Image being tried for first degree murder at seventeen. Imagine the trial going wrong and being convicted for a crime that people can’t prove you committed. Image you are sent to prison for the rest of your life. This may not be your story, but it is the story of Adnan Syed, a man from Maryland. As a teenager, Adnan was found guilty of murdering his ex-girlfriend Hae Min Lee in 1999. Adnan’s case came to light in 2014 when the reporter Sarah Koenig made a podcast investigating the case. After more than a year of research, and twelve episodes, Adnan’s case can be seen in a clear light. Adnan Syed should not be in jail because there is not enough evidence to prove, without reasonable doubt, that he killed Hae Min Lee. The first reason that Adnan
…show more content…
Throughout the entire investigation, the state finds only inconclusive evidence linking Adnan to Hae’s death. The state uses all circumstantial evidence, and the word of liars to convince the jury that Adnan is guilty. A partial palm print that matches Adnan’s palm, found in the back of Hae’s car, is the only piece of evidence that ties Adnan to the murder (Koenig, “The Case Against Adnan Syed”). Fingerprints, however, have no time stamp. The incriminating factor of the map is that it is missing the page that includes Leakin Park. The cops could do little with this though, since they could not prove that Adnan was in the car on the day of Hae’s murder. Another piece of evidence the state leaned heavily on that is inconclusive are the call logs. For a six hour period, Jay’s story and the call logs do not match up, and that is hard science (Koenig, “Route Talk”). The state knew that the story didn’t match up, so they only asked the cell tower expert about four that matched at the trial. The state knowingly provided biased, untrue evidence to make it seem like Adnan was the only possibility for the murderer. Because there is no hard evidence to prove that Adnan is the killer, it could be proven that a random person could be the killer, using the same evidence. Since there is no hard evidence, Adnan should not have been convicted of killing Hae Min …show more content…
These people say that Adnan is the most likely option to be the killer, and that he has the motive and ability to kill; however, it is not a question of confidence when you are sentencing a man to prison for life. In all criminal cases, a term given to the jury is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt (Hill). This basically means that if there is any doubt in your mind of the defendant's guilt charge, you must acquit. The state picked and chose what evidence to use and put faulty witnesses on the stand (Koenig, “Inconsistencies”). The jury should have acquitted on the basis of Jay’s changing testimony alone. They chose to discard changes and not take all evidence into account when they were deliberating their decision. Since the jury did not take all evidence into account, it is obvious that Adnan should not have been convicted. There was reasonable doubt from the evidence provided in the
Throughout the entire investigation, the state finds only inconclusive evidence linking Adnan to Hae’s death. The state uses all circumstantial evidence, and the word of liars to convince the jury that Adnan is guilty. A partial palm print that matches Adnan’s palm, found in the back of Hae’s car, is the only piece of evidence that ties Adnan to the murder (Koenig, “The Case Against Adnan Syed”). Fingerprints, however, have no time stamp. The incriminating factor of the map is that it is missing the page that includes Leakin Park. The cops could do little with this though, since they could not prove that Adnan was in the car on the day of Hae’s murder. Another piece of evidence the state leaned heavily on that is inconclusive are the call logs. For a six hour period, Jay’s story and the call logs do not match up, and that is hard science (Koenig, “Route Talk”). The state knew that the story didn’t match up, so they only asked the cell tower expert about four that matched at the trial. The state knowingly provided biased, untrue evidence to make it seem like Adnan was the only possibility for the murderer. Because there is no hard evidence to prove that Adnan is the killer, it could be proven that a random person could be the killer, using the same evidence. Since there is no hard evidence, Adnan should not have been convicted of killing Hae Min …show more content…
These people say that Adnan is the most likely option to be the killer, and that he has the motive and ability to kill; however, it is not a question of confidence when you are sentencing a man to prison for life. In all criminal cases, a term given to the jury is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt (Hill). This basically means that if there is any doubt in your mind of the defendant's guilt charge, you must acquit. The state picked and chose what evidence to use and put faulty witnesses on the stand (Koenig, “Inconsistencies”). The jury should have acquitted on the basis of Jay’s changing testimony alone. They chose to discard changes and not take all evidence into account when they were deliberating their decision. Since the jury did not take all evidence into account, it is obvious that Adnan should not have been convicted. There was reasonable doubt from the evidence provided in the