Opening Arguments Podcast: Adnan is obviously guilty
This week, the OA podcast uploaded an episode breaking down Adnan’s appeal to the Supreme Court and the denial of cert. I am a fan of this pod and was interested to learn that they think he’s guilty and actually did an episode on it before I started listening.
Here’s a link to episode 340, discussing the Supreme Court issues: https://overcast.fm/+HG-WS0S6I
Here’s a link to 107, the original episode on Serial and Adnan: https://openargs.com/oa107-adnan-syed-obviously-also-can-learn-patents/
I was particularly intrigued with Andrew’s reading and analysis of the other relevant Maryland case law as a juxtaposition to the Evidence Prof.
Posted Dec 12, 2019, 4:06 PM UTC
4836
Thanks for posting this here and supporting this subreddit.
Here's a link to the 2017 that caused them to cower a bit.
Here's a link to the conversation about said "cowering."
At the time, they were the only ones who stood up and said "guilty." To see them soften their stance due to Twitter harassment predicted what was to come - internet-wide.
Interesting. Seems like they’re still persuaded of his guilt today though.
Except that he gets a bunch of stuff wrong. To this day, it's shocking to me how little people know about this case - yet proceed to talk about it with authority.
Here's just a few things. I'll make a list later.
He asserts that Gutierrez didn't use Asia as the alibi because Asia would have said she saw Adnan in the school library between track and mosque. He says this like three times, like "Why would Adnan go to the school library after track and not the mosque?" -- Completely missing that Asia said she saw Adnan in the public library, just before track started.
He misses the chance to explain that the prosecution doesn't have to know exactly how the crime went down. And emphasizes how the State was "so wrong" about the time of death. He implies that the "State's Timeline" is an actual thing. It isn't.
He kind of suggests that that lividity and table tapping weren't before the court because Justin Brown decided not to include those issues in the first petition for post conviction relief - completely missing that those are Susan Simpson's Undisclosed theories, and in 2010, Justin Brown didn't know anything about them. I mean, he doesn't say that exactly. But he implies that lividity and table tapping were part of seven of the nine issues that were rejected by Welch in 2014. It's really hard to figure out what he's saying here, but he's trying to say that Adnan's defense made a conscious choice not to bring up those items years ago.
Torrez completely misses how the PCR hearing got re-opened, and why. It's a mess how he explains it. Because he doesn't really understand that there were two hearings for post conviction relief.
He calls Judge Watts a man ie, "He said this," and "he said that."
He makes a big deal about how Adnan has no other options, indicating he is unaware of plans to file IAC against Justin Brown. When asked about Habeas he says "maybe" but that he isn't familiar enough with the case to know about that. So why is he saying Adnan has no other options?
Interesting. I didn’t interpret his comments quite the same way. I heard him to be saying that lividity and table taps aren’t part of current proceedings because they weren’t part of the original PCR proceedings. Additionally, it’s not a federal issue. I understood him to be explaining the legal reasons why it’s not part of the argument before the Supreme Court.
This could be the result of him not knowing Maryland law on PCR and possibly because the possibility is so remote that it just didn’t occur to him.
I agree he gets some of the details wrong, but I guess I’m willing to cut him a little slack because in this episode he’s focused more on the legal arguments than the facts of the case.
I might have misunderstood because I read the transcripts, and didn’t listen. But Torrez repeats the thing about how Adnan originally gave 9 reasons he should receive post conviction relief. Torrez doesn’t know anything about Welch’s first denial for PCR on all claims. So it’s confusing how he says that Adnan won on two of those reasons so is always going to go with the winners and leave behind any issues that didn’t win the first time around. And how that somehow dovetails with lividity and table tapping.
It’s so confusing that I can’t explain it without being confusing.
And if you support Adnan, the thing about Asia seeing Adnan in the school library, between track and mosque is enough to discount everything Torrez is saying. It’s frustrating because it’s so rare for someone to publicly say that Adnan is guilty. The fact that he doesn’t know the basics sort of makes the rest of it meaningless.
He’s also apparently enjoyed “Rising Star” status in the Baltimore area. So the fact that he just assumed Watts is a man is more troubling than your run of the mill, “I assumed it was a man because every time I read something smart that I agree with I assume it’s a man."
He said the litigation for Guitteriez being ineffective is over. He didnt say other options were out
All good points. I've been favoring Adnan's guilty but this take-down of the 'Adnan is Obviously Guilty' pod has me reassessing.
Thanks for the OP - I really enjoy their show - informative, clear, good humor and a kind demeanor. [I don't think they gave much thought to the Twitter stuff, it's comical in some respects, annoying in others, but it's always looked scripted - like a bunch Click-farmed/paid accounts waxing hysterical about issues that don't even make sense].
Can't say that I really blame them. Those review bombs from the tribals of Undisclosed would have been brutal.
Thank you.