Adnan Syed, innocent or guilty? The murder of Hae Min Lee has been on the headlines ever since. As an example, the "Serial" podcast based 12 episodes on the unsolved murder case. The story attracted many audiences, which allowed for the story to be heard by millions. People debating, stating their opinions, or providing more facts about the case. No one really knows whether Adnan is actually innocent or guilty and whether he is telling lies or the truth. In my opinion, Syed is innocent because he was wrongly accused since there was not enough evidence to prove him guilty. Putting Syed in jail with only Jay's (Syed's best friend) testimony and the cell tower records to prove his guilt, is unacceptable. Even though he was the only witness, there
…show more content…
In "Serial", there were more people supplying evidence to prove he is innocent than guilty. Firstly, Asia's letters were a clear proof that he was innocent. She states how she was with him that day at the same time and did not seem like the type of guy that would do such a thing, as the ex-layer Rabia says, "McClain testified before the appellate court that she was with Adnan in the public library until around 2.40pm" (Chaudry 11). Asia’s letters could have easily pleaded him innocent. However, Asia then calls one of the prosecutors saying that she was pressured to write the letters. But she could have easily gotten out of it, and called the police on them in the beginning. Thus, she called the prosecutor just to get out of the story and does not want all the spotlight on her. Besides, looking at the letter it was clear it was not forcefully written. She clearly shows that when she says, "we aren't really close friends, but I want you to look into my …show more content…
A real friend would not just overthrow his best friend that fast and in that situation. This means that Jay's testimony could have been a made up just to get himself off the hook. How can we trust an 18 year old that was probably constantly involved in drama and gossip. Instead of just accusing him without any evidence, let's go through the facts. Firstly, Jay stated everything he remembered like it was yesterday. He stated the situation in great detail without hesitation, "Wilds changed his story during the investigation and trial, and did so again most recently in an interview with the publication the Intercept"(Chaudry 4). This again backup how his story could have been made up, he changed his story every now and then to improve it, to make it sound more believable. Secondly, Jay could have easily blamed the murder on Syed and he could have done the deed instead. Again, the only proof they had about Syed being guilty was Jay's testimony and the cell tower, in an interview with one of Syed's prosecutes, he says, "Wilds' testimony nor the cellphone evidence would have been enough to prove Syed's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember, Wilds never claimed to have seen Syed kill Lee; he merely claimed to have helped Syed bury Lee's body." (McDonell 11). This Shows how Jay could be lying all along and framing him for what he has done. He could have easily done it and nothing
In "Serial", there were more people supplying evidence to prove he is innocent than guilty. Firstly, Asia's letters were a clear proof that he was innocent. She states how she was with him that day at the same time and did not seem like the type of guy that would do such a thing, as the ex-layer Rabia says, "McClain testified before the appellate court that she was with Adnan in the public library until around 2.40pm" (Chaudry 11). Asia’s letters could have easily pleaded him innocent. However, Asia then calls one of the prosecutors saying that she was pressured to write the letters. But she could have easily gotten out of it, and called the police on them in the beginning. Thus, she called the prosecutor just to get out of the story and does not want all the spotlight on her. Besides, looking at the letter it was clear it was not forcefully written. She clearly shows that when she says, "we aren't really close friends, but I want you to look into my …show more content…
A real friend would not just overthrow his best friend that fast and in that situation. This means that Jay's testimony could have been a made up just to get himself off the hook. How can we trust an 18 year old that was probably constantly involved in drama and gossip. Instead of just accusing him without any evidence, let's go through the facts. Firstly, Jay stated everything he remembered like it was yesterday. He stated the situation in great detail without hesitation, "Wilds changed his story during the investigation and trial, and did so again most recently in an interview with the publication the Intercept"(Chaudry 4). This again backup how his story could have been made up, he changed his story every now and then to improve it, to make it sound more believable. Secondly, Jay could have easily blamed the murder on Syed and he could have done the deed instead. Again, the only proof they had about Syed being guilty was Jay's testimony and the cell tower, in an interview with one of Syed's prosecutes, he says, "Wilds' testimony nor the cellphone evidence would have been enough to prove Syed's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember, Wilds never claimed to have seen Syed kill Lee; he merely claimed to have helped Syed bury Lee's body." (McDonell 11). This Shows how Jay could be lying all along and framing him for what he has done. He could have easily done it and nothing