Adnan Syed, my client, was convicted of first degree murder in 1999. He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of Hae Min Lee. Her cause of death was manual strangulation and her body was buried in Leakin park, Baltimore. Adnan was convicted because of one sole witness, Jay Wilds. He testified that Adnan killed Hae and forced him to help bury her body. His details on what they did with the body and what he and Adnan did that day were striking. Because of him, Adnan was convicted even though Adnan insisted otherwise. Now, we have even clearer evidence that points to Adnan NOT being the murderer. Firstly, Jay Wilds' inconsistent testimony. Secondly, Jay's timeline and the cell tower evidence. Thirdly, the witness Asia McClain. The defense
…show more content…
The prosecution may argue that the detail of Jay's testimony is enough to validate it. Details like his testimony and its alignment with the cell phone and cell tower records and the location of Hae's stolen car. But once you dig down a bit, these points are lost in a sea of inconsistencies. One. His testimony has been constantly altered as the first trial went on. For instance, the state park was an important area in his original timeline (it was the place where he and Adnan discussed the murder of Hae). But in the court room, he had completely removed that area from his testimony. Why? Because the phone tower records never pinged near the park. Once his testimony was altered however, they did. What happened to the park? Why wouldn't police and the prosecution mention it in court either? We just aren't sure. Two. Jay's friends testify that they had heard a different version of his story. Importantly, Best Buy wasn't the place where Jay saw Hae's body. Instead they say he saw it at the pool hall. Three. Police interviews with Jay began three hours after Jay was brought in for questioning. This means that in those unheard three hours the police could have altered Jay's story. This suggests that police and prosecutors could have done this to support their argument. By no means is the defence saying that Jay Wilds could have murdered Hae Min Lee. He clearly has no motive as many people speculate. But we must ask the jury to consider why Jay's testimony was emphasised as concrete when it clearly had gaping holes in
The prosecution may argue that the detail of Jay's testimony is enough to validate it. Details like his testimony and its alignment with the cell phone and cell tower records and the location of Hae's stolen car. But once you dig down a bit, these points are lost in a sea of inconsistencies. One. His testimony has been constantly altered as the first trial went on. For instance, the state park was an important area in his original timeline (it was the place where he and Adnan discussed the murder of Hae). But in the court room, he had completely removed that area from his testimony. Why? Because the phone tower records never pinged near the park. Once his testimony was altered however, they did. What happened to the park? Why wouldn't police and the prosecution mention it in court either? We just aren't sure. Two. Jay's friends testify that they had heard a different version of his story. Importantly, Best Buy wasn't the place where Jay saw Hae's body. Instead they say he saw it at the pool hall. Three. Police interviews with Jay began three hours after Jay was brought in for questioning. This means that in those unheard three hours the police could have altered Jay's story. This suggests that police and prosecutors could have done this to support their argument. By no means is the defence saying that Jay Wilds could have murdered Hae Min Lee. He clearly has no motive as many people speculate. But we must ask the jury to consider why Jay's testimony was emphasised as concrete when it clearly had gaping holes in