Should Adnan Syed (Serial) be granted a new trial?

[Slander and/or Libel]

If you haven't listened to the podcast or followed the case, what in the world is your opinion here based on?

For your information, the prospects of a new trial are based on two avenues: one, an ongoing appeal claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for two reasons (not seeking a plea deal though the defendant asked her to inquire, and not interviewing a potential alibi witness who would have destroyed the state's claimed timeline of the case); and two, an Innocence Project inquiry into DNA evidence remaining from the case which was never tested in the first place.

Nobody, but NOBODY, is claiming that Adnan Syed is due a new trial because the podcast was entertaining. That's absurd.

And again, I have to ask, if you claim not to have listened to the podcast or followed the case, what are you using to form your opinion of Sarah Koenig's objectivity?

[Slander and/or Libel]

I just gave you information about the substantive issues before the court, and they have nothing to do with the podcast. Do you dispute them? On what grounds?

I find it really difficult to credit your opinion on this given that you refuse to actually inform yourself about it.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I never said that DNA testing required a whole new trial. I said that was one of the legal avenues that might lead there. The plea issue has two prongs; they have to show that the prosecution would likely have offered it, and that the defendant would likely have taken it. I don't think that's a particularly strong argument, as it's unclear to me whether either of those prongs are met, but the broader argument is that Adnan's attorney wasn't working to meet his wishes and that she wasn't informing him about things she said she would do and never did, like checking out alibi witnesses.

There is information that was not discussed on the podcast, if you want to get really deep into it. My point is that the talk of a new trial still faces many, many hurdles, and none of it is because of the popularity of the podcast. These are facts that you could verify, if you cared to know them. But your previous posts seem pretty clearly to indicate that you have no such interest, and only want to discuss the case from a proudly ignorant position.

[Slander and/or Libel]

So, wait. You're proudly remaining ignorant about the case, refusing to actually listen to the podcast, yet you feel comfortable flinging around accusations that the judges were influenced by the show? Based on what? This is stupid.

[Slander and/or Libel]

He didn't win an appeal. He lost all of his primary appeals. The Court of Special Appeals has granted his right to appeal on his Ineffective Assistance of Counsel claims.

These are foundational issues to what you're discussing, and you don't know them. It makes you look like a fool, I'm sorry to say. Why the reluctance to just, you know, listen to the show and/or do some reading about it? Why do you have any interest in it if you refuse to actually engage with any of the details of it?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Lots of people form opinions for dumber reasons than podcasts.

But I'd put it to you that it's on you to find some kind of evidence that the justice system has treated Syed more favorably because of the podcast than they otherwise would have. Because again, since you baldly refuse to actually engage with the facts of the case, you don't really have any evidence that what you're claiming has happened has, in fact, happened.

[Slander and/or Libel]

If the fact that it's on CNN, every news outlet & paper, the internet is filled with petitions, and everyone and their mother is trying to dissect the case doesn't impinge the prospect of fair and objective proceedings, we'll just have to disagree.

Except you, who feels comfortable making grand pronouncements about the thing without actually finding out anything about it.

[Slander and/or Libel]

And it is being so handled. The state petitioned against Syed's right to appeal, and the court denied the state's position. If Syed wins in the MD Court of Special Appeals, the state will appeal to the MD Court of Appeals (and if he loses, he'll appeal). One outcome is a new trial. Another is nothing. Another is that he'll be allowed to attach the alibi evidence in a supplement to his appeal. Your hand-wringing is ill-informed and misplaced.

[Slander and/or Libel]

So I'm confused. What are you proposing? A ban on discussion of crime?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Ok, so you're just self-righteously concern trolling. Got it.

[Slander and/or Libel]

You've never listened to the show or reviewed any of the evidence. Yet you feel comfortable saying the evidence was overwhelming. You feel comfortable saying the presentation on the podcast (of whose content you remain proudly ignorant) was hugely biased. You claim this happened 12 years ago when really it happened 15-16 years ago, depending on whether you're talking about the murder or the trial.

You look like a fool. You don't know what you're talking about and you refuse to learn, yet you expect to be treated as serious when you're crying about your flawed perception of what everything is all about. Get real.

[Slander and/or Libel]

This is idiotic. You're essentially saying that your opinion about this is just as valid as anyone else's despite the fact that you know nothing about it and have no interest in finding out.

If you know it happened 15-16 years ago, why did you say it happened 12 years ago?

I keep saying the same things because you keep refusing to respond satisfactorily to them.

[Slander and/or Libel]

This is where it would help if you had any idea what you were talking about. Sarah Koenig did NOT say she thought Adnan was innocent. She said she can't say for sure, but that as a juror she'd have to vote to acquit.

And when you say "people" found the podcast biased, what people? Why am I supposed to find your anonymous invocation of "people" remotely credible?

EDIT: email did not show me that you had actually posted a link. Apologies. Point stands, though. The link you posted expressed a point of view not shared by every listener. Why should I give that author special weight?

[Slander and/or Libel]

I wish I could say this has been fun, but it started pointless and devolved from there. I'm bowing out way later than I should have.