on a personal level, I just couldn’t live with that conflict in myself. I’m glad lawyers exist, but truly, I could not do it at all!
Adnan Syed didn't do it. There are 2 different suspects that the police are investigating now for Hae's murder, so you don't have to feel guilty for advocating for his release.
Why are you certain? I can't even see a clear motive.
@@4203105 for me, it came down to Jay. He knew the location of Hae’s car, and led them to it.
However bad parts of the investigation were, however much they clearly coached him and massaged his timeline to fit their story, that’s the part I struggle to get past, and I just can’t imagine a world where the police had that key piece of evidence, and deliberately left it there until they could tell Jay about it, and have him “lead” them to it. Say what you want about them, but these cops weren’t stupid, and Jay was clearly a liability of a witness, and I don’t buy the world where they hand a piece of evidence that critical to him. I genuinely believe Jay led them to the car. I don’t find any credible alternative. And in that case, the only conclusion I can draw is that Jay was involved in some way. His primary link to Hae is through Adnan, and I really don’t think Jay had any motive at all to do it without Adnan, so, for me, Occam’s Razor means that the reason he knew about the car’s location was because of Adnan.
I don’t buy a world where Jay knows about the car’s location through coincidence or the cops feeding it to him he only knows about it, for me, if he was in some way involved, and I don’t see any other way he gets involved without Adnan.
It’s not only that, there are a lot of small details Jay shares in that first interview that he really shouldn’t have known otherwise. Sure, by the time they get to trial, his story has warped hugely to fit the police narrative, but that first interview… I don’t buy that they had decided to tie their entire case to him at that point. I don’t believe they would have compromised their case and evidence by feeding it all to someone who was obviously a liability of a witness at that point in the investigation.
Do I buy the story he told on the stand? Not at all. Do I think he’s been totally honest since? Not really. But he had that one key piece of information the police didn’t have, the location of the car, and a lot of small, but relevant details, and any other possible suspect forces me to overlook that, which I can’t do.
@@lukehb if you don't buy the cops telling Jay where the car was, maybe look at some of the other cases of the lead detective where he intimidated witnesses, threatened them with drug charges, and told them what to say. These cops knew they were basically untouchable at the time. What are you going to do? Call the cops on them? Launch a complaint with the equally crooked DA? There is a reason the wire was set in Baltimore. The corruption in the "justice" system there at the time was legendary.
@@4203105 I believe they led him as a witness, no question. Im sure they held additional charges over his head if he didn’t comply. I don’t believe, at that early stage, they had the location of the vehicle to give him, nor that they would have intentionally left it “in the wild” until they could give it to him. I don’t see the the upside of that.
The location of the vehicle gives Jay credibility in their eyes, but the fact he knew it’s location isn’t a major part of the case against Adnan, it’s not like that was the major element of their case everything hung off of.
In some ways, if they were going to feed Jay info, it would have been easier, and more relevant from the perspective of their case, to bring the car in, and feed Jay details about it that wouldn’t have otherwise been known to the public. From an evidentiary standpoint they never really capitalized on the fact he knew the location they way they could have if they had the vehicle and gave him info about it.
For me, it seems insane to know the location of such a key piece of evidence, and crime scene, and leave it to potentially be corrupted or compromised, and then give its location to a witness who could easily be discredited. That’s incompetence.
You can’t have it both ways… either these cops are incredibly smart, calculated, deliberate manipulators, or they are incompetent bumbling fools, but they can’t be both. I don’t buy that they were smart enough to concoct this whole case, to feed all of this info to Jay, and to manipulate the timeline to match (their understanding of) the cell phone data, while also risking the whole case, refusing to bring in perhaps the most important piece of evidence - the car - leaving it out there for weeks to potentially get contaminated, when they knew it’s location, just because they wanted to add a little extra credibility to Jay’s testimony, even thought they never really capitalize on that.
I followed the case a lot. A guilty verdict never struck me as fair. He might have done it, but the evidence was terrible.
Nah the evidence was rock solid.
@@liamscott1905 What are you talking about?!? Jay lied so much - none of his stories were plausible. The DNA evidence came back and it was inconclusive. The serial host went into a lot of greater detail than I got, and she wasn't convinced (one way or the other). Adnan might be guilty, but this lawyer was right --- there was reasonable doubt.
@@ryanthompson591
The serial podcast was biased in adnans favour.
None of the points you raised matter, the case is still airtight. He did it.
@@liamscott1905 prove it! Oh wait you can't. Because just like the evidence against Adnan is "trust me he did it" - your evidence is "trust me he did it". Get out of here, you're embarrassing yourself.
@@ryanthompson591 He lied about minor details to not get his grandmother involved and because he was a pot dealer and back then drug dealing was extremely prosecuted. Jay may have lied, but he corrected his lies and explained WHY he lied, that's the difference between him and Adnan. Adnan has no recollection or story to account for where he was and what he was doing that day, Just some weird $#!T about how he was really concerned about Jay buying his girlfriend a gift
this is the definition of reasonable doubt
Nope
Major props to the production team on Legal Eagle videos. I like the visual story telling going on while info is being presented.
This video would’ve benefited from an explicit reminder that the burden of proof is with the prosecution and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt - ending by pointing out flaws in the decisions made by Mosby and the holes in the alibi really obscures that.
Its so cool to see that "What we've got here is..." line from Strother Martin in something that isn't that one Guns n Roses song!!
My great grandfather was Strother Martin's cousin (unsure what relation that creates to me) and I almost never bring it up because "hey I'm vaguely related to this old guy you've never heard of who did a bunch of westerns!" doesn't sound like very good conversation
It's obvious he got away on the basis of technicalities and not because he was innocent
More Spencer please.
Also, I agree with the exoneration in so far as the evidence the prosecutors brought was at best sketchy AF. I am not saying Adnan Syed isn't the killer. Just that imo, they should have had more evidence before they ever brought it to court.
Regardless of one's personal opinion, I think everybody can agree that the case against Syed does not meet the standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, the problems with his trial-from the racial prejudice, to the inadequate defense, to the witness for the prosecution facing possible or greater jail time if they don't cooperate, to alternative suspects being undisclosed and other Brady violations-are not at all uncommon; all of that and more is depressingly routine.
@@paulthomas963 showing no remorse is not evidence of guilt; one cannot have remorse for a crime one did not commit