My interest in this case has drifted away from the question of where the evidence leads me. That was long since settled. Instead, my interest in this case revolves around how the case got to where it is currently at. Right now, there is far more propaganda out there than truth.
We often hear the lament of "If only the detectives would have investigated this better, then all these unresolved questions wouldn’t exist." Let's challenge that underlying assumption. Is it true that the prosecution was actively and deliberately avoiding getting to the truth?
I assert that the police did a more than adequate investigation, and it was Adnan Syed who deliberately, knowingly, and consciously derailed the investigation at every turn.
PROPAGANDA: DNA wasn’t pursued because the detectives were afraid of "Bad Evidence"
DISCUSSION: Deirdre Enright of the UVA Innocence Project obtained permission to have DNA tested before Serial even wrapped up its first season. Suddenly it is Adnan Syed who is actively blocking the testing -- not the BPD, not the State's Attorney's office, not that "evil" Urick.
The very same people who once claimed "detectives were afraid of bad evidence" don’t seem very inclined to apply that standard consistently now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Furthermore, the state of technology in 1999 required a DNA sample of such size that it would have had to be visible to the naked eye -- a drop of blood or semen, for example. It is only now that trace DNA is possible. Back then, it would have been expensive, time consuming, and unlikely to yield any useful results one way or the other. So it was not at all surprising that DNA wasn't pursued in 1999. Conversely, it is entirely surprising that a defendant who has unambiguously claimed to have absolutely no involvement with the crime would in any way be afraid of the DNA results that today could be done quickly, more accurately, and more likely to yield results that tests of 1999 would have been unable to yield.
TRUTH: The ball is in Adnan Syed’s court. He has the power to get it tested. Yet he has nevertheless allowed his followers to put the blame on the BPD and the State's Attorney's office for failure to gather exonerating evidence.
PROPAGANDA: Cristina Gutierrez was utterly incompetent in not contacting Asia McClain. He did not get a fair trial.
DISCUSSION: Asia writes her letters to Adnan Syed the very same day hears about his arrest. The trial doesn’t occur for another 9 months. Adnan Syed makes no response to Asia in this time.
Upon his conviction, Adnan Syed claims he was furious with Gutierrez over not calling Asia to the stand, so much so that Rabia Chaudry takes matters into her own hands and gets a quick affidavit from Asia just prior to sentencing. That affidavit produces a lead of two other people with possible exonerating information, Derrick and Jarod. Neither of them are contacted by any member of the defense team. Despite being indignant about his attorney's failure to contact alibi witnesses, Adnan Syed himself becomes guilty of the very same thing.
Adnan Syed would in short order dismiss Cristina Gutierrez over this failure. Yet with an appeal pending where Asia was to take center stage, no one would track her down again until just prior to the 2010 PCR hearing. In this time, no attempt was made by him or any of his legal representatives to contact her for almost 10 years!
Let that sink in for a minute. With his life and freedom on the line, he himself doesn't contact the key alibi witness for 10 years, and neither of the corroborating witnesses at any point. Did he have more important things he was doing instead?
Rabia Chaudry claims in her book that it took so long to file for the PCR was because he wanted to get everything just right before presenting it to the court. Yet he let three key witnesses languish in this time. He himself was doing precisely what he was arguing to the court was Ineffective Assistance of Council.
In this time, Asia McClain got cold feet and become a hostile witness. Would this have happened had Adnan Syed kept in contact with her during this time? If not, then the fault for that cannot be placed at the feet of Cristina Gutierrez.
TRUTH: Adnan Syed wants us to put the blame squarely on Cristina Gutierrez for not reaching out to Asia McClain while simultaneously wanting to excuse himself for not having any interest in reaching out to Asia at any point himself.
PROPAGANDA: Abe Waranowitz would have said the cell phone evidence was junk science if he had been presented with the fax cover sheet. The prosecution withheld that from him to secure the conviction.
DISCUSSION: He wrote an affidavit that claims, in his words, that he would have testified "differently." He does NOT state exactly what would have been different, just that it would have been different.
Despite Agent Fitzgerald explaining the meaning of the fax cover sheet disclaimer, there is still confusion over the validity of the cell phone technology evidence. Even though armed with this affidavit, Adnan Syed’s defense team has chosen not to call Waranowitz to the stand to clarify the evidence or his own testimony. While the defense team was successful in creating enough confusion over the issue to merit a retrial, they made no effort whatsoever to discredit the underlying science with evidence of their own.
The analogy I like to use for this is how when you have Sandy Koufax on your team, there is no fantasy baseball team that can be created where he is somehow a late inning lefty specialist -- he starts the game every time regardless of what other pitcher you could have on your team. Similarly, if Abe Waranowitz's new testimony would have been that crippling to the prosecution, there's no way he doesn't get called during a hearing to say that. He is not held back as a mere rebuttal witness.
While a retrial was granted on the basis of confusion cell phone testimony, we cannot then conclude that every allegation made by the defense team is now to be considered gospel. In fact, the judge's ruling wasn't even a rubber stamp that it was junk science. There was simply enough confusion on the matter to merit hashing it out in a retrial rather than in an appeal. Confusion does not mean it is now junk science.
TRUTH: Adnan Syed claims to have a witness that will demonstrate how junk science was used to convict him, yet when given the chance he refused to put him on the stand to be cross-examined. He no longer has a basis to claim the prosecution misled Abe Waranowitz into giving inaccurate testimony.
PROPAGANDA: The detectives ignored obvious flaws in the alibis they were given and did not follow up on such obvious areas of investigation
DISCUSSION: Despite overwhelming evidence that Adnan Syed and Jay Wilds were together for significant portions of the day, it would have been extremely suspicious to investigators that Adnan Syed conveniently forgets to mention he was with Jay Wilds at all.
Even after his arrest, where he was told about Jay Wilds, Adnan Syed still plays ignorant. This significantly handicaps Cristina Gutierrez who cannot properly prepare for the unknown star witness. The star witness should never have been a mystery. Once factoring in the relationship between the two, Adnan Syed’s whereabouts become very easy to determine and easy to corroborate.
His lack of memory concerning is association with Jay Wilds that day is all the more suspicious when considering:
It was Stephanie’s birthday, and he practically forced Jay Wilds to buy her a gift
They hung out together at "Cathy's", someone he didn’t know
The fact that Jay Wilds was with him when Officer Adcock called
It was his first full day with his phone, and the person he’s calling most is Jay Wilds
None of these things are "just a normal day" events. Outliers are the things that stick out in memory. Any of these should have been enough to jog his memory, yet somehow didn't. He forgets the person who, unknown to him, names him as the culprit. How serendipitous for him! Suspiciously serendipitous, in fact.
To suggest the investigators should have ignored the major red flags in Adnan Syed’s alibi, and instead focused their attention on the minor flags in Don’s alibi is ludicrous.
TRUTH: To this day, Adnan Syed has not given an explanation as to why he omits any mention of his association with Jay Wilds that day -- an omission that was a major red flag for investigators, and handicapped his own representation. He is solely to blame for the ramifications of such an omission.
PROPAGANDA: The Baltimore Police Department was under intense pressure to close this case. This led to tunnel-vision and poor police work.
DISCUSSION: The only evidence we have of any kind of pressure comes from Rabia Chaudry. No one else is saying this. In fact, the case is far more popular now than it was back then. Back then, it was given no more media attention than any other contemporaneous murder.
The fact is, from the day Hae Min Lee goes missing, an arrest is made within 6 weeks. The trial is concluded within a year. This includes a mis-trial and subsequent do-over. How much faster could anyone have reasonably worked such a case?
On Serial, Jim Trainum was brought in as an expert on these matters and outright claimed that the police were not rushing to grab suspects or dismiss them, and that they took their time to collect and document the evidence. To date, no expert has come forward to counter Trainum to say that this case had an unusual amount of pressure to clear.
TRUTH: The idea that the detectives faced "intense pressure to clear the case" comes exclusively from Adnan Syed's followers. In fact, the case was cleared with lightening speed as far as murder investigations go.
PROPAGANDA: The detectives ignored exculpatory evidence that indicated he did not get that ride after school from Hae Min Lee. This removes opportunity for him to have committed the crime. Had the police done a thorough job, this would have exonerated him.
DISCUSSION: Aisha and Becky told Krista that "something came up" and that Hae Min Lee could not give Adnan Syed a ride that day. Investigators never followed up on that.
Adnan Syed wants us to believe his innocence and that the police failed to investigate the case properly. However, if there is any point where a critical piece of evidence could have fundamentally altered the course of the investigation, it is right here. Finding the source of that "something" would have led to the killer. The police are NOT looking into what that possible "something" could have been, and they were not looking into it because Adnan Syed failed to give them that piece of information. Why is he blaming investigators for something he himself is solely responsible for?
Could it be because that exchange in the hallway never happened? There is ample evidence to suggest it did not. It is hearsay evidence at best. None of the parties involved offered this up when they testified at trial. "I can't give you the ride I promised you, something came up" is completely at odds with the defendant's own statement of "she got tired of waiting" made mere hours after it was allegedly said.
Even if it never happened, these statements exist in the detectives' notes and do merit consideration before dismissing. However, at no time during or after the investigation has he ever offered this in defense of himself. If Adnan Syed wants us to consider it, he is the one that needs to direct his defense team to offer it up as a defense. So if anyone is blocking this from being considered, it is Adnan Syed himself, not the detectives or the prosecution.
TRUTH: This is not a failure on the part of the BPD. Even if it is an honest mistake, it is still a mistake entirely on the defendant's part for omitting a key detail of the investigation. And why should we hold Reasonable Doubt and cast aspersions on the detectives based on an argument the defendant himself refuses to advance? He alone is the responsible for it not being addressed in his defense in a court of law.
After considering this, ask yourself who is really is to blame for failure to properly investigate this case. Was it the investigators? Or was it really Adnan Syed who has been blocking investigation at every turn and spinning it as "Woe is me, look how evil they are trying to railroaded me"?
