Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Serial’ case: Adnan Syed released, conviction tossed

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–169 of 169 posts

Re: ‘Serial’ case: Adnan Syed released, conviction tossed

#161

Post by mecha_ghidorah »

rayiner wrote: post #160
cobaltoxide wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The practical truth is that if we required this level of scrutiny for every conviction to stick, we’d multiply by an order of magnitude or two the number of guilty criminals who cannot be convicted. The standard for criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is no possible way Adnan Syed's conviction reached that standard.

A witness (Jay) testified at the trial that he saw Hae Min’s dead body in the trunk of Syed’s car. He stuck by that testimony when he was interviewed later: https://theintercept.com/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-... Forget the feels and focus on Bayesian probability. Hae had left Syed and she winds up dead shortly thereafter. Just statistically, it’s almost always the ex husband/boyfriend that killed her. Jay’s…

Probability isn't beyond reasonable doubt though. Like I finished the Serial podcast thinking Adnan probably was at least involved in her death, but I still think "just convict the boyfriend/husband based on a single testimony and probability" is a lower standard than I'd like.

Re: ‘Serial’ case: Adnan Syed released, conviction tossed

#162

Post by reggedtorespond »

mecha_ghidorah wrote: post #159
BeetleB wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I honestly felt like it did a terrible job of establishing much reasonable doubt and it just sort of... ends? The goal of Serial wasn't to establish reasonable doubt. She was asked to look into the case, and she's reporting what she found. There was hope that there would be some conclusion, but it wasn't the expectation when she began the story. As for the ending, what exactly would you want? I thought it was clear…

I'm not mad that Serial didn't provide doubt or prove guilt, though I am somewhat frustrated that the reporter seemed to have so much doubt that (in my opinion) wasn't justified by what she presented in the show, what I am mad about is that it largely amounted to just several hours of someone saying "Maybe he is guilty, but also maybe not?" without any real narrative or arc or progression. I felt like the story ended…

It's been a long time since I've listened to the show so I may be way off here, but it did demonstrate that the prosecutor's timeline was flawed, the cell phone data was unreliable, and that Syed's counsel overlooked a potential alibi witness.

In any case Serial was a landmark in the fields of true crime and podcasting, so it holds some merit as a historical piece if nothing else.

Re: ‘Serial’ case: Adnan Syed released, conviction tossed

#163

Post by reggedtorespond »

rayiner wrote: post #160
cobaltoxide wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The practical truth is that if we required this level of scrutiny for every conviction to stick, we’d multiply by an order of magnitude or two the number of guilty criminals who cannot be convicted. The standard for criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." There is no possible way Adnan Syed's conviction reached that standard.

A witness (Jay) testified at the trial that he saw Hae Min’s dead body in the trunk of Syed’s car. He stuck by that testimony when he was interviewed later: https://theintercept.com/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-... Forget the feels and focus on Bayesian probability. Hae had left Syed and she winds up dead shortly thereafter. Just statistically, it’s almost always the ex husband/boyfriend that killed her. Jay’s…

Is it possible that Jay could have given false testimony in exchange for unrelated drug charges being dropped?

Re: ‘Serial’ case: Adnan Syed released, conviction tossed

#164

Post by reggedtorespond »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #112
chasedehan wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve always had that as a question as well. I never remember hearing an alibi or why he wasn’t a suspect.

Then again, it is most often the boyfriend. I think when I initially listened to Serial I didn't realize that fact to quite the degree I know it now. That doesn't make him legally guilty, but it does seem to be the Bayesian center of likelihood.

She had a different boyfriend when she was murdered, so by your logic shouldn't it be Clinedinst in prison and Syed free?

Re: ‘Serial’ case: Adnan Syed released, conviction tossed

#165

Post by rayiner »

mecha_ghidorah wrote: post #161
rayiner wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A witness (Jay) testified at the trial that he saw Hae Min’s dead body in the trunk of Syed’s car. He stuck by that testimony when he was interviewed later: https://theintercept.com/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-... Forget the feels and focus on Bayesian probability. Hae had left Syed and she winds up dead shortly thereafter. Just statistically, it’s almost always the ex husband/boyfriend that killed her. Jay’s…

Probability isn't beyond reasonable doubt though. Like I finished the Serial podcast thinking Adnan probably was at least involved in her death, but I still think "just convict the boyfriend/husband based on a single testimony and probability" is a lower standard than I'd like.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" can be expressed as a statistical probability. Most people put it at 98-99% probability. I think there's a 99% chance that Syed killed Hae.

Re: ‘Serial’ case: Adnan Syed released, conviction tossed

#166

Post by rayiner »

reggedtorespond wrote: post #163
rayiner wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A witness (Jay) testified at the trial that he saw Hae Min’s dead body in the trunk of Syed’s car. He stuck by that testimony when he was interviewed later: https://theintercept.com/2014/12/29/exclusive-interview-jay-... Forget the feels and focus on Bayesian probability. Hae had left Syed and she winds up dead shortly thereafter. Just statistically, it’s almost always the ex husband/boyfriend that killed her. Jay’s…

Is it possible that Jay could have given false testimony in exchange for unrelated drug charges being dropped?

Why would he stick to the story all these years later?

Re: ‘Serial’ case: Adnan Syed released, conviction tossed

#167

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

reggedtorespond wrote: post #164
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then again, it is most often the boyfriend. I think when I initially listened to Serial I didn't realize that fact to quite the degree I know it now. That doesn't make him legally guilty, but it does seem to be the Bayesian center of likelihood.

She had a different boyfriend when she was murdered, so by your logic shouldn't it be Clinedinst in prison and Syed free?

Well, that's a pretty extreme interpretation of what I said. It's just one piece of bayesian evidence, not a 100% determiner. Are there any witnesses who claim that this other individual killed her? Because there is one for Adnan. Also, it seems like a recent ex is probably more dangerous than a new lover.

Re: ‘Serial’ case: Adnan Syed released, conviction tossed

#168

Post by mecha_ghidorah »

rayiner wrote: post #165
mecha_ghidorah wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probability isn't beyond reasonable doubt though. Like I finished the Serial podcast thinking Adnan probably was at least involved in her death, but I still think "just convict the boyfriend/husband based on a single testimony and probability" is a lower standard than I'd like.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" can be expressed as a statistical probability. Most people put it at 98-99% probability. I think there's a 99% chance that Syed killed Hae.

Riiiiiight but "Well statistically it's the boyfriend/ex boyfriend so lets lock him up" is different to "Well there is evidence that makes us think it probably was the ex boyfriend in this specific case"

Re: ‘Serial’ case: Adnan Syed released, conviction tossed

#169

Post by scyzoryk_xyz »

DerekL wrote: post #156
scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could also just call them “radio shows”. It’s a weird thing that the company that made iPods for a few years defined that term and we have gone with it since. As for the earlier part of your comment - it’s there in the name, “serial”. That was the experiment. But there have been serialized radio shows back when radio was the leading medium. We just don’t remember that time. What I think is key here is that these…

> It’s a weird thing that the company that made iPods for a few years defined that term and we have gone with it since. Apple didn't coin the term. People started using the word in 2004, but iTunes didn't have podcast support until 2005.

Oh this I did not know! I guess they absorbed the trend right when everyone was buying an iPod and it all merged for some like me.
Post reply on HN