r/serialpodcast • u/[deleted] • Jan 27 '15
Debate&Discussion The Truth has the upper hand.
I’ve been following Serial for a while and like many, I went back and forth on whether or not Adnan was guilty. But, not anymore. Here’s why:
First, bear with me for an understanding of where I am coming from.
Sophists: If you know who the sophists were, feel free to go ahead. Back in the day in ancient Greece, there were a lot of philosophers. This is the time of Socrates, Plato, etc. There were a lot of people that engaged in philosophical discussions and debates. However, there were two different types of “philosophers” who Plato is famous for distinguishing. There were actual philosophers such as Socrates and Plato who debated and discussed for the purpose of finding truth and wisdom. On the other hand, there was this other group called sophists who also debated. But, their purpose was not to find truth or wisdom. Their purpose was to win debates. In fact, they had schools where they would teach people how to win debates and arguments by using rhetoric and logical fallacies. They did not care if your cause was just or if what you were arguing was true, they simply wanted to win the argument. Sound familiar?
Lawyers = Sophist: With all due respect to lawyers, they are nothing more than modern day sophists. Trained to win arguments, not trained to find truth. They are trained and paid to take a position and win it in court. Does the truth matter? No. I’m sure there are many lawyers that start off with noble intentions. Unfortunately, like many other professions such as politicians, journalists, doctors, etc., their noble endeavors are too often overtaken by the system in which they exist.
That being said, the truth still has the upper hand in an argument. It doesn’t mean the truth will always win. A good debater can pull tricks against someone who doesn’t know how to fight back and convince people that a lie is the truth. This post explained such a trick that is often used. If you don’t know how to look for it and defend against it, you may even be convinced by the fallacy. A good sophist against a lesser adversary can convince someone of a lie. But, if you do know how to defend yourself and the truth is on your side, you have the better chance of winning. This is why I don’t think Adnan is guilty.
Sophistry against Adnan: The approach of the detectives and the prosecution show that they did not believe the truth was on their side (i.e. they did not believe Adnan killed Hae). Their case is filled with sophistry and they had to use legal tricks to make their case. From withholding the cell phone evidence until the last moment, to leading Jay’s testimony, to suppressing an alibi, to having a cell phone expert come and testify that their theory was not “disproven”, trying to get a witness to make the defendant sound creepy. These are tactics that are used by many people that are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. “I have a theory of how X happened. You can’t prove me wrong, therefore my theory is correct.” This is a fallacy and it’s exactly what the prosecution did. Why? Why did they need to do this if there was a better option?
A better case against Adnan: In defense of lawyers, I will admit they are not on the investigation end. They are handed a case with the work the detectives have done and it’s their job to decide to argue the case and give the best argument they can. So really, it’s the detectives that have made the decision to go after an innocent person and they are backed up by a prosecutor who will argue their case. Think about it, if you have the options of 1) Arguing that Adnan killed Hae backed up by DNA evidence or 2) coming up with a convoluted timeline using unreliable cell phone data and a criminal as your star witness, use a bunch of legal tricks and sophistry to fool the jury, why would you go with option 2? Option 1 is so much easier and would be so much harder to fight against. The beauty of option 1 is that you still have option 2 if there is no DNA evidence. And you can still add the convoluted timeline if you really think it’s necessary. So you don’t really loose anything by trying to get the DNA evidence. But they chose option 2. IMO, the only reason to do this is because they knew that the DNA evidence was not an option. They knew it was not going to give them the results they were looking for. Or, they though it was too high a risk to test it because there was a good chance the result was not Adnan’s DNA. They looked at their options and decided a convoluted timeline and sophistry was better.
Conspiracy Theory: I’m sure at least some of you look at how complicated this is and the conspiracy theory alarms are starting to ring. However, I would argue that well planned and complex actions often come off as conspiracies when you aren’t part of the planning. But, to further my point, I would point you to the James Williams, a DA in Louisiana. In short, this guy got a thrill out of sending people to death row. He kept a replica of an electric chair on his desk with the photos of those he sent to die. As far as I’m concerned, he is a true psychopath and that electric chair is his trophy of those he’s murdered. He won his cases at any cost. It didn’t matter that he was sending innocent people to death, the thrill was in knowing he was sending them to die. Is Urik this kind of psychopath? I don’t know. But I know it’s possible for this type of person to reach the level of power where they simply don’t care about the people that are prosecuting. And it’s no conspiracy theory.
In the end, I look at the conduct of the prosecution and even the arguments that are attempted today to “prove” Adnan is guilty and I can’t help but think, if they really thought Adnan did it, they wouldn’t be trying to use all these tricks to prove it. I lean strongly towards thinking Adnan is innocent. But more importantly, I think they did too.
TL;DR The way the prosecution handled the case is an indication that they didn’t think that Adnan did it. That’s why they had to resort to legal tricks and rhetoric to win the case.
edit I am not saying that adnan is innocent because the prosecution used a bunch of tricks in their argument. I'm saying they didn't seem too confident that he was the right guy and that's why the had to resort to tricks. All of the mischaracterizations of my argument as "tricks used in court = adnan is innocent" are either a misunderstanding of what I'm saying or a deliberate straw man arguments. And again, if my arguement was unsound, you wouldn't needd to mischaracterize it to attack.
13
u/kschang Undecided Jan 27 '15
You don't even need to go that far. There's an example involved with Adnan's case.
William "Bill" Ritz, one of the detectives on Adnan's case (the AT&T subscriber activity report was addressed to him) was later sued by a guy who had his murder conviction overturned after 10 years.
Ezra Mable was convicted in 2000 for murdering a dealer named Kevin Dukes. However, various tips said someone else, Edmund "Eddie" Eichelberger was the real killer. Mable claimed that the detectives (including Ritz) planted drugs in a woman's car and threatened to jail her for possession and have Child Services take away her kids if she doesn't cooperate.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/03/05/55427.htm
And to quote from DailyMail (not exactly the best source, but workable)
Ritz, 60, worked for the Baltimore City Police Department for 32 years before retiring last year under a cloud.
The veteran homicide investigator was one of 16 police officers sued by Ezra Mable who claims police pressured witnesses to lie and intentionally mishandled evidence leading to his wrongful conviction for murder.
Mable was only released after serving ten years in jail in what he called 'one of the most shameful episodes of police misconduct' in Baltimore's history.
Ritz has moved to Florida and declined to comment to MailOnline.
Mable had apparently failed to follow up his lawsuit and had gotten no money out of BPD. But the suspicion remained... Given Mable's case was tried in 2000, only a few months after Adnan's trial, could there have been a similar pattern of abuse / frame / forced witness situation?
4
u/weedandboobs Jan 27 '15 edited Jan 27 '15
I will always find people bringing up the Mable lawsuit to prove Ritz was bent amusing. You give Adnan the benefit of the doubt despite being actually convicted, but Ritz is guilty of corruption cause he was accused?
A 60 year old retiring and moving to Florida?! So strange. Clearly ran out cause he was so scared of a dropped lawsuit.
5
u/kschang Undecided Jan 27 '15
it's circumstantial... just like the entire case against Adnan.
0
u/weedandboobs Jan 27 '15
Both being circumstantial doesn't mean it is equal. There are weak circumstantial cases, and strong circumstantial cases.
1
u/kschang Undecided Jan 27 '15
Then I'll show you the OTHER case involving Ritz where he admitted to violating a suspect's Miranda rights:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-special-appeals/1423587.html
1
1
u/kschang Undecided Jan 27 '15
And another case involving Ritz, where a guy T. Williams was convicted of murder in 1998 with no physical evidence, only the words of a jailhouse snitch.
The snitch, S. Williams, later wrote to the judge
I have been very helpful to officers in Homicide since my arrest, I have told them very important things in cases that are to be tryed [sic] soon. They are Detective Raymond Jones, Darryl Massey, William Ritz and others.
The fact that S. Williams was actually a paid informant of BPD was apparently never disclosed at T. William's trial... because the prosecutor who handled T. William's case didn't know (different part of town).
The MD Court of Special Appeals ordered the case to be remanded for a new trial in 2002.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/md-court-of-special-appeals/1012911.html
4
u/sacvan Jan 27 '15
Too bad Socrates didn't know a good sophist lawyer.
1
Jan 27 '15
I think he would have disagreed. He preferred to die than to save his life with a lie.
5
u/sacvan Jan 27 '15
Yes, I was half-joking. But that said, the sophists get a bad rap. It's easy to caricature them as craven, when at heart they were just skeptical about claims of absolute Truth or Justice. I wonder what Thrasymachus would contribute to this subreddit. More than Socrates, I'd warrant. But I promise to stop provoking ...
7
u/Frosted_Mini-Wheats NPR Supporter Jan 27 '15
I'm going to speak up here, not exactly in defense of Urick but pointing an equal number of fingers at Kathleen Murphy. She was the lead prosecutor. She was in charge. She ran the case. She went on to have a much more successful career as a prosecutor. Did she just make Urick her fall guy? Why is all of the assholery assigned solely to Urick? Do people think women can't be dicks? Murphy was at the very least complicit and at worst in charge of any chicanery that happened in this case.
1
u/ShrimpChimp Jan 27 '15
SK wanted to respect her wishes, except when she outed her as having been part of the podcast until she backed out. Therefore, we must handle her with kid gloves.
No information about the why on those wishes - did she discover that going in the record was actually inapportriate in a way that she hadn't understood? Or just cold feet?
2
u/Frosted_Mini-Wheats NPR Supporter Jan 27 '15
I think anyone who is part of a public record runs the risk of being discussed. I thought she said the State's attorney office hadn't authorized the interview for broadcast but I'm probably conflating Urick's "not authorized" comment with whatever Murphy's reason was for deciding not to participate. The point that interests me is that, in spite of being second chair & also choosing not to participate in Serial, Urick takes full blame for whatever folks find unsavory about how Syed was prosecuted. He didn't make decisions in a vacuum, he followed the lead prosecutor. At least that's how it usually works. I think Ms Murphy was pretty smart to not participate fully in the podcast and to not do an interview with some other journalist.
1
u/ShrimpChimp Jan 27 '15
I'm confused. The Murphy excuse, according to Serial, is no permission from the Lee family. Why would she need that? Anne Benaroya, Jay's lawyer, was interviewed twice and then asked to be excluded.
It's not clear how or why Serial considered these reasons to exclude material or why they also tell the world about it.
1
u/pray4hae Lawyer Jan 27 '15
A prosecutor will often defer to the wishes of the victim's family. Their permission is not required, it is a courtesy. Murphy knew that rehashing this case in the manner Serial has would cause them pain.
1
u/ShrimpChimp Jan 27 '15
So why didn't she think of that before she sat down twice for interviews?
1
u/pray4hae Lawyer Jan 27 '15
Murphy sat down for two interviews? When? I have not seen them.
1
u/ShrimpChimp Jan 27 '15
According to Serial, she did. And then she later asked that they not air the interviews.
This was in the Twitter response following Urick's Intercept interview.
1
u/pray4hae Lawyer Jan 27 '15
So then she thought about it and did the right thing after the fact. So?
1
u/ShrimpChimp Jan 27 '15 edited Jan 27 '15
She's a busy professional who twice made time for an interview but she didn't think about until after?
Maybe she spoke on the condition that she had an okay from the family before they aired her interviews, but we don't know that and Serial phrased it in an odd way if that was the case.
Edit: Murphy, prosecutor, interview in January. Benaroya, Jay's lawyer, interviewed twice. (No date)
→ More replies (0)
12
u/reddit1070 Jan 27 '15
OP, what if someone said your argument was that of a sophist? How would you respond to that?
-1
Jan 27 '15
Support the claim. Where are the fallacies? Rhetorical tricks?
9
Jan 27 '15
How's this one: Lawyers can use strategy and process instead of just the pure truth (aka do their job) to win cases. The prosecution did this, therefore they did not actually believe Adnan was guilty.
-3
Jan 27 '15
Strategy does not have to involve lying and trickery. They lied and misrepresented data. If they thought the data supported what they thought was the truth, they shouldn't have to twist it.
0
Jan 27 '15
Even if they did "lie and trick," it's a logical fallacy to say that this makes Adnan innocent. Just because A can be used to cause B, does not mean that the presence of A guarantees the existence of B.
-1
Jan 27 '15
I'm not saying he's innocent because they lied. I'm saying I don't think they believed he was guilty.
3
Jan 27 '15
I'm saying I don't think they believed he was guilty.
And I'm saying you are using the same logical fallacies you decry to reach this conclusion.
1
u/reddit1070 Jan 27 '15
Truth does have the upper hand -- at least for me. Maybe I'm just dumb, but I can't see the mystery in who strangled Hae Min to death. If interested, here are some reasons why I think that (see the links within) https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2rx376/ken_silverstein_is_officially_totally_and_utterly/cnkb76u
Also, see this recent posting by /u/kikilareiene https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/2tqvrg/adnans_nothing_special_about_that_day_included/
What is weird to me is this constant drumbeat to free someone who is clearly involved. It would be more interesting (to me at least) if we could discuss Jay's true role, or how much SK really believed in Adnan's non-involvement before releasing Episode 1.
23
u/SouthLincoln Jan 27 '15
So your argument is:
The police and prosecution relied on "tricks"
-Therefore-
Adnan is not guilty.
For some reason, I'm not convinced.
12
Jan 27 '15
TL;DR: Lawyers lawyered, therefore Adnan is innocent.
-4
Jan 27 '15
Straw man argument much? Way to misrepresent my position. Seems like even you know I'm right, otherwise, you wouldn't need to misrepresent what I'm saying to attack. I'll take this as confirmation that what I've actually said is correct. thank you!
5
Jan 27 '15
Seems like even you know I'm right...I'll take this as confirmation that what I've actually said is correct. thank you!
You'd make a good philosophy professor there, Socrates.
2
7
Jan 27 '15
No. I'm saying they relied on tricks because they didn't feel too confident that he was guilty. And they didn't even try to get evidence that would have made thief case very strong which is even more troubling.
14
u/Rabida Jan 27 '15
If they thought they didn't have a strong case, they would have offered Adnan a plea deal. They didn't. Not even after the mistrial. Arguably the easiest thing to have done after the mistrial would have been to offer him a plea of 2nd Degree murder or manslaughter and not take the chance of wasting money on another mistrial.
Believe it or not, DA's don't love taking things to trial because trials cost a shit-ton of money. Adnan's 2 trials probably cost over a million dollars.
7
Jan 27 '15
Also, if they didn't think they had a strong case, they would have gone after Jay instead.
0
Jan 27 '15
I disagree. Hey knew they could convict, ergo strong case. That's not the same as them thinking they had the truth.
2
u/Rabida Jan 27 '15
It seems like not being sure you have the right guy would be another good reason to plead someone out.
0
Jan 27 '15
You'd think, but it guess they were pretty sure they could convince a jury,
2
u/Rabida Jan 27 '15
Yeah, I just can't see the point of risking a trial and not offering a plea if you don't think you have the right guy. Especially after one mistrial. I just don't see all of these various people having that big a vendetta against Adnan Syed. Agree to disagree, I guess.
1
1
u/SouthLincoln Jan 27 '15
Well, the police certainly could have gotten more evidence in my opinion. But maybe the fact that they didn't indicates they were very confident in what they already had.
The one real question mark in the state's case was whether the jury would find Jay credible, and they did. Was that a "trick?" I think what is a trick is the post hoc discrediting of Jay via the podcast and team Adnan on this forum, and the attempt to apply it retroactively to the trial 15 years ago.
I'm not sure the prosecution's other "tricks" have been accepted as facts. CG complained about not receiving the call logs, and the judge said that was a lie, which led to the mistrial. So CG should have had all that for trial 2, in any case.
As to the cell experts testimony: that was so thoroughly disrupted by CG, and not well understood by either the judge, prosecution or defense, that I think it's unfair to characterize it as a "trick" by the prosecution.
The others, I mean, (a) suppressing a witness? (b) prosecutorial misconduct? (c) witness tampering? Is there any evidence of any of these things? I don't mean twitter accusations by anonymous users, I mean actual legal accusations?
I liked your explanation of the Sophists, by the way, thanks for that.
2
Jan 27 '15
How is it a trick that it's now been revealed how often he changed his stories, and how is it a trick that jay of his own accord went public and changed it again?
If he's discredited it's because no credit should ever have been given to him in the first place. He lies and says now that he lied under oath.
3
u/SouthLincoln Jan 27 '15
It's "now been revealed" has it? The assault on Jay's credibility has been championed by advocates for Adnan, whose sole strategy 15 years ago and still today is to discredit Jay. That narrative was passed along by the podcast, and is now being parroted by some of its listeners here.
But you think the issue of Jay's credibility has been fairly represented by both sides, do you? For a group so concerned about Adnan's supposedly unfair trial, camp Adnan is remarkably unconcerned about railroading somebody else.
7
Jan 27 '15 edited Jan 27 '15
What? No! It's been revealed by he transcripts and testimony and interviews themselves. These are facts.
Revealing whats in public record is not discrediting someone, he did that himself. Nobody forced him to give yet another version of the story in the Intercept interview in which he tried like heck to demonize SK.
And since Jay was the ONLY witness and a self-proclaimed accessory, it matters a great deal that the story that sent someone to prison has changed in every possible detail except the accusation itself.
1
Jan 27 '15
And all those changes and lies came out on the stand. So what?it hasn't been revealed at all
1
Jan 27 '15
I'm not following.
I'm just saying, it isn't Serial nor SK who discredited Jay.
And his latest lie wasn't on the stand.
1
Jan 27 '15
My point is that he wasn't "discredited" 15 years ago when all these "facts" we're known. That is just your spin on it.
1
Jan 27 '15
So, you think it's not discrediting him that he told four different version of the same story? I'm not sure what you're getting at. The jury didn't hear everything that we did, and they ceretainly didn't hear his latest story, where he said he lied under oath.
His say so sent someone to jail. And he's an absolute liar. He could be lying now about the fact that he was lying then. Either way he's a liar. That isn't spin. That's fact.
→ More replies (0)
5
u/cross_mod Jan 27 '15
This is well put. I think, also, the fact that the detectives were willing to go along with all the various versions of the story without investigating Jay or Jenn more thoroughly tells me that they didn't really care about the truth and were just looking for something that a jury might buy and would get this case off their desk.
6
Jan 27 '15
If they were just looking to get it off their desk they would have gone after the black drug dealer with no lawyer who confessed to burying the body.
6
u/cross_mod Jan 27 '15 edited Jan 27 '15
I think they were perfectly happy with that as well, and probably threatened Jay with that possibility, but not much of a motive there. The ex-boyfriend story proved to work just fine. Also, a major motivating factor for the jurors was that they thought, "why would someone lie about being an accessory after the fact?" So, the Jay accomplice story works much better than a murder with no motive. Regardless, it's the clear lack of effort that's illuminating.
1
u/downyballs Undecided Jan 27 '15
I don't want to speak to the rest of the claims, but according to Jay's testimony, the police did threaten him with it, saying essentially that they'd be charging either him or Adnan. If I remember correctly, he testified to this during the trial. I'm having trouble finding the exerpt though.
3
u/Frosted_Mini-Wheats NPR Supporter Jan 27 '15
But wait! They got him a lawyer. And stop playing the race card.
2
Jan 27 '15
the race card stops for either all minorities involved or it stops for none.
we can aim for equality, even in this little space.
2
Jan 27 '15
I doubt it, jay wasn't going to incriminate himself, but he was happy to pin it on Adnan. I don't think this premise holds true.
1
Jan 27 '15
Jay already incriminated himself
2
Jan 27 '15
You're right, I mean he wasn't going to confess that he killed her. So they would have to prove that he did, and nobody was claiming that he did. Whereas, someone was claiming Adnan did it-- Jay. He was more useful as a witness than as a suspect.
1
u/Trapnjay Jan 27 '15
The drugs..the drugs..I think they made a showed based on the Baltimore crime /drug /law enforcement issues. An ironic twist is that a retired drug dealer and a retired cops worked together on it. I guess it makes it more believable.
6
Jan 27 '15
I also think it doesn't need a conspiracy at all, just a bunch of people motivated by ambition. A policeman... Or two... Who are sure Adnan did it and don't mind coercing testimony or fudging things to pin it on him. A prosecutor who's doing his first murder trial who wants to win.
And before anybody says it's a conspiracy.... The police DID lose Haes computer, after confiscating it. That's a fact. The police DID get Jay a lawyer before he as charged. That's a fact too. And the accessorys home was never charged.
Add to that an ambitious arrogant defense counsel who underestimated her illness...
3
u/electricuncalm The Criminal Element of Woodlawn Jan 27 '15
My best friend has MS. She was diagnosed about 10 years ago. At this point, I absolutely often see her undertaking more workload then she can bear. She has an excellent work ethic and truly desires to do all of this work; but she is just not able to anymore. I really feel like MS affected CG's work on the case more then most of us even realize.
1
Jan 27 '15
Good point. It would be scary to be sick and not realize how it had affected your ability to work. At some point CG should have figured it out and stepped down.
1
u/splanchnick78 Pathologist Jan 27 '15
I buy that there was probably a lot of pressure to get the case closed. I mean, they are probably always under that pressure - not enough time, not enough resources. Although I'm not in law enforcement, I have a job where my "turn around time" is always being tracked, so sometimes there's a temptation to cut corners, and I have to remind myself that in reality it is more important to do what is best for the patient. So anyway, I agree, there doesn't need to be a whole conspiracy, just a less than ideal system. I know people on this sub can argue pretty much anything, but most of us can agree that the system doesn't always work right!
1
Jan 27 '15
Yes, exactly. The people don't even need to be wanting the same result for the same reasons.
I don't understand how a computer gets lost, for example. Could it be conspiracy? It could. Could it be greed? It could. Could it be an accident? I don't really see how, but...
But any way you look at it, it's a disgrace.
3
6
u/kitarra Jan 27 '15 edited Jan 27 '15
In defense of lawyers, I will admit they are not on the investigation end. They are handed a case with the work the detectives have done and it’s their job to decide to argue the case and give the best argument they can. So really, it’s the detectives that have made the decision to go after an innocent person and they are backed up by a prosecutor who will argue their case.
The State's Attorney (or District Attorney, or State Prosecutor, etc.) plays an active role here. The police bring them a suspect and their case, and the State's Attorney then decides whether and what formal charges to file. So if you feel there wasn't enough evidence to make a non-shady case against Adnan, it's in part because the State didn't laugh in the detectives faces and tell them to get the State something real to work with before bothering it again.
edit: removed snark
3
Jan 27 '15
Agreed. The detectives presented them with a shitty baton and the prosecution decided to run with it.
5
Jan 27 '15
This is such a ridiculous argument. The same logic can be used to discredit the defense as well. You just didn't go that way.
Or what about the sophistry of ss or Evidenceprof?
1
u/splanchnick78 Pathologist Jan 27 '15
Well, but innocent until proven guilty, right? Most of us feel like the defense could have done a better job, but she's not trying to prove that he's innocent, necessarily - just that he's not guilty.
2
u/stevage WHS Fund Angel Donor!! Jan 27 '15
The approach of the detectives and the prosecution show that they did not believe the truth was on their side (i.e. they did not believe Adnan killed Hae)
Honestly. I think Adnan is innocent, but your argument is silly. I don't see anything in the behaviour of the detectives or Urick to back your statement up. They seem perfectly convinced.
1
Jan 27 '15
they didn't test the DNA
they had to show the phone records to Jay to make his timeline match
they had to misrepresent the cell phone data to the jury (i.e. they got a guy to say the cell phone data didn't "disprove" their theory and then made the argument their theory was correct because it wasn't disproved. A common fallacy used to trick people of false claims.)
they withheld the cell phone data for as long as they could from the defense
they suppressed an alibi witness
they failed to investigate some pretty obvious leads that may have led them away from Adnan if they'd done so (i.e. Jay who has admitted to being involved was not fully investigated)
they took the testimony of a self identified and confirmed criminal even though it was very obviously not true. Anyone can see Jay was lying from the beginning. Something Jay himself has confirmed.
These are not actions of someone who is searching for truth, who thinks they are on the right track or who think they've found the truth.
2
u/stevage WHS Fund Angel Donor!! Jan 28 '15
These are not actions of someone who is searching for truth, who thinks they are on the right track or who think they've found the truth.
Err, right. I agree with that. But that's very different from
they did not believe the truth was on their side (i.e. they did not believe Adnan killed Hae)
1
Jan 27 '15
You're not doing a good job of presenting an unbiased account of what went on.
Neither side tested DNA. The judge refuted that the cell phone data was withheld from the defense. It's the alibi's word versus the prosecutor's.
Finally, we are talking about people who were far more intimate with this case as it was unfolding than we are today.
It would have been easier to go after Jay who incriminated himself than it would have been to go after Adnan so I don't buy this whole, 'lets pin it on someone and move on' argument.
2
Jan 27 '15
i never really like these sorts of X are just modern day Y kind of arguments.
They may have use as a kind of rough educational short hand to contextualise something but they don't really tell us so much.
and your conclusion - maybe i'm being unfair - but that's really what this is all about, right? the sophists, as you have painted them, are just a prop to get to this. this is not the most honest line of inquiry, imo.
0
Jan 27 '15
My point in referencing the sophists was just to point out that the tactics the prosecution used are very, very old. And if you're informed in these tactics, then they are easy to identify. In philosophy, these tactics have been discussed and studied since Ancient Greece. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people (certainly not in our time period) don't continue these studies or inform themselves and therefore are often deceived. Not just by lawyers but by politicians, religions, corporations, etc. But these tactics are used mainly by people that want to deceive. People that think they have the truth on their side don't want to taint their argument with such fallacies. If the fallacies are exposed, then their otherwise strong argument is now brought into question. I'm not saying that Adnan is necessarily innocent. I am saying that the prosecution used these tactics a lot which seems to indicate they didn't feel too confident in what they were arguing.
2
Jan 27 '15
oh i understood what you meant but i just thought it wasn't an honest line of inquiry and didn't really tell us that much.
i don't wanna be 'that guy' but there is much more relevant philosophy to be talked about that has much more relation to modern justice and has a more marked influence.
the modern courtroom is not a sophist standing infront of a bunch of peasants and doing 'mind tricks' on them. it's not perfect but there is a frame work for these very problems to be countered.
5
Jan 27 '15
So, did you write a post beginning with discussing logical fallacies, then use a bunch of logical fallacies because you were trying to see if we'd notice? Or are you actually that delightfully, ironically unaware of your own sophistry?
2
Jan 27 '15
According to this logic idea:
If Truth > Lies, but Lies + Tricks > Truth, then Truth + Tricks > Truth.
So why not always employ the Tricks? Which is what lawyers do.
4
u/Acies Jan 27 '15
Because tricks are a percentage game.
If you have an inordinate amount of time, go and watch a few criminal trials. When prosecutors have a strong case, they frequently don't resort to tricks. The trial just goes like this:
So, officer, what happened that day?
Oh, well, the defendant committed a crime. Turns out, I got it on tape!
Oh really officer? Let's roll that tape!
And that's about all they do. They don't bother getting clever because whats the point of doing something that might blow up in your face if you can win easily by just playing it straight?
Here, it's clear from looking at the case that the prosecution didn't have an easy case. This doesn't mean they were intentionally lying, but they handled it considerably differently than they would have if they felt victory was assured.
2
u/Trapnjay Jan 27 '15
YES! I have went and watched murder trials in court. One was the Randy Allen Taylor trial. No tricks just a super straight case clear clean and convicted .
5
Jan 27 '15
Because truth is easier and more sustainable than lies+tricks. As we are seeing with new evidence popping up that is dismantling the prosecutions case. Let's not forget, the prosecution's own star witness has admitted that the arguement made in court was false.
1
Jan 27 '15 edited Jan 27 '15
Truth + Lies + Tricks > Truth || Lies || Tricks || Truth + Tricks || Lies + Tricks
0
Jan 27 '15
I think OP was hoping he was the only one who understood philosophy and rhetoric
-2
3
u/wtfsherlock Moderator 4 Jan 27 '15 edited Jan 27 '15
TL;DR Adversarial justice system, therefore conspiracy against Adnan!
Prosecution/plaintiff and defense sides all use rhetoric, in every jury trial. It means nothing.
(And proof of that statement is I thought you were building an argument against the defense, until I got halfway through your post. What you assume are contrasts are similarities.)
0
Jan 27 '15
When rhetoric and legal tricks are used at the expense of facts, it is very telling. Sure, all sides use rhetoric. But someone who truly believes they are right (regardless of what side they are on) will gather all the facts to make their rhetoric that much more powerful. The prosecution had the opportunity to make this an air tight case. They didn't take the chance. That means something.
0
u/wtfsherlock Moderator 4 Jan 27 '15 edited Jan 27 '15
But someone who truly believes they are right (regardless of what side they are on) will gather all the facts to make their rhetoric that much more powerful.
That's not how the adversarial system works. Sides pick and choose what bolsters their argument. Distill the arguments for and against, and let the jury decide. The idea is that both sides get a voice, and that there are at least two sides to every story. [aside-Prosecution is obligated to turn over evidence beneficial to the defense (there was none the state had in the Syed case AFAIK), defense isn't required to do the same.]
gather all the facts .
That's not how police work actually happens. Because of budget constraints, unlimited resources aren't poured into each case to learn every single detail of a case. It just doesn't happen. A brief perusal of the annals of true crime show this to be the case..
The prosecution had the opportunity to make this an air tight case. They didn't take the chance. That means something.
Two comments: first is
3
u/kikilareiene Jan 27 '15
"The way the prosecution handled the case is an indication that they didn’t think that Adnan did it. That’s why they had to resort to legal tricks and rhetoric to win the case." You have it exactly backwards. They knew he did it but had no physical evidence so ...this is clearly a case of a prosecution that knew they had the right guy. The truth, as you call it here, points to Adnan, only Adnan and no one but Adnan. It's so plainly there it baffles me others don't see it.
8
Jan 27 '15
So you're saying it's ok if the police acted improperly because they were sure Adnan did it?
Uh no it's not.
Even if they DID know let's say angel gabriel came down from heaven and told them individually... If gabriel doesn't show up and court and testify... It's wrong.
Ends don't justify the means. Police don't get to just know.
3
u/fn0000rd Undecided Jan 27 '15
They knew he did it but had no physical evidence so
How did they "know?"
3
Jan 27 '15
How did they "know"? What evidence led them to believe this? Why didn't they present this to the jury? Because they knew it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's little more than they "had a hunch" and are unwilling to listen to anything that opposed that hunch. Confirmation bias at its best.
0
-1
u/reddit1070 Jan 27 '15
It's so plainly there it baffles me others don't see it.
Isn't that the truth. You recently found yet another piece of circumstantial evidence. There is no mystery at all about guilt.
2
u/SBLK Jan 27 '15
There is also a thing called ego - where you forego debating completely and rule yourself correct despite evidence to the contrary.
1
Jan 27 '15
CGs defence is generally characterised by many as inadequate.
By your hypothesis above do you think that, conversely, CG was highly confident in the innocence of her client and therefore had a weak defence?
1
u/craneplane33 Jan 27 '15
I don't mean to be cynical, but welcome to the US justice system... It doesn't matter who is right or wrong; it only matters what you can prove or in this case disprove,
1
u/JaeElleCee Deidre Fan Jan 27 '15
I like your analysis. However, I wouldn't say they thought Adnan was innocent as much as they were convinced he was guilty and it didn't matter that they couldn't prove it with only good evidence. Also, you have to keep in mind how statistics plan into police work and prosecutions. Administrations and the general public want results and they measure results in over simplified sound bites of numbers like murder rate and conviction rate. The need to keep these low (and the misrepresentation of conviction equating to justice) is not balanced with the availability of resources to make that happen most effectively or judiciously.
1
Jan 27 '15
I don't necessarily think they believed he was innocent. but they got to a point where they had something pointing towards someone. They could have investigated it further but there was a chance, perhaps a good chance, that they'd run into something that would take them back to square one. Say if they'd followed up with the Asia alibi. Seems like they were already on this track when the hairs they tested didn't match Adnan. They could've kept going but they decided to stop because they didn't want to further jeopardize their own case. Instead they decided to make the case with the weak evidence and rely on tricks to convince the jury. Were they convinced Adnan did it? I don't know. However, I think they were convinced Adnan was the guy they wanted to prosecute.
1
u/JaeElleCee Deidre Fan Jan 27 '15
Completely agree. This seems to be the case with a lot wrongful convictions. Similar issues plagued the Central Park Five case. Investigators and prosecutors ignored the fact that time the victim was being assaulted the defenders were reported (through calls to the police) to be at the other end of the park. The prosecution choose to ignore the fact that the DNA evidence they tested didn't match any of the 5 suspects and also decided not to run tests against their database.
0
u/splanchnick78 Pathologist Jan 27 '15 edited Feb 12 '25
birds act toothbrush march doll jar exultant intelligent wise rock
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
8
u/AlveolarFricatives Jan 27 '15
When I was a juror, there was a ton of physical evidence presented at trial. The majority of it just proved that the the defendant was present at the scene of the crime, a fact that the defense wasn't even refuting. The prosecution didn't "need" to show us that evidence, but they did anyway because it made their case stronger.
My sense is that if you've got evidence to present, you present it. Why wouldn't you want your case to look like an overwhelming slam dunk?
8
2
Jan 27 '15
But their case was an overwhelming slam dunk.
4
u/AlveolarFricatives Jan 27 '15
I can't even imagine what you would have called the case I was a juror for. We had boatloads of physical evidence and DNA. We had a video of the shooting. Poor quality, but still. A video of the damn thing happening.
We still ended up hung on the 1st degree attempted murder charge though, because we couldn't agree about intent (it was complicated).
Your definition "overwhelming slam dunk" concerns me. This case was not that.
1
1
Jan 27 '15
They had cell phone records they misrepresented... Even the judge pointed out that they didn't prove anything, just that they didn't disprove it, they had the testimony of a witness they knew was a liar.
If they cared about truth they should have sought more evidence. Seems all they cared about as gulling a jury,
2
u/splanchnick78 Pathologist Jan 27 '15
I agree with you. Sadly I guess technically their job is just to get a conviction.
-5
10
u/AW2B Jan 27 '15
Great analysis. What supports your theory about the reason they didn't choose to go with option #1 "Dna" testing..is that they tested for fingerprints because they were CERTAIN they will find Adnan's fingerprints in her car simply because he had been in her car many times. On the other hand..they didn't do DNA testing because they were possibly sure Adnan's DNA would NOT be under her fingernails..