Adnan Syed Remains a Convicted Murderer

As someone who never listened to Serial and knows nothing about this case, I am utteely bamboozled. Gonna have to learn a bit and come back to listen again 😅

Jess C

Always happy to answer these kinds of questions from patrons! And yes, this case as of now presents all kinds of issues which have become much more interesting to me than the ones initially raised by Serial. I have complicated feelings about wading into a true-crime controversy, but it has become a genuinely interesting legal situation which I'd want to cover even if no one had ever heard Adnan Syed's name before..

Matt Cameron

Man, every time you start to talk about the lawsuit against Andrew only to not tangent off into it it makes me ever more want a proper breakdown of what the hell happened. Though I can understand if I’m in the minority or if it’s just not legally a good idea to get into it

Jinx Greymoon

Thank you so much for taking the time to clarify this to me Matt! It confused me during the episode too, but I think that I just mushed things in my head! Great episode this one, very tough legal questions really!

Maria Kladaki

I can see the confusion here! In the Baldwin case the defense brought up New Mexico state precedent involving the unexpected use of inculpatory evidence--in that case the defendant's own criminal record, which is a really weird thing to say that you weren't aware could be used against you on cross! (I'm not actually sure if they were even raising it in support of the Brady argument or something else but don't have time to check rn.) But SCOTUS's ruling in Brady itself only deals with exculpatory or impeachment evidence.

Matt Cameron

I went back to the comments on episode 633 "Why Adnan was released" from Sept 23, 2022, and I'm struck by how much more persuasive Matthew is in his assessment of Adnan's likely guilt than Andrew was. I called out Thomas and Andrew back then for outlining a number of reasons to distrust the conduct of police & prosecutors in 1999 while never doubting Mr. Syed's guilt: " I mean, seriously guys, listen to yourselves: you acknowledge that the courts did the right thing in tossing this conviction because the evidence is flawed and incomplete and cops are corrupt as hell but, instead of reserving judgement, you're still convinced by that evidence that Mr. Syed murdered Ms. Lee? Be careful not to trip on your own dicks as you leap to a conclusion." Matthew's explanation of the problems with the City Prosecutor's office, the nature of the supposed Brady evidence, and why the more complete evidence presented at trial can (still) be trusted, gives me much more confidence that the state of MD got the right man in this case. Thanks for re-covering this story.

Civil Politics Radio dot com (Fridays at 6pm EST on Valley Free Radio)

Hey people! I have a question... I think that it was said in the Baldwin episode that the prosecutor has to give any evidence to the defence even if they are inculpatory, because the defence would have prepared its case differently. That what the precedent of Supreme court said. I know I am stating this poorly, I am just drafting my understanding of things. What did I miss?

Maria Kladaki

Point of clarification, Matt actually took the initiative and reached out to Thomas to check on him and express support. ❤️

Lydia Smith

I don’t follow true crime stories out of respect for the victims family. I moved to Wisconsin shortly before the Steven Avery thing. It was a big deal with the movie/show. I just really didn’t the names in the news or to keep this in front of families of victims. I feel even stronger now.

Katie Byrum

I feel all of this so hard. This is some next-level anger translation!

Matt Cameron

Fuck this dude. A few points. - Let's pretend The Note actually does mean some other rando said he was going to kill Hae Min Lee. This means absolutely nothing because that person clearly did not follow through with that statement, because ADNAN SYED FUCKING DID IT. - I'm for abolishing prisons, I think. There are better ways to protect people, foster prosocial behaviour, reduce interpersonal violence, etc. Mostly this involves a massive redistribution of wealth and isn't going to happen any time soon. - So in the meantime, how the fuck else are we supposed to deal with the Adnan Fucking Syeds of the world, except prison??? - Adnan is an extraordinarily rare case where maybe he does belong in prison. All reports suggest that prison has been a good place for him to be. According to Adnan, he's now extremely serious about his faith (finding religion makes you more of an asshole not less IMO but fucking whatever, do what you gotta do to get through your time I guess). According to prison authorities, he's been a model inmate and hasn't choked anyone to death in like 20 years. But since he murdered HIS EX-GIRLFRIEND, and presumably has not had the occasion to have any more ex-girlfriends, I remain skeptical about what the fuck is your point. He was a very good boy in high school, too. Who murdered his ex-girlfriend. I'm convinced that Adnan Syed is an extremely fucking dangerous person. He stalked and harassed Hae Min Lee for days before he killed her. He planned all his stupid little "alibis" (and fucked them up by blabbing about shit he wouldn't have known about unless he fucking did it, which he did). He lied his ass off in Serial which you'd only know if you also knew about his statements to the cops (or to his lawyers I forget which) in which he liberally incriminated himself like a stupid 17-year-old kid. - If you actually look into the evidence against Syed he's in the category of Leopold and Loeb for both stupidness and arrogance. Brb dumping a body, time to call everyone I have ever met on my cell phone while I'm digging a stupid, inadequate, 17-year-old sociopathic shallow grave. I don't use this word very often but I am Australian, so. What a cunt.

Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping

Occams razor is so useful. If the options are "He did it" vs "God hates you, personally, so much He frame's you for murder successfully," one takes way way way way fewer assumptions to reach. I think part of the problem is that folks think circumstantial evidence = bad evidence/weak evidence. I'm fairly certain that most cases don't have a proper smoking gun as it were, which would mean something like video evidence or a DNA sample in a RELEVANT location (not the shoes ffs). Idk, could we get an episode/segment on types of evidence and what the standards are? I think there are bits and pieces, but an episode for it would be nice!

Wishing every Clarence Thomas a very God rest his soul

For all 5 of us who have heard the original SIO, new disscussion starts around 41:50

I have nothing BUT contempt for this court

I actually like to use this case as another example of Sam Harris's fireplace delusion. If someone believes Adnan is actually innocent (and not just that his trial was poorly conducted or that juveniles shouldn't serve life sentences), it's nearly impossible to convince them otherwise. Being resistant to evidence is bad, regardless if it's fireplaces, Adnan, or January 6th.

Sean Cassidy

I kind of feel like this worked out in an interesting way. We (ok Matt and Thomas) discussed Brady in the Rust case and now here. And what we learned from the YSL case. All very illuminating about the prosecution. And decisions they make. Good set of cases to be skeptical about prosecution too. Not something I normally do. Nice work!

KeepingThePlatesSpinning

thanks for listening, and for your continued support! I think it's healthy to disagree with people you might otherwise agree with on nearly anything else once in awhile and I appreciate your thoughts here. As I hope you know, I have no trust in cops but I also really believe that you can take the police out of the equation here and still have facts that can't be explained other than with Adnan Syed's direct complicity in (if not commission of) this murder. I think that what I am about to say is probably anathema to most defense attorneys, but I'll just say it anyway: There is a world of difference between factual innocence and legal innocence, and obviously if I were representing Adnan Syed I'd be ready to make the case to defend him against the state all the way in the other direction to the best of my ability. But as someone with no stake in the case whatsoever I am comfortable acknowledging that the circumstantial evidence of his motive, state of mind, whereabouts, and lies after the fact strongly point to factual guilt while also acknowledging that he could have had a better defense and that there may have been room for some reasonable doubt in the state's evidence for trial purposes--as there often is--but to my read not to the point where it would have actually materially affected the outcome. I do not believe that anyone who committed even the most violent acts as a juvenile should be sentenced to life in prison so I am certainly okay with this outcome if he is able to remain free. My prediction as of this morning is that they might just finish the review that kicked off the original motion and excuse the rest of his sentence, which seems like a fair compromise even in the absence of accepting responsibility at this point. Thanks again!

Matt Cameron

I know that there are going to be any number of listeners whose last contact with this case was around the time that Serial came out ten years ago, so I just want to say this: There is a lot that Sarah Koenig didn't tell you about what was presented in that six-week jury trial, and even beyond that the release of the file which came out after a public records request revealed any number of places where Adnan Syed has clearly been lying about things which have been made central to his defense. (Sorry to link to Quillette but this is an outstanding summary of some of those things: https://quillette.com/2023/05/22/the-wrongful-exoneration-of-adnan-syed-i/) We are a legal podcast, not an investigative one, and when there is a particularly interesting appeal--as this one truly is even apart from the identity of the defendant--I'm going to cover it as an appeal, part of which means as a matter of law that we accept the jury's findings as fact and move on. We may be getting more into the facts sometime soon, but I guess I just wanted to be clear about that. I have never seen this as a particularly unique controlling-ex-boyfriend-murders-girl-who-won't-get-back-together-with-him case with a fairly typical set of circumstantial evidence (up to and including an unreliable pothead accomplice) and am a little disturbed by how political this has all become when at the end of the day we are talking about who strangled a high school student to death. I am coming at things here as a defense-minded person who adamantly opposes life sentences for juvenile offenses, but I still want people to accept responsibility for the things that they have done and at the end of the day it is Syed's not only refusal to do that but making a literal career out of it while actually-wrongfully-convicted people languish in anonymity without a popular podcast behind them that has irked me so much I think.

Matt Cameron

I may need to skip this one. I respect Matt’s background and experience with criminal law. But, as much as any armchair viewer, I have consumed a lot of content about the case. There’s a lot out there. I don’t find the police to be credible enough to justify the entire case on. Especially in that era. Matt and I might look at the same timeline and still come away with different interpretations. To me, it’s clear he’s fully innocent of murder. He wasn’t involved, and I view his situation as much more tragic because of the injustice. I understand Opening Args didn’t feel he was innocent, but agreed the trial/sentencing whatever should have been less or better. So it’s just a matter of degree of injustice (if he’s really guilty). I don’t know if can listen to updates about his case where the speaker thinks he’s hiding his personal guilt. (Tried to nest the 2nd reply, somehow I failed, and reposted. Unless someone needs to know something I am capable of answering with my personal knowledge, I’m not going to comment again)

Rachel J Larris

I may need to skip this one. I respect Matt’s background and experience with criminal law. But, as much as any armchair viewer, I have consumed a lot of content about the case. There’s a lot out there. I don’t find the police to be credible enough to justify the entire case on. Especially in that era. Matt and I might look at the same timeline and still come away with different interpretations. To me, it’s clear he’s fully innocent of murder. He wasn’t involved, and I view his situation as much more tragic because of the injustice. I understand Opening Args didn’t feel he was innocent, but agreed the trial/sentencing whatever should have been less or better. So it’s just a matter of degree of injustice (if he’s really guilty). I don’t know if can listen to updates about his case where the speaker thinks he’s hiding his personal guilt.

Rachel J Larris

Thoughtful clarification, and much appreciated the response you gave. I would like to clarify that while I was introduced via Serial, I have consumed many hours of additional audio, video and written volumes. I am just an armchair viewer of whatever is mass produced by many other people. I’m not a lawyer or have any experience with criminals. I do know something about lying and police interactions. Either way, your clarification about taking jury’s findings as literally truth, is a point of view for the episode to explore. I also appreciate your willingness to understand why it makes listening to this pov too uncomfortable for me (and possibly others, which is why I spoke up). I enjoy your role as cohost and am very glad to contribute to the shows you & Thomas produce .

Rachel J Larris

I just wanted to say that I totally respect your position, and while I still think this is now one of the most interesting cases in the history of US criminal law just on the extremely unique procedural history alone I can see how it would be annoying to listen to us talk about it if you are convinced of his innocence. But I will just say this: our starting point from both SIO and this episode were with the facts as found by the jury's verdict. Our focus is always going to be on the law, not the facts, and there are dozens of hours of other podcasts which will analyze and debate the factual context of all of this. For the purposes of these recordings we are taking the jury's findings as fact (as is required by law in any appeal) and analyzing the legal situation as we see it. No matter who the defendant was, the post-conviction phase of all of this is fascinating and I think people should know about it in and of itself. I started my career doing post-conviction work, and have read dozens of full trial transcripts in the case of preparing for my motions and appeals. My primary partner Casey (who has just returned to the DA's office after a few years away) has been in MA's largest DA's office for most of the last 20 years where she has been assigned both murder trials and murder appeals while working closely with some of the best prosecutors in the country. Maybe this is a sad comment on the system overall, but Casey and I listened to Serial together when it came out over the course of driving around that summer and we were both left confused as to why anyone thought that Adnan Syed was worth platforming or how the Serial team could have thought that there was anything particularly notable about this case or trial beyond the simple fact that he was a good-looking popular high school kid who killed his good-looking ex-girlfriend when he realized that it was finally over because she was seeing someone else. (It is a depressingly common fact pattern, and Casey has prosecuted at least one case with exactly the same facts--down to their ages and the man being a football player--in her own career.) As I'm sure you know, most murder convictions are based on circumstantial evidence--and if anything this one had *more* than usual, and IMO most of it had nothing to do with the police. (Most murder convictions are also followed by questionable claims of new evidence a la Asia McClaine, and very few people who did something as awful as strangle a teenager to death do not protest their innocence to some degree.) But even apart from what the jury heard, quite a lot has come out since Serial, including the full police file pursuant to a public records request. It's pretty clear that if Adnan had testified (not that he ever would have) they would have been able to absolutely destroy him with the amount of impeachment evidence that they had available because it turns out that he was just blatantly lying about some of the most important aspects of the case to the point that there is just no other explanation. (FWIW, the Serial subreddit has overwhelmingly turned on him in the past few years--check this out here: https://www.reddit.com/r/serialpodcast/comments/1faubuo/is_this_sub_team_guilty/?share_id=_jier1PVCAIx-WvEwQlrA&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) I've already written more than enough here but I also want to add that I think it's unfortunate that takes on this case have come to amount to some kind of political opinion, as I don't see why full-on abolitionists shouldn't also care about holding the right people responsible for murder. If he had just taken responsibility I would be happy to leave it be but having worked with a number of actually-wrongfully-convicted people his whole act is just disgusting to me honestly, so I will admit my bias there. (The sentencing judge really had him dead to rights when she said that he seemed to believe that his charisma and charm could literally help him get away with murder--and that was even before Sarah Koenig gave him hours of airtime.) Thanks for taking the time to comment, sorry if that was all a little much but just wanted to add some of that for context. No worries at all if you still want to skip this one, but I do want to at least convey that this has been a very-carefully-thought-out position of mine for many years now. PS: in the course of the worst post-conviction motion I've ever seen in a major case, the Baltimore City State's Attorney noted that they were actively investigating other suspects. That was two years ago and there has never been an update or any indication from anyone that any kind of active investigation was ever conducted. That in itself is *extremely* telling. There were never any other suspects, and frankly I just don't think there ever will be. I know what you're saying about how it's not your or the defense's responsibility to produce any but I just don't think from everything I know about all of this at this point that that motion was brought in any kind of good faith.

Matt Cameron

Not my trial to solve

Rachel J Larris

Who *did* murder her, then? What is the more plausible explanation?

Jon C

iirc Thomas reached out to several guests of old OA during the AT take-over. He got a lot of radio silence, but Matt responded and was supportive. They did some test shows and SIO episodes and the rest is history. Edit: I recalled incorrectly! Matt is even more lovely than I thought lol. Thanks to Lydia for clarifying below.

Jon C

Rachel J Larris

My apologies if you discussed this at the onset of the show re-takeover, but I can’t remember the Thomas/Matt origin story? Love this dynamic!

Megan Muse